+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: SECbbs (/forum-285.html)
+---- Forum: SEC Conference Talk (/forum-246.html)
+---- Thread: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion (/thread-791945.html)
"Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - AllTideUp - 09-23-2016 09:57 AM
Good article from Jake Trotter
Where do things stand in the Big 12?
Well, I've run the gamut on my opinions of this thing. Doesn't look like they're going to expand though. I'm not convinced that this show has been all a PR stunt. I think there's a good chance the leaders are just that divided and/or incompetent.
Either way, doesn't look like they're going to expand.
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - HeartOfDixie - 09-23-2016 10:35 AM
Because they all kind of suck for the conference as a whole.
The only people excited about it are the ones hoping for the big promotion.
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - murrdcu - 09-23-2016 12:42 PM
No homeruns in that bunch. Plus who wants more Texas politics in the B12
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - JRsec - 09-23-2016 01:47 PM
It's all a dog and pony show to defray damages claims when the conference blows up. The more it can be publicly shown that Texas and Oklahoma were working in good faith to save and expand the conference, and the more it can be shown that the factions simply had too deep of a divide to proceed, the smaller the damages awarded are likely to be if they break up.
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - murrdcu - 09-23-2016 01:54 PM
(09-23-2016 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote: It's all a dog and pony show to defray damages claims when the conference blows up. The more it can be publicly shown that Texas and Oklahoma were working in good faith to save and expand the conference, and the more it can be shown that the factions simply had too deep of a divide to proceed, the smaller the damages awarded are likely to be if they break up.
Any chance they could use that claim to break the GOR?
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - JRsec - 09-23-2016 02:08 PM
(09-23-2016 01:54 PM)murrdcu Wrote:(09-23-2016 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote: It's all a dog and pony show to defray damages claims when the conference blows up. The more it can be publicly shown that Texas and Oklahoma were working in good faith to save and expand the conference, and the more it can be shown that the factions simply had too deep of a divide to proceed, the smaller the damages awarded are likely to be if they break up.
Any chance they could use that claim to break the GOR?
I don't know, but it can mitigate damages as can the networks. If they can claim that remaining in a fragmented conference is an untenable situation then certainly that will be taken into consideration when damages are calculated. If the networks pay the remainder of the contract in full to every member then diminished value claims will be mitigated as well.
The way out of the GOR is purely political and tangential. Should Baylor be dismissed from the conference for disciplinary reasons and the conference falls to 9 members. If the conference remains a 9 members longer than a year the TV contract may be voided. Void the TV contract and the GOR has no bite. It's drastic, and I don't think they will go that route, but the point is it is an option.
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - vandiver49 - 09-23-2016 03:20 PM
(09-23-2016 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote: It's all a dog and pony show to defray damages claims when the conference blows up. The more it can be publicly shown that Texas and Oklahoma were working in good faith to save and expand the conference, and the more it can be shown that the factions simply had too deep of a divide to proceed, the smaller the damages awarded are likely to be if they break up.
Yeah, I was thinking the OP assessment fall under the 'no $#!+ Sherlock' catagory.
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - hawghiggs - 09-23-2016 10:04 PM
Everyone besides Oklahoma and Texas should really be concerned. OU is headed out the door. I suspect in the near future that Oklahoma will notify the conference that they intend to leave the conference after the current media deal is over. This will start the sabre rattling from the rest and most likely lead to a mass exodus from the Big 12.
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - JRsec - 09-23-2016 10:11 PM
(09-23-2016 10:04 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: Everyone besides Oklahoma and Texas should really be concerned. OU is headed out the door. I suspect in the near future that Oklahoma will notify the conference that they intend to leave the conference after the current media deal is over. This will start the sabre rattling from the rest and most likely lead to a mass exodus from the Big 12.
That would be interesting except the GOR language says any early declaration is a breech of the GOR and forfeiture of rights occurs.
