+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? (/thread-942578.html)
If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - Big Ron Buckeye - 02-18-2022 04:51 PM
It's being reported that CBS, NBC, Fox, & ABC/ESPN all have interest in Big Ten content. And the new annual figure is said to be more than 1 Billion per year for the league. During the last round it was said that the Big Ten had interest in sundry ACC schools most notably UNC, UVA, & Georgia Tech.
If the Big Ten lands that deal, which sound increasingly likely. Should the ACC be worried that those schools and others: Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, & Clemson may actually pursue the Big Ten this time around to share in that sweet, sweet, loot? What do you think?
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - domer1978 - 02-18-2022 04:58 PM
The ACC should be worried; but they signed such a bad , long contract that it will be at least 10 years till movement happens..
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - Frank the Tank - 02-18-2022 05:10 PM
Depends what you mean by worried.
10 years ago with the BTN on the upswing, it was pretty direct and clear that, say, a UNC/UVA expansion would make a lot more money for the Big Ten.
We're now getting to heights, though, where we may be getting to a point of diminishing returns with Big Ten expansion unless it involves Notre Dame. (I think we're already there with the SEC and why I don't buy these Armageddon superconference scenarios where they keep adding more schools. There's no single expansion that's more valuable than the one they just did with Texas and Oklahoma.) I always like to remind people that part of the purpose of an actual conference (as opposed to a TV rights arrangement) is to have teams that actually play each other regularly. That still works in a 16-team conference with a pod system and you're playing 9 conference games (as the SEC appears to be heading). As sexy as it sounds to have a 24-team Big Ten or SEC that has USC, Florida State, Miami, etc., that's really just a TV rights/scheduling arrangement since it's impossible for all of those teams to actually play each other any more than if they were simply non-conference opponents.
So, I'm a future Big Ten expansion skeptic on that front (which is saying something because the whole reason why I write about conference realignment was based on Big Ten expansion).
That being said, individual ACC schools should be quite worried that they're 8 figures in the hole competing against the Big Ten and SEC every single year based on the conference revenue disparities.
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - GreenFreakUAB - 02-18-2022 05:16 PM
...I'm thinking so... between the BIG 10 and the SEC (who will 'renegotiate' media deals when UT/OU come in, and I'm sure they will be using the BIG 10 for a direct comparison), it's so obvious that the endgame is two mega-conferences...
I would THINK that the 'basketball-centric' ACC schools go to the BIG10, and the 'football-centric' schools go to the SEC.... HOWEVER, it WOULD be a bit intriguing to see Clemson, FSU, et al in the BIG10 in lieu of the 'generally obvious' choice... I know that rumblings about GT to the BIG have been going on at times in the past, so it might not be as 'off the wall' as once assumed...
...but if this thing DOES totally blow up, you still have the obvious PAC 'properties' which will most likely be BIG10 bound, and more in the BIG XII as well (Kansas seems obvious to the BIG10), but... who knows...
The pathway seems a lot clearer now for the BIG TWO than it did even 5-6 years back, and the vote to keep the playoffs at 4 for 3-4 more seasons is a 'tell' that the BIG and the SEC might be ready to go full nuclear on ALL the remaining conferences of note, and force even ND into a deal... for example, if they split the ACC totally down the middle with generally just a few (or even NOBODY) left, then I would think the ACC would cease as an entity and no 'GOR' stuff would be in place...
I know it's nigh to impossible to 'kill' a conference, but... 21st Century Times are strange times, y'all...
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - Gamenole - 02-18-2022 05:26 PM
Any conference should be worried when their best answer about why they have confidence in their future is a bad contract, no matter how long, that forces schools to stay or face financial ruin.
Have you EVER heard fans of any SEC, PAC or B1G school express hope their school will move to another conference only to have a Grant of Rights waved in their face? It just doesn't happen. Healthy, successful organizations with compatible members do not have to compel those members to stay.
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - GreenFreakUAB - 02-18-2022 05:26 PM
(02-18-2022 05:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: Depends what you mean by worried.
10 years ago with the BTN on the upswing, it was pretty direct and clear that, say, a UNC/UVA expansion would make a lot more money for the Big Ten.
