Brownlow's Mailbag: What the SEC shakeup means for the ACC, Bojangles' talk and more

By Lauren Brownlow, WRALSportsFan columnist/reporter

We're nearing the end of the offseason, and with a busy week in the books after the Olympics began and ACC Kickoff, I wasn't sure I would do a Mailbag. I asked for all of you to @ me in the hopes that I would get enough really good questions to push me through a Mailbag, and as usual, you all delivered. Plenty to talk about, and this week's questions are not only cheeky and fun but also timely and relevant.

So let's get to them!

Well, we just had to dig right into the realignment talk, didn't we?

This is probably happening, whether or not we like it. In a universe where somehow they don't get accepted, yes, I think that they take either or both of those teams, especially seeing as the ACC has been sliding into Texas' DMs to say they should grab a coffee sometime for years. They wouldn't have to kick out Notre Dame to take them, and if they played it correctly, they could use it as leverage. Remember that weird football relationship we have? Let's not have it anymore. Go ahead and try maintaining your independence as all this madness keeps unfolding in college football and see how it works out for you.

But since that almost certainly won't happen, it's a bit of a moot point.

The reason the ACC expanded originally was that it wanted to get into more homes, because that was what was good for television revenue. Now, it's far less about geography than it is about brands, although that to me also seems short-sighted. When the ACC originally added Miami, for example, the Canes were still an elite college football program. Same with Virginia Tech. That's not true anymore, although both do still have important brand-name recognition and both do still add value.

Any school you add to your league now? It's going to have to be a school that will impact your bottom line. And how do you do that? You add a school that matters to television executives. Think of it this way: the ACC is already splitting its television revenue a certain number of ways. If you're adding another team, you're essentially cutting into everyone's share, assuming the contract money doesn't change significantly. So the ACC is no longer in a place to expand for the sheer sake of it.

I'm not new ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, obviously. But if I'm him and/or the ACC, I'm not looking for another team to add right now unless it is one of the big-name teams. I am doing at least one of the following two things:

1. Trying to figure out a way to convince Notre Dame how important it is for them to join the ACC if they want the league to remain viable,
2. Talking to the other Power 5 leagues to figure out a way to combat this.

What we learned last year during COVID is that there is no centralizing force in college football. It is every team and league for itself. And they are all after money above all other things. If the SEC is about to double up the other leagues in terms of revenue — and make no mistake, that is very likely — that's not a viable scenario for any of the other P5 teams that are left out of this new super conference.

So what do you do? I wish I could remember who floated this idea, but I liked it — unite with the PAC-12 and Big Ten (sorry, Big 12) in some meaningful way and present a united front to the television networks, looking for a way to secure a big-money deal. That's really the only way forward. And you have to view the SEC and the super league as — I mean, "hostile force" is a little much, probably, but commissioners can no longer get together and pretend to get along with one another to get things done when it comes to college football. It just isn't realistic and you need to assume that the commissioners are not at all worried about what's good for college football as a whole and instead is good for their league and their league alone.

ESPN is going to have to make a decision, too. Why bother to start an ACC Network and invest time, energy and resources into it if you're going to be partnered with a conference that plays the same level of the same sport and you are paying DOUBLE the amount of money to the teams in that league? The ACC's contract won't be renegotiated unless its membership changes or if those other conferences unite in some way, but the ACC Network puts the league in kind of a tough spot. It's not like they can tell ESPN to go away. I don't think. There are just a lot of moving parts here. I am not one of those people that think ESPN has some nefarious agenda when it comes to college sports, and I don't necessarily think so now. They like money as well. But at the same time, it's always struck me as odd that they are running both an ACC and an SEC Network. Those are two leagues in very similar geographic areas that often compete with one another for titles in the sport that brings in the most revenue. Really, it would be in ESPN's best interests (in theory) for the ACC to be one of two things: as close to on par with the SEC as possible, or far and noticeably worse so ESPN can pay less. They're paying what they feel the ACC is worth, and I'm not saying they SHOULD pay more. I'm just saying it's always been weird to me that an entity that covers all of these teams also has vested financial stakes in both leagues. They can't negotiate down with the SEC, but they can with the ACC, as long as the gap stays where it is. But the money they pay the SEC compared to the ACC is going to ensure that it does. I think my brain just twisted itself into a knot.

This question was obviously asked from the Virginia Tech perspective, and I am assuming that the bad loss question and the UNC question are separate ones since obviously UNC would not be a bad loss. I will say I think the bad loss thing is a little ... overrated is the wrong word, but it's not as important as you think. Who cares if Virginia Tech beats UNC, loses to Middle Tennessee in Week 2, Richmond and Week 4 and reaches the ACC title game anyway? Would it matter that they have some bad losses?

No, the context for the losses matters more. Who were the losses to? When did the losses happen? How did the team look during said losses? And what was your overall record? All of that in its totality is more important than just the losses, or one slip-up here or there.