I find the interesting part of this to be how it is in direct conflict with their bylaws for at least a 2 year pre-notification of intent to withdraw. So technically if they gave notice say in 2022 for the 2024 season they would still be in breech and would still forfeit their rights to their home games for the last two years. Heck according to the GOR language just discussion about potential moves with another conference places them in breech. I think in a court the contradictory terms of the bylaws and the language in the GOR might lead to one or both being tossed. We'll see.
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - vandiver49 - 09-23-2016 10:54 PM
(09-23-2016 10:04 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: Everyone besides Oklahoma and Texas should really be concerned. OU is headed out the door. I suspect in the near future that Oklahoma will notify the conference that they intend to leave the conference after the current media deal is over. This will start the sabre rattling from the rest and most likely lead to a mass exodus from the Big 12.
They should only be concerned if the B12 expands without approval from FOX/ESPN. Otherwise, I think everyone gets placed. My concern is that the SEC is forced to compromise monetarily just to take schools that don't provide compelling matchup. My hope is that Sankey has let the folks in Bristol know that some forms of existence are intolerable.
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - murrdcu - 09-23-2016 11:03 PM
(09-23-2016 10:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:(09-23-2016 10:04 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: Everyone besides Oklahoma and Texas should really be concerned. OU is headed out the door. I suspect in the near future that Oklahoma will notify the conference that they intend to leave the conference after the current media deal is over. This will start the sabre rattling from the rest and most likely lead to a mass exodus from the Big 12.
They should only be concerned if the B12 expands without approval from FOX/ESPN. Otherwise, I think everyone gets placed. My concern is that the SEC is forced to compromise monetarily just to take schools that don't provide compelling matchup. My hope is that Sankey has let the folks in Bristol know that some forms of existence are intolerable.
The SEC can't be forced to take anyone. Now, if ESPN gave as a huge raise as an incentive, that might sway some votes. I still think the SEC will follow the previous criteria to expansion; expand with school of significant value to the conference and then round out with the most valuable candidate that is worth adding.
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - JRsec - 09-23-2016 11:18 PM
(09-23-2016 11:03 PM)murrdcu Wrote:(09-23-2016 10:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:(09-23-2016 10:04 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: Everyone besides Oklahoma and Texas should really be concerned. OU is headed out the door. I suspect in the near future that Oklahoma will notify the conference that they intend to leave the conference after the current media deal is over. This will start the sabre rattling from the rest and most likely lead to a mass exodus from the Big 12.
They should only be concerned if the B12 expands without approval from FOX/ESPN. Otherwise, I think everyone gets placed. My concern is that the SEC is forced to compromise monetarily just to take schools that don't provide compelling matchup. My hope is that Sankey has let the folks in Bristol know that some forms of existence are intolerable.
The SEC can't be forced to take anyone. Now, if ESPN gave as a huge raise as an incentive, that might sway some votes. I still think the SEC will follow the previous criteria to expansion; expand with school of significant value to the conference and then round out with the most valuable candidate that is worth adding.
I agree. We will get a brand. I don't think any major conference gets two. It's also the only reason I think we might get both Oklahoma's. It's the only way the Sooners can keep Bedlam & the RRR. Face it after the next round of realignment we will be looking at 9 conference games. We could be looking at 10 in the not to removed future following the next round of realignment. If you look at all of the metrics of the remaining Big 12 schools Oklahoma State is arguably no worse than the 6th best school to take and by some metrics as high as 4th. It allows us to double dip games in DFW.
If the Sooners didn't have the Okie St problem then we could look at a second Texas school or Kansas.
I think the best pair for the SEC might well be Oklahoma and Kansas.
Kansas provides the new West with the weak football program everyone needs as a break. But they also provide balance to Kentucky in hoops and it renews the Border War. Quite frankly I think the SEC should really consider moving to 18 if we have to dissolve the Big 12. But if it's 16 look out for Okie St.
I think Kansas will go Big 10 and Texas may well head to the PAC and take T.C.U., Texas Tech, and possibly Kansas State with them.
We'll see. But I think Murrdcu i correct in that it will be a prize and a decent niche add.