We're now getting to heights, though, where we may be getting to a point of diminishing returns with Big Ten expansion unless it involves Notre Dame. (I think we're already there with the SEC and why I don't buy these Armageddon superconference scenarios where they keep adding more schools. There's no single expansion that's more valuable than the one they just did with Texas and Oklahoma.) I always like to remind people that part of the purpose of an actual conference (as opposed to a TV rights arrangement) is to have teams that actually play each other regularly. That still works in a 16-team conference with a pod system and you're playing 9 conference games (as the SEC appears to be heading). As sexy as it sounds to have a 24-team Big Ten or SEC that has USC, Florida State, Miami, etc., that's really just a TV rights/scheduling arrangement since it's impossible for all of those teams to actually play each other any more than if they were simply non-conference opponents.
So, I'm a future Big Ten expansion skeptic on that front (which is saying something because the whole reason why I write about conference realignment was based on Big Ten expansion).
That being said, individual ACC schools should be quite worried that they're 8 figures in the hole competing against the Big Ten and SEC every single year based on the conference revenue disparities.
...I think all of the 'prime properties' will eventually be absorbed into the 'big two' at some point... I still think there will be other conferences, but will definitely be 'muted' in comparison... and thus we may have the, shall we say 'second tier', conferences merge - for example, I think the AAC and the MWC may well end up merged after they each have a few more defections (my ulterior motive is to have my Blazers in a conference with Hawai'i!
)... ...but the ACC might well be the only one that could be literally 'split in two', as they span from SEC turf to BIG 10 turf, with a LOT of prime locales in that span...
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - schmolik - 02-18-2022 05:27 PM
If we're getting 1 billion a year, forget the ACC, I think the SEC should be worried. Forget North Carolina and Virginia, my next call would be to Texas, maybe even to Florida. You can talk national championships all you want, national championships don't pay the bills. Big if of course. If the Big Ten can get more per team without Texas/Oklahoma than the SEC can with them after their next contracts start, Kevin Warren will be the best commissioner in the history of college sports!
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - GreenFreakUAB - 02-18-2022 05:30 PM
(02-18-2022 05:27 PM)schmolik Wrote: If we're getting 1 billion a year, forget the ACC, I think the SEC should be worried. Forget North Carolina and Virginia, my next call would be to Texas, maybe even to Florida. You can talk national championships all you want, national championships don't pay the bills. Big if of course. If the Big Ten can get more per team without Texas/Oklahoma than the SEC can with them after their next contracts start, Kevin Warren will be the best commissioner in the history of college sports!
...THIS is why the SEC finally has implemented an exit fee - not sure of the conditions, but I did remember reading about it a few weeks back...
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - GreenFreakUAB - 02-18-2022 05:37 PM
...as to 'mega-conferences' in general, I see this possible outcome...
If these conferences become the 'norm', they can dictate how many games are played... the NFL currently plays 16 (or 17? Seems like I read they were looking at that (sorry, not a mondo NFL guy
)) regular-season games and then 2-3 playoff games - so, I wouldn't be surprised to see the FBS implement a few more games for the regular season - say 14. Couple that with a few less OOC games (2 or 3), then you could have more conference games (11-12) - if you have a 'mega conference', you could have two or three (do I hear 4?) divisions, play a few from other divisions... well, y'all know the permutations of all of that... but ultimately going more towards the NFL model...
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - Big Ron Buckeye - 02-18-2022 05:41 PM
(02-18-2022 05:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: Depends what you mean by worried.
10 years ago with the BTN on the upswing, it was pretty direct and clear that, say, a UNC/UVA expansion would make a lot more money for the Big Ten.
We're now getting to heights, though, where we may be getting to a point of diminishing returns with Big Ten expansion unless it involves Notre Dame. (I think we're already there with the SEC and why I don't buy these Armageddon superconference scenarios where they keep adding more schools. There's no single expansion that's more valuable than the one they just did with Texas and Oklahoma.) I always like to remind people that part of the purpose of an actual conference (as opposed to a TV rights arrangement) is to have teams that actually play each other regularly. That still works in a 16-team conference with a pod system and you're playing 9 conference games (as the SEC appears to be heading). As sexy as it sounds to have a 24-team Big Ten or SEC that has USC, Florida State, Miami, etc., that's really just a TV rights/scheduling arrangement since it's impossible for all of those teams to actually play each other any more than if they were simply non-conference opponents.
