The ACC revenue will exceed $900 million for the 2025-2026 season.
Phillips said Wednesday during his annual forum that the league would crack $900 million in total revenue for the just-completed 2025-26 season.
By comparison, the Big Ten and SEC both crossed the $1 billion mark in total revenue in their 2024-25 filings, with the Big Ten paying an average of nearly $79.9 million to full-share members while the SEC came in at nearly $72.4 million.
--------
That equates to approximately $51.4 million per school for its 17.5 members. Whenever the ACC hits a revenue milestone, the media typically contrasts its revenue with that of the SEC and Big Ten. They almost always do.
But look at the Big 12. Their projected revenue for 2025-2026 is $710 million, which translates to roughly $44.4 million per school. (the media coverage of the Big 12’s revenue typically focuses on its growth and resilience.)
These figures represent total revenue, not distributions. Still, it is very likely that the ACC will maintain roughly a $7 million per-school advantage over the Big 12 in the first year of the B12’s new media deal.
I’ve said it many times, but it’s comical how many realignment “experts” predict that several ACC schools will jump to the B12 around 2030.
Why would any ACC school pay a $75 million exit fee just to join the Big 12 and get paid “less”? That’s just an asinine take.
Their reasoning is always the same: when the ACC loses some schools to the P2 around 2030, its value will plummet and the remaining schools will need a lifeboat.
But come on, the ACC’s media deal does not expire in 2030. The ESPN contract runs through 2036.
The ACC will still get paid more than the Big 12 through 2036 unless the Big 12 strikes a miraculous mega deal in 2031.
I don’t see that happening in this tough media market. It’s likely the ACC will maintain its lead.
Not only that, but unless the Big 12 adopts unequal revenue distribution, its top programs will trail the ACC’s top programs by $20 million+. (In other words, the Big 12’s top tier schools will have a financial incentive to move to the ACC)
Link:
article
74 Replies
2w
media contracts have a look-in clause built into it. Is that correct? If that is correct, then why do you believe that is the case since the ACC's contract has one to give the conference the option to renegotiate if membership changed in the future?
I think it is a question worth asking because if any ACC school did leave the conference for the Big XII, then it is very likely there have been discussions going on behind the scene. I would think one of the topics for those discussions is whether the Big XII could renegotiate its current media contracts if its membership changes and the potential new value after negotiations.
If Clemson, FSU, L'ville, Miami, NC State, and VT announced they were leaving the ACC to join the Big XII, then you can bet once the dust settles their take home pay from the Big XII contract will be more than they are currently making in the ACC now. The only way that could happen is for the Big XII to renegotiate its media contracts with ESPN and Fox.
** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 7/16/2026, 12:51:44 PM
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
2w
Honestly it doesn't matter in my opinion.
They will have a new media contract in 2031. Seems like that's their focus.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2w
your logic that no ACC school would leave the ACC for the Big XII because it would mean less money. A new contract in 2031 could mean the Big XII is making more money than the ACC's current deal depending on which ACC schools decided to make the switch.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
2w
Read the OP.
I clearly said "unless the Big 12 strikes a miraculous mega deal in 2031."
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1w
assumed the deal is a longshot at best. It probably is a longshot with the current membership. However, is the deal a longshot if any of the football schools decide to leave the ACC for the Big XII? Particularly since we have already discussed you don't believe any ACC schools would leave the ACC for "less money" and whether that is an accurate assumption to make given that the Big XII will have a new TV deal before the ACC does.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1w
Nobody in the ACC would pay $75 million exit fee to join the B12 around 2030 for their uncertain media deal.
That's my view but you are of course entitled to your opinon.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1w
topic of conversations between the Big XII and the ACC schools AND the Big XII and the networks. If any schools decide to leave the ACC to join the Big XII, then they will know exactly what they are walking into before all is revealed to the public.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1w
parts.
Old Big East and Pac 12 negotiation with ESPN were examples of uncertain deals. Some of the B12 schools may not want to sign the deal until very last minutes. That would add uncertainty.
