Saw this an another board:
The Big 12 adds VT, Louisville, Miami, and maybe Cuse to WVU and Cincy.
Call it the Big 12 East, or Big East for short.
(ya, the desk is boring today)
53 Replies
1y
Who left would give that up to join the Big 12? Makes no sense.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
12mo
ACC conference.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
H
hokieZ71
1y
I made two assumptions:
1) ND gets a third of a share of exit fees
2) Exit penalties can be paid in annual installments through 2036, with interest. (I’d say 5% would be fair)
Given that, the remaining 13.33 ACC teams would receive a grand total of $4-$5M per year through 2036. That’s good money if ESPN keeps the ACC's media contract in place through 2036 after losing its three biggest football brands and 2nd best basketball brand.
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 8/1/2025, 6:52:08 AM
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
1y
assumption, then any idea what the payout could be for the remaining 13.33 schools if ESPN wanted to modify the contract for the remaining years? If $4-5M is potentially the ceiling, then I am curious to see what you think the potential floor might be for the remaining ACC schools. If the range is significant, then things could get interesting for the ACC because more schools may not want to stick around to see the current contract come to fruition.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
H
hokieZ71
1y
Agreed to honor the contract through 2036 (if no more than 4 schools left, or something of that nature.). Don’t forget, the ACC was party to lowering the exit fees annually to an extent where leaving in 2030 “only” cost $75M. But that was compared to something like $200-$300M for leaving 6 years early under the strict GOR. Why would the ACC (of which everybody other than Clemson and FSU was being sued by those two) agree to that when they really didn’t have to?
So yeah, I think the remaining ACC schools are going to receive full payouts through 2036. Who knows after that?
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 8/1/2025, 2:43:30 PM
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
12mo
expires in 2036?
A contract is a contract, and as long as the ACC has 15 schools (I think), the contract will be honored.
The settlement in my opinion was made because to date, we have not had a court rule on the grant of rights. I believe that issue was too risky for either party to go to the courts. I also think it's why ESPN stepped in, and paid Texas and Oklahoma exit fees, as that was going to court as well.
Also, the ACC currently has 18 members, and if 3 leave you have the exit fees, AND their conference distributions to divide amongst the remaining schools. So if 3 schools leave next year (not a prediction), that would be $147M per school exit fee, plus the $50M or so distributions they collected. That is $600M the first year, and a $150M a year for the remainder of the contract that could be divided amongst the remaining schools.
Umm, if you look at the numbers that way, the ACC may be better off for 3 schools to leave - maybe 4 as long as ND stays. The conference distributions would be upped significantly for the remaining schools, and add Memphis at $200M like they offered the B12, the ACC is set up to make significantly more money per school than the B12 - and have runway to build their programs to compete with the SEC, BIG, and eclipse the B12 (money wise).
** Edited by Big12 guy at 8/2/2025, 9:04:15 AM
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
1y
"right" schools (aka Clemson, FSU, UNC, etc.), then you don't think ESPN would try to lower its overall payment to the ACC? I get why you say the remaining schools would receive the full payout. I guess I don't trust ESPN enough to honor it to fruition. Particularly if ESPN saw it as an opportunity to re-allocate money, that currently would be going to the ACC until 2036, to either the FBS Playoffs and/or SEC.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
H
hokieZ71
1y
There is no way you can argue the Big XII (post-Texas/OU) is worth a contract extension with increased revenue for the league. But they got it.
This is worth well more than that.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
"forecast" of what may or may not happen. Getting the old Big East schools in the same conference just has a ring to it.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
1y
in the '80s.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
S
Stech
1y
of being raided. It could grab some schools like Kansas, UCONN and others , and build a basketball powerhouse. The money is coming to basketball IMHO once they expand the NCAA tournament, to keep money coming in for Olympic Sports.
