Espn picks up option to televise ACC til 2036

I know big12 wants Clemson but there is not, nor do you have, any proof that B12 will payout greater than ACC. B12 leverage? What leverage? SEC, BI leverage - oh yeah - they got it but there is no proof they want Clemson from a small state.

I agree ACC could be hurt by locked in contract until 2036 - emphasis on could be - but as of now they pay more than B12 to members.
 
Does Clemson travel well? Kinda seems they do from memory. Maybe I'm wrong.
 
79tech said:
I know big12 wants Clemson but there is not, nor do you have, any proof that B12 will payout greater than ACC. B12 leverage? What leverage? SEC, BI leverage - oh yeah - they got it but there is no proof they want Clemson from a small state.

I agree ACC could be hurt by locked in contract until 2036 - emphasis on could be - but as of now they pay more than B12 to members.
Click to expand...
Small state? South Carolina (which is growing)? The sec has 2 from Mississippi fwiw.

The B12 has leverage, because adding brands like Clemson, FSU, etc provides them with negotiating power, vs the ACC stuck in the dinosaur contract.
 
Allows them to wash their hands clean of the impending implosion.
 
Probably an unpopular opinion here, but I think Phillips has done a pretty good job. The ACC has survived and expanded when everyone had it dead and buried. I actually think it survives long term and I think we should want that.
 
The finalization of the House vs NCAA and Title IX compliance will decide who survives or not and in what form.
 
ramblinwise1 said:
The finalization of the House vs NCAA and Title IX compliance will decide who survives or not and in what form.
Click to expand...
Lowering the female student population is the path to athletic dominance.

Oh, if I had a daughter sir, I'd dress her in white and gold
And keep her off the campus, to reduce the ratio!
 
Why would GT (and the other schools) vote for this change in payout, while the ACC rigs the payout with a new schedule favoritism? Where is Cabrera and Batt on this? Get us the öööö out, man.
 
THWUGA said:
Why would GT (and the other schools) vote for this change in payout, while the ACC rigs the payout with a new schedule favoritism? Where is Cabrera and Batt on this? Get us the öööö out, man.
Click to expand...
You sure seem butthurt today
 
BuzzCzar said:
You sure seem butthurt today
Click to expand...
Fair. I feel strongly about only a few issues with Tech athletics. Our school and AA has lacked leadership and strategic planning for a long time, IMO. Tech ALWAYS seems to fail to see the big picture and where things are headed. I think that has begun to improve under Cabrera and Batt, where they seem to be more on the same page and they're saying more of the right things. I hope they are backchanneling the hell out of this conference stuff, and it's clear that Clemson and FSU handled their stuff the wrong way in public.

But as we sit today, we're watching the ACC redirect money to these "brands" based on views while they rig the schedule so that more eyeballs are directed toward the brands they want. Meanwhile Tech just led the league in 2024 viewership as a middle of the pack ACC football team. How is this not some sort of breach by the ACC? Hell, if you're founding member Wake Forest, how do you stand by while this happens? It's a joke conference. This shit simply doesn't happen in a real conference.

So it's tough. Yeah, I feel strongly about how bad the ACC is from leadership down to the schools that don't (and haven't ever) spent enough on their programs. At times, that has included GT due to its awful leadership. Maybe that makes me stubborn. I just want Tech to relevant at the top level for a long time, and unless we get away from the ACC, that's coming to an end.
 
How do you know that "brand" isn't in part evaluated based on viewership?
 
BuzzCzar said:
How do you know that "brand" isn't in part evaluated based on viewership?
Click to expand...
Did you read above and about what the ACC is doing to boost viewership for schools that don’t include GT based on early discussions?
 
GTFLETCH said:
UPDATED LOOK AT EST. AVG. MEDIA RIGHTS VALUE for P4:
BIG10: $71.9M
SEC: $68.8M
ACC: $51.3M
Big12: $31.7

Click to expand...

Notre Dame $22million from football plus $12million from ACC for all other sports

1000019161.jpg
 
Notre Dame is currently negotiating an extention of its football TV media deal, the number being tossed about is $75m/yr!
 
GTFLETCH said:
UPDATED LOOK AT EST. AVG. MEDIA RIGHTS VALUE for P4:
BIG10: $71.9M
SEC: $68.8M
ACC: $51.3M
Big12: $31.7

Click to expand...

Pretty good look.

That chart on the right really shows the weight on the "marquee matchups" for these deals. The messaging from the league has been about prioritizing these matchups and I assume that's what's driving the dark green ESPN tier 1 rights up. The ACCN rights for the leftover games is actually going down over time. Crazy.
 
THWUGA said:
Did you read above and about what the ACC is doing to boost viewership for schools that don’t include GT based on early discussions?
Click to expand...
And what “favors” did the ACC give Clemson last year? Clemson played the following in 2024:

uga (MBS)
NCSU (preseason Top 25)
@ FSU (preseason Top 10 ROFL)
Louisville
@ VT
@ Pitt (Started 7-0)
South Carolina
SMU (ACC Championship)

2025:

LSU
@ GT
Syracuse
@ UNC
SMU
Duke
FSU
@ UofL
@ South Carolina

So who has the harder schedule in 2025 GT or Clemson? The ACC office protecting the perceived “brands” is a myth.

Fwiw Greg McElroy has Clemson his pre-Spring #4 team.

1. Texas
2. tOSU
3. PSU
4. Clemson
5. Oregon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top