conferences to form one just doesn't seem to be in the cards. The B12 has been poached, and when the 4 corners were added, it became a stronger conference IMO then they were with Texas. The main differences between the ACC and B12 at this point, is: The contracts. ACC goes through 2036, the B12 gets another bite of the apple in 2030. In addition, currently the B12 have 5 different media companies showing the B12 content (FOX, ESPN, CBS, TNT, and Peacock steaming). Tougher for the fan, but the exposure is sound. The ACCN is an advantage, until it isn't, and it limits the ACC exposure. the 2030 media deals will tell the tape. the ACC currently has better football brands, but they are top heavy. Except for Cincy, Houston, and UCF, the B12 is remarkably similar in athletic budgets and viewership numbers. The ACC has too many on the lower end. Uneven distributions help the top heavy brands, bur the middle tier schools like GT, VT, NCSU, and Louisville, could find themselves on the wrong end - and it is them, not the lower brands that will revolt. The answer may be that the football breaks away from the B12 and ACC conferences, and negotiate separate media deals. The B12 will try that strategy next go around. That may be the most significant change with the "payments" of players, as it will clearly show the separation of revenue for revenue sharing under the current settlement. The Big East could be the baseline, and both the ACC and B12 are much more valuable than the Big East IMO. Separate the football, and we may get back to regional conferences.