** Edited by Stech at 7/31/2025, 4:50:13 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
and division winners to the championship for the league and consideration for playoffs
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
There seems to be a kick back on having everything being driven by the way it is for football. We need to compete in the Olympics, we need the leaders that have come out of the Olympic Sports. We need geographical divisions in these TV Alliance mega Conferences. I know that both Stanford and Cal athletes are not very happy with this unnecessary travel during the regular season. Their have been comments from athletes, and from coaches on how much harder it is to recruit athletes that handle the extra travel and the stringent academics.
(In response to this post by 3TechFanz)
S
Stech
1y
from multiple lawsuits. So much changes at the drop of a hat.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
proposed? If so, then who? I think it might be a little odd if the Big XII decided to add an odd group number at one time because that would bring the total to 7 (I think) in the group you mentioned. For scheduling purposes, I would think the Big XII would want an even number for each group. Otherwise, 1 school would be forced to play someone from another group which could be problematic if the Big XII adopts the NFL's scheduling formula of having teams play division games late in the season to generate interest in those games.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
Although if Arizona/ASU/Utah stick around for the long run and they really wanted Cal I think the BigXII would listen.
I would put NCSU above Pitt and Syracuse. I know the rivalries aren't as great with old BigEast ties but NCSU is a more resilient brand through their down-periods. When Pitt and Syracuse are down the stadiums are ghost towns.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
NC State (if available). The only issue with NC State is the current Big XII line-up wouldn't present a natural rival for them which could be important for scheduling purposes. Also, the Big XII may have a slightly different end goal than the P2s. While football would be important, the Big XII could want to make sure the rivalries continued/were sustainable for the other sports too. At least it is unclear to me the future of conference networks in this new world and whether conferences will need to ensure they have able content for the rest of the calendar year or not.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
1y
if there is another added, I would want NC State. As a fan, I'm not implying any of this would happen, but I would much rather move east than West. (Un)Realistically, I would want Miami to be shunned from the P2, add them, VT, NC State, Pitt and Louisville.
That is 21, and doesn't work, but if it were to happen, that is what I would like to see. If the B12 is the first to go to 24 teams, GT could be an option, as well as CalFord, SMU, Washington state, Oregon State, Cuse, and of course Duke. It would all depend on which schools the P2 decide to take, and who is left over.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
2030 or 2031. The move itself may not actually turn out to be the ACC's version of Yoko Ono and break the band up. However, it could get ESPN to reconsider if it wants to continue paying the going rate until 2036 even though the ACC may be minus some sort of combination of Clemson, FSU, UNC, maybe Miami, maybe Duke (for basketball), etc. for the remainder of the contract. If ESPN proposes to reduce the payout for the remainder of the contract, then does the remaining members accept it or decide maybe it is time for a change in scenery? Even if the ACC decides to poach the Big XII, I'm not sure there is any current Big XII member that has equal value to any of the potential schools the ACC could lose in the future.
Regardless of how that plays out, it would appear that the ACC (as we know it today) will likely not exist after June 30, 2036 when the current GOR expires. If it does exist, then it will likely either have a shorter GOR or a new dance partner based on the lessons the school are learning now being locked in a long-term GOR while the college athletic landscape around them is constantly changing.
** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 7/31/2025, 2:01:31 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
V
VTCALS72
1y
really want from the ACC post this next round of movement. They agreed to continue the contract knowing full well they were at the heart of moving pieces around. I think ESPN is just fine with the current contract, minus even say the 4 of UNC, Clemson, FSU and Miami though 2036
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
because circumstances have changed.
** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 7/31/2025, 3:37:56 PM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
The Big10 Media deal runs to 2030 so they'll want teams in the conference before negotiation the ext/new deal. The window for renegotiating is more than likely 18-24 mo's prior.
If an ACC team is trying to bounce, waiting out for an exit discount isn't significant enough to stick around. Especially for P2 bubble teams like VT or MIA. Consider waiting til' 2030 to bounce and then only getting a half share until 2041. Fiscally more savvy (in the long run) to leave now if the spot is available. Maryland is finally on the doorstep of receiving a full Big10 share after leaving the ACC over 10 years ago. Oregon has to wait until 2031. I would be surprised if all ACC teams are still in the conference at the start of the 2027 season.
