RandomAsianGuy

The Big 12’s expanded partnership with Monster Energy, announced Tuesday, was heralded as the first of its kind in college sports. But it has also drawn criticism from multiple industry sources who believed the deal may have both undervalued the conference and could create issues for school-specific assets in the future. ----------- Yormark is all about the short term gain. The B12 is behind the ACC and he desparately needs to catch up.

But you never know what will happen in 2030.

FAU atheletics is on rise. But VT is different from FAU. We will see.

Title II of the bill, which addresses sports broadcasting, also seeks to make it “unlawful under the antitrust laws, as defined in section 1(a), for any conference that reported more than $1 billion (* change to $700 million) in revenue on its fiscal year 2025 tax return to merge or consolidate with, or to acquire assets, media rights (including media rights of an institution) or membership of another conference if, as a result of the transaction, the number of institutions that are members of the conference would be less than the membership requirements under section 5(b)(1)(A) . So what's the membership requirement under section 5(b)(1)(A)? Some people view this as a minimum number schools in a conference, which is 8. I don't think that's what this bill meant. Amended Section 5 is this: SEC. 5. REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTITIES SELLING MEDIA RIGHTS. The section 5(b)(1) states: (1) ELIGIBLE MEMBERSHIP.—A joint agreement to form the covered entity shall be comprised of a voluntary association of institutions or conferences that includes, at a minimum, as of the date on which the joint agreement is entered into, not less than 75 percent of the institutions participating in the Football Bowl Subdivision, as defined by Bylaw 20.9.9 of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. So I think "the membership requirement" of the new entity for pooling rights is 75 percent of FBS schools. My view is that the P4 cannot raid other conferences if that results in the decrease of the number of institutions that are members of the raid conference be less than the 75 percent of FBS schools. In other words, NO poaching. Again just my reading and IANAL.

Never underestimate the other guy's greed.

I definetely agree that there are not that many non P2 schools left that the P2 want. That's why I have been predicting the ACC won't lose more than four schools at max. Not so sure about "excising", but I expect the B10 will start the unequal revenue distribution in a near future. By the way, even if the bill passes, that doesn't necessarily mean the realignment is dead. For example, the B10 may decide to "excise" two of its least valuable members (let's say UMCP wnd Rutgere) and add two schools from the ACC. That won't violate the anti expansion clause. If the ACC takes UMCP back, that would be effectively like a trade between the B10 and the ACC.

I am not a lawyer. But PCSA is interesting because I think it aims to rectify the flawed incentive that has turned conferences into behemoths. The real reason the P2 has been expanding is to generate more media revenue. Under the current system, TV networks generally negotiate with conferences, so from a conference’s perspective, it makes sense to add schools that deliver the highest media ratings and subscriptions. I don't think PCSA will entirely prevent the P2 from expanding. If the P2 joins media pooling, adding schools won't have the impact on the membership requirement under PCSA In other words, they could still add ACC schools as long as they pool the media right with everyone else but would they want to do so? The financial incentive would be significantly weaker, meaning schools would only be added if there’s a genuine desire to associate with them and play against them on the field. And if you think about it, isn't this what a true conference should be? From this angle, PCSA is not as onerous as people think. It doesn’t completely block the free movement of schools. It simply removes the monetary aspect from conference membership changes, encouraging more bona fide, voluntary associations among like minded institutions.

Any conference with $700M cannot increase the number of its members. The ACC is already over $700M. The B12 should be there for 2025-26. If the bill is passed, the P2 and M2 (Acc, B12) cannot expand. I think they can still backfill if their members leave voluntarily or involuntarily.

the G6 and the B12.

significantly less than other ACC schools. Unless the B12 adopts the unequal revenue distribution, thier top schools will find they would make a lot more money in the ACC. ($20M+ annually)

Big cities still draw kids. Private schools in big cities like DC, Miami, Dallas, LA, etc will have better luck in my opinion.

That's not unity or stability. Let's face it. Every school is for itself. The argument that the Big 12 is inherently stable is just laughable. Every Big 12 or ACC school would leave its conference if a better offer were given.

action against its own member...

system. This is not a small matter.

The prohibition of the P2 expansion is the most intriguing aspect to me. The bill is basically Cody Campbell's baby. To be clear, I think it's very unlikely this bill would pass.