But whether it's certain or uncertain, I don't see any ACC schools would pay $75
million to join the B12 around 2030/31.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1w
Big XII will have a proposed amount assuming the conference is able to satisfy the requirements. For example, if the Big XII gets an estimate that each school would receive $75M on the condition that Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, and L'ville joins the conference, then it is very unlikely the the finalized contract will be reduced to $65M or $60M if those 4 schools do end up joining the conference. Now if only 2 or 3 schools (with NC State as a replacement) end up joining, then the finalized amount may be slightly reduced. What I am suggesting is that Big XII (if it is smart) will have discussions with the networks determine what the proposed values would be for the variety of scenarios on the table. The scenarios being the number of schools that would be added and maybe more importantly which schools are added.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1w
always uncertianty invovled.
Sure if it's the B10 or the SEC, it's almost certain that things will get finalized as planned. Not so sure about the other leagues.
Even for the last round, the best the B12 did was pro rata addition for the P5 schools.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1w
The reason I say that is because the Big XII added schools while a contract was active. Since the terms and conditions were already defined, it is very likely the Big XII had less wiggle room to negotiate a better deal. Whereas in 2030, the Big XII will be negotiating a brand new contract with new terms and conditions. Hence why I am saying they will explore all scenarios and less likely there will be a drastic change in the amount from the proposed amount to fit the various scenarios.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1w
It's very (extremely) unlikely that the B12 gets a deal better than the ACC in 2030 and I don't see any ACC school would pay the exit fee to join the B12.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1w
contract, then they will be forced to leave the conference on June 30, 2036 any way. If membership in a P2 conference isn't an option for them at that time, then the only options for them would be to either join an existing non-P2 conference or form a brand new non-P2 conference. Depending on which non-P2 conference they join, it is likely that conference will be in the middle of its media contract. Which should mean the conference will likely have less wiggle room to re-negotiate the terms (aka payout) until it is time to sit down at the negotiation table to start working on the next media contract.
For the ACC schools, it may be financially "better" for them in the long run to pay the exit fee in 2030 and get in at the beginning of the Big XII's new media contract than to wait until the current ACC contract expires and join the Big XII in the middle of their contract. I say that because the Big XII's new media contract may not expire until June 30, 2045 which would mean the ACC schools would have to suck it up for 9 years. It still may be worth it if the ACC's new media contract requires another 20+ years GOR. However, the ACC schools could end up kicking themselves for leaving all that loss revenue on the table from delaying their departure from the ACC. Particularly if the revenue they would have earned between July 1, 2031 and June 30, 2036 ends up being more than the $75M that would have been paid to the ACC.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1w
But I don't think that's a good use of my time.
To be clear I didn't competely rule out the B12 getting a better media deal than the ACC. There are other remote scenarios where some ACC schools decide to join the B12 in 2030 as you wrote.
Again personally I think it's very unlikely. You seem to believe it's possible. And that's fine and I respect your view. But you don't have to convince me.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1w
for more than 5 or 6 years at a time.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1w
ACC's current contract with ESPN is for 17 years (ends in 2036). The MAC's contract with ESPN is/was for 12 years (ends in 2026). The SEC signed a 10-year contract with ESPN (ends in 2033). Even the Sun Belt signed a 10-year contract with ESPN (ends in 2030).
It appears the Big Ten or C-USA was the first conference to agree to something less than 10 years because both contracts started in 2023. Big Ten's contract is for 6 years and C-USA's contract is only for 4 years. This may be the direction things are trending in now because the Pac-12 also agreed to a 4-year contract too. However, it may just show the different business strategies the various networks take. Some networks may prefer short-term deals. While other networks may prefer to lock a conference in for 10+ years.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1w
last one did not. It's my contention that they bring more value than Cincy, Houston, and UCF did.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1w
alone probably won't be enough to leapfrog the ACC. If the Big XII is going to leapfrog the ACC, then adding the right ACC schools will be the only way to achieve that goal. Likewise, the Big XII is going to have more room to negotiate new terms/conditions and leverage its position. If ESPN and Fox try to low ball the Big XII even with the 4 corners and ACC schools as members, then the Big XII has the option to find another dance partner (i.e. Prime, Netflix, CBS, etc.) who would be willing to pay fair market value on the next contract. Hence why I said if news breaks that ACC schools are leaving to join the Big XII in 2030 or 2031, then you can pretty much take it to the bank that the Big XII's next contract will be more valuable than the ACC's current contract.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1w
current make-up of the ACC in football. They might edge them in money by the end of 2036, but as long as the ACC retains their top members and ND, the B12 will be within the "margin" of error on conference distributions.
