It's that time again. ACC expansion -- or more accurately for Tech fans, the raiding of the Big East by the ACC, and the Big East's resulting collapse -- is a hot topic of conversation. That means the message board and email are hopping with discussions and questions, and I'm being asked to weigh in with my thoughts.

More accurately, I think I'm being asked to soothe the worries of Hokie fans, who are afraid that the ACC will take Miami, BC, and Syracuse, and leave the Hokies out in the cold. I can't do that, folks. Conference expansion is an amazingly complex topic, and I don�t believe any one person can define with any certainty how -- or even if -- it's going to happen.

Virginia Tech is in the unique position of holding some cards in this game, but of not having a completely strong hand. Tech is not in the driver's seat, like the powerful Hurricanes. The Hokies have a few things in their favor, but it may not be enough to wind up in a good place if a shakedown occurs.

That makes Hokie fans nervous. They want the answer, and they want it now.

But the problem is, you can't get it. You can get opinions, but you can't get answers.

So I'm about to talk about this topic and try to shed some light on it, but like I said, I can't say with certainty how all this is going to work out. The flurry of public comments and articles this week, in the wake of Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese's outburst in the New York Daily News last Thursday, has left us all with many questions unanswered. This article may do the same.

1999 was the last time ACC expansion was a blazing-hot topic. Sparked by Doug Doughty's comment in June of 1999 that a "semi-reliable" source told him Miami would be introduced as the ACC's tenth member in July of that year, the subject caught fire and was followed closely throughout the summer.

There was a lot of truth to the rumor that year, but for whatever reason, things broke down, and the ACC's July meetings came and went without a UM defection.

After that, the Big East quickly moved to strengthen itself. In just a couple of years, the league took three steps to improve the cohesiveness of its membership:

• August 1999: The Hokies were voted into the Big East for all sports
• May 2000: UConn cleared the last hurdle to become a football member of the Big East in 2005
• March 2001: Temple was voted out of the conference, effective 2005

That left just one major problem unsolved -- Notre Dame's membership for all sports except football. But that is an issue that will probably never be resolved to the Big East's satisfaction.

With those moves, the Big East became a much stronger conference, and it was thought that they had successfully warded off the advances of the ACC.

But then Tranghese popped off to the New York Daily News and respected writer Dick Weiss, in what was obviously a calculated move, and we all found ourselves stuck in the middle of this debate again.

Tranghese's comments were quickly followed by comments by Big East athletic directors Paul Dee (Miami), Jake Crouthamel (Syracuse), and Gene DeFilippo (Boston College), all of whom said words to the effect of, "We're not going to be the first, but if anybody else goes, we're outta here."

Not exactly comforting statements to Tranghese, and in the case of Miami, not even true. The Canes could very well be the first to go. There's lots of smoke and fire here. Sources of varying degrees and quality indicate that yes, the ACC and Miami are in talks. One person even told me in an email that Dee was calling together his non-revenue coaches to talk to them and gather their thoughts on ACC membership.

Obviously, Miami's looking hard at the ACC right now. The other names that have been thrown about are Syracuse and BC, and to a lesser degree, Tech. Tranghese said that Miami, BC, Syracuse, and VT had all been contacted by the ACC, and while Dee, DeFilippo, and Crouthamel are all openly discussing ACC membership, Tech athletic director Jim Weaver has been silent on the topic.

The Florida, Boston, and New York press have been all over the story, but the press in the state of Virginia -- meaning the Roanoke Times and Richmond Times-Dispatch -- haven't had a thing to say on this extremely important topic, so Weaver hasn't had a chance to voice his thoughts.

One of the articles in the Palm Beach Post said simply "Virginia Tech Athletic Director Jim Weaver said last week his school has not been contacted [by the ACC]," which is the only mention of Weaver in any of the articles I have seen so far. The statement is also in direct conflict with Tranghese's statement that VT was one of four schools that had been contacted.

The Hokies appear to be number four in a pecking order that will include just three teams if ACC expansion occurs, and the thing I can't figure out is if the press is dismissing VT because of their sources, or if the mindless masses are all simply repeating each other with the "Miami, BC, and Syracuse" mantra.

