Estimated read time: 6-7 minutes
- Big 12 and ACC must align to counter SEC and Big Ten's dominance.
- Joint meetings recommended to strategize against SEC and Big Ten's growing influence.
- Revenue sharing and playoff expansion are key issues for Big 12 and ACC.
Big 12 conference and campus executives will gather in Orlando on Wednesday for three days of spring meetings. In truth, they probably need three weeks.
The agenda is packed with issues shaping the future of college sports, from the (presumed) onset of revenue sharing this summer to the expansion of the College Football Playoff in 2026 and the ongoing push by the power conferences to acquire more influence within the sprawling NCAA.
One thing the Big 12 should add to the agenda this week: aligning next year's spring meetings with those of the ACC.
The conferences have no choice but to combine forces as the SEC and Big Ten, flush with media rights cash and football blue bloods, tighten their grip on college sports — to the potential detriment of everyone else.
We recommend the Big 12 and ACC stage their 2026 meetings in the same hotel at the same time, reserve space in adjoining conference rooms and conduct several joint sessions. It's increasingly clear that the best strategy for each is to move forward together, not as a merged entity but with a united front and shared vision.
The threat from above is substantial — and gaining strength.
The latest example unfolded Monday night. As fans from coast to coast enjoyed the final hours of the holiday weekend, SEC executives convened for their spring meetings in Destin, Florida, six hours northwest of Orlando.
Commissioner Greg Sankey kicked off the event with a news conference in which he fired an unmistakable salvo at Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark and the ACC's Jim Phillips for comments each made late last week.
Following the College Football Playoff's announced move to a straight seeding model for the 2025 season that seemingly favors the SEC and Big Ten — the seeds will match the final CFP rankings, with no preference for conference champions — Phillips and Yormark issued separate public statements.
Phillips noted that, "Today's decision was done in the best interest of the sport. It may not always benefit the ACC but it was the right decision."
Shortly thereafter, Yormark offered: "Today's decision might not be the best thing for the Big 12, but it was the best thing for college football. I hope what's best for college football continues to be the priority in any discussions moving forward."
The implications were clear: We're compromising for the good of the game, so the Big Ten and SEC should do the same and abandon their push for four automatic bids (each) in an expanded 16-team field that would start in the 2026 season.
Sankey didn't take kindly to the statements.
"I don't need lectures from others about 'good of the game,'" he told reporters Monday in Destin. "I don't lecture others about good of the game and coordinating press releases about good of the game. OK, you can issue your press statement, but I'm actually looking for ideas to move us forward."
Sankey's comment elicited a rapid response from Clark Williams, the Big 12's vice president for communications and strategy, who posted on the social media platform X: "There was no press release from the Big 12 — let alone a coordinated one with the ACC — regarding straight seeding."
So, yes: It's getting heated at the highest levels of power, where the levels of power are anything but equal.
The SEC and Big Ten control the CFP format for 2026 and beyond, a state of play rooted in the most recent wave of conference realignment. With Texas and Oklahoma joining the SEC and USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington moving to the Big Ten, the two conferences accumulated, by far, the greatest number of football blue bloods and most lucrative media rights deals.
Packed with big brands and deep pockets, the SEC and Big Ten seized control of the future CFP governance structure.
And here we are.
Except there are multiple layers to unpack and stratospheric stakes.
The most controversial topic — the unequal distribution of automatic qualifiers (AQs) to the proposed 16-team playoff — is best understood with reverse engineering.
The Big Ten and SEC are considering a format that would grant four AQs (each) in order to shield themselves from the whims of a selection committee that, at times, appears to prioritize loss totals over schedule strength. (Both the ACC and Big 12 would receive two AQs.)
The implementation of AQs would remove the committee from the selection process and allow the SEC and Big Ten to tweak their regular-season schedules without fear that additional losses would cost them playoff spots.
Specifically, they are considering three moves:
- The SEC could add a ninth conference game.
- The two leagues could create an inter-conference scheduling partnership.
- They could add a series of play-in games to their championship weekend lineups, with the winners earning one or two of the automatic bids to the CFP.
All three changes have one thing in common: By creating new TV inventory, they could generate additional revenue from the conference's media partners, Fox (Big Ten) and ESPN (SEC).
That cash would, in turn, help offset the cost of revenue sharing with athletes, which is expected to begin this summer with a price tag of $20.5 million per athletic department.
It's all connected, folks.
Which brings us back to the agenda items for the Big 12 this week in Orlando.
Clearly, the Big 12 and ACC are not on the same terrain as the SEC and Big Ten when it comes to money and influence. Joining forces to the greatest extent possible (without an outright merger) is the best path forward.
The conferences are drastically different in their institutional makeup, with so many private schools in the ACC and the huge, public universities in the Big 12. And they compete against each other on the field and the court, in the regular season and the postseason.
But the enemy of my enemies is my friend. Just as the SEC and Big Ten have shoved their decades-long rivalry aside and pursued common goals (e.g., supreme authority over the CFP), the ACC and Big 12 should work together.
Are there scheduling strategies that could generate additional media dollars?
What strategic goals best serve the collection of 34 schools? (Notre Dame is a member of the ACC in all sports but football.)
How, if at all, can they hit back against the SEC and Big Ten?
It's clear that Yormark and Phillips have been in close contact on CFP matters. A meeting of the minds of campus executives is the next step.
In fact, they shouldn't wait until next spring.
Why not convene later this summer, after revenue sharing takes hold in July (presumably) but before the football season begins and schedules get crowded? As a show of unity, they could meet in the city that's almost exactly halfway between the ACC headquarters in Charlotte and the Big 12 offices outside Dallas.
Yep, that would be Birmingham.
Most recent Hotline with Jon Wilner stories
Jon Wilner has been covering college sports for decades and is an AP Top 25 football and basketball voter as well as a Heisman Trophy voter. He was named Beat Writer of the Year in 2013 by the Football Writers Association of America for his coverage of the Pac-12, won first place for feature writing in 2016 in the Associated Press Sports Editors writing contest and is a five-time APSE honoree. You can follow him on Twitter @WilnerHotline or send an email at jwilner@bayareanewsgroup.com.
Pac-12 Hotline: Subscribe to the Pac-12 Hotline Newsletter. Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference.
