[Farm93]

The question is: do Texas, Michigan, and Georgia want to play us?  8)

Of course not.

Stanford is too good right now.  The AD at a mega program better hope Stanford stinks in 2017 & 2018 because if Stanford wins they could be fired.  That is a big risk, so what are the benefits?
Stanford plays in a smallish 50,000 seat stadium.  Strike 1
Stanford plays on the West Coast and might schedule the game when the alums are asleep.  Strike 2
Stanford plays in Northern California - home to very few prized recruits.  Strike 3

Stanford could be a decent play for a Neutral site, but that neutral site would need the big state program to fill the house.  And then, of course, that program would demand more of the ticket gate.

UVa's 5, 10, 15, 20 & 25 year records are respectable, and honestly better than Stanford's (excluding the Luck years).  So to suddenly claim that UVa is in some way beneath Stanford is laughable really.

UVa is not too big, not too small, not too bad, not too good.  My guess is UVa was a strategic choice that was, or will be, embraced by the coaches and the team.

Unlike the MWC the ACC is relatively stable.  The MWC teams are almost certain to drop OOC games and/or beg for rescheduling as they try to make room for the new teams.  Also, the MWC plays in the Pac-12's backyard, so it does not help the Pac-12 or Stanford with that East Coast media problem.  Could even say that UVa is critical to getting a national footprint for the Pac-12 Network, but I doubt that was a concern.

[Farm93]

The question is: do Texas, Michigan, and Georgia want to play us?  8)

Of course not.

Stanford is too good right now.  The AD at a mega program better hope Stanford stinks in 2017 & 2018 because if Stanford wins they could be fired.  That is a big risk, so what are the benefits?
Stanford plays in a smallish 50,000 seat stadium.  Strike 1
Stanford plays on the West Coast and might schedule the game when the alums are asleep.  Strike 2
Stanford plays in Northern California - home to very few prized recruits.  Strike 3

Stanford could be a decent play for a Neutral site, but that neutral site would need the big state program to fill the house.  And then, of course, that program would demand more of the ticket gate.

UVa's 5, 10, 15, 20 & 25 year records are respectable, and honestly better than Stanford's (excluding the Luck years).  So to suddenly claim that UVa is in some way beneath Stanford is laughable really.

UVa is not too big, not too small, not too bad, not too good.  My guess is UVa was a strategic choice that was, or will be, embraced by the coaches and the team.

Unlike the MWC the ACC is relatively stable.  The MWC teams are almost certain to drop OOC games and/or beg for rescheduling as they try to make room for the new teams.  Also, the MWC plays in the Pac-12's backyard, so it does not help the Pac-12 or Stanford with that East Coast media problem.  Could even say that UVa is critical to getting a national footprint for the Pac-12 Network, but I doubt that was a concern.