RandomAsianGuy

According to a report by Joe Flint in The Wall Street Journal, NBC will sell the game to Fox for between $45 and $55 million. Previous reports indicated that NBC was courting streamers including Netflix and Amazon’s Prime Video for a price tag of around $70 million. NBC will also receive additional regular-season inventory as part of the deal. ------- The money pinch at legacy TV networks appears to be real. Even NBC is dumping the Big Ten championship game to save a few bucks. This fits the narrative. Prioritizing must have assets and staying disciplined is the name of the game. For NBC, that means focusing on the NFL and NBA. And probably ND plus some B10 games, but not the championship game. In the end, I think Disney and Fox remain the two dominant players in college sports. The other legacy networks don’t have much money to spend, and streamers don’t seem particularly interested.

So I've seen many posts on this board complaining that with our NIL money, we cannot get tall and competent centers. Getting someone like Kitley or Strack would be a miracle. But we *did* have Kitley and Strack. Clara Silva was coming to VT. So the question is: Did our NIL money suddenly and massively drop when Brooks left? If not, when are we getting 6'4"+ post players who can match up squarely against top tier teams?

I’m just second guessing here, but I have a feeling she never really liked playing the 4. Coach Duffy would probably have kept her in that role next year if Baker had stayed.

I really hope she stays. She is an essential player for VT but I don't know if she likes playing at 4. Hopefully she stays and plays 3 next year.

The scheduling agreement with ND makes sense for the ACC. The P2 will never enter into such a deal in my opinion.

I get that you want VT to invest more NOW. And I don't disagree. But that's not my point nor the point of the article. The university leadership should plan for a long term and have a clear vision for the role of athletics. The SEC may leave NCAA in a very near future. Not likely but it's a real possibility. Hypothetically, if the SEC does break away and ask other schools/conferences to join them, should VT join them or stay in the NCAA (student athlete model)? I don't think it's a simple answer.

I know people are complaining about ND and want them to either fully join or leave the conference. But I actually like the current setup. ND is already playing six ACC games for most years. 2023: 6 2024: 5 2025: 6 2026: 6 2027: 5 2028: 6 2029: 6 2030: 6 2031: 6 2032: 6 2033: 6 2034: 5 2035: 6 2036: 6 2037: 5 Add +1 for 2027 through 2037 if Stanford series is retained. The ACC has its contract with ESPN locked in until 2037, and ND’s scheduling arrangement must have already been factored into ESPN’s calculations when renewing the deal. At this point, I doubt ESPN would pay significantly more even if ND fully joined the ACC for football. At the same time, if ND decides it wants to join a football conference, they would rather join the Big Ten. The current setup isn’t a bad deal for the ACC, and it’s not a bad deal for ND either. ND is pushing hard to modify the arrangement in their favor, such as reducing the number of required games or playing more football brands, but the ACC has little reason to accommodate those changes. I don’t see a better alternative for ND right now. Bottom line: Let’s not kill the golden goose.

The SEC has an even number of football schools. If one SEC team plays ND during the conference game window (not in the early season), another team would have to take a bye week or schedule a non conference opponent. They would need to arrange this for 5 or 6 weeks every single year. The ACC is willing to do it. We actually have an odd number of football teams, so it’s probably easier to accommodate in some weeks. Sankey, on the other hand, won’t unless the payoff is very hefty. From ESPN’s perspective, ND-SEC matchups are certainly more appealing. However, they already have six ND-ACC matchups in most years, and the ACC contract is locked in until 2037. I don’t see ESPN paying the SEC a big bucks for this.

what if the reality become a full pro model: players become employees, education is optional (players don't have to take classes at all), for profit athletic department, etc. If the court rules that players are employees, this may happen quickly. Should VT follow that "reality?" Should everyone else?

So, everyone will become a pro athlete? What will happen to FCS, Ivy leagues, D2, and D3?

From Tim Sands, the chair of the NCAA Division I Board of Directors and VT President … What can we do, as university presidents and chancellors, to set college athletics onto a sustainable path, at least in the short run? Conversations about pooling media rights, superconferences and professionalizing football and maybe basketball through collective bargaining are fascinating and may be part of a lasting solution, but they are several years away from implementation even if a path to get there were to be identified immediately. The NCAA and DI conferences are advocating for support from Congress for the SCORE Act or something similar, but there is no guarantee that such legislation will be enacted in the near future. By contrast, there are steps that the NCAA DI membership can take now in the interest of fairness, safety and academic integrity that are largely under the control of presidents and chancellors, especially those from Power Four institutions. We could protect the student-athlete model by introducing duration-of-eligibility rules, similar to long-standing rules in other nonprofessional sports organizations, to promote safety for competitors and opportunities for high school graduates, and we could create a permissible contact period for recruitment after the season ends and before the opening of the transfer portal. Ideas such as these, and many others, are currently being discussed in various venues. Within conferences, we have more options if we are willing to stand up for the student-athlete model at the risk of introducing temporary competitive disadvantages. A conference could elect to restrict transfers into or within the conference in support of academic progress, perhaps through the vehicle of institutional revenue-sharing contracts. A conference could also decide to unilaterally implement a common-sense transfer rule that balances freedom to transfer with academic progress. For example, a student athlete could be allowed one or two transfers for any reason before having to sit out a year of competition for