So, I'm a future Big Ten expansion skeptic on that front (which is saying something because the whole reason why I write about conference realignment was based on Big Ten expansion).
That being said, individual ACC schools should be quite worried that they're 8 figures in the hole competing against the Big Ten and SEC every single year based on the conference revenue disparities.
I think the ACC has reason to "worry about". 1. Will they be able to keep up. 2. If the ACC is unable to stay in the same ballpark, will their more attractive schools especially UNC and UVA reach out to the B1G to pursue a marriage to the further detriment of the ACC.
In regards to a super conference... I think that because College Sports are rooted in regionalism, any expanded conference would still likely have a significant regional component even if that means fewer contests with more distant conference foes. Reason being those regional games, even without national implications, will still garner more interest among local fans.
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - Big Ron Buckeye - 02-18-2022 06:09 PM
(02-18-2022 05:27 PM)schmolik Wrote: If we're getting 1 billion a year, forget the ACC, I think the SEC should be worried. Forget North Carolina and Virginia, my next call would be to Texas, maybe even to Florida. You can talk national championships all you want, national championships don't pay the bills. Big if of course. If the Big Ten can get more per team without Texas/Oklahoma than the SEC can with them after their next contracts start, Kevin Warren will be the best commissioner in the history of college sports!
I can't back up Kevin Warren, and he's certainly not the best commissioner of anything. He bungled the 2020 season and I can't convince myself that he is competent until he does something that wasn't already in the works before he got there.
On your other point, the B1G and SEC take turns going back and forth on who has the richest deals. One doing well aids the other and vice versa. Again, that is a long standing trend having nothing to do with feckless Kevin Warren.
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - Scoochpooch1 - 02-18-2022 06:21 PM
(02-18-2022 06:09 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:(02-18-2022 05:27 PM)schmolik Wrote: If we're getting 1 billion a year, forget the ACC, I think the SEC should be worried. Forget North Carolina and Virginia, my next call would be to Texas, maybe even to Florida. You can talk national championships all you want, national championships don't pay the bills. Big if of course. If the Big Ten can get more per team without Texas/Oklahoma than the SEC can with them after their next contracts start, Kevin Warren will be the best commissioner in the history of college sports!
I can't back up Kevin Warren, and he's certainly not the best commissioner of anything. He bungled the 2020 season and I can't convince myself that he is competent until he does something that wasn't already in the works before he got there.
On your other point, the B1G and SEC take turns going back and forth on who has the richest deals. One doing well aids the other and vice versa. Again, that is a long standing trend having nothing to do with feckless Kevin Warren.
The brands/collective brand is driving the increase certainly.not Warren. Presidents just hoping he doesn't screw things up.
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - CFBLurker - 02-18-2022 06:50 PM
I think the football first schools of the ACC are going to be in a world of hurt in about a decade. I don't think the Big Ten is plucking anyone before 2032 but I think they'll take two more eventually. What the football schools of the ACC should worry about is what happens if the Big Ten plucks two and they aren't selected. There isn't no backfilling
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - Dr. Isaly von Yinzer - 02-18-2022 06:58 PM
I don’t know? All I know is I’ve been coming to this board for at least 10 years now and during that entire time, people have been relentlessly prophecizing the impending death of the ACC pretty much nonstop and it never, ever actually happens.
Maybe the ACC is Rasputin, or maybe people like to speak in hyperbole. It’s definitely one or the other?
It was going to be the SEC and then it was going to be the Big 12. Now, it’s going to be the Big Ten. Who knows? Maybe? Maybe not?
Times change and situations change and if the money gets too great, of course schools who have opportunities are going to reconsider their situation. I just can’t get too wrapped up in all the gloom and doom because I’ve seen this movie 84 times before and so far, those people been wrong just about every single time.
