The question is timing. The smoke will continue for three or four years and I expect the actual departure will happen in 2030.

overlords, ESPN and Faux, decide they want to expand. Any other movement will come from any dabbling and screw-ups by Congress, State or Federal courts. ( Lord help us if they do)!!

a second thought if it was those B12 podcasters. That being said, there is a lot of reporting - things like a handshake deal and stuff, and it has nothing to do with the B12. Guess we will now when we know, but 2030 is pretty far off, and 2036 seems like forever.

the non-performers. MSU, Vanderbilt, maybe even Arkansas and maybe another. Then they may come after the bigger brands in the ACC - I don't think they can sustain themselves as a conference beyond 16 teams.

They can't rely on just their 4 OOC cupcakes to reach bowl eligibility.

ever considered, or a legal option within any conference, it would have been done 3-4 decades ago.

get rid of the lower producing schools is the PAC model. Texas didn't join the SEC so that they could play Mississippi State. There is a consolidation of the top football brands for television revenue. I don't think that is finished yet, at any level. The ACC has survived so far because of lawsuits and the question of who owns the media rights. The settlement seemed to have quieted things down, and the football brands appeared to be satisfied with the uneven distribution system that was drawn up. I think kicking schools out of a conference may be more difficult than starting a new conference as has been discussed with the mag 7. There is a $165M exit fee for the ACC currently. I don't believe there is an exit fee for the SEC, but I really haven't looked it up. How much would the SEC pay to get rid of the lower (few) schools? How much would the ACC pay? That can go for any conference. The B12 was in the right place at the right time to pick up the 4 corners. They were there because neither the ACC or PAC finished off the B12 when they had the opportunity. Who would they kick out, or buy out? The top brands not in the P2 will go if there is an offer. Currently, the top brands reside in the ACC, as every school in the current B12 has been vetted, and rejected by the P2. You might be right that the SEC is satisfied, as there just aren't many that rise up to the Texas level - but that is just my opinion. Those writing the checks may see things differently.

That is, confs could divide into two or more scheduling groups, reranked by performance (either by record or by some sort of power ranking) after each year. Teams get significantly less money as they go down into the lesser groups. You don't need to kick anyone out. Just let them settle into the bottom group. For the ACC, how about this? Three groups; six, six, and five teams. Each group has to play four others in it's group, and draw as evenly as possible from the other two. Bottom group does not play Notre Dame. ** Edited by Truthahn at 7/28/2025, 8:41:38 AM

to "digest" their new members, so things are going to be stable till the end of the decade, just when the ACC exit fee really drops.

With multiple members going to the SEC and Big Ten the future of the ACC will depend on Notre Dame. If the Irish go to the Big Ten then the ACC is toast. If they stay the ACC will add new members that ND approves of and move forward. ** Edited by Millpoint at 7/26/2025, 9:28:49 PM

teams? I don't think so. In fact being in the little p 2 may cause the better scenerio to be to drop back to 12 teams or so. It will be a smaller pie so fewer pieces may be just the thing. The real thing holding the ACC in limbo is knowing exactly who the P2 want or will take. If the P2 is not going to take but 3 of FSU, Clemson, UNC and Miami, then an ACC at about 14 teams would be fine. If something like 6 teams leave for the P2 then the ACC is in trouble as being able to put out something somewhat equal to the B12. I also still believe that Calford and the 4 of Col., Utah, AZ and AZ ST will be back in the PAC and the PAC as the western little p conference with the ACC being the eastern and the Big 12 being the central little p conferences. I don't think any of them would need to add but maybe a couple more (USF, Memphis etc) from the former G5 and most likely will be adding teams like NW, Vandy and Miss St.

** Edited by Millpoint at 7/27/2025, 6:49:56 PM ** Edited by Millpoint at 7/27/2025, 6:50:49 PM

and most of even the ACC settlement was directed by ESPN. But why would ESPN not agree or propose 12 rather than having to share the below P2 crumbs with teams below the current little p 2? I think big media would propose it.

meltdown. It's been going on for the last 7-8 years and NOTHING has changed, except the rich teams in the ACC will get richer ( I'd say deservedly so), and the P2 has absolutely no reason to expand.

So now we have a bunch of "SHOCKING NEWS: UNC is leaving the ACC NOW!" content, because it sounds plausible and people are clicking again.