Unless the B12 reals off the next 2 out of 3 national championships, I don't see that changing.
All eyes are on what happens to the ACC in regards to the P2. I would dismiss those articles that have the BIG expanding to 22 or 24 schools. That is wishful thinking for the schools like VT or Utah that think they should be in the club. (VT has a better shot than Utah IMO)
This will all come down to the P2 picking off ACC schools. Anything short of that, and the B12 will be the 4th P conference, but will continue to be a factor. No B12 school is going to the ACC if they lose their top schools. Possible in 2036 if the ACC stays together, but I don't see that either with the uneven distribution system.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1w
to remain in the conference until the current GOR expires in June 2036. If any schools clearly have no desire now to sign a new GOR for the next contract, then they should be looking to leave the ACC as soon as it is financially possible. At least there isn't any point to them sticking it out until the end because they are leaving dollars on the table by not being in their new home.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1w
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1w
though. As far as the money aspect, if the best of the ACC leave the conference and get the right schools from the remaining non-P2 conferences to join the new conference, then the new conference could find itself sitting at #3 on the money. Particularly if it forms right around the time the Big XII is looking to sign its new media contract. Also, this new conference could have its automatic bids to the various NCAA tournaments on Day 1 instead of waiting 1 year like what happened with the MWC.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1w
maybe going that high. It won't be as high as the SEC, and of course, not as high as the BIG - but in that scenario (don't see it happening), the B12 would gladly pay the exit fees, and make it happen.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1w
is very likely the Big XII would have leapfrogged the ACC. Maybe even by a considerable margin depending on which schools join the conference.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1w
much for a lateral move, especially if there isn't a new media deal that is more attractive.
What I think you might be missing, is that IF the top schools of the ACC do indeed go to the P2, it is my guess that Yormark will already have negotiated a new media deal, and that new deal could "possibly" include 2-4 ACC schools.
It was said on this board that the last Big12 deal included the 4 corners from the PAC, as that is why it was such a good deal - but there would have had to have been a back room deal for that to be true. The timeline does not support that assertion, but anything is possible. If it didn't, ....
The new B12 media deal will include the 4 corners, where the one they are operating on now does not. +I seems to me that the 4 corners brings in some strong content, especially when you compare them to Cincy, Houston, and UCF. If you were to add 4 of Louisville, VT, GT, Duke, NCSU, depending how things play out, the media contract would have to be sufficient enough to make sense for those schools to jump conferences.
This is not a prediction, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility out of hand as we know the ACC deal will not improve in 2030.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1w
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1w
reason I hope it's the B12, is because of all the small privates in the ACC. Those guys and your contract work against you.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1w
degree.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1w
only the ACC, but of all of college football. It's a double edged sword though, because if it too imbalanced, or the basketball schools end up with more money than the mid football schools, it could be a real problem. UNC agreeing to it got my attention - why the hell would they agree to something that didn't advantage them?
If, however, the ACC can keep their top brands, including ND, I think they will stay together. Adding schools fall to the wayside however, and no top school in the B12 would ever go to the ACC unless they were paid towards the top - and I NEVER see the ACC adding a school at the top of the distributions.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1w
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2w
next contract early, but like the ACC look - in recently, none of us lay people even knew it existed until FSU's lawsuit revealed it.