Even when the ACC lost a school, Maryland, I think it’s very obvious that they actually upgraded — at least on the field/court — by replacing them with Louisville.
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - Transic_nyc - 02-18-2022 07:02 PM
(02-18-2022 05:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: Depends what you mean by worried.
10 years ago with the BTN on the upswing, it was pretty direct and clear that, say, a UNC/UVA expansion would make a lot more money for the Big Ten.
We're now getting to heights, though, where we may be getting to a point of diminishing returns with Big Ten expansion unless it involves Notre Dame. (I think we're already there with the SEC and why I don't buy these Armageddon superconference scenarios where they keep adding more schools. There's no single expansion that's more valuable than the one they just did with Texas and Oklahoma.) I always like to remind people that part of the purpose of an actual conference (as opposed to a TV rights arrangement) is to have teams that actually play each other regularly. That still works in a 16-team conference with a pod system and you're playing 9 conference games (as the SEC appears to be heading). As sexy as it sounds to have a 24-team Big Ten or SEC that has USC, Florida State, Miami, etc., that's really just a TV rights/scheduling arrangement since it's impossible for all of those teams to actually play each other any more than if they were simply non-conference opponents.
So, I'm a future Big Ten expansion skeptic on that front (which is saying something because the whole reason why I write about conference realignment was based on Big Ten expansion).
That being said, individual ACC schools should be quite worried that they're 8 figures in the hole competing against the Big Ten and SEC every single year based on the conference revenue disparities.
Look, it's not like I wake up every morning hoping we get to 24-team entities. However, in a world where the center of college sports is shifting rapidly to players (and their families) rather than college administrators, coaches and athletic directors, conferences need to be able to adapt and adapt quickly. Not even the vaunted Big Ten is immune to stresses that, so far, they've failed to properly address. Among them is the increasingly anti-sports culture taking hold in lots of the old and expanded Big Ten footprint. Until that and others are addressed, we have to be willing to cast our net far and wide. Getting beyond 14 is NOT about getting to a certain #. It's about reaching parts of the country where similar institutions and better recruiting grounds are located. Location, location, location.
My preference is to partially merge with the PAC. Similar institutions. History of working together. Geography will be a PITA. However, I know certain B1G fans may not want to see more games played on West Coast. Understandable but we're in a new era, where the 4-letter monster threatens to end college sports as we know it in total.
I don't know about you but I'm damn sick and tired of the pro-South, anti-North, anti-Northeast spin coming out of the so-called Worldwide Leader in (some) Sports. Yes, there's a bias against West Coast sports as well, except for the Lakers and, somewhat, Dodgers. I know you're very comfortable in your tradition but you have been, for years, not cognizant of the fact that the 4-letter network despises the Big Ten (like they were of the Big East). It's not business, it's personal with them. The cable business, with their gouging in subscription fees, has allowed them to pursue personal agendas that have nothing to do with standard business practices. As long as the spigot continues to run then they can continue to run an ideological agenda, not a business-oriented one. ESPN Über Alles.
The sooner we leave the 4-letter monster the better.
But getting back to topic. I do think that the stress on the ACC would increase. However, part of the ACC's issue is their different sporting agendas. It's not been easy cobbling together basketball-oriented programs with football-oriented programs and diverse institutions under one roof. Perhaps if they better leverage their market power then they could be in a more comfortable position. What is really dragging them down is their arrogance towards similar institutions outside of their conference. Internal stresses already were present even before the monetary disadvantages became better known. Perhaps if the core didn't exhibit a country-club mindset then a lot of the unhappiness from within the ranks wouldn't be as present.
I'm not breaking new ground here but the ACC could've had a shorter term deal. If the ACC core were really as committed to their conference as they said they were back in 2014 then they could've used that short-term deal and now be in a position to gain interest from other parties. The new streaming platforms coming online would have been a boon for the ACC. They could have their basketball-oriented league and still have the football schools not complaining so much. But Swoff and others within that conferences acted out of fear and loathing.
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - JRsec - 02-18-2022 07:12 PM
(02-18-2022 05:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: Depends what you mean by worried.