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - AllTideUp - 09-24-2016 02:13 AM
Let's say the ACC doesn't want or need anymore. Outside of UT, there's really no one that could help their current situation anyway. They need both content and new markets that are devoted to college sports. They aren't going to take a host of Midwestern schools and that's pretty much what you're signing up for if you start down the road with OU.
The B1G could land OU and KU, but I think OU would prefer to stick with OSU.
The PAC would probably take most of the products worth having, but most of those schools could have better offers. Otherwise, they can't take enough to really make it worth the while of all the powers. They need assistance from a league like the SEC to make it work.
So what about this?
SEC takes Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech
PAC takes Texas, TCU, Kansas State, and Iowa State
Baylor and West Virginia are left out.
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - murrdcu - 09-24-2016 05:46 AM
(09-23-2016 11:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:(09-23-2016 11:03 PM)murrdcu Wrote:(09-23-2016 10:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:(09-23-2016 10:04 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: Everyone besides Oklahoma and Texas should really be concerned. OU is headed out the door. I suspect in the near future that Oklahoma will notify the conference that they intend to leave the conference after the current media deal is over. This will start the sabre rattling from the rest and most likely lead to a mass exodus from the Big 12.
They should only be concerned if the B12 expands without approval from FOX/ESPN. Otherwise, I think everyone gets placed. My concern is that the SEC is forced to compromise monetarily just to take schools that don't provide compelling matchup. My hope is that Sankey has let the folks in Bristol know that some forms of existence are intolerable.
The SEC can't be forced to take anyone. Now, if ESPN gave as a huge raise as an incentive, that might sway some votes. I still think the SEC will follow the previous criteria to expansion; expand with school of significant value to the conference and then round out with the most valuable candidate that is worth adding.
I agree. We will get a brand. I don't think any major conference gets two. It's also the only reason I think we might get both Oklahoma's. It's the only way the Sooners can keep Bedlam & the RRR. Face it after the next round of realignment we will be looking at 9 conference games. We could be looking at 10 in the not to removed future following the next round of realignment. If you look at all of the metrics of the remaining Big 12 schools Oklahoma State is arguably no worse than the 6th best school to take and by some metrics as high as 4th. It allows us to double dip games in DFW.
If the Sooners didn't have the Okie St problem then we could look at a second Texas school or Kansas.
I think the best pair for the SEC might well be Oklahoma and Kansas.
Kansas provides the new West with the weak football program everyone needs as a break. But they also provide balance to Kentucky in hoops and it renews the Border War. Quite frankly I think the SEC should really consider moving to 18 if we have to dissolve the Big 12. But if it's 16 look out for Okie St.
I think Kansas will go Big 10 and Texas may well head to the PAC and take T.C.U., Texas Tech, and possibly Kansas State with them.
We'll see. But I think Murrdcu i correct in that it will be a prize and a decent niche add.
It's sad that there just is not any good schools out east to add, besides maybe the B12's WVU, since the ACC signed an extended GOR. But if we some how could, I think the two targets we'd realistically shoot for again would be Virginia Tech and NC State. VT listened to us last time but didn't bite. SEC fans were not at all thrilled with NC State, but if we were looking at adding that school and its market and recruiting, they might be worth looking at. The ACC needs stronger football brands. If the SEC took a duplicated market school from the state of NC, the ACC could add another stronger football program to improve their inventory. WVU would be a fine replacement to boost the ACC's football inventory. The SEC would add OU's brand and NC State's markets, while the ACC replaces NCSU with football brand WVU in the football heavy Atlantic division.
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - murrdcu - 09-24-2016 06:08 AM
(09-24-2016 02:13 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: Let's say the ACC doesn't want or need anymore. Outside of UT, there's really no one that could help their current situation anyway. They need both content and new markets that are devoted to college sports. They aren't going to take a host of Midwestern schools and that's pretty much what you're signing up for if you start down the road with OU.
The B1G could land OU and KU, but I think OU would prefer to stick with OSU.
