have the same basic structure as USCE and Iowa in terms of what the advantages relative to VT and the ACC are. You cite stale schedules and declining attendance for VT, this on the heels of a few 7-6 years but, largely a very successful run over the last 25 years. The USCE and Iowa numbers you clamor for are built on the backs of larger stadiums with stronger attendance even with worse to significantly worse on field results. Everyone is familiar with the "last one out of the state turn off the lights mentality" when the Hawkeyes travel, a mindset only enhanced when they play at home. People also can recall the Gamecocks selling out 80,000 seat Williams Bryce in back to back 0-11 seasons prior to Spurrier's arrival. The point is, while the VT fan base is one of the better in college football, it still has a ways to go to compete with the fervor of the schools you aspire to be like. Make no mistake this is about those schools much more than their conference location just as a large portion of the ACC schools' challenges are much more about the individual schools than what the ACC has or has not done. In the case of both USCE and Iowa, the difference in revenue numbers are much more tied to the 10-15 million dollar differences each in ticket sales and contributions than the $6-10 million differences in licensing and rights fees.

You bring up Maryland and West Virginia too and that is fine. You look at the USA Today info you previously referenced and you will see there is little to no difference between their numbers and the VT numbers. In fact, in Maryland's case even with the Big 10 revenue stream you tout, were it not for the $18 million in subsidies they would lag VT by more than $6 million in the latest numbers available. You like to reference the USA Today finance figures and I would suggest you spend some more time looking at them to make sure you really understand what they say and, just as important, what the sources are that allow the individual schools to produce those numbers. The reality is that size of fan and donor bases and the structure of the schools are much more significant factors than the conference address. In the case of both USCE and Iowa, they are very old established universities part of state systems where the system wide enrollments expand direct campus enrollments already comparable or larger than VT. VT is growing and doing a better job in areas it lagged, however, a school that as late as the 60's was a tiny agricultural and mechanical college before T. Marshall Hahn completely overhauled the model still has a ways to go to catch up to older, established state universities that had a decades longer head start. Conference affiliation is important as well, not saying that it is not but, to be clear the point is in the scheme of things there are factors inherent in university structure and make up that play a much more significant role than conference address. While VT may never have a Phil Knight, T. Boone Pickens, etc., as the next couple of decades unfold hopefully it will enjoy increasing contributions from a growing alumni base whose resources become more substantial as they advance in their careers and lives.
[Post edited by 2hhoop3 at 05/10/2017 09:25AM]