Just my thoughts....I'm sure there is an oversight or two.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
picture that 2030/31 seemed to be earliest a well positioned member could leave early and still afford to buy back their rights from the ACC. Now that may not change the time frame on when an ACC school would start receiving a full share in its new home. However, would a P2 school want to add an ACC school in 2027 if said ACC school can't buy back its rights from the ACC?
If a P2 conference is willing to float the ACC school loan so it could buy back its rights, then how much additional time would it add onto when the ACC would start receiving a full share? I think the Big Ten floated UMD a loan to exit the ACC and that is part of the reason UMD waited so long before receiving a full share.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
1y
the schools will immediately receive their media rights with the exit fee. I could've misinterpreted something.
The SEC contract runs until 2034 so if the Big10 doesn't move, maybe your 2030-2031 prediction is more accurate?
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
the conference and how much it would cost to buy back your rights for the remainder of the GOR (i.e. 2 amounts). Now the total amount would be 1 figure after you add the 2 figures together. However, I may be misinterpreting something too.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
1y
done at some point to show how they arrived at that figure. Likewise, I assume that the discussions probably covered each of the parts (exit fee and GOR rights) at some point before finalizing the one number. At least I would be surprised if either party was willing to accept a proposed amount without wanting to know the breakdown of how the other party arrived at that figure.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
a better position football wise than the B12. If ESPN had raised the contract amount in the last lookin, I think it might have been likely that this conversation wouldn't even exist. that contract through 2036, when all the other conferences have a chance to up their payouts is a killer for the ACC IMO. The lower media value schools with stellar academics is holding you guys down IMO, including the 3 schools you recently added.
ESPN and FOX might pay for others in the BIG and SEC club, but looking at the big picture, there just isn't room for everyone.
I thought college football was better off with the PAC staying together. Losing another power conference just consolidates the P2's power even more. WVU should be in the same conference with the old Big East schools, but the cookie crumbles differently for different schools. I would like to see the gang get together again, as I remember really good matchups in the past.
However this all plays out, I would like to see 4 to 5 team pods based on regionality and history, coupled with stellar matchups of the top schools year to year.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
conference from potentially getting a higher payout. Then again, I thought it was a mistake when the ACC didn't add Miami, VT, and WVU in the early 2000s because it would have provided the ACC with a lot more compelling match-ups even if it didn't change when the ACCN was launched. The ACC could have still expanded to 14 members around the same time when Pitt and Syracuse were added to the conference. However, the ACC should have been in a little better position to be picky on which 2 candidates offer the ACC the most compelling match-ups in football. Instead, the ACC seemed to be content with allowing basketball to drive the bus and it appears the ACC will end up paying dearly for that blunder in more ways than one.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
not forget that the prestige of the ACC academically is right up there, and is/was/will be important to the presidents. It's why you guys don't have a collection of the hateful 8 in your conference today.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
the ACC agreed to add L'ville. A case could even be made that academics probably doesn't have a place in an athletic conference. Particularly if said conference is interested in participating in "big time athletics." If an athletic conference truly wants to place a high importance on academics, then participating in DI-FCS (for football), DII, or even DIII may be a better place for the conference. Now that isn't to say academics can't be important to a school or a group of schools. Schools probably should form academic conferences if they want to collaborate with specific schools instead of trying to comingle it with athletics.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
relative importance of academics. We're talking 2 pretty much entirely independent things.
"Academic conferences" would be useless. If there were any reason to form them, we'd have them already.
Academic collaboration doesn't have anything meaningful to do with athletics conferences...there's nothing be "comingled."
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
necessary in the form that people typically associate with athletic conferences.
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU)
American Council on Education (ACE)
American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU)
Association of American Universities (AAU)
Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU)
American Educational Research Association (AERA)
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U)
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB)
(In response to this post by Pylons)
1y
And if they were, you wouldn't have proposed formation of new academic conferences in the first place. You brought it up in the context of athletic conferences.
