Until 2036 rolls around, the best thing for GT is for the ACC to do well. All I care about is GT, and what's best for GT. I do believe GT will be in the P2 when it's all said and done, but that's a decade plus down the road. Right now, outside of GT somehow getting a billion $$$ windfall, the best thing for GT is to make the best out of the ACC, and for the ACC to do well on the field and the basketball court. Whether we like it or not, our fate for the foreseeable future is tied to the ACC...so we need to make the best of it.
Years ago, I predicted there would be some members of the ACC that would not stand to fall behind their perceived national "peers". I even named the exact schools who would create chaos within our conference...and here we are today. I have ZERO doubt UNC and Clemson was a BIG reason GT was persuaded to stay in the ACC back in 2012. I think of all the ACC schools, GT probably has the best administrative relationship with those schools. UNC because they are, for all intents and purposes, the flagship of the ACC. Clemson because of our proximity and the relationship we've always had with them. Unfortunately, because Peterson could not grasp the importance of GT for the ACC and B1G, and his utter disdain of the business of college sports, it seems ironic that UNC and Clemson will be the demise of the ACC as we know it.
As others have said, I'm glad adding the new schools will dilute the power of UNC/Clemson/FSU. I think they've carried too much weight in our conference, and some of that weight was probably to the detriment of GT. One thing I'm proud of is that GT has remained silent throughout this. Yes, our flagship programs have not done well recently, but we could have easily made a stink like UNC/Clemson/FSU/"magnificent seven" due to the importance of Atlanta/GT to the ACC (and SEC/B1G). If GT had left in 2012, the ACC payout looks drastically different than it does today given how big of a market Atlanta is for the ACC. UNC and UVA probably bolts for the B1G with us and the demise of the ACC would probably have come sooner. There's a phrase in UNC's email that still bothers me: "Without ironclad assurances..." part is pretty loaded. I wonder if UNC asked for something that would have been unfair to the rest of the ACC, or if they wanted something to keep them at a competitive advantage to the rest of the conference. They've acted like royalty for too long in the ACC, and there's reason to think they have the biggest role in how all of this has turned out for the ACC.
There were few schools available for the ACC to add that would have increase the value of the ACC's revenue. Due to some creative accounting, and some BIG SMU donors, ACC got the few remaining schools of value. Unfortunately, this is not the end of realignment for the ACC...we'll probably have to deal with this until the GOR is resolved. Don't get comfortable, GT fans, this league is starting to become a dysfunctional family.
