sooner to help recruiting.

I’d guess you could all but mark down FSU and UNC for leaving the ACC once the newly negotiated exit penalties reduce enough to a palatable value. Those two going to the B1G to get it to 20 makes some sense. Those two going to the SEC to get it to 18 and match the B1G’s 18 makes even more sense. But it will be ESPN and Fox that drive that bus. Clemson and Dabo will be swimming in ACC Football Championship and ND TV ratings money by that point and if Dabo/Clemson don’t want to dabble in the portal, I could easily see them also not wanting to join the SEC slaughterhouse. (I could also see the SEC not wanting to add Clemson) I’d also guess at that time the remaining ACC schools get a Big 12 type of renegotiated contract to let FSU and UNC leave. You know, how the Big 12 lost its best two brands (way bigger than FSU and UNC) but still somehow got a nice media contract for losing them. I don’t really see the ACC or Big 12 stealing from each other, IF just those two ACC schools leave. The ACC losing FSU and UNC wouldn’t even matter from a revenue standpoint, given it still had Miami and Duke/NCST. (No, Wake doesn’t matter at all in the NC market). To be honest, the ACC could switch revenue shares from FSU/UNC to SMU/Stanford/Cal pretty seamlessly, given that FSU/UNC would be getting massive payouts under the new model and SMU/Stanford/Cal wouldn’t get nearly as much in the same rev sharing model. So, yeah, I could easily see the ACC get a new media deal in 2031. And with the ACC Network still being a viable entity then, the ACC money would be juuust a bit better than the Big 12. ** Edited by hokieZ71 at 5/17/2025, 6:04:28 PM

to see a renegotiated ACC agreement with ESPN.

a bump in the recent look in, you guys could be on the rocks in 2031, but if ESPN decides they want to keep the ACC together, and gives more money? It's possible that FSU, Clemson, and UNC stick around, but we will have to see how this uneven revenue thing shakes out. It would take a significant bump in money for any B12 school to bolt, no differently than for any ACC school to leave. If a Louisville gets the shaft with this uneven revenue, The ACC could be in trouble.

for 2 or 3 programs, the stadiums are sold out, and the media numbers are there. Someone will pay for that content. There is nothing out there in the world that would suggest that the B12 will not be competitive as a power conference. I think some read into things too much when comparing the B12 to the ACC. As long as the ACC has their top brands, they will not falter. Maybe the uneven distributions will keep them there, I don't think any of us knows how that works out. If the top teams in the conference end up making P2 type money, it will be at the expense of the rest of the conference. The top brans are OK for now. It's the rest of the schools that may have a problem moving forward, especially if they start getting less money than the B12. ** Edited by Big12 guy at 5/16/2025, 9:17:25 PM

"There is nothing out there in the world that would suggest that the B12 will not be competitive as a power conference." The ISU AD went on a podcast a few weeks ago and flat out said they would not be able to afford the new House settlement proposed revenue distribution model in two years without help from the state or some other significant influx of revenue. He also mentioned several other Big 12 schools are in the same boat. I have to think that (at a minimum) WVU, Cincinnati, UCF and Houston would get sticker shock at a new $20 million expense on their balance sheets. Perhaps Arizona, K-State and OSU as well. That's half the conference. "It's the rest of the schools that may have a problem moving forward, especially if they start getting less money than the B12." Given the revenue numbers that came out today, that's not happening any time soon.

difficulties negotiating the "settlement". Athletes being paid, runaway NIL, and the uneven media contracts will pose challenges to any program, including to those on the lower end in the P2. Expecting media money to solve those issues is nuts. Look at what the ACC, and even the B12 schools revenue. They ae bringing in up too $40M+ per year in conference distributions, yet they are struggling financially? If you look at the athletic budgets, not the media money, you will find your answers. OSU, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, and many other "blue bloods" had budgets of around $200M+++ BEFORE the recent round of realignment. Texas, Oklahoma, and USC were the big boys that left their conferences for greener money pastures. The rest that fell in line were either in the right place at the right time, or took decreased amounts to be included in the "club". I'm not sure the media amounts will continue to rise, but live content is at a premium. Presently, those that are not getting the huge NIL money, will not be able to compete for a NC in the short run, but I think this development is fleeting. It's not the payment of players that will kill college athletics, as there is no doubt there will be caps instituted, and educational requirements will be brought back into line. (Congress will get involved) it is the "free market" NIL deals that will have to be brought under control, or eliminated altogether. We know where the courts come down on this, but they can be trumped by legislation. If pay for play goes to the highest bidder, which is what is playing out, it won't even matter, as a workable collegiate business model will be gone, and we will have a pro league. If that is the case, it is my hope that my school, and those others in the B12 will not participate, and get back to the job of educating our kids, and using athletics to prepare them for a better, more rounded future. It is my contention that what we have now will not be what we have in 2030 when the next round of negotiations happen. I have no issue with Texas and any other school making more money than my school. I do however, have a problem with that money giving such an acute unfair competitive advantage. Everyone, including FSU and Clemson, need to take a deep breath, and let this play out.