Just for the record, No one that I know of, including the youtubers, think that FSU, Miami, or Clemson could end up in the B12. When you talk about the middle of the ACC, that is a different story as they may not want to remain in the ACC if the top brands exit.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 7/16/2026, 1:31:51 PM
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2w
them. However, the Big XII might be able to land 1 or 2 depending on what happens in Congress and the impact any laws have on the P2. I say that because the P2 may not be able to expand due to whatever law(s) Congress passes. Since the ACC doesn't seem to be as committed to improving its football brand as it is its basketball brand, that may be enough to get Clemson and/or FSU to explore their options. If joining a P2 conference isn't an option and they don't want to remain in the ACC because of the harm it is causing their football brand, then the Big XII may be their only viable option. Especially if the Big XII sells it is just as committed to improving its football brand as it is its basketball brand. If the Big XII isn't an option and they want to form a brand new conference, then the new conference will need to make sure to invite 6 or 7 school who have been members of the same conference for at least 4 years in order for the new conference to qualify for NCAA automatic bids to the various postseason tournaments on Day 1.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2w
if the money (media deal) makes it happen. Fox and CBS have got my attention with the next media deal. If the Paramount deal gets closed, CBS will be looking for more content. NBC might be looking around as well.
ESPN seems content with the SEC/ACC footprint, and FOX will not give up the BIG easily. With the ACC locked into their ESPN contract, and their network, it could be their downfall. On the other hand, could the B12 get enough revenue with the 4 corners, then maybe 4 ACC schools? Maybe? Hope?
What I do know, is that it will be more difficult for the ACC to poach B12 schools than the other way around, but that is all contingent on the next media deal and what Paramount and NBC want - in addition to ESPN and FOX.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2w
We're talking 3-4 years away before the exit fee is just 2x the amount that Vanderbilt gets paid more every year than FSU and Clemson. And, people are absolutely delusional if they think any ACC football brand is going to sign another draconian grant of rights unless they get a massive financial benefit in return that will render them able to compete with SEC and Big 10 programs.
All this is why I don't understand why anyone is satisfied sitting back and punking on the Big 12 for making less money than the ACC right now, in the year 2026. The calculus is getting ready to change, and it's going to be a tectonic shift. Unless you're ten years old and haven't developed an adult concept of the rapid passage of time yet, 3-4 years in the grand scheme of things might as well be tomorrow. And, the chewing gum and scotch tape holding the ACC together today gets closer to evaporating every day.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2w
likely they will be leaving the ACC on June 30, 2036. If the school is already certain of their future decision, then why would they wait until then vs. leaving at the first window of opportunity that is financially viable for them? I think most people agree that "window of opportunity" is 2030 or 2031 which is not that far away. If joining a P2 conference is not an option for whatever reason, then I think it would be a mistake to assume the football schools will opt to remain in the ACC and take it up the tailpipe. That just happens to be 1 of 3 options available to them;
Option 1: Remain in the "basketball-first" ACC and take it up the tailpipe.
Option 2: Leave the ACC to join another conference (i.e. Big XII).
Option 3: Leave the ACC to form a brand new conference (i.e. see the creation of the MWC).
If a school is not willing to sacrifice the long-term health of their football program, then it seems to me Option 2 and Option 3 are their best options. At the very least, they won't be able to remain in the ACC if they are unwilling to sign the next GOR.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2w
is the dates of the BIG and SEC contracts that will determine if and when they leave.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2w
not. People seem to think that if the P2 isn't an option for some of the ACC schools mentioned, then their ONLY option is to remain in the ACC and take it up the tailpipe. I am questioning whether that is the ONLY option or not given that is unlikely they will agree to sign any new GOR for the next contract.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2w
not ignore on the ACC's attitude towards football as it relates to basketball either. If the ACC goes back to treating football as a "second-class sport," then no amount of money may be enough to keep a football school in the conference until the GOR comes to full term. If the school has already decided it will be leaving the ACC on July 1, 2036, then it may decide to leave early knowing the new conference's media contract(s) will be coming up for renewal before the ACC's GOR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2036. In the short-term it may be taking a step back in order to take 2 or 3 steps forward in the long-term. It will just depend on how badly the bridge between the school and ACC has been burned behind the scenes.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2w
can discount an academic conference with outstanding basketball, and football as an after thought. Kinda like the ACC was before they got Big East schools. The presidents may opt for that as well, but even football as an afterthought is very expensive. No school wants to lose prestige like Washington State and Oregon State, so the fight is on for the big boy chairs.