If the P4 switches to a 10-game schedule, ND will have even more difficulty scheduling SEC and Big Ten games. So either (1) they’ll play more ACC (or B12) games, or (2) they’ll decide to join the Big Ten as early as 2030 in my opinion.

As you said money is the issue. More conference games mean more money for the SEC and the B10. That's not necessarily true for the ACC and the B12 but they will follow if the P2 move first.

Just my preference.

I said small lineup only takes you so far. I believe it 100%.

I was watching Phillips speech during the ACC spring game and was surprised to hear Phillips mentioned a 10 game schedule. Granted he was just trying to answer if the 24 team playoff would undermine a regular season, but he won't mention it unless he knew something. Then I saw this from X: @RossDellenger A nugget in here: The Big Ten discussed with its football coaches earlier this week the idea of playing 10 conference games, something that looms as the league and SEC explore self-governance models. ------------ The good thing about ten conference game schedule for the B10 is that they can implement the 3-7-7 schedule.

I had to deal with them on other message boards. What I didn‘t expect was that I had to go through the exact same process even on TSL. Apparently, Cincinatti, BYU, UCF, and Houston didn't get the pro rata increase in the B12 previous deal (prior to 2025). In other words, they were not strong addition. The addition of 4C schools was pro rata for ESPN. As far as I know, it's not confirmed Fox would pay pro rata for all four schools. Regardless, the ACC will maintain the revenue advantage at least until 2031 ($5M+). Will the B12 get a better deal in 2031 than the current ACC deal? Possible but very unlikely given the market condition. The ACC contract runs through 2036 and I predict the ACC will keep earning more until 2036.

As you said, small lineup only takes you so far. That's why I really want to see Trent starting this year. That would make a big difference.

gain. The ACC may lose schools in 2030 but the contract continues until 2036.

all that much next year for the B12. And BYU, UCF, Hou, and Cincy will get the full share which will reduce the average of the other 12.

But the hard part is to get the invitation.

The payout disparity within the ACC will be (much) larger in 2025-2026 due to brand initiative.

The Big Ten is king with $1.47 billion in revenue for fiscal year 2025, followed by $1.11 billion for the SEC. ACC: $862.5M B12: $610.9M ACC high: Clemson $55.1 million ACC low: (other than new comers): Wake Forest’s $42.8 million. B12 high: ASU $43M (it beat WF!) B12 low: $37.9M

None of those OOC games are counted toward 5 games. So they play six ACC schools. By the way, I never said ND - ACC arrangement would be changed.

If I remember correctly, the Big 12 fan didn’t think ND would end up playing a sixth ACC game. He thought Notre Dame would cherry-pick high-profile schools and count those toward their five-game requirement. That was because he believed the ACC was in a much weaker position than ND and would accept whatever Notre Dame wanted. Apparently that’s not happening. Now he doesn’t seem to care about the ND-ACC dynamics anymore. But if my recollection is incorrect, I will apologize.

Highest ACC: Clemson $55.1 million Lowest ACC (other than new comers): Wake Forest’s $42.8 million.

I thought you believed playing ND was beneficial not only for the schools that play them, but for the conference as a whole. You seemed pretty happy to hear ND playing BYU, a B12 school. Now that ND is playing more ACC schools, you're shifting your focus to individual schools?

It's just Stanford's OOC scheduling with ND.

Notre Dame and Stanford University have agreed to extend the Legends Trophy Rivalry for the 2027 and 2028 seasons. For actual schedules, check the below site https://fbschedules.com/2027-notre-dame-football-schedule/ ** Edited by RandomAsianGuy at 5/21/2026, 5:56:39 PM

ND will continue to play *6* ACC games.

Of course it may change in the future.

It has many smaller schools and four schools in one state. That's why I don't think the ACC will be able to catch up with the P2 just like the old Big East was structurally disadvantaged comapred to the ACC (northeast centric and hybrid of football and basketball schools). The conference made some bad decisions, but overall it played it safe by locking into a very long GoR. That move prevented its top schools from leaving the league, while the B12 and Pac 12 got decimated.

That doesn't mean the ACC is dead (see the Big 12). Many FSU fans are complaining because they feel they deserve P2 status. We'll see if they get the invite. It may or may not come.

reason VT's number was better on the CW.

in 2023 or something?