10 years ago with the BTN on the upswing, it was pretty direct and clear that, say, a UNC/UVA expansion would make a lot more money for the Big Ten.
We're now getting to heights, though, where we may be getting to a point of diminishing returns with Big Ten expansion unless it involves Notre Dame. (I think we're already there with the SEC and why I don't buy these Armageddon superconference scenarios where they keep adding more schools. There's no single expansion that's more valuable than the one they just did with Texas and Oklahoma.) I always like to remind people that part of the purpose of an actual conference (as opposed to a TV rights arrangement) is to have teams that actually play each other regularly. That still works in a 16-team conference with a pod system and you're playing 9 conference games (as the SEC appears to be heading). As sexy as it sounds to have a 24-team Big Ten or SEC that has USC, Florida State, Miami, etc., that's really just a TV rights/scheduling arrangement since it's impossible for all of those teams to actually play each other any more than if they were simply non-conference opponents.
So, I'm a future Big Ten expansion skeptic on that front (which is saying something because the whole reason why I write about conference realignment was based on Big Ten expansion).
That being said, individual ACC schools should be quite worried that they're 8 figures in the hole competing against the Big Ten and SEC every single year based on the conference revenue disparities.
Well Frank if we all play each other why do we need an expanded playoff. If on the on the other hand it is a "TV rights / scheduling arrangement," which BTW IT IS, then making money on an amplitude of content games and keeping 3 or 4 schools in a conference viable for an expanded playoff makes sense, now doesn't it? And, it makes more than cents, it makes millions. What you call "Armageddon" a lot of athletic departments call a "Pot of Gold" with or without Leprechauns or Notre Dame. Where there's a buck there's a way! And as Mellencamp says, "Ain't That America!"
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - JRsec - 02-18-2022 07:28 PM
(02-18-2022 05:30 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:(02-18-2022 05:27 PM)schmolik Wrote: If we're getting 1 billion a year, forget the ACC, I think the SEC should be worried. Forget North Carolina and Virginia, my next call would be to Texas, maybe even to Florida. You can talk national championships all you want, national championships don't pay the bills. Big if of course. If the Big Ten can get more per team without Texas/Oklahoma than the SEC can with them after their next contracts start, Kevin Warren will be the best commissioner in the history of college sports!
...THIS is why the SEC finally has implemented an exit fee - not sure of the conditions, but I did remember reading about it a few weeks back...
Hell, no it's not! And if Texas or Florida wanted an association with the B1G they would already be there. Some people need math lessons. The SEC's deal was over 3 billion for just T1. And the reported revenue of the SEC for the fiscal 2021 year was 777 million with no 3 billion T1 deal. Smoke that over. And all of these announced totals are for the duration of a contract. 1 Billion for 6 years is worth less than 3 Billion for 10 years.
Don't let some troll prompt such a misinformed position. The SEC loaned 23-25 million to each member school last year as a loan against the new contract and to cover lost gate and concessions which for 7 home games comes to ~ 25 million each. It covered losses due to COVID Social Distancing requirements. The 50 million exit fee would recoup that with a little sting. In 2025 SEC schools will be knocking down 76.5 million in media money annually. If the SEC was worried about defections the exit fee would equal 2 years worth of revenue, so 150 million.
ESPN insisted on a GOR and lawyers insisted on the meager exit fee.
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - schmolik - 02-18-2022 07:46 PM
(02-18-2022 06:50 PM)CFBLurker Wrote: I think the football first schools of the ACC are going to be in a world of hurt in about a decade. I don't think the Big Ten is plucking anyone before 2032 but I think they'll take two more eventually. What the football schools of the ACC should worry about is what happens if the Big Ten plucks two and they aren't selected. There isn't no backfilling
Temple and UConn will gladly accept an ACC invite anytime barring about ten teams leaving.
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - quo vadis - 02-19-2022 08:10 AM
(02-18-2022 04:51 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote: It's being reported that CBS, NBC, Fox, & ABC/ESPN all have interest in Big Ten content. And the new annual figure is said to be more than 1 Billion per year for the league. During the last round it was said that the Big Ten had interest in sundry ACC schools most notably UNC, UVA, & Georgia Tech.
