ESPN is exercising its option to extend its television rights contract with the Atlantic Coast Conference — which initially ran until 2027 — through 2036, Dellenger reported Thursday morning. Part of that extension, per Dellenger, stipulates that the Irish will face the traditional football powers of the ACC more often.
The league's biggest brands — Florida State, Miami and Clemson — are expected to play more football games regularly with Notre Dame," Dellenger wrote. "The Irish are expected to play, at the very least, two of the three each season in a rotation.
Live Shot of Whit Babcock:
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
So Miami is in this category with zero ACC championships and only one title game appearance?
EDIT: Meanwhile little ole VT has 3 title game wins - 4 overall championships if you count 2004 when there wasn't a championship game.
This is just straight up marketing and more excuses for them re-run the "Catholics vs Convicts" 30 for 30.
EDIT2: For clarity.
Miami has won 5 national championships. In the last 50 years, only Alabama has won more national titles (7) than Miami's 5. The only other team with 4 is USC. Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Florida, FSU, Georgia, Clemson and LSU have won 3 championships each in the last 50 years.
Miami is very much a traditional power.
By those standards, Harvard is a traditional power.
Current players were -6 years old the last time Miami played for a national title. Hell, the same applies for the last time they won a conference.
Except for that tight end in his ninth season. He might have been born by that last one.
Sure, lets take it all the way out. Princeton and Yale are by far the greatest football programs of all time, with 55 championships combined. Nevermind that their last titles were in 1950 and 1927, respectively. I went ahead and took the liberty of not considering those relevant. I think titles in the last 50 years is a pretty reasonable metric.
You think media rights are being negotiated based on what 20 year olds think?
"Princeton and Yale are by far the greatest football programs"
Just not an ACC football power - that was more my point. Yes, they had great teams in the Johnson/Erickson/Davis days when they were absolutely blowing up the rules (insert "if you're not cheating, you're not trying" discussion), but they haven't done jack in the last 20 years.
I suppose it's depends on your definition of "traditional".
LOL- only if ND wants to. The ACC doesn't dictate terms to ND.
But ESPN might.
"Hey ND, you want a chance at the CFP, you better play these teams regularly".
nope. ND has option to leave at any time as they wish. it's totally up to them. they can choose to stay and play with ACC TV rights rules or leave and find a better boat or remain independent. Why? because Swofford was a fucking moron.
ESPN controls the playoff. My comment has nothing to do with ND's contractual relationship with the ACC.
ND being in the ACC in no way impacts their standing for the playoff. They bring in way too much national media attention and eyeballs, they are a blue blood program. ESPN has zero leverage on them.
If ND walked away from the ACC deal today they would be fine for the playoff. They would honestly most likely park their other sports back in the Big East and schedule a few marquee football games against the B1G and SEC and continue on their merry way.
One day you guys will realize the ND association with ACC football is a total fucking sham. It's meaningless for the ACC- we get nothing for it that matters.
I realized that a long time ago. Swofford got worked in that deal. ND only does what's in the best interest of ND, there is no benefit whatsoever to that affiliation other than a little cash on the margins as bar1990 put it best for the ACC.
The bottom line is that if an association with ND benefitted ACC football in ANY fucking way, the league wouldn't be dying, re-upping shit contracts and adding fucking Cal. Bottom line. Period.
100%. The ACC begs for ESPN or ND to save them, but honestly it was Swofford's dumbass negotiations that made them soo feeble. He also was the architect of the weakest conference expansion to build out "basketball brands" to ensure ACC's place as the top basketball conference only to turn the conference into a 4th tier or worse basketball conference in due time.
Worst management ever. I guess that's what a UNC degree gets you.
I would have 100% left Syracuse football to die like UCONN. As cuse as a whole would have been happier than a pig in shit. But no, we have to add their weak ass football program and help Pitt also for no fucking reason. Pitt isn't a big brand in EITHER sport FFS. dumb is being generous.
They could've joined the Big East castoffs and been fine, football notwithstanding.
ESPN wants better product, that's why they are (probably) encouraging this scheduling model. ND vs Clemson, FSU or Miami is better product than ND vs SMU or Louisville or Wake Forest.
Sure ND could take their ball and go elsewhere, but why would the Big Whatever or SEC want to accommodate that as it probably reduces the number of teams they could get in.
Right now with the money SMU is throwing at football, I wouldn't discount SMU vs ND as a draw.
SMU doesn't have the brand that those other schools do. SMU was better than Miami and FSU this year and might be next year, too. However, that match up doesn't have the cache that those other match ups have because of their brands.
ESPN would probably want the Miami and/or FSU games to be early; too, before we know what a shitshow those teams might be.
