since FSU and Da U already have the entire state of FL covered. I would be okay with Temple because it is a public university, add the Philly/western NJ markets, potentially good in multiple sports, and could be paired with Pitt which would free up Syracuse to be paired with BC and pair the 2 VA schools. However, I do see 2 potential issues with Temple.

First, the Northeast and upper Mid-Atlantic markets are more pro markets than college markets. In the long-term Temple may not help strengthen the ACC's brand in football compared to adding Penn State or a school in the Deep South (USF in this scenario).

Second, I don't think adding a second PA school will increase the exposure of the ACC schools south of the Mason-Dixon Line to get more HS students from the North to decide to attend college down South. Even adding UConn wouldn't achieve that because BC has already exposed the ACC to the New England Region. If anything, the ACC will probably need to either expand into a new state or a larger region than the New England Region for schools to see a bump in their out-of-state students. Honestly, I am not sure adding OU and Texas would cause the ACC schools to see a bump in students from that region of the US.

I understand that these conferences are trying to fulfill both athletic and academic needs. However, with the invention of the internet schools have already increased their exposure significantly to the other regions of the US and even internationally. Maybe it is time the athletic conference only address the schools' athletic needs and the schools fulfill their academic needs via other methods. I am not saying there couldn't be an ACC Academic Conference; just the ACC Athletic Conference isn't concern about the academic standards of each member. Also, the ACC Academic Conference and the ACC Athletic Conference don't interfere in each other's business. It would allow the ACC to add WVU to the Athletic Conference, but not necessarily to the Academic Conference.