be a third "P" conference, call it the ACC or the B12, I don't think it really matters at that point. Here are a few reasons I think it will be the B12: When you add up Cuse, Wake, and BC - then add up Houston, Cincy, and UCF - the difference isn't so much their athletic past, but their potential. Cincy, UCF, and Houston are public Universities, and have a larger alumni base to draw on for attendance and ratings. The rest of the ACC after the top universities go, are just as strong, give or take a bit, as the rest of the B12. Last year, the total B12 viewership ratings were better than the ACC, with the ACC having more teams, and their top brands, including ND. Granted, the ACCN numbers are no where to be found, but it is what it is. If and when (it's still an if) the ACC loses their top brands, the 2036 media contract will be a tough row to hoe. Meanwhile, back at the flyover ranch, the B12 will have a new contract around 2030, and it should reflect the addition of the 4 corners which were not included in the last negotiation. Then, in all likelihood, they will get yet another contract around 2036. I'm making the assumption that both of those contracts will be more than the current one, and 2036 is a LONG time for the ACC to wait for a new contract in this environment of change. While there are no guarantees that the B12 will eclipse the ACC in distributions, the future for the B12 looks better than the ACC, even though the ACC has a better media deal today because of the ACCN. Not a dig, just my humble opinion. I think the ACC would be much better off not backfilling with G5 schools, except maybe UCONN, but if I remember correctly, you need 15 to satisfy the contract. Maybe the ACC can entice some B12 schools, but ND would probably have to be a big part of that. The uneven distribution system is another problem for the top B12 schools. Would they come into the ACC at the top of the distribution system, and start off making more money than those at the bottom? Or at the bottom? Frankly, I'm not sure how you sell that to a Utah, the Arizona schools, or any other University that you think could be a fit. No one at the top of the ACC food chain will take a financial hit to add any school, except maybe ND as a full time football member. The uneven distribution thing may actually have a Louisville or GT looking to the B12 in 2030 if they are making less than they are today. We just don't know how that plays out. I think you are dead wrong about the PAC. I also do not think the P2 has the appetite or the money to add 6-8 universities. The football brands are FSU, Clemson, and Miami. UNC is a brand in a category by itself, not just a basketball blue blood like Duke. The top of the ACC will find a home. The middle of the ACC will find a home. The bottom 4-6 are in serious trouble, and could find themselves in a PAC for football, and the Big east for basketball - which isn't all bad. CalFord and SMU will have to find a landing spot, and your guess is as good as mine where they land. Anywhere from the BIG to the AAC. An ACC with the privates and academics adding some more academics is probably my best guess, and the ACC will survive until 2036. At that point, a lot more unknowns will be known, and all of our predictions could be all for nothing.

the B12 including the ACCN.

2030 at the earliest. Please explain why the two P2 conferences would want to add joke football schools who. would take another $100 million combined from the two conference pots? If I'm a current SEC or BIG member, would I want $10-15 million per year taken from my share of the conference pie? Obviously, 2030 could see some movement but that's another situation that may involve all college football teams and conferences with a seismic change in the college football world. ** Edited by ancient alien 2018 at 7/26/2025, 10:01:39 PM

$165M if they want to play in the SEC in '26. Spread out over 8 years, it's $20,625,000 a year. Ya, I think that VT would pay that if they got a pro rata invite to the SEC, don't you? UNC can most certainly come up with that kind of money, and remain competitive. Hell, Memphis just offered the B12 a deal worth $200M ** Edited by Big12 guy at 7/27/2025, 7:46:09 AM

....why aren't any Big 12 schools being floated for SEC expansion?

they just announced sell out of all home games. when was the last time that happened? ESPN got Bellicheck to UNC so the ACC n had some legs again.

A few years ago, They reduced Keenan capacity from 63,000 to 50,000. When they join SEC/B1G, they will have to expand again.

good recruiting classes, but of course it went nowhere - just another 7 years lost for UNC football.

schools were never known for their football. Florida is the only exception that comes to mind, where a football school also has a very good basketball program. Every once in a blue moon you have a Michigan, but it's not often that a football centric school wins the National Championship in basketball. When was the last time a basketball school won a football National Championship? 1959 with Cuse? Obviously, the basketball schools are stepping up their game in football, but it could be argued that the football schools are making waves in basketball as well. UNC may have a run in football like an Indiana, but they will never be a football blue blood IMHO. Same goes for Kansas, Kentucky, and many others.

Financial competitiveness is easier to attain in basketball. Duke can afford a basketball 4.5M NIL deal, not a full football program of expensive NIL contracts.

Pretty solid basketball programs for those 3 football schools.

by any stretch, make them basketball schools. You have to go back to the SWC for Texas - and they were not a basketball conference. Since the SWC, there are two final 4 appearances, one each for Alabama and Texas. Tennessee has yet to make an appearance, but the SEC sure gets the rankings these days, don't they? ** Edited by Big12 guy at 7/26/2025, 10:29:23 PM

way from being a top tier program. They have been EXTREMELY overrated for about 6 years now and when it comes down to it they don't get anywhere. Maybe that will change but I don't see it. And - all those SEC teams being highly ranked - all part of the self-promotion by the SEC - they are better at it than ANYONE with basketball. Yes - they did win the men's BBall championship this year, but holy cow - with so many teams in the tourney the "law of averages" finally worked. ** Edited by VPI_1998 at 7/27/2025, 11:11:13 AM

had in the last 30 years.

...a bikini top and have her walk back and forth on the sidelines.

school in the ACC. A sustained run is different, as if I remember correctly, the uneven distributions are based on more than success on the field for any given year. While i don't know what the actual payments will be moving forward, I get the sense that the basketball brands won't be at the top of the distributions.