They seemed to do just fine with just 1 out of those 3 this year. This is less about ND needing the ACC to be relevant (they dont) and more about ESPN needing ND to lift the ACC ratings specifically for those three teams because those are the ones complaining the most about how important they are to the conference and they deserve more than an equal share of the revenue.
I think the ability to dictate that is the original agreement for ND to be a full participant and member of the ACC for all sports but football. If I remember correctly, they are bound to 5 football games per season against ACC opponents. That's how VT got the games we got both at ND and in Blacksburg. As part of the renewal, I'm guessing either ESPN asked for this arrangement to guarantee games against those 3 or the ACC offered it up to try to appease FSU and Clemson.
they are bound to- an average- 5 football games per season .. key distinction.
In every single negotiation/circumstance against outside entities (not member schools), I assume the ACC rolls over and shows its belly immediately every time.
if there was any question (and there really shouldn't have been) this just confirms that the ACC has zero regard or respect for VT. Yes, VT is down at the moment but it is absolutely one of the best brands in the ACC, without a doubt. Miami has done basically nothing in the last 21 years in the conference. VT has 4 ACC championship victories. VT helped ESPN make Thursday night football and ESPN gameday a thing. VT has the best entrance in college football and Lane Stadium is a bucket-list item for any serious college football fan regardless of which team they support. These are all facts. Miami hasn't won a meaningful game the entire time they have been in the ACC. If the ACC tries to claim the dinosaur titles that Miami had that is straight up stollen valor as those titles came when the Canes were in the Big East, not the ACC. It's absolute horseshit that the ACC doesn't recognize VT as being one of the top brands in the league. I'll concede FSU and Clemson since they have actually won titles as ACC members. But fucking Miami?!?! Give me a break.
All it does is underline just how much Whit Babcock has been a complete and utter failure of an Athletic Director at VT. When he was hired we were an ACC cash cow, printing them money through high leverage and high profile games, getting us invited as at large to the BCS bowls, getting invited to major showcase events, and even holding our own in sports other than football.
Now? We are an afterthought, at best with an entire athletic department that is at best mediocre in all major broadcast sports. In any other school, he is fired in the last 24 months, but here he has a rope that seemingly has no end as long as the right boosters gets their asses kissed.
We are still getting invites to showcase games. Game 1 next season is the Chick-fil-A Kickoff. I know we expect to get bullied right now as a fan base but we got the invite.
This is somewhere between revisionist history/misrememberence/incorrect.
At the time whit was hired, Virginia Tech football had its first 6 win season, which would be followed by a 7 win season, and another 6 win season. Basketball (under James Johnson) was worse off than it is now. WBB was irrelevant.
Since then, both basketball teams have won the ACC (something that was unthinkable), both basketball teams made or tied their deepest tournament run in program history, and the football team made a higher that everyone thought was a home run.
That doesn't mean that whit has been a perfect athletic Director, and it doesn't mean that he's the right person to move this athletic department forward.
Whit is not without his failures, and I think there is a myriad of fair criticism to be made, but I do think it's ridiculous to call his tenure a complete failure.
Biggest Whit mistake was overreacting to Fuente's inaugural season and giving him the extension (Link Here).
I actually don't think the extension was a bad idea. He was garnering interest from FSU, Florida, and other schools. At the end of 2017, Fuente led teams had won 9+ games for 5 straight years I believe.
Not firing him in 2020 was the big mistake imo.
a the time, probably not. In hindsight it was extremely hasty.
It has noe been a complete failure, no. But it hasn't been great and he's not some untouchable performer. He gets credit for hiring Buzz Williams and letting him hire his 50 person support staff and giving him all his little perks. He gets credit for that. He also allowed all of that momentum to disappear within 5 years. We are bad/irrelevant again in men's hoops. That's on him. He made a terrible hire - a program killing hire in Justin Fuente- I don't give a fuck what talking heads said "at the time"- this is a results business and fuente killed the most important program at VT. On the backs of that disater, he hires a first time head coach and 2 first time coordinators. Brilliant. He bends over for Nike, and he let's Kenny Brooks walk for a lateral job. If Pry is 6-6 next year, both he and Whit should go.
I agree with this^ and simultaneously disagree that Whit was/is "a complete and utter failure of an Athletic Director at VT"
dont forget baseball and softball both rising into the occasional ACC elite and national conversation
These are all ancient history, too. We've had one (1) ten-win season in the last 13 years, and have been pretty mediocre recently. Those facts don't resonate as well anymore. If we get back to winning ways, sure, we can tie those times into current times and leverage off that, but until we start winning again, it was a different era.
yes, exactly all of these points are why I'm furious that FUCKING MIAMI, a team that hasn't done anything in OVER 20 YEARS - AND ALSO HASN'T DONE ANYTHING AS AN ACC MEMBER is regarded as a top brand in the ACC??!?!?!?!?!!!