Hell, ACE has *1600* members...you're going to call that an "academic conference"?
They all seem to be fairly focused on advocacy and influencing policy. They're not really about academic collaboration. That takes place just fine on an ad hoc basis (and "schools" don't collaborate really...that mostly happens at lower levels). There's no need to form conferences to collaborate.
** Edited by Pylons at 7/31/2025, 6:26:04 PM
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
then you should know that that athletic conference (as of Fall 2023) 78 Division I members, 7 Division II members, and 79 Division III members. JMU was a member of the ECAC for at least basketball in the late 70s to early 80s. The ECAC isn't much different than the academic associations or consortiums that currently exist.
Link:
ECAC
(In response to this post by Pylons)
1y
adding schools when the B12 was on life support? Do you think it was UNC FSU and few others that blocked adding those schools?
It just doesn't make sense to me that the B12 even exists today. The PAC and ACC could have had their pick, and ironically, living through it, neither conference wanted the travel or politics (especially Cal).
Sitting without a home is miserable. I know KU would find a landing spot, but K-State was looking to the Mountain West. No one wanted us.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
V
VTCALS72
1y
Big media has a place for them. That is why they survived and were there to provide a soft landing place for several teams big media is not through with yet. That is also why the ACC will get through the uncertainty they are now facing. Big media has a place for something a notch below the P2. They are blueprinting that out right now if they have not already finished.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
strings. The conferences are all trying to add value to get better media deals, and the schools are all trying to get into a conference with better media deals.
I don't think there is a grand conspiracy like you do, I just do not see it. I don't think anyone wanted the PAC to implode, it's just no one wanted to pat them more than they were worth, and the dominos fell. I don't think there was a grand conspiracy the lure Cal and Stanford into the ACC at a partial share of the distributions. Oregon and Washington as well.
if there was, ESPN would not have exercised their option for the ACC contract - they would have just directed which schools go where. They didn't, because it's the presidents that vote on whether or not to add a school into a conference - as they are the ones with the power, not the media companies.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
1y
college sports are already owned by big media and conferences are more hollow shells. IMHO it applies to the P2 as well but big media only partially owns them while the fully own the playing field for everybody else.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
own individual media contracts is what sunk the conferences. Add in NIL and paying players, the patchwork of different media deal may kill college athletics as we have known them.
Imagine getting about $50M per year in conference distributions, and being unhappy about it. It's mind boggling. The schools have set the example for the kids - go with the highest bidder, and to hell with tradition, rivalries, education, ... etc.
I'm afraid the schools have done it to themselves, and blaming the networks just seems convenient.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
It definitely existed in the early 2000s when the ACC decided to add BC instead of WVU. It doesn't mean it was the "right" way to do business back then and it makes even make sense in today's environment. I said that because the highly valued academic schools may not generate the level of interest/ratings to justify the larger payouts. Particularly if the school is a small private school. Hence why I said it is probably time for schools to consider separating the academics from athletics and form academic conferences. I know it probably won't happen because history and pride will probably get in their way. It doesn't mean that isn't what should happen though.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
And spare me the academic alliances that have athletics conference names...those things are mole hills academically.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
V
VTCALS72
1y
high density markets to UNC and duke Bball. it was not so Cuse and BC could have help growing their fan base, it was to grow UNC and Duke bball fans in those areas.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
allowing basketball to drive the bus and potentially lower ACC's value when it was more than obvious football was the much bigger factor.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
1y
Fortunately for us, when they couldn't make exactly what they wanted to happen happen, they took their cookies and went home. Had they voted against us, we would not have gotten in.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
would have necessarily been a bad thing for the program. Even though the VT leadership had goo goo eyes for the ACC for the longest time, the program was still relevant at the time that it would have eventually found a home somewhere. It may have still been the ACC at a later date or the Big XII when WVU joined or even the SEC.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)