I found this article interesting.
A couple quotes from there.
But Phillips has also touted the ACC's relatively secure position as the No. 3 league in TV revenue, which along with the conference's grant of rights deal, which extends until 2036, as a source of optimism.
Are they really third? I’ve looked and found 3 different sources that say 3 different things. One has the ACC at $17M/team, one had $23.3M/team, and one had $35-38M/ team. But it was stated they were 3rd in revenue without question by the author and commissioner in the article.
As one AD suggested, expansion could be valuable to the league simply as a means of preventing the Big 12 from growing further.
Phillips acknowledged that reality at the league's kickoff event this week.
"You have to understand what's going on across the country," Phillips told ESPN. "Maybe you preempt [another league's expansion], maybe you don't, maybe there's a first thing that has to happen before you make a move. There's a variety of ways you attack this."
It definitely looks like the ACC might make moves just to prevent the B12 from solidifying itself as a 3rd P3. That’s the first time I’ve ever heard a conference official admit that publicly.
Ultimately, I don’t think the ACC is a threat to our expansion, but something to keep an eye on. A.) they actively had a mutiny during meeting a couple months ago were 7 teams were exploring how to break the GOR B.) I’m not 100% sure they are actually 3rd in revenue per team C.) there aren’t any expansion candidates, except for OU and UW, that I think the ACC schools would vote to bring on D.) the GOR through 2036 is prohibitive C.) geography works against them and west coast schools