Like, you're not wrong. VT has been down lately. But if you're looking at brands in the ACC that way and you say that VT doesn't deserve to be considered one of the top brands in the league by that logic then Miami abso-fucking-lutely should be left off that list as well. My whole point is that Miami doesn't deserve to be there any more than VT does. If you don't think VT deserves to be there with FSU and Clemson, fine, I won't argue with that. But if you're going to turn around and say that VT doesn't deserve to be there for the reasons listed but then say Miami does deserve to be there because of titles they won, in a different league, in a different era, then fuck right off.
We don't market ourselves and make it difficult for others to market us as well. You want some VT merch, good luck finding anything of quality anywhere. You want to watch our teams, well we suck so enjoy the CW network for football or ESPN+ in basketball. The last time we were in a national campaign we pulled out because Nike was too forward thinking for our 'never change anything ever' fanbase who thought a stripe on a shirt was a crime against humanity.
The sports world moved on and we dug in our heels to stay in 1999. We deserve everything we are getting right now because our leadership has been braindead for a very, very long time.
My thoughts:
Surprising only in that they don't have Clemson higher.
Well if the Wall Street Journal is to be believed then we should be getting the biggest payout as the most valued program. The ACC can be asked to provide justification if they disagree with that.
Unfortunately, the justification is that we don't have an address on Tobacco Road.
Can somebody just post the rankings, and what they say about Tech, from this paywalled article?
It's not paywalled for me 🤷♂️
Nothing much about VT. Our 'valuation' is $476m.
I agree on one hand with what VPIhokie is stating in terms of what has Miami done. Nothing.
However, they did say "brand". And Miami as a brand is nationally known regardless of how they are playing and are obviously located in a premier city in the country.
In terms of how programs are doing, we've been way better overall the past 20 years than they have.
Not only that, but ND and Miami have a history of big games against each other, so linking them makes sense. VT and ND, not so much.
If you don't like the way your program is perceived, win your football games.
Respect is earned, not given.
Winning solves a lot of problems.
Ducking us, I see. Cowards. That's alright, leaves more room on the schedule for Pitt, BC, Wake, Cuse, and Cal.
Are we talking football only? Or looking at VT as a ACC brand in its entirety?
Wrestling, Softball, Baseball, MBB. WBB, Track and Field, I agree with the WSJ.
The other thing that sucks about this is that it all but guarantees that VT is not on the radar when the final round of conference expansion happens. We have no entry into the P2, we are locked out.
Hard not to feel like this is the signaling of a death sentence to VT athletics.
Not if we start winning. Win and we're in, baby!
Even by your over-the-top doom-and-gloom standards, this seems a bit much to be honest.
Miami, Clemson and FSU add nothing to the SEC. Big10 maybe. We add a whole new market to either conf.
The only real question to the B1G and the SEC is when they are ready to expand their markets do they want UNC or NC State, and do they want VT or UVA. All I know is I want Stanford and California to do what they were invited to the ACC to do and that is nominate us for the AAU.
TV Markets are becoming less and less important. For now, they bring in a sizable amount of money, but that will change drastically in the upcoming years. No team is getting added to a P2 conference just for the TV Market.
I see what you're saying, but regional affiliation is still very real, and people want to see their regions represented, regardless of where their video feed comes from.
I disagree, but your argument is an interesting one.
I would frame the question this way: Does the university of Alabama (as an institution) have more in common with Ole Miss/Mississippi state, or USC/Ohio State?
When we get to the point that Bama has more in common with OSU/USC/Oregon than regional neighbors like Ole Miss/South Carolina/Mississippi State, regional affiliation will no longer matter (at least from a revenue-driving perspective).
I'm not sure about all that, but what's the greeting in a supermarket in Alabama?
Answer: Roll Tide.
Now, what team are those folks going to watch no matter what?
Repeat the experiment in Southwest Virginia.
A big part of the success of college football (and sports in general) is regional identification.
I think you're talking apples and oranges here.
bar1990 is talking about relationships between different schools, and how that will affect conference affiliation and game ratings (eyeballs), which is what will drive revenue going forward.
You're talking about relationships between fans and their local school. Big difference.
People are going to watch their local school, in general, but of games not involving their school, the big marquee matchups are the ones driving the eyeballs. That's what bar1990 is referring to.
I'm saying that people watch college football because they feel connected to it. Because their regional school or alma mater has at least a remote stake in the outcome.
Otherwise, why are we all here?
It's no random outcome that we post on this site. The vast majority of us have some direct or regional connection to the school, and that's our interest in this school's teams, the conference, and college football altogether.
If you lose that connection, you lose a lot of fans. I have zero connection with Alabama or Ohio State. I have a bigger connection with the ACC. My entire connection is through Virginia Tech.
