In 2003 they could have done a full merger at the time, it would have been glorious. Old Big East BB-ball only schools in a division Old Big East football schools, plus FSU could be a division in football and basketball Old Order ACC could have stayed together for both I realize it wouldn't have been that simple, but some variation of that would have been great. But now that the Big East has gone out to the mid-west and the ACC is now on the West Coast and Texas. So the boat has already been missed. But man. That would have been something.

...including those with 1AA football to elevate to "big boy" football, it would have been more powerful than ACC football. Frankly I thought the BE football league was a lot tougher than ACC football, with far more parity than "F$U and the seven dwarfs." Miami, WVU, Pitt, VT, Cuse...some pretty tough football last century.

The biggest problem with a merger IMO is that in football, you're taking two conferences with essentially two automatic bids each and reducing said bid down to one. Problem #2 is that the conference becomes so big that it becomes difficult to rotate opponents AND maintain current rivalries to where it still feels like a conference. One thing that MIGHT work is if two conferences pooled their TV rights together while maintaining separate leagues. Then arrange it to where most of your non-conference games are against your partner conference. Like maybe doing 18 league games for basketball and 6 or 8 vs the other conference. Same for football .. Have 3 of 4 of your non-league games vs your partner conference. I'm not sure how that could be done without total cooperation from the TV networks involved. Bad thing is you run the risk of your good teams beating each other and lessening their chances for an at large NCAAT or CFP bid. It might work in football if each league gets a guaranteed number of CFP spots though.

I'd be fine with a B12/ACC merger. But I do think the best way to do it is to join the two and divide it into three FB conferences to get the three autobids, and so it makes sense geographically. That's 11 schools each, in the west, middle and east. Have one TV contract, and scaled payouts to keep the defectors happy. But who knows if that sort of shenanigans would be allowed by the P2?

I think the P2 would oppose it, accusing the current ACC and B12 members of trying to "steal" an extra automatic CFP bid for their members. True or not, that's how I think they would spin it. In reality if there are still 5 auto-bids it just lessens the chance of the G5 getting one. Essentially the third league would end up being mostly former Pac 12 schools with a few new teams (BYU, etc) sprinkled in

conferences - whatever you want to call it. I'd only put 5 teams in a pod though, so that there is more flexibility in scheduling for the networks. The non revs can schedule differently to tap down expenses, but the football and basketball could schedule matchups that can compete with the viewership numbers of the BIG and SEC. Have a professional management team negotiate the media contracts, and get away from scheduling cupcakes unless they are local, or there is a history. Use the leverage that much inventory would bring to the table. It would be a clear 3rd entity that could challenge the BIG and SEC, and it has the potential to schedule matchups that the entire country would want to watch.

sponsor football, it may not be that big of a deal to them. Below is a list of the 4 schools and their current conference membership for football. FBS Connecticut - Independent FCS Butler - Pioneer Football League (non-scholarship football only conference) Georgetown - Patriot League (60 scholarship conference) Villanova - CAA (63 scholarship conference) Depending on how many ACC schools would be involved in the merger, the merged conference may still not have enough participating schools to qualify for FBS conference status because the 3 FCS schools are not interested in switching subdivisions. Those schools would either need to find another conference, go FBS independent, or switch to FCS for football.

I see no way the ACC schools make any more $ partnering with the BE. With the B12 at least you get some slightly better football matchups AND the B12 is also a better BB conference than the BE. I've always felt that if the ACC fell apart and Wake, BC, Cuse (plus maybe Duke and Pitt) got left behind, they could add UConn, Temple and maybe 1 or 2 other FBS football schools and then round out the league by absorbing some of the BE schools for BB / Olympic sports. ** Edited by cburgroop at 2/10/2025, 4:48:33 PM

possibility that it could end up being an option. Particularly if the football-first schools decide they don't want to be apart of the ACC anymore. For the basketball-first schools, what role do they see football play on their campus and in the conference? I could see the basketball-first schools decide they have more in common with the Big East schools than the Big XII schools. Also, I could see the ACC go through a similar divorce that the Big East went through because the schools aren't able to come to some of resolution/compromise the role football will play on campus going forward. Depending on what the P2 conferences decide to do, it could influence future decisions by the other DI conferences. Remember the schools are currently meeting to discuss how the NCAA as a whole should re-organize itself. I do think those decisions will help influence how much money a conference could make from the media contract(s) going forward. Regardless of what happens with the football-first schools, it is possible the ACC may have reached its ceiling in terms of how much money it can make with ESPN.

