The question is hypothetical of course.
Yes, there are long-term contracts.
But ESPN — which is driving these things — is hemorrhaging red ink and it's not likely to get any better with millions of subscribers cutting the cord.
Regardless of what those agreements might say (and who here has seen the fine print), I don't see any way the four-letter network is paying the likes of Wake Forest, Boston College, Pitt and others $20 million per year in this environment for ... a handful of football games, a dozen or so basketball games and a bunch of sports friends and family will be streaming through lheir laptops.
It will be a lot more economically feasible to fold a few of the ACC's top brands into the existing SEC Network infrastructure.
ESPN is at the moment still profitable, and it looks to continue to be profitable for a least a few more years. Though it is true that their overall trajectory is currently going downward. ESPN itself is a bloated company that pays its employees far too much for the jobs that they do. It has gotten away with it just because of how profitable sports TV has been the past couple of decades, it can and will eventually trim down like any good corporation should.
The price of these TV contracts are already inflated in my opinion, and as people continue to cut the cord companies like ESPN will just pay less for the rights to broadcast. That doesn't mean conferences will die or fold into each other, just that they will themselves be less profitable, but still make money overall. If ESPN does not buy them, someone else will.
The real problem at ESPN and many other networks is that they still have not figured out how to effectively monetize online viewership of sports.
To answer your original question, I think we should stay in the ACC. It's an easy path for us to the ACC championship game - or at least it should be.