The PAC would probably take most of the products worth having, but most of those schools could have better offers. Otherwise, they can't take enough to really make it worth the while of all the powers. They need assistance from a league like the SEC to make it work.
So what about this?
SEC takes Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech
PAC takes Texas, TCU, Kansas State, and Iowa State
Baylor and West Virginia are left out.
Tide', given your conditions (ACC won't add any B12 schools), I think that Texas would be quite content to just rebuild the SWC as opposed to heading out and be an "equal" member with the PAC schools. As far as how I think this would go down, I see the SEC and B1G battling over OU's signature. I think the SEC does what the B1G won't do and brings OSU in with OU. Now, since your example has the SEC going to 18, finding the two most valuable schools will have to be figured out. Adding AAU, basketball blue blood Kansas is a no-brainer and renews the rivalry with Mizzou. A&M doesn't want UT added so I seriously doubt Tech would join and leave a UT based SWC 2.0. If I'm the SEC looking to add one last piece, I would inquire with VT, NC State, WVU and Iowa State as ESPN won't let Clemson or FSU leave the ACC and significantly hurt that football product.
So my best guess would be:
SEC: OU, OSU, KU, WVU
SWC 2.0: Texas, Tech, Baylor, K State, Iowa State, Houston, BYU, Boise State, SMU and some other G5's.
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - JRsec - 09-24-2016 08:39 AM
(09-24-2016 05:46 AM)murrdcu Wrote:(09-23-2016 11:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:(09-23-2016 11:03 PM)murrdcu Wrote:(09-23-2016 10:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:(09-23-2016 10:04 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: Everyone besides Oklahoma and Texas should really be concerned. OU is headed out the door. I suspect in the near future that Oklahoma will notify the conference that they intend to leave the conference after the current media deal is over. This will start the sabre rattling from the rest and most likely lead to a mass exodus from the Big 12.
They should only be concerned if the B12 expands without approval from FOX/ESPN. Otherwise, I think everyone gets placed. My concern is that the SEC is forced to compromise monetarily just to take schools that don't provide compelling matchup. My hope is that Sankey has let the folks in Bristol know that some forms of existence are intolerable.
The SEC can't be forced to take anyone. Now, if ESPN gave as a huge raise as an incentive, that might sway some votes. I still think the SEC will follow the previous criteria to expansion; expand with school of significant value to the conference and then round out with the most valuable candidate that is worth adding.
I agree. We will get a brand. I don't think any major conference gets two. It's also the only reason I think we might get both Oklahoma's. It's the only way the Sooners can keep Bedlam & the RRR. Face it after the next round of realignment we will be looking at 9 conference games. We could be looking at 10 in the not to removed future following the next round of realignment. If you look at all of the metrics of the remaining Big 12 schools Oklahoma State is arguably no worse than the 6th best school to take and by some metrics as high as 4th. It allows us to double dip games in DFW.
If the Sooners didn't have the Okie St problem then we could look at a second Texas school or Kansas.
I think the best pair for the SEC might well be Oklahoma and Kansas.
Kansas provides the new West with the weak football program everyone needs as a break. But they also provide balance to Kentucky in hoops and it renews the Border War. Quite frankly I think the SEC should really consider moving to 18 if we have to dissolve the Big 12. But if it's 16 look out for Okie St.
I think Kansas will go Big 10 and Texas may well head to the PAC and take T.C.U., Texas Tech, and possibly Kansas State with them.
We'll see. But I think Murrdcu i correct in that it will be a prize and a decent niche add.
It's sad that there just is not any good schools out east to add, besides maybe the B12's WVU, since the ACC signed an extended GOR. But if we some how could, I think the two targets we'd realistically shoot for again would be Virginia Tech and NC State. VT listened to us last time but didn't bite. SEC fans were not at all thrilled with NC State, but if we were looking at adding that school and its market and recruiting, they might be worth looking at. The ACC needs stronger football brands. If the SEC took a duplicated market school from the state of NC, the ACC could add another stronger football program to improve their inventory. WVU would be a fine replacement to boost the ACC's football inventory. The SEC would add OU's brand and NC State's markets, while the ACC replaces NCSU with football brand WVU in the football heavy Atlantic division.