disappointed that the ACC did not get more money with the "extension". My reasoning is that their ceiling had been met, and the b12's isn't any different. If ESPN had given the ACC more money, even if it was to subsidize the better brands, that it would have showed that the B12's contract is undervalued. Either the lower third of the ACC is really that bad with viewership, or ESPN and FOX spent the bulk of their money on two conferences. I no longer wait in anticipation of the next media deal for the B12 in 2031, and it appears that the ACC & B12, while getting "stability" whatever the hell that means, will fall further, and further behind as the revenue sharing and NIL things get worked out. There is no longer a clear competition for a P3 with the current configuration. It may be time to think out of the box.

we'll find out in 2029 what was distributed in 27-28. Meantime, there is/was a look-in scheduled for 2026. Was that covered in the extension or not? The ACC is looking at revising its internal distribution methods. The bylaws are public so we'll see that change if/when they finish with it. But we won't know anything about the ESPN deal itself...just the payouts the year after they happen.

has been reported in the media. The ACC contract details have been litigated pretty well on this board, so the extension that was announced, with the corresponding escalators imbedded in the contract, appear to be in place until 2036. The talk of reduced penalties, and uneven distributions are ACC internal negotiations, and appear to have nothing to do with the actual ESPN contract. Based on what I have read, the ACC contract should distribute more money to their schools than the B12 as we approach 2036, and I guess there is some consolation for the security of some on the lower end not regulated to "G6" status. I honestly thought that ESPN, based on their SEC contract (and FOX's BIG contract), would take the opportunity to up the ACC payouts based on the length of the contract. Especially with the lawsuits, Mag 7, and the surrounding discussions of being able to compete with the P2 schools moving forward. The contract extension is a double edged sword, and I'm thinking that the mag 7+ should have scuttled the conference. It's the first time I have held that position, and is based on the disparity of the monies that now appear to be across the board from the P2, and the rest of college football.

in football, is a huge management challenge for the league. It's a basketball league that needs to make money in football. The B12, and I envy this, has a more level playing field in football than any other conference. I mean, really any school could win the conference in football (and most could in basketball). SEC, B1G, and ACC can't say that. Each has a small cluster of schools that almost certainly can't win a conference title The ACC will distribute more money than the B12 simply because of the geography and the fact that it has 3 or 4 more national names. And it will bring in less than the SEC and B1G because it doesn't have as many big names/big games. ACC TV contract $ won't catch up unless/until 5 or 6 more teams decide to try to compete for a natty. And I'd say the timeframe for getting that done is 2031. I'm not opposed to incentives in the ACC payout structure, we have some members who simply haven't been trying. Hopefully that will change. ** Edited by daveinop at 2/12/2025, 1:19:24 PM

and, if anything, might be overvalued or perhaps artificially inflated is a more apt description. ** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 2/11/2025, 7:59:56 PM

media contract, and couldn't possibly make a determination without proof. Do tell, where are you getting your information?

is, your lame attempt at a smart ass reply notwithstanding. The current Big 12 contract enjoys a premium derived from not blocking UT and OU to the SEC and for being a willing shill to facilitate the PAC 12 dissolution.

There is nothing out there that i have read to substantiate your assertion that the B12 was a willing shill, other than your opinion. Maybe there is another opinion out there similar to yours? A link to collaborate would certainly be appreciated, but we know what is going on here. Thing is, best case scenario, is that the ACC survives with their contract until 2036, and VT somehow gets some of that uneven distributions they are throwing around. Otherwise, by the time 2036 comes around, the B12 will have a different contract in 2031, and I have no doubt, at least from your perspective, it will be way over inflated, artificially of course. Not sure how that contributes to the thread of thinking outside the box, but hey, what do I know. ** Edited by Big12 guy at 2/11/2025, 9:06:17 PM

alternative for you might be. Just because you have not read and/or refuse to acknowledge that opinion is out there is on you. You have been told before that people at various media outlets including CBS Sports, USA Today, Sports Business Journal and others have floated similar ideas in reports and you choose to ignore. Neither ESPN, FOX or the Big 12 would admit such but, facts and a little common sense would leave reasonably logical and intelligent people to arrive at that conclusion. The outsize value of OU and UT to Big 12 contracts has been previously acknowledged in multiple reports by multiple outlets. To expect four G5 schools and and 4 PAC 12 schools to offset their departure so the new contract is greater strains reality and begs the question of what changed?. Couple that with the previous threat by the Big 12 to sue ESPN if OU and UT walked early to the actual outcome that they left early and paid less than the full exit fee certainly raises the question of what concession the Big 12 received for dropping their opposition? These questions along with others surrounding concessions by and to FOX and a bonus to Colorado as the dam breaker are some of the other occurrences that support the assertion that the current Big 12 contract is about more than just its value as a media property. Feel free to answer the questions raised and show everyone what you know.