You're right, though, in that it's a really big game for both of these teams. It's the type of game that is going to matter a lot both when it happens and later in the season, too. But if we're going to say recent Virginia Tech history is the last 5 years, I don't even think that's true. Remember, Virginia Tech started the 2017 season 6-1 with the only loss to Clemson before going to face a ranked Miami team and losing, 28-10. That loss kept Virginia Tech from having any hope of reaching the ACC title game, which, by the way, is a place the Hokies haven't been since Fuente's first season. And in 2019, the regular-season finale game against Virginia was literally for a berth to the title game, and they lost that one too.

So I mean, I guess it's the biggest game they haven't lost yet? That sounds mean, and I don't mean it to. It's a big one for UNC as well though. The hype train has left the station for the Tar Heels, but it's not going to get very far down the track if it's derailed in Week 1. They absolutely need to come out with some positive momentum, and that necessitates winning this game. It's enormous for both teams, frankly.

Michael, I'm guessing that since you are someone who obviously has knowledge of UNC and Chapel Hill, we both already know the answer to this. But since you asked, and some of you reading might not, I will go ahead and answer it: probably not. I say probably because change can happen quickly if the powers that be want it to, but just signing Sam Howell does not mean that the town of Chapel Hill will suddenly decide to rescind its ban on drive-thrus. From the moment I was a freshman at UNC, one of the first things I learned was where all the exceptions are and how long it takes to get to them. And of course, I learned that while there is no Bojangles' in Chapel Hill, there is one just a short drive down 15-501. You know how they always do the thing where they're like "Chapel Hill and Duke are 8 miles apart"? Well, you hit the Bojangles' on 15-501 before you even get to Duke when you're driving between campuses. I spent many a morning after a long night before, uh, refueling at that Bojangles'. Their sweet tea is like southern Pedialyte.

Now, you might have noticed that there are some exceptions to the drive-thru ban in both Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Some more info on the ban is here, but you can petition for an exception, as the article states that Dunkin' Donuts did recently. Bojangles' is obviously a company with more local connections than Dunkin', but my guess is they've already at least explored this option in Chapel Hill and it hasn't come to fruition yet.

It's also worth noting that of those exceptions, NONE of them are on Franklin Street. That is also by design. So it is far likelier to me that a Bojangles' will open in Chapel Hill or Carrboro SOMEWHERE than it is that one would open on Franklin Street. Could Bojangles' open up without a drive-thru? I mean, I guess, but I don't think I've ever seen one? And again, that's always been an option for them on Franklin Street and they've evidently decided it isn't worth it.

And now, in related questions ...

The Bo being referred to here is, of course, Bojangles'. And I'm assuming that the enemy here is Clemson quarterback DJ Uiagelelei, since Clemson is in NC State's Division and a more direct obstacle to its ACC title hopes. (I'm kidding.)

Here's the thing, though — and yes, I know you're half kidding — but y'all ate at Bojangles' when they gave money to UNC as an entire athletic department, right? Because that's been a thing for awhile. And giving money to UNC as an institution has far more of an impact than it does on giving money to Sam Howell! He's just one person! It's also worth pointing out as at least one person did in the replies that NC State's own quarterback Devin Leary said he'd already spoken to Bojangles'. They can make deals with more than one athlete, and I suspect that they will.

And of course, Bojangles' has been a sponsor with NC State for awhile and even signed singer and NC State megafan Scotty McCreery. So they're not playing favorites here. They have signed the two quarterbacks with the most fame in their region. They will sign more!

I am not here to tell anyone how to spend their own money. But I will say this: I don't make decisions on how I spend money based completely upon the principles of a company or the principles of the people it picks to represent it. I have tried this in the past, particularly when it comes to issues I care about a lot. If I have good alternative options, I can do it successfully. If I don't? I mean, look. My personal refusal to buy, say, a Supremes box (since we were talking Bojangles') is not going to put that company out of business. My refusal to buy a Floyd Mayweather fight on pay-per-view isn't going to bankrupt him either, but at least I can say that money from my household did not personally go into his pocket. We pick and choose where we can take stands, I suppose. I really dislike the New Orleans Saints, but I'm not going to refuse to spend money with a company that sponsors them. Will I consider it if they choose a player or coach as an endorser who has a problematic past? Maybe, depending on the circumstances. But that's just my ever-enduring and Sisyphusian quest to end sexual violence and our toleration of it and those who perpetrate it.

Speaking of the Wolfpack!

I am so excited for this. The slobbering wolf has very early Disney cartoon vibes to me. I love the slobbering wolf and I think he is perfect and should be on all things related to NC State athletics. (He? It?)

I love a logo that tells a story. If you've ever seen Tulane's angry wave logo, it tells one too. What this logo tells me is that hey, I'm your friendly wolf mascot. I'm a little hungry. I might eat you, opposing football team that can see these helmets up close, and I might not. I *could* eat you, but maybe I'll find something else to eat. And maybe I won't and I'll have to eat you instead. It's playful and yet sinister at the same time. I love it and wish it could be on all of the things.