If and only if the ACC falls apart - and none of us knows what will happen, then maybe The ACC can become the "private" school conference that is high on academics, basketball, and Olympics - with decent football. There are a few "public" schools like Cal that may want to be in the club as well. As long as they have access to the playoffs, they would be just fine, but just not SEC caliber football.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 7/16/2026, 6:58:30 PM
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2w
school have with the other members could vary. Plus, there is nothing to say that same level couldn't be recreated in a new conference or that a school would suddenly stop collaborating with another school just because it decided to leave an athletic conference. Given that college athletics is evolving, maybe it is also time that the role of the athletic conference evolve too.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2w
at things. Some put a lot of emphasis on athletics, but there are many that deem athletics to be a pain. Being in the academia club is much more important to some schools as being in the athletic club.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2w
club. However, there are a wide variety of academia clubs out there now that have no connection to the various athletic conferences. For example, Virginia Tech is a member of the International Association of Accessibility Professionals (IAAP) as a Platinum Member. I suspect VT would be a member of the IAAP regardless of what athletic conferences it chose to compete in. The same is probably true for majority of the other academia related associations/organizations/clubs. It may beg the question just how much benefit academia truly gets from its membership in certain athletic conferences. Particularly in the internet age where the world is a lot more connected than it was when majority of the athletic conferences were born.
Now I am not saying there is no benefit because the Big Ten and the CIC have a close relationship. The Ivy League may be another good example. What I am suggesting is the possibility that these academia organizations could still exist even if they don't exist in the athletic world. Plus, within these athletic conferences it is very likely that school works more closely with some members than other members. For example, VT may do a lot of collaboration with Wake, NC State, GT, and Pitt. While on the flip side rarely collaborates with UVA, Duke, BC, and FSU. If the ACC ceased to exist today, then it is likely that trend would continue because VT, Wake, NC State, GT, and Pitt happen to be members of the same research consortium.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2w
University presidents that do not see investing into athletics as important. That was all good and well in the past, but today, there is a tremendous pressure to up the capital spending in FBS to keep up with your conference, no matter which conference you are in. Alabama will always put emphasis on football - almost #1 compared to academics. Vanderbilt on the other hand, would continue to be a very respected University and brand without the SEC, or a power conference for that matter. Would Bama be a brand without football?
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2w
being important, then why do they think it is "important" that their school is a member of the ACC or Big Ten instead of Conference USA or MAC?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2w
assume you had schools in mind when you made it. My point was that athletic conference may need to evolve from having academic ties to them since college athletics is currently evolving. So just because a school may no longer be in the same athletic conference as Duke, Cal, and Stanford, it doesn't mean the school can't continue its academic and/or research ties with them. This is in response to your earlier point about the ACC's strong academic reputation.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1w
expenditures for college sports. There have been consequences, I would say. But her point of view is valid.
We often say that athletics are the "front porch" of a school. But why must that include a money-guzzling football program?
If enrollment at a school is sustained by a reputable football team, fine, it's earning its keep. But enrollments across the board may be approaching a cliff. Would UConn be worse off without a fb team? Many schools will be facing a decision before long.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1w
athletics has a secondary role on a college campus. I have no problem if a school wants to take that position. Hence why I asked the question why do those schools need (or want) to be a power conference? Particularly when the school's views on athletics may not align with the conference's view on athletics. Likewise, I do understand a school's desire to be a member of an athletic conference that best aligns with its views. Whether the view ranges from the role of academics, the role of athletics as a whole, or even the basketball vs. football debate.
If a school's desire to join a particular conference is based solely on the school's desire to benefit academics and/or research, then how much of a difference does it really make? If Cal, Stanford, and Duke are going to collaborate on a major research project, then it likely doesn't matter whether the 3 schools are members of the same athletic conference or not. Likewise, if a school like Cal, Wake, or GT isn't going to invest in athletics, then why should a school like Clemson, Miami, or VT be expected to carry their burden too in addition to their own burden? Hence why I came to the conclusion that it is probably time for the role of conferences to evolve too. If nothing else, then to keep up with the evolving of college athletics. I might even take it a step further and say the role of the division level probably needs to evolve too.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2w
when it comes to money. For all the disagreements on this board about the actual pound-for-pound quality of Big 12 football programs vs. the quality of those in the ACC, one disagreement I've never seen is anyone arguing that the Big 12 gets more media rights money, or ever will get more unless/until certain programs leave the ACC.