of your question specifically. No one was more surprised with the B12 contract than I was. We added 3 P5 schools and BYU, lose Texas and Oklahoma, and we get a raise? It is what it is, and you can split hairs on why, but there is not consensuses out there that it was a conspiracy to bring the PAC down. ESPN, and oh, FOX conspired to elevate the B12 over the PAC when Oregon and Washington were still part of that conference? SMH, not only is that illegal, but talk about a strain of reality. A concession to the B12 for dropping their opposition? If I remember correctly, the GOR was still in place, and as you know in the ACC, those GOR's are worthy of lawsuits up and until one is ruled on. The lack of a media deal in the PAC was, is, on the former PAC schools. I will concede that the B12 and PAC were played against each other, but I also think that the b12 contract, based on viewership, and fan engagement top to bottom is undervalued. At least I thought that until it was apparent that the ACC contract would not get a bump. Today, based on the extension and the GOR of the ACC, it appears that it isn't the B12 that is overvalued, it is/was the ACC all along. BTW, the 4 corners and the other 4 schools all received more media money than they were receiving in their former conferences or independence. That is 8 Universities, plus the hateful 8 that ALL got more money than they were receiving in their previous situation. Are the three that were added to the ACC making more money than they were preciously? Will VT make more money, or less money when the uneven distribution model is released? EVERY single school in the new B12 is in a better position than they were before Texas and Oklahoma left. ALL of them. That should show you that the hateful 8 were VERY undervalued, as they literally are a collection of VT type schools with their fan bases, viewership numbers, athletic budgets, and even the privates compete with VT in all of those categories. If the ACC were all VT schools from top to bottom, the ACC would have received a raise as well, but they are not, and the current ACC contract reflects that.

what you think you know. It was 3 G5s not P5s. Nobody said it was a consensus but, your claim was you had not heard it which just proves either you ignored it or truly didn't know much at all, both skills you have clearly mastered. I do not believe you even understand most of what you say in your quest to defend the Big 12. Given the GOR is "worthy of lawsuits" why did the Big 12 cave? We both know why, they got a deal(a new contract) they could live with. Your contention that 8 universities all got more than they were receiving in their previous situations is misleading and missing context. The four PAC 12 schools had previously passed on an amount equal to or greater than that because there other conference members had better deals cooking. The G5s and BYU had no where to go but up. I think your defense of the Big 12 has some holes you may want to think further about.

perception of some on this board when comparing the ACC and B12, is erroneous, and based on an ingrained bubble mentality, and is ignoring the actual facts on why UCF for example, is making close what FSU and Clemson are making. Mind blowing if you saw the ACC as one of the premiere conferences, but it's true, good, bad, or ugly. Maybe, just maybe, some here underestimate the middle of the country when it comes to football.

how you can say you are not trying to defend the Big 12 with a straightface. I think people here see the middle of the country(Big 12) for exactly what it is when it comes to football and I do not see us ever agreeing on this. ** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 2/12/2025, 1:08:59 PM

what fun is that?

Only thing I would change is the idea of a P3 was pie in the sky B12 talk spurred on by a big wind (Yourmark) big dreamer of dreams that were never going to happen. I still think ESPN and Fox were together in the idea of the P2 and a minor league between P2 and G5. And because of the west coast available eyeballs, I think the PAC is destined to be there right with the ACC and B12. Don't like it, don't want it but---.

pay a little more attention to the NCAA re-org meetings. The reason I say that is because if the schools (and I am talking about all 3 division levels) are truly serious about completely overhauling the NCAA structure, then that is the most likely place the outside the box ideas will likely surface. Particularly when you consider all 3 division levels have a representative at these meetings to not give a division a louder voice at the discussion table.

time to force them to break away. I truly believe that this is the last thing the networks and blue bloods want.

and basically said to the P2 "Agree, sign on or no entry to "Our" March Madness and absolutely no playing any of out schools in anything. That would do it but it would be taking all power and revenue from the conferences and to the NCAA to redistribute as they saw fit. That is not a good outcome either.

