[chrisk]

Having trouble posting a link from my phone but the UNC Board of Trustees released a very critical statement of the ACC that basically backed Clemson and threw the conference paupers under the bus. Sounds like the Tar Heels are next to follow the Noles and Tigers.

The Miami AD apparently is speaking nice about the ACC, fwiw (not much): https://twitter.com/flasportsbuzz/status...52777?s=46

At the end of the day, it seem to me that ESPN benefits quite a bit from the ACC as currently constituted. Do any "experts" here think that ESPN could get involved in the legal case(s), and, if so, could their involvement actually help keep the ACC together?

The ACC's Grant of Rights is tied up in a contract with ESPN through 2026, including the ACC Network, so ESPN definitely has no incentive for teams to move to the B1G where Fox is the main player, though obviously that contract is much shorter than the individual members' 2036 GOR agreements with the ACC.

In general, the dynamic with the ACC is quite different from the Pac-12, because in the latter's case, neither Fox nor ESPN had a stake in the Pac-12 Network, so they had every incentive to lure schools to the conferences where they had deeper, network relationships. At this point, ESPN loses more from the ACC evaporating than it gains from a few ACC schools moving over to the SEC or (especially) the B1G. 

All that said, we're at close to an inflection point for a nonsensical college sports landscape. Some legacy members of the "Super" Conferences (think the Purdues and Vanderbilts of the world) are reaping totally unearned benefits at the expense of the biggest members of the other P4 Conferences (FSU, Clemson). In between sits the Big 12, which has a really solid set of basketball schools and a pretty forgettable football lineup, but no members remaining who are credible threats to walk.

And the other thing to remember here is that ESPN and Fox still depend tremendously on linear subscriptions to make this all work. Those honeypots are drying up really fast, and it's not clear they're going to be replaced by streaming deals that make up anywhere near the necessary revenue. If not, then the current TV deals aren't going to be sustainable for much longer, either.

So while I hesitate to predict what will happen, the current status quo is definitely not going to last for more than a few more years.

I agree. Stanford is essentially playing a medium-range waiting game. It is trying to stay viable while waiting for the new landscape to take shape. If a Power 2 emerge, Stanford will likely not be part of that. But if Congress and the NCAA clamp down hard on NIL in recruiting (which ACC president Phillips is pushing hard for), who knows how the landscape will shake out? If NIL continues to be used in recruiting, there will be a host of schools that will get off that merry-go-round and Stanford could join them. How many schools really want to be able to use NIL in recruiting?

[chrisk]

Having trouble posting a link from my phone but the UNC Board of Trustees released a very critical statement of the ACC that basically backed Clemson and threw the conference paupers under the bus. Sounds like the Tar Heels are next to follow the Noles and Tigers.

The Miami AD apparently is speaking nice about the ACC, fwiw (not much): https://twitter.com/flasportsbuzz/status...52777?s=46

At the end of the day, it seem to me that ESPN benefits quite a bit from the ACC as currently constituted. Do any "experts" here think that ESPN could get involved in the legal case(s), and, if so, could their involvement actually help keep the ACC together?

The ACC's Grant of Rights is tied up in a contract with ESPN through 2026, including the ACC Network, so ESPN definitely has no incentive for teams to move to the B1G where Fox is the main player, though obviously that contract is much shorter than the individual members' 2036 GOR agreements with the ACC.

In general, the dynamic with the ACC is quite different from the Pac-12, because in the latter's case, neither Fox nor ESPN had a stake in the Pac-12 Network, so they had every incentive to lure schools to the conferences where they had deeper, network relationships. At this point, ESPN loses more from the ACC evaporating than it gains from a few ACC schools moving over to the SEC or (especially) the B1G. 

All that said, we're at close to an inflection point for a nonsensical college sports landscape. Some legacy members of the "Super" Conferences (think the Purdues and Vanderbilts of the world) are reaping totally unearned benefits at the expense of the biggest members of the other P4 Conferences (FSU, Clemson). In between sits the Big 12, which has a really solid set of basketball schools and a pretty forgettable football lineup, but no members remaining who are credible threats to walk.

And the other thing to remember here is that ESPN and Fox still depend tremendously on linear subscriptions to make this all work. Those honeypots are drying up really fast, and it's not clear they're going to be replaced by streaming deals that make up anywhere near the necessary revenue. If not, then the current TV deals aren't going to be sustainable for much longer, either.

So while I hesitate to predict what will happen, the current status quo is definitely not going to last for more than a few more years.

I agree. Stanford is essentially playing a medium-range waiting game. It is trying to stay viable while waiting for the new landscape to take shape. If a Power 2 emerge, Stanford will likely not be part of that. But if Congress and the NCAA clamp down hard on NIL in recruiting (which ACC president Phillips is pushing hard for), who knows how the landscape will shake out? If NIL continues to be used in recruiting, there will be a host of schools that will get off that merry-go-round and Stanford could join them. How many schools really want to be able to use NIL in recruiting?