I’m assuming the bill in Congress doesn’t pass in the current form and that conferences will be allowed to expand if they want. In that environment, I think the ACC will add more teams and poach from the B12 and/or PAC or American in order to boost the football brand and revenue. Performance over the next 3 years will determine who they target. Again, all assuming that conferences are not blocked by Congress.

1. The conditions (exit fees) have been set by the recent settlement. So if the current price isn't right, no one is leaving. 2. Leaving is conditional on having an invite from another (P2) conference. 3. There is in-state pressure (particularly in North Carolina) that will hold things up as well. Everyone will be wanting to leave given the opportunity. It's all just going to require more time. So to me, the comment is neither here nor there. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 7/17/2026, 2:48:44 AM

It is already pre-filled with Stanford, Cal, and SMU. More importantly, the ESPN contract has been renewed through 2036, securing "financial" stability even if members change.

Clemson and others are happy with the distributions, then maybe they realize they are better off staying. The tell tale sign will be if Memphis ups it's $200M offer, and offers it to the ACC instead of the B12. That shows me that schools want in, and not wanting out.

Even if Florida State and Clemson left tomorrow, Memphis would still give up their right arm to ensure an invitation. If you want a signal of strength, you should look for Big 12 brands leaving to join the ACC. Who knows what will happen in 3-4 years, but you're certainly not going to find that right now, Texas Tech's crybaby BS notwithstanding.

to join the ACC, even if they have not publicly done so on the record. I do find it interesting that some folks on here think it's the apogee of insanity and derangement to hold the opinion that the ACC shouldn't have added SMU to the conference and leave all that "free money" on the table - the Big 12 obviously didn't think it was a great deal to make when offered a very similar deal, and had no problem telling Memphis to pound sand. It's almost as if the Big 12 wasn't in an unnecessary flop sweat panic and could see past the end of their collective nose. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 7/16/2026, 4:21:45 PM

your fence post of insanity. The Big 12 was not offered the same deal by SMU. It was physically impossible as the Big 12 does not have a network AND they already had Texas. It appears everybody has told Memphis to pound sand so far. Your flop sweat panic and not being able to see past the end of their nose gets more lame each time you trot it out and every time more actual numbers get reported.

You sure about that? You SURE about that? They were begging everyone for a life raft, for years, right up until the ACC decided to give them one. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to assume they would have done the exact same thing they did to get into the ACC if they could have gotten into the PAC or the Big 12. Stop acting like everything I say is outlandish; it's played out, man. And, just for the record, I never said SMU offered the exact same deal to the Big 12 that they offered to the ACC. I said MEMPHIS did, and the Big 12 told them to pound sand. So, when you try to act like my positions are way out on planet Mars, it's a reasonable response to say, "well, the Big 12 didn't seem to think so." Frankly, it's exhausting going back and forth with you on here if you're going to misrepresent or outright misquote everything I say. Going forward, unless you have something to add to the conversation, before you post, let's just assume you think I'm the world's biggest idiot and that you hate me, and that you were going to post some super clever zinger that made me realize I'm completely wrong, cause me to cry myself to sleep, and then you can just not post. Does that sound like a reasonable compromise?

exhausting being always shown how extremely mistaken you are and letting your derangement with respect to SMU lead you to make frequent statements you cannot support. A reasonable compromise would be for you to be smarter and do better.

Maybe have a protein shake when you wake up. You're running out of interesting content, and I assume it's because you're tired and/or hungry. Later we can get you an afghan blanket for the couch and turn on Hee Haw.

which is to say not much if anything at all.

Great late night viewing fare. The huge popularity and ubiquity of Hee Haw and how long it lasted is a great example of how different the times were 50 years ago. There was basically a monoculture when it came to entertainment.

Just ask Roy.

as I do not consider it a fight at all and everybody can see in a battle of wits you are unarmed.

to not add Memphis and SMU. The factors may not even be related to athletics or even the free money left on the table (think the ACC's position on WVU). It could be simple old fashion office politics or someone rub someone the wrong way and they (aka leadership position) never forgot it. I would have only added SMU if the ACC could have added TCU too. The ACC needs more passionate rivalries in football, so any new member added will need to also include membership to their most important rival. First focus on restarting the ACC's heart for football and getting the fans passionate about the sport. Then worry about the national audience carrying about these rivalries and even ACC football.