Obviously, being number four in a game of musical chairs that only includes three seats is not a good thing. But how valid is that? Are the Hokies truly the odd man out?

I can't answer that question, because I haven't been given a clear indicator. But I will tell you that a couple of sources I spoke with are telling me that the suits in the Virginia Tech athletic department feel very good about their chances, should ACC expansion occur. "They feel that in all expansion scenarios," I was told, "Virginia Tech will be included."

Before you curl up with a big smile on your face, remember, Dave Braine thought VT was a lock for the Big East back in 1994, too.

First of all, this is a football-driven expansion, being considered with an eye towards creating a 12-team ACC that can play a lucrative postseason championship game, like the SEC and Big 12 do. The SEC makes $12 million off their championship game. The ACC might not make that much, but the point is, it will be lucrative.

As others have said, all parties involved will make their decision to expand or not expand based on money.

ACC expansion requires 7 out of 9 yes votes, and if 7 out of 9 ACC members can be convinced that a given scenario will increase their cash flow, they'll vote for it.

Don't get hung up on power structure issues, and ACC basketball tournament issues, and the ACC's "high academic standards." Don't get hung up on whether or not private schools like Miami, BC, and Syracuse are a "good fit" with the ACC. Don't get hung up on Duke not wanting to take another loss in football, or any of the ACC schools "wanting to compete in recruiting" with this school or that school.

It's all about money. If 7 out of 9 ACC schools can be convinced they'll get richer now and in the future by expanding, they'll do it. Period. All other arguments are superfluous and peripheral.

And if the schools they're pitching the expansion to can be convinced that it will profit them now and in the long run, they'll do it. Don't get hung up on Big East rivalries, their tradition as a basketball conference, whether or not the Canes' path to the BCS is going to be harder in an expanded ACC, and whether or not Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim wants to leave the league. If the money makes sense, the Big East schools that are being approached will jump like rats off a sinking ship. Period.

In 1994, the eight Big East football schools had said that if the league didn't vote to include WVU, Rutgers, Temple, and Tech for all sports, they would break away and form a cohesive eight-team league.

But to do that, they would have had to give up their NCAA Tournament dollars, leaving that important revenue stream behind with the old Big East. So they chickened out and didn't jump. It made sense to jump. They had promised they would. It would have made a stronger conference with a better future. But the money didn't add up, so their knees knocked, and their hands trembled, and they chickened out.

It's easy to see why Miami is attractive to the ACC. But what about BC, Syracuse, and VT?

Let's take BC and Syracuse first. The attraction with Syracuse is two-fold: (1) they have an awesome basketball program that generates massive revenue and is a regular NCAA participant; and (2) they offer a new TV market. Boston College's main attraction is that they offer a new TV market.

Tech fans immediately cry out, "But nobody in those markets watches those teams!" And you're right. CBS found this out the hard way in the 90's, when they signed the Big East football conference to a fat TV contract, and then spent the next few years discovering, to their horror, that games like VT-Syracuse and WVU-Boston College generated terrible ratings. For the last few years of their Big East contract, CBS spent their time showing Notre Dame matchups with Big East teams, and Miami's good out of conference games, instead of showing true Big East football games.

CBS lost their shirt for five years, and when renewal time came up, they abandoned the Big East, leaving the league to sign a contract with ABC that included fewer games and less money, at a time when every other league was expanding their TV contracts like mad, in terms of both exposure and dollars.

But despite the poor ratings, adding the Boston and New York markets to the ACC has some value. How much value? That question is up to ABC to answer. They're the ones paying. One thing's for sure: adding VT adds no markets. ABC already broadcasts their games into the states of Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina, which is considered to be VT's regional reach.

Does VT bring good ratings, comparable to or better than BC and Syracuse? Yes, they do. But VT does not bring new markets. The ACC's reach currently stops dead at the Maryland/Pennsylvania border. Add BC and/or Syracuse, and it extends much farther north.

Hokie fans can only hope that ABC learned from CBS's experience with Big East teams and ratings -- and judging by ABC's skimpy contract with the Big East, they did -- and will not feel that adding BC and Syracuse adds much value from a TV standpoint.

Still, they do add markets. Did I say that already?

