If FSU leaves the ACC...

Get fired up for that game against Iowa State, Semenholes.

There continues to be a lot of smoke out there about Florida State leaving the ACC for the greener pastures (read: bigger piles of cash via TV revenue) of the Big XII, despite the absolutely idiotic concept of conference rivalry games against the likes of Baylor, Kansas, K-State, and (this one's my favorite) Iowa State.  *snicker*  Then again, I guess that's no worse than an annual game against Boston College or Syracuse, to be fair.

Anyway, I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

The truth can be painful.  The ACC is the 5th-best football conference right now, behind the SEC, B1G, Big XII, and Pac-12. 5th best, and not especially close to 4th, unless we pull the coup of all coups and somehow lure Notre Dame into the fold for [significantly?] less money than the Big XII or B1G will be able to offer.  How much does Notre Dame value academic partnership, university like-mindedness, and opportunity to stick it to the ego-driven "power conferences" by joining the least powerful of said power conferences?  The Irish probably value those things a lot.  A lot, but not enough.  They'll take the money that one of the other conferences can offer.

So we're stuck at 5th-best football conference status, with no real threat for position from the 6th-best football conference, the dumpster slut that is the Big East.

We're 5th-best, wouldn't we still be 5th-best if F$U left and we replaced them with a football-playing basketball school, like, say... UConn?

FINALLY, dude.  Shit.

When this realignment madness first started a couple of years ago, the Big East tried to save itself by focusing on basketball. I thought it was a novel idea at the time, though it didn't really work out because the conference was already too bastardized and was hemorrhaging schools. It was too unstable. But maybe that basketball-first model could work in the ACC, given our richer tradition, our dedicated core membership, and our high level of general long-term stability.

Is the ACC minus F$U and maybe Clemson, plus UConn and maybe Louisville, still a decent football conference with some damn fine hoops?

Wouldn't a basketball-first conference be better in some ways for our football program? We are more dedicated to gridiron success than most of that new-look ACC, except for VT, NC State, GT, and Miami. Winning the ACC becomes a much more realistic annual goal. It's certainly a path of less resistance, similar to what Boise State and TCU just parlayed into national relevance.

Am I wrong to not be feeling all that much consternation about all of this? If Florida State jumps ship, I don't see it as the end of the world. And I'm not convinced - not at all - that the SEC really wants Virginia Tech, nor would I care all that much if the turkeys left for that regular Alabama/LSU/Florida curb-stomping, despite the increased traction they'd gain in recruiting kids to play SEC football.

I guess what I'm saying is this: I can envision a reality in which our basketball program is helped by playing in an improved basketball conference while our football program is helped by becoming one of the bigger fish in a smaller pond.

UVA football in a basketball-driven ACC?

Yes, the TV money would be less in a conference without F$U. But UVA isn't in a spot where we have to really worry about revenue streams for the athletic department. Instead, that will serve to diminish a few of our conference brethren, making our path to success that much easier.

If our football team starts winning 10 games every season, it won't matter if we're beating UConn on the way to those wins.

Just win, baby.  Winning is all that really matters.