Within 10 years, I could see there being no NCAA and conference commissioners allowing non students to play for their teams. I'm talking totally removing the pretense of enrolled college students on these teams. When that happens, the sport is dead. Just like the G league would be if the NBA wasn't willing to lose millions on it.
That is certainly the risk.
The further these players get from actually being students, the less this univeristy/sport connection makes sense.
We just rented a house in Nags head for offseason next year. Name of the house? "Rolling Tide".
Maybe regional cable TV markets are going to be completely killed by streaming. But I'm not totally convinced of that. Streaming services have limitations - and they continue to jack up their rates which will eventually drive people to search for cheaper options. Whether or not those cheaper options will be regional cable TV providers, no one knows.
Live major sports is moving to a pay per view model. So brace yourself. Soon SEC football will be a separate package/app like Thursday night NFL football is. The super bowl will be a pay per view event in the next 5-7 years. Larry Scott was a few years premature in his idea- which will ultimately come to pass because of the machine needing its fuel- the multi billion dollar CFB machine. Michigan OSU will be on a paid app in the very near future.
I wish.
I'd pay a bargain-bin price for the ACC to watch Hokies, for the front of the jersey. And not pay a penny for the SEC or Big Ten packages. I'd be happy with that, which almost guarantees that this won't be the end state.
yeah, I don't think this will happen purely because there are so many "casual" observers. I know several people who watched the MNC game who had zero ties or allegiances to either team or conference. They watched it because it was available to them. The moment that goes up behind its own paywall is the moment viewer numbers will absolutely plummet into the basement. These people wouldn't have watched or cared otherwise. They certainly weren't going to pay extra just for the privilege.
"These people wouldn't have watched or cared otherwise. They certainly weren't going to pay extra just for the privilege."- This doesn't jive at all with these huge TV contracts and 500K NIL payments to Sean Pedulla. It can't be just hard corps fans that drive ratings and the machine.
That's what he's saying. Ratings are not driven by the hard core fans alone. A huge swath of the viewership is made of the casual fans.
That would fall away if the CFP was PPV, because that would make it more effort/expense than the casual fan wants. And that reduced audience would sell fewer ads. And THAT doesn't jive with mega contracts and NIL payments.
It's not going to be a bargain-bin price, that's for sure.
Well, compared to SEC or Big Ten, at least.
I won't be paying more than $0 for any of them. Use to watch, but in recent years, don't watch any of the above. And have no plans to increase my viewership.
Alright time to quit the ACC
Can someone clarify whether this extension brings in more money for ACC teams? If not, when are we eligible to negotiate for a better TV contract?
"Can someone clarify whether this extension brings in more money for ACC teams? "- much appreciated. I always need a good laugh on a monday morning. Thank you.
no. 5036
it was a unilateral option for ESPN. And they picked up the option. ACC continues to be AFed by a terribly negotiated contract.
But hey, at least we have reruns of UNC Duke from the 80s on the ACCN.
Nope - ESPN had the option to drop us. They chose not to. That's all.
Just for reference:
this reads like a heavily slanted pro-acc propaganda piece. And that's kinda funny because it still paints the ACC as being well behind the P2.
What I would love to see, though, is the average payout per school per year for all of these contracts. That what really matters. What is each school getting, in total, per year.
Those numbers appear to be per school.
SEC (16 Members)
B1G (18 Members)
ACC (17 Members)
B12 (16 Members)
It also conveniently stops in 2031 when the B1G and SEC comes due for renegotiation of their contracts and will likely lap the ACC.
Maybe I misread the extension release, but I thought it doesn't expire until 2036 but the reduced exit fees happen in 2031 in conjunction with when the other conference contracts expire.
FSU and Clemson want reduced exit fees. I have not seen anything that those have been approved.
"As part of the settlement, Clemson and Florida State are asking the ACC to agree to reduce penalties for exiting the grant of rights after 2031" ESPN link
I don't think the ACC has agreed to this yet. I doubt they have yet to put up a vote.
Thank you for the clarification. I must have read it over too quickly. Leg for you both..
which is why point 2 on the right is so dumb. OK, yea, the first 5 years of the ACC was good money for the ACC, but the ACC signed a 2-decade contract. So freaking dumb.
Yes, it still shows us as being well behind the P2, but not as far behind as previous statements (mid-$30Ms). At least somebody is trying to compare apples to apples in the payouts. I'll give props for that.
And it looks like we're doing significantly better than the Big XII. Their rights at their next renegotiation are going down after Texas and Oklahoma left.
I mean, it just seems like we're patting ourselves on the back for being the first losers. Not a good place to be
It is where we are. Why sugarcoat it?
Also, it's not the worst place in the world, as the P2 will eventually figure out that while they want all the pie, they want the pie to be bigger.