So what does VT add? VT is attractive for a number of reasons; (1) VT fans travel well, and will put butts in the seats at Wake, Duke, NCSU, UNC, Maryland, Clemson, and even GT; (2) VT fans travel well, and that pleases bowl committees, who will be more likely to sign up with the ACC if they know they might snag Tech as a bowl participant; (3) VT offers geographic proximity that BC, Syracuse, and Miami don't, greatly reducing travel costs for ACC schools.

And now, it's crunch time. Time for the ACC to decide to expand. What's the process to make up their minds?

For starters, my guess is that ABC has already provided the ACC with revamped TV contract figures for a variety of league configurations, makeups that include some combination of Miami with BC, Syracuse, VT, and maybe even WVU, Pitt, and perhaps even something crazy like Louisville, Kentucky, South Carolina, and ECU.

So the ACC has varying TV contract revenues to consider, and those revenues will change based on proposed memberships and the markets they add or subtract.

Those TV contracts also include a figure for a championship game. That figure won't change much with changing league membership. The key thing is just to have a championship game -- how much it brings in won't vary much with different memberships.

With those TV contract figures in mind, the individual athletic directors and school presidents then have to evaluate that increased revenue against the increased costs that an expanded league will bring. How much will it cost to fly the women's lacrosse team to Syracuse, versus taking them to Blacksburg in vans? How many fans will Boston College bring to a road game in the state of North Carolina (answer: none) versus how many fans will VT bring down?

Assuming a TV contract with BC and/or Syracuse in it brings in more revenue than one with VT, does that revenue offset the increased costs of traveling to those far-flung places, and does it offset the lost revenue by having none of their fans show up for games, versus having thousands of Hokie fans show up? Is it worth inviting VT to be more attractive to bowl games?

These are questions that only the nine ACC athletic directors can answer, and only with all of the data provided by ABC, potential sponsors, bowl committees, and yes, potential new member schools. (Don't think for a second that Tech's Jim Weaver hasn�t sent data to each ACC school saying how much revenue traveling VT fans will bring and how cheap it will be for ACC teams to drive to Blacksburg instead of flying to New York, for crying out loud.)

All of the numbers will be crunched, and if they come out to the positive for 7 out of 9 ACC schools, then it's probably Katie-bar-the-door and goodbye, Big East. It's that simple.

But as you can see, it's not simple. It's very complex. So if you're looking for a definitive answer on what's going to happen, you're not going to get one.

The press is almost uniformly dismissing VT out of hand, and making it a Miami-BC-Syracuse affair, but that's just the press. You can bet that when it comes time to decide, the ACC's athletic directors and school presidents will investigate all of the data, cross all of their t's, and dot all of their i's. And their number-crunching will include VT in the calculations.

While the press is openly talking about Miami, Syracuse, BC, and even VT, the ACC isn't necessarily restricting their vision to that limited scenario. There are theories that perhaps Notre Dame will be involved somehow, or that Syracuse might go to the Big Ten instead, or that the ACC might take South Carolina instead of just Big East teams. (How? I don't know. It's just a theory.)

I've also heard that the ACC might take just Miami, expanding to ten teams, and then sit and watch the Big East fall apart. That way, the ACC doesn't really gut the Big East and get blamed for that. They just weaken it, and its actual collapse gets blamed on other factors.

I've even heard that the ACC has petitioned the NCAA to play a conference championship game as a ten-team league, without having to go to twelve teams. Good luck on that, guys. If that was doable, I think the Big Ten would have pulled it off years ago.

If any team leaves the SEC, you can bet the Hokies will be looked at long and hard as a replacement.

One thing to consider is that between the Big Ten and the ACC, if they both want to go to twelve teams, they have four total open slots, and if all four of those slots get filled, Tech's chances of landing somewhere are good. Especially if Notre Dame stays put as an independent, and especially if the SEC loses a team to the ACC.

So if you opened up this article expecting me to soothe your troubled Hokie mind and tell you that VT wasn't going to get left behind in a gutted Big East, I'm sorry I couldn't do that. Everything I know I told you here, and the rest is up to fate, nine ACC schools, and the Big East schools they are rumored to be courting.

TechSideline Pass Home