present data that supports the idea there wouldn't be an uproar because the non-P2s would be repositioned to where they are relevant again in terms of competing for NCAA national championships. Plus, the ratings and gambling activity data may support that the P2s are now in a league of their own compared to the rest of the NCAA (DI, DII, and DIII). Plus, if the P2s end up entering into CBAs with the athletes and paying them a salary, then how many non-P2 programs could really afford to play that game for a long period of time? It wouldn't surprise me if CBAs for the athletes is the next domino to fall.

overhaul of the NCAA structure. Remember there are a lot more non-P2 schools than P2 schools, so everyone's interests have to be taken into consideration. Assuming the P2s figure out the solution to the Olympic sports, then the new NCAA could look like below. DI - P2 conferences DII - All/Most of the remaining non-P2 former DI conferences DIII - Maybe a few smaller former DI conferences (i.e. MAAC, NEC, etc.) & former DII conferences DIV - Maybe a few smaller former DII conferences & former DIII conferences I know the DII and DIII conferences get very little to no attention on here. It is possible one decision that is made is re-organizing all the division levels and even creating new division level(s). I just used 4 for the example, but it could be as many as 5 or 6. As a result, a division could include teams from multiple division levels (i.e. DI & DII, DII & DIII, DI & DIII, or even all 3 divisions). You could even see all 3 divisions break up into 2 or even 3 divisions to reduce the number of voices involved in making decisions for that division level. For example, DI and I think DIII have over 300 schools participating at those levels. The group could decide to split them into 2 divisions using whatever metrics in an effort to try to achieve the goal of having more likeminded schools together in a division level.

That dog don't hunt.

resources into the P2 conferences, then there isn't much the other schools can do about it. Even the DII and DIII are likely on borrowed time in terms of receiving a cut from the March Madness money. It is possible that if the schools agree to allow the P2s to be in their own division level, then a similar deal could be arranged like what exists now for the DII and DIII for the March Madness money. Remember the money isn't the only factor when it comes to making a decision. For example, if the P2s decide to pay all their NCAA athletes a salary, then how many DI schools do you think could afford to do it for 10+ years? What if it is all their NCAA AND club athletes? My point is that if the P2s ultimately want to do their own thing for whatever reason, then there isn't much the group can do to stop them especially if the Olympic sports is no longer an issue.

don't think the P2 wants that, and i don't think the media companies want that. So, instead of a surrender document, maybe we fight another day.

isn't the only factor that will influence the decisions made at the re-org meetings. The courts, federal government, and even state governments could get involved at some level and influence things. If the courts rule that all athletes (NCAA, club, and maybe even intramural) must be treated as employees and enter into a CBA with the school if they are going to represent the school in an intercollegiate event, then you can bet it will have a huge influence on what the re-org looks like because majority of the schools at all levels won't be able to afford the additional cost over the long-term. Like with NIL laws, individual states could pass laws forbidding public schools from treating their athletes as "employees." If the KS state government passes such a law and the Big XII decides to treat its athletes as employees, then both Kansas and K-State would be required to leave the conference or risk violating a state law. The same would apply to Wichita State if the AAC made the same decision. Right now there are still way too many moving parts to see clearly in the crystal ball. ** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 2/10/2025, 11:47:08 PM

would get paid out like the 🏈 playoffs school. Otherwise, I have a hard time seeing the financial benefit, unless Mag 7+1 leave.

We don't need to do this again.

F the Big East. They dropped the ball back in the day when they had multiple top tier football programs. If the ACC does anything, they pull UConn away. And if there is expansion/merging it will be either the B12 or PAC. The Big East is not an option. That’s just wishful thinking on their part.

Any of us who experienced what was the BE, with its numerous basketball-first schools and their churlishness, would think so too.

Football was tougher and basketball was insane. Only way this happens is if the Mag 7 break off and add the top Big East teams.

That's a sports bucket list item for me. Probably just the semis and championship game, though.

They didn't want to be in the same basketball conference with us back then, So I'm fine being in different conferences today.

I've been wanting them for a while now. Merging with the Big 12 gets that. Technically Rutgers and Temple too, but were they part of creating that then? Not so much.

a red-headed step child. It was bad enough bringing over Syracuse, BC and Pitt.

How about Olympic sports?

It would have to be segmented into smaller that shares TV deal. I like merging with Big12 better.

That would be a mess. It’s bad enough in some Olympic sports now.

moot point in terms of scheduling issues because it may foster an increase in divisional rivalries.

You would have to set up pods or the equivalent and potential pod/conference playoff scenarios in the non-football sports.

depend on how the merger goes down. If there are fewer ACC schools involved in the merger, then I would think they would have a hard time convincing the Big East schools to agree to use the ACC name. Regardless of which name is used, I doubt it would change people's view of the merger.