For the foreseeable future, and probably for always unless they find some way to put a clamp on there being no enforceable player contracts that impose some kind of monetary penalty for transferring, college football is a money game, pure and simple.
From a finances standpoint, the problem is not now, nor has it ever been making more money than the Big 12 programs. The problem for anyone that actually wants to play big boy football in the ACC is keeping the SEC and Big 10 programs from poaching their best players at will because Vanderbilt and Rutgers are making 25-33 million dollars more than FSU and Clemson every single year, right out of the gate, before anything else is factored in.
So, I get you hate the Big 12, and want to take dumps on them whenever you can, but parroting about how the ACC gets paid more for its media rights than the Big 12 is basically like taking a victory lap for coming in a distant, distant third in a four man foot race. Who cares?
** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 7/16/2026, 10:00:29 AM
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
2w
To me the ACC's main competitior is the B12.
If the ACC is sufficiently better than the B12, then the ACC will be able to backfill with the B12 schools as needed like the ACC did to the old Big East.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2w
Why would the ACC just "be able" to backfill with Big 12 teams vs. the other way around - why wouldn't the Big 12 come get whatever's left of value out of the ACC? Why would valuable Big 12 teams want to leave the Big 12 in that circumstance to play conference football games vs. SMU, Boston College, Duke, and Wake Forest? Who's going to pay a premium for that so that they make more money than they're making in the Big 12?
I think that's where our primary disagreement lays. I agree with you that if things stay exactly like they are now, we agree that nothing's going to change as far as who's getting more money. I just think there's a 0% chance of that happening.
One more discussion point about all this - when it comes down to it, ultimately, I don't care about who's making more money. I care about who's competing for CFP spots and national championships. However, I can assure you I understand that one is almost going to always go hand in hand with the other. But, at the end of the day, I could care less if VT makes 7 or 8 million more dollars than Arizona State in media rights payouts if VT still can't be competitive because 3/4 of the SEC and Big 10 programs are able to cherry pick all their best players off the roster every single year. So, it's zero solace to me that the ACC gets more media rights money than the Big 12. It doesn't even move the needle. It's like being super stoked and wanting to beat our chests because VT makes more money than East Carolina or Appalachian State. But, who cares? What good is that?
We can agree that as long as VT is in the ACC, it will benefit them to stay ahead of the Big 12, and we can agree that, unless and until there's further conference realignment, that they will. So, the Big 12 isn't what's standing in VT's way as far as money goes, and I don't see them as "the competition." I think that's a reasonable take.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
If the P2 skim off the top of the ACC, the money gap between the ACC and
the B12 will likely go away in time as well. Backfill, or no backfill.
The big difference right now between the ACC and the B12 is that the B12 has been poached, and the ACC really hasn't (save Maryland).
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 7/17/2026, 11:37:27 AM
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
2w
The Pac 12 collapsed because they didn't have the media deal when the big brands announced the departure.
This is goint to be a different situation. When and if the big brands leave the ACC in 2030 the ACC will very likely maintain the money advantage through 2036.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2
2hhoop3
2w
what ACC team in their right mind would opt for an exit fee and the opportunity to make less money in the Big 12?
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2w
Sure, being in a conference that's 75% tomato cans and programs that nobody cares anything about sucks, but I've not seen anyone say they think it would be a great idea to leave so they could make less money.
** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 7/16/2026, 10:37:48 AM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2w
including you, during some of your previous delusional rants against the ACC. You have toned those down in more recent times in favor of your current whipping boy SMU.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2w
Feel free to point out anywhere I've ever said that, because you can't, because I didn't. It would make no sense for VT or anyone else currently in the ACC to go to the Big 12 and make less money. That's stupid.
In the crisis that's inevitably coming for the ACC in the next 3-4 years - and anyone with a brain knows it's coming, and programs will be leaving - would it make sense to leave for the Big 12 if the money's the same or better, given the movement of programs around? Sure. But not if it's worse.