If the Big Ten lands that deal, which sound increasingly likely. Should the ACC be worried that those schools and others: Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, & Clemson may actually pursue the Big Ten this time around to share in that sweet, sweet, loot? What do you think?
I think it's a threat.
It's obvious to me that the core ACC schools like UNC, Duke, and UVA would all prefer to remain in the ACC forever. And for good reason, that's their natural home.
But at a certain point, the money gap might be so big that it simply cannot be ignored. Maryland's natural home was the ACC, but they bolted for the B1G when the money got big enough and their finances got bad enough.
It's possible this could happen here. I don't think it will, but it's possible. It's like Notre Dame independence - they really want to remain indy, but there are circumstances in which they would abandon that.
The one thing saving the ACC right now is the other key schools that are much more likely to want to bolt - Clemson and FSU - are simply not wanted by the most natural target right now, the SEC.
But for the Carolina-VA core, the B1G doesn't have the stigma that the SEC has.
Overall, I do think this is a time of angst and worry for ACC schools, though the worry vary by school status. For lower-status schools, the worry is "conference level", they worry that the flagship schools might bolt, leaving them behind in a lower-value, possibly even G-level rump. For the higher-status schools (Clemson, FSU, UNC, UVA, Duke) the worry is more along the lines of falling behind their athletic peers in the B1G and/or SEC.
RE: If Big Ten deal exceeds 1Billion annually, should the ACC be worried? - quo vadis - 02-19-2022 08:18 AM
(02-18-2022 05:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: Depends what you mean by worried.
10 years ago with the BTN on the upswing, it was pretty direct and clear that, say, a UNC/UVA expansion would make a lot more money for the Big Ten.
We're now getting to heights, though, where we may be getting to a point of diminishing returns with Big Ten expansion unless it involves Notre Dame. (I think we're already there with the SEC and why I don't buy these Armageddon superconference scenarios where they keep adding more schools. There's no single expansion that's more valuable than the one they just did with Texas and Oklahoma.) I always like to remind people that part of the purpose of an actual conference (as opposed to a TV rights arrangement) is to have teams that actually play each other regularly. That still works in a 16-team conference with a pod system and you're playing 9 conference games (as the SEC appears to be heading). As sexy as it sounds to have a 24-team Big Ten or SEC that has USC, Florida State, Miami, etc., that's really just a TV rights/scheduling arrangement since it's impossible for all of those teams to actually play each other any more than if they were simply non-conference opponents.
So, I'm a future Big Ten expansion skeptic on that front (which is saying something because the whole reason why I write about conference realignment was based on Big Ten expansion).
That being said, individual ACC schools should be quite worried that they're 8 figures in the hole competing against the Big Ten and SEC every single year based on the conference revenue disparities.
I agree with you about the SEC, I think its expansion is done, don't see a superconference happening.
Heck, doing that would IMO cost the SEC. Power and influence is relative. Right now, the SEC has a big power advantage over nearby ACC and B12 schools because it is making a lot more money than they are. If the SEC were to add say 10 more Big 12 and ACC schools, even the cream, the SEC wouldn't really benefit IMO, they would just be lifting those ACC and/or B12 schools up to their level. Why do that? Even merging with the peer B1G makes no sense. What benefit is there to coming together rather than remaining separate?
SEC schools have power to the extent they compare favorably to rival schools in other conferences. Bring those rivals in to a big SEC Supertent, and while those SEC schools might make more absolute dollars, they would lose their relative advantage, and well, relative is IMO what matters. Relative is why we aren't getting an expanded playoff right now. In absolute terms, every single conference, G5 and P5, is made better off financially, and in terms of access, by any of the proposed models. But conferences are worried about others benefitting more than they do, thus reducing their relative status, the only kind that really exists.
All that said, in this specific case, I think schools like UNC, Duke and UVA still have appeal to the B1G such that even with the new mega-deal they would be glad to invite two of them to move to 16. And the money gap might now be big enough to tempt these ACC die-hards to say "yes" even in the face of all their history as ACC founders and the GOR.
So I think the growing gap is a threat to the ACC.