will have on DI-FCS, DII, DIII, NAIA DI, and NAIA DII. The reason is because the ESPN Family of Networks (including WatchESPN) broadcasts regular season games for those levels. If they are immune to the settlement, then will we see DI-FBS schools opt to move to those levels to avoid how much they have to pay their athletics? If so, then what could that mean for future broadcasting contracts? Schools may have to be forced to give up the amount of exposure they get now in order to avoid paying the athletes. Likewise, Congress could opt to expand the enforcement of the settlement to all levels to eliminate that potential loophole for the schools.

in the exit fees happened. Nothing else makes sense to me. I would not be surprised to see a consolidation of the ACC and B12 top rated schools. I would think under the ACC banner because they have a Conference Channel they make money off of. I could even see some SEC and B1G schools be forced to join it, since they make so little money/viewers, they are dropped from the P2.

because carriage fees go up, so a school from a state with the largest populations (Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Tennessee, or Washington) without an ACC school in them would be my ideal addition. There ain't much out there though. Within that criteria, Memphis is by far the best option, then maybe Toledo or Washington State. Anybody else from a state with an ACC school would just be more mouths to feed. ** Edited by BROman Hokie at 5/16/2025, 11:54:55 AM

I’m just trying to figure out if new states mean that much anymore, with the SEC/ESPN taking Texas, which they already had, or why B1G/Fox took USCw and UCLA in the same city. Why would they do that if the model is new states, like it used to be when Cable dominated?

with the new streaming platform they are rolling out. A lot of people have cable for live sports. It could be a bump in revenue for the ACCN, but I don't know how the contract for the media rights are written. If the SECN and ACCN do not get fees for that, it could spell trouble for all of the conference networks.

Content is content. There are no free rides. The main advantage of streaming is NOT paying the multitude of fees for equipment rentals.

to share that revenue with the conference networks is the question. ESPN owns the ACC and SEC media rights until the end of their respective contracts. The conference networks revenue is based on cable carriage fees, and the new ESPN streaming service did not exist when they inked those contracts. I'm not at all convinced that ESPN will share this new revenue stream with the SECN or the ACCN. In addition, if there are a substantial amount of cord cutters, the Big 10 network will lose revenue as well. It's a question: Is this the beginning of the end of conference specific networks? If so, then steaming will not bring in the passive income of carriage fees from those that do not watch live sports.

them being considered for the ACC. WSU is a very difficult and expensive place to travel to. I know first hand because I will be there for the Toledo game in October. When conference USA first formed, they had a place with Marshall, but declined the invitation. The President at the time was not an "athletic department" kind of president. Who knows where they would be if they had accepted that decades ago, but I think the best Toledo can hope for is the AAC, or some version of the ACC/PAC. If the ACC has a domino cascade like some predict, who knows, but while Toledo has some of the best facilities in the MAC, and is currently planning to build an on campus baseball stadium, I'm just not sure they can come up with that kind of money. The ACC has proposed a $10M minimum for schools based on the impending settlement, and maybe, conferences need to look at having a minimum investment if they are to stay in a conference.

I don't know how the ACC thinks, but it seems that new states were a focus for their last three additions. However, there aren't a lot of great options left in G5: the only schools in Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio are MAC schools the can't afford the jump (like Toledo); Memphis doesn't come close to fitting the academic profile of the ACC; and yep, Pullman is not easy to get to (although big jets can land there, kind of like Roanoke). I have no clue about anything: I'm just spit-balling.

So I think the opportunity for Ohio has passed unless Cincinnati becomes available again. Miami (OH) is the best MAC option, but they are would be way too far behind IMO.

don't wait, do it now. PS I didn't want to go National with the Conference, but now that we are, be proactive. ** Edited by Stech at 5/16/2025, 1:48:03 PM

They could probably make it work with a half share for a decade. They are really big, and AAU. Tampa is a huge Florida market. They have a good rivalry with UCF to help with attendance. They are building a new stadium. It is pretty small, but expandable, which ACC membership would warrant almost immediately. ** Edited by Truthahn at 5/15/2025, 3:42:44 PM

They have broken ground on their new on campus stadium. I like that option. Academics work well too.

The ACC needs to stop trailing the show, and lead. If one or two Florida schools leave later, make it a yawn. The last expansion proved you don’t need unanimous anymore, and you have 3 new schools that could vote yes.