I know some people on here, likely including you, think I'm stupid because they're simps for the ACC, which I can almost understand given the chronic inferiority complex that a lot of VT fans, especially older VT fans tend to have, and also for SMU, which I will never in my life understand, but I can assure you that I am not. You just disagree with me.
** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 7/16/2026, 10:49:11 AM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2w
It's possibility that the P2 decide not to expand any further. They may take a look at the finances and decide that further expansion will not benefit them financially, and that a bigger conference is not desirable. Further expansion is a very real possibility, but I would not go so far as to say it's inevitable.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1w
had look. They have been paying armies of people to have a look all day, every day, for years. The P2 will keep expanding until the media comanies tell them to stop.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2
2hhoop3
2w
in your posts to form their opinions about you. For the record, I do not believe you are stupid. I believe you have certain blindspots which will not allow you to consider alternatives and some of those we disagree on.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 7/16/2026, 11:11:25 AM
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2w
is stupid either, just extremely mistaken.
Also, if you can cite to even one instance where I advocated for VT or any other ACC program to leave the conference to make less money, I'd sure love to see it. But, you won't, because you can't. I won't hold my breath for you to issue a self-correction on that, because admitting you're wrong about anything is definitely one of your blind spots. You'll go 47 rounds of back and forth posts, I'll give you that; but, you will never concede even a basic, objective inaccuracy.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2w
a self correction because there is nothing to admit to. In this thread I said you advocated for teams to leave for the Big 12 which you did on multiple occasions, there was no discussion of money at the time. There was debate fueled further by Big 12 shills that their new contract would allow them to surpass the ACC. That was not going to happen with the new, now current, contract and likely will not happen in the next renegotiation given the full removal of Texas/OU leverage. I also corrected you on missing the OP's original point. Nobody is leaving one conference to take less money in another, as the OP said that would be asinine, absent significant other considerations.
Everyone can read our discussions, both old and new, on this and SMU and make their own decision as to who needs to self correct. You made the argument, the expansion would not result in more money for the ACC but, that has been disproven. I have admitted errors before on these boards, just not with you because I do not believe there has been a situation in our disagreements that required or warranted a correction.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2w
Do I think that, come 2029 or 2030, in the very likely, almost certain event of programs leaving the ACC, the Big 12 could be a more viable home for VT football, both in terms of finances and fit? Sure! Have I ever said that VT should leave the ACC to go somewhere where they make less money? No.
I really don't know why I even engage with you. Nothing you post in response to me is done in good faith. I think, like a lot of people think, that the ACC is largely filled with tomato can programs and programs nobody cares about. I also think, like a lot of people around the country, including the membership and administrators of other power conferences, that SMU ultimately adds nothing to the bottom line, even if they're foregoing media rights payments for a finite period of time. You disagree. GET OVER IT, man.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2w
own advice or develop a better argument.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2w
That's my last response to you here. Feel free to keep posting all afternoon and night; knock yourself out.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2w
are no bluebloods in the B12. Mostly upper middle class schools.
You are right that the top tier schools in the ACC will make more than the distributions in the B12. Unless you are one of those top schools, I wouldn't be too quick to Ra Ra, the ACC is better than the B12.
Lets see where Louisville, Pitt, NCSU, and VT land in distributions. That will tell the tape.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
Sometime in the next decade there will be a "best of the rest" conference
one would think. Now whether it's under the ACC banner, the B12 banner, or some new creation, it won't really matter.
The only way I DON'T see this happening is if the P2 absorbs almost all of the ACC and B12 somehow.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2w
no viable way politically (as in office politics, not red/blue) to kick most programs out of a conference once they're in.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2w
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2w
where UNC and Duke fall in the distribution pecking order. Around 25% is based on basketball, and while it isn't football, it's not something that can be ignored.
VT is a school that will find a landing spot, or do just fine in the ACC. Pitt, Cuse, NCSU, and a couple others could be a very different story.
As long as the ACC can keep FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, and ND in the conference, the ACC will continue to be the better conference. Baltimore is right though, this is not an ACC vs B12 thing, it's an ACC thing.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)