Virginia Tech wanted the SEC in '91. We considered them an outlier at the time. In 2011 they weren't permitted to bite. The deal was on the table and it got yanked away from them and from us by issues internal the ACC pertaining to what ESPN was trying to do. That's what really put their network on hold until just recently.
But, in retrospect that may have all been a good thing for us. The market model is dying and a content model is being born. I can think of a lot of better content additions than N.C. State and Virginia Tech. Two of them are in the Big 12 and two of them are still in the ACC but aren't from North Carolina and Virginia.
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - murrdcu - 09-24-2016 12:41 PM
(09-24-2016 08:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:(09-24-2016 05:46 AM)murrdcu Wrote:(09-23-2016 11:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:(09-23-2016 11:03 PM)murrdcu Wrote:(09-23-2016 10:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: They should only be concerned if the B12 expands without approval from FOX/ESPN. Otherwise, I think everyone gets placed. My concern is that the SEC is forced to compromise monetarily just to take schools that don't provide compelling matchup. My hope is that Sankey has let the folks in Bristol know that some forms of existence are intolerable.
The SEC can't be forced to take anyone. Now, if ESPN gave as a huge raise as an incentive, that might sway some votes. I still think the SEC will follow the previous criteria to expansion; expand with school of significant value to the conference and then round out with the most valuable candidate that is worth adding.
I agree. We will get a brand. I don't think any major conference gets two. It's also the only reason I think we might get both Oklahoma's. It's the only way the Sooners can keep Bedlam & the RRR. Face it after the next round of realignment we will be looking at 9 conference games. We could be looking at 10 in the not to removed future following the next round of realignment. If you look at all of the metrics of the remaining Big 12 schools Oklahoma State is arguably no worse than the 6th best school to take and by some metrics as high as 4th. It allows us to double dip games in DFW.
If the Sooners didn't have the Okie St problem then we could look at a second Texas school or Kansas.
I think the best pair for the SEC might well be Oklahoma and Kansas.
Kansas provides the new West with the weak football program everyone needs as a break. But they also provide balance to Kentucky in hoops and it renews the Border War. Quite frankly I think the SEC should really consider moving to 18 if we have to dissolve the Big 12. But if it's 16 look out for Okie St.
I think Kansas will go Big 10 and Texas may well head to the PAC and take T.C.U., Texas Tech, and possibly Kansas State with them.
We'll see. But I think Murrdcu i correct in that it will be a prize and a decent niche add.
It's sad that there just is not any good schools out east to add, besides maybe the B12's WVU, since the ACC signed an extended GOR. But if we some how could, I think the two targets we'd realistically shoot for again would be Virginia Tech and NC State. VT listened to us last time but didn't bite. SEC fans were not at all thrilled with NC State, but if we were looking at adding that school and its market and recruiting, they might be worth looking at. The ACC needs stronger football brands. If the SEC took a duplicated market school from the state of NC, the ACC could add another stronger football program to improve their inventory. WVU would be a fine replacement to boost the ACC's football inventory. The SEC would add OU's brand and NC State's markets, while the ACC replaces NCSU with football brand WVU in the football heavy Atlantic division.
Virginia Tech wanted the SEC in '91. We considered them an outlier at the time. In 2011 they weren't permitted to bite. The deal was on the table and it got yanked away from them and from us by issues internal the ACC pertaining to what ESPN was trying to do. That's what really put their network on hold until just recently.
But, in retrospect that may have all been a good thing for us. The market model is dying and a content model is being born. I can think of a lot of better content additions than N.C. State and Virginia Tech. Two of them are in the Big 12 and two of them are still in the ACC but aren't from North Carolina and Virginia.
So you are saying ESPN cooled or didn't approve those talks due to stability issues in the ACC and was contemplating creating a network? If true, then that could mean there probably was interest between the SEC and VT. I wouldn't mind adding them if we could add a team from the west.
"Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - vandiver49 - 09-24-2016 03:22 PM
(09-23-2016 11:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:(09-23-2016 11:03 PM)murrdcu Wrote:(09-23-2016 10:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:(09-23-2016 10:04 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: Everyone besides Oklahoma and Texas should really be concerned. OU is headed out the door. I suspect in the near future that Oklahoma will notify the conference that they intend to leave the conference after the current media deal is over. This will start the sabre rattling from the rest and most likely lead to a mass exodus from the Big 12.
They should only be concerned if the B12 expands without approval from FOX/ESPN. Otherwise, I think everyone gets placed. My concern is that the SEC is forced to compromise monetarily just to take schools that don't provide compelling matchup. My hope is that Sankey has let the folks in Bristol know that some forms of existence are intolerable.
The SEC can't be forced to take anyone. Now, if ESPN gave as a huge raise as an incentive, that might sway some votes. I still think the SEC will follow the previous criteria to expansion; expand with school of significant value to the conference and then round out with the most valuable candidate that is worth adding.
I agree. We will get a brand. I don't think any major conference gets two. It's also the only reason I think we might get both Oklahoma's. It's the only way the Sooners can keep Bedlam & the RRR. Face it after the next round of realignment we will be looking at 9 conference games. We could be looking at 10 in the not to removed future following the next round of realignment. If you look at all of the metrics of the remaining Big 12 schools Oklahoma State is arguably no worse than the 6th best school to take and by some metrics as high as 4th. It allows us to double dip games in DFW.
If the Sooners didn't have the Okie St problem then we could look at a second Texas school or Kansas.
I think the best pair for the SEC might well be Oklahoma and Kansas.
Kansas provides the new West with the weak football program everyone needs as a break. But they also provide balance to Kentucky in hoops and it renews the Border War. Quite frankly I think the SEC should really consider moving to 18 if we have to dissolve the Big 12. But if it's 16 look out for Okie St.
I think Kansas will go Big 10 and Texas may well head to the PAC and take T.C.U., Texas Tech, and possibly Kansas State with them.
We'll see. But I think Murrdcu i correct in that it will be a prize and a decent niche add.
The decision makers at OU, UT and KU don't have any interest in the SEC. While getting a brand would be nice, I just don't share y'all's optimism.
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - AubTiger16 - 09-24-2016 03:44 PM
OU and Kansas would be great in the SEC.
The West could be.
1. Texas A&M
2. Missouri
3. Oklahoma
4. Kansas
5. Arkansas
6. LSU
7. Kentucky
8. Mississippi State
East
1. Alabama
2. Auburn
3. Vanderbilt
4. Tennessee
5. Florida
6. Georgia
7. Ole Miss
8. South Carolina
That would should make Oklahoma and Kansas happy playing arkansas, Missouri and Texas A&M.
If we did add 4 teams in that scenario.
It could be.
West
1. Oklahoma
2. Oklahoma State
3. Kansas
4. Missouri
5. Texas A&M
6. Arkansas
7. Texas Tech
8. LSU
9. Kentucky
East
1. Alabama
2. Auburn
3. Tennessee
4. Florida
5. Georgia
6. South Carolina
7. Vanderbilt
8. Ole Miss
9. Mississippi State
I don't even wanna touch the WVU addition scenario.
RE: "Nobody agrees on the teams" for Big 12 expansion - AllTideUp - 09-24-2016 05:37 PM
I actually think Virginia Tech would be a pretty good addition whether we have a market model or no.
It's the largest state school up there, football is very important, and it's the most popular school in the state.
When you take some of our schools and separate them out to themselves, they aren't that impressive. Put us all together though and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Iron sharpens iron, and I think VT would fit in very well.
NC State is a slightly different animal. Even now, I don't think they would be a bad addition, but not the optimal one. The state of NC has more of a basketball culture and the ACC schools have been together so long. VT on the other hand doesn't have a long history with those schools. I kind of view them as South Carolina with a slightly better football history.