The ACC needs to be in Tampa. We tried to put the football championship game there. I think the Hokies played it. But Charlotte supports that game best. They would be a great addition.

If the ACC is going to add USF, then it might as well try to add UCF too because of the rivalry. Plus, the ACC probably needs at least 2 FL schools given the importance the state is for recruiting. Basically by having 2 FL schools, every ACC member should be able to play at least 1 FL every year. If the ACC member is lucky to play 2 FL schools, then the schedule could be structured so 1 game is at home and 1 game is away. The ACC probably should consider adding UCF, USF, FAU, and FIU to replace FSU and Miami.

I like all (3) schools. Good academics and good fits with VT.

major problem in this era of college athletics.

If the ACC did steal 3 Temple coaches when they did well perhaps they would sustain something. Miami, Boston College, and Temple all stole Temple coaches. And Baylor stole one. If Temple could compensate them better by being in the ACC it could make a difference. I'd like to see them build the on campus stadium they were trying to build and Philadelphia stopped them. But the Linc works too. They just can't fill it.

audience care? Historically people didn't care about Temple football when they were successful, so why should it suddenly change now?

I felt like the national audience watched the Eagles. They just won. They have to win coming out of pro sports town to get attention, but if someone like Clemson does it takes a lot more to get the national audience excited.

1. Clemson has multiple national championships in DI-FBS football. While Temple has not won any national championships in football. 2. Clemson's overall record is 804–473–44 (.625) vs. Temple's overall record is 488–623–52 (.442) 3. Clemson is located in the part of the country where college football is king. While Temple is located in the part of the country where the NFL is king. If the ACC's "answer" is to add Temple and UConn to the conference, then it might as well switch to the DI-FCS for football. Adding 2 "basketball schools" signifies to the rest of the country that the ACC prefers basketball to be king of the conference and that it isn't truly serious about playing "big time college football." Switching to DI-FCS for football may not be so bad for the ACC after all. ACC fans may finally get excited for college football because ACC schools are competing for a NCAA DI national championship in the sport.

G status. The conference only has itself to blame for not being more proactive when it had the opportunities because it wanted to place more emphasis on basketball.

instability within the ACC or even the final nail in the ACC.

B12, but 3 conferences just gives more power to the P2. I wish the PAC had stayed together, but here we are.

or not. At this point the ACC and Big XII are basically competing to see who ends up being the "King of the Everyone Else Pile" because they realize that they will never close the gap with the P2s.

one voting member (say a larger ACC or Big 12) to help blunt any further SEC/Big 10 power plays. With just a 3rd, I see the SEC/Big 10 eventually pushing this 3rd out. Not saying they won't do it anyways with two conferences, but seems it will be harder to do with more teams combined in these two conferences. Strength in numbers.

long the P2 and/or networks allow the non-P2 conferences to have a vote in the matter. Hence why I said the P2's strength will likely continue to grow going forward regardless whether the P2s continue to play in this sand box or take their toys and go play in their own sand box. As the gap between the P2s and the rest of DI continues to grow, it will only become more difficult for the non-P2s to have a loud enough voice in the matter. We already see it happening with FBS Playoffs and the P2's quest to slowly increase the number allotted slots for each conference.

stadium if they need it. Great potential to be another SMU joining the ACC or Virginia Tech joining the Big East. They just need a Power conference to help them get their name out there and get better coaches/recruits. ** Edited by Stech at 5/15/2025, 4:15:37 PM

add enough value for ESPN to support the decision. Besides, I expect some current members to leave the conference sometime between FY2030/FY2031 and when the current GOR expires on June 30, 2036.

I swear, some of you really cannot see the bigger picture here. Let's set aside the fact that nobody, ESPN nor anyone else, is paying the ACC an additional $170+ million more dollars to add a G5 school, so as to generate another $10m per year in media rights money. It's not happening. Let's also set aside the fact that not every G5 is SMU, where oil and drug money can fill in the gap and allow the school to forego 9 years of media rights payouts to bribe their way into a "power" conference. Another $10m a year means nothing if VT is playing football in a conference made up of all the worthless ACC tomato cans we have to deal with now, plus South Florida, Tulane, Memphis, and Rice. The ACC will NOT BE A "POWER." You think the ACC gets no respect now? Look at how people are talking about the new look PAC-12, and that will be the ACC.

will be getting full revenue.

The only scenario I can foresee where the ACC stays intact with anything resembling its current roster of schools would be a scenario where the worthless freeloader schools not only collectively give up the majority of their media rights payouts to the top ACC football brands, but also aren't perennially scheduled to play the top ACC football brands, so that the top brands are only playing each other and OOC games. And, if that's how things are going to go down, is it even a unitary "conference" at that point? It would be more like two different leagues. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 5/16/2025, 3:31:44 PM