But I still disagree with you re: SMU and TCU. I think a better way to apply your concept would have been for the ACC to go hard after WVU the second Clemson and FSU started saber rattling. Adding WVU to the ACC would have made a lot of sense, even if there had to be a lot of awkward press coverage and litigation to do it. I think the successful lobbying and addition of WVU would have shut a lot of that down. WVU has established football rivalries with several ACC programs, has a certain level of basketball pedigree, and would have been a name opponent, even in their current diminished state. If programs HAD to be added, WVU was the move. Lest everyone think I only think SMU was a bad idea - I want to be clear that adding Cal and Stanford was a terrible bone head idea that made no sense as well. In typical ACC fashion, adding SMU and CalFord did the opposite of what the ACC actually needed to do under the circumstances (add football brands and create compelling content that people want to watch). The reason I keep using the term "panic" is because that's what it was - it was done in a giant panic. Wake Forest was panicking. Boston College was panicking. Syracuse was panicking. Stupid decisions get made in a panic, and it was a stupid decision. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 7/17/2026, 10:20:52 AM

However, I think WVU was off the table because of how the ACC burned that bridge with its position on academics. Plus, I am not sure a Big XII school could leave the conference in the middle of the contract. Also, for the record I have always believed that if the ACC wanted to have a member in Texas and SMU was at the top of the list of available, then it should have held off on adding them until TCU became available. In terms of potential available rivalries, SMU-TCU probably has a higher ceiling than Houston-Rice or Texas State-UT-San Antonio. You probably could say that Houston-Rice is another version of the UNC-Duke rivalry which the ACC really doesn't help improve the football brand. While Baylor and Texas Tech don't really have a clear #1 rivalry to give the ACC a foundation for marketing purposes. At this point, I am not as concern about ratings because the ACC's top priority should be figuring out a plan to get its fans more passionate about football. Hence why I am looking at the G6 schools out there who are passionate about football and identifying their "big rival" who may also be passionate about football too. If the ACC gets more of those schools, then eventually it should help offset the BC, Syracuse, or Wake-like schools who still put basketball first even though football is driving the bus. Unfortunately, the ACC needs to learn how to walk (aka be passionate about football) before it can run (aka chase have a bigger pay day).

because they already have such a strong Texas presence. They chose Houston over SMU because of their basketball, and potential market. The B12 had Dallas already, and SMU got the short end of the stick. SMU has always gotten the short end of the stick starting with the death penalty. As stated in another post, SMU has a long and strong history in football, so large market or not, now that they are in a power conference, they will be extremely competitive.

given the Big XII a "new market." I mean the Big XII's media contract didn't exclude the Houston metro area from the Texas broadcasting map.

at the time, the B12 was hanging on by a thread. The Cincy add was suspect as well, but both Houston and Cincy have a decent basketball history. I did like the UCF add, they have potential to be a force if they can find the money. BYU was a no brainer, and should have been in a power conference decades ago.

as solid as Cincy's or even Memphis. The Big XII probably should have added Memphis over Houston because Memphis' history is more solid and closer to Cincy's than Houston's history. I like the UCF add, but I do think it was a mistake not adding USF too. I get why the conference didn't add USF. However, I like the UCF-USF rivalry and I think the Big XII football brand could have used it to its advantage. Plus, it would give the conference 2 schools in FL which could be huge for recruiting given how valuable the state is in football. Think scheduling and non-FL schools being able to make 2 trips to FL during the conference schedule cycle instead of only 1 trip. Plus, having a stronger presence in the state could lead to increasing in the number of bowl tie-ins the Big XII has with bowl games in FL. If I was a commissioner of a conference, then my "ideal conference" would have 2 or (preferably) 4 members in the "Big Three" (CA, FL, and TX).

have made the investment for a campus football stadium. For whatever reason, a campus football stadium is very important to the B12, and is often cited as one of the reasons Memphis and UConn are not part of the B12. The calculus of all of that changed when the PAC imploded, and the 4 corners came to the B12. All of a sudden, the B12 is a legit power conference, and should be in a position after the next round of contract negotiations to solidify it's presence of a legit and powerful football power conference. It will be up to the networks on whether or not the B12 can add ACC schools, or vice versa.

XII. I say that because if the Big XII had the opportunity to add UCLA and/or Miami, then I don't see the conference passing on the opportunity to add them simply because they currently don't have an on campus stadium. I guess you could add USC to that list too since technically the LA Memorial Coliseum is technically not on USC's campus. I guess like a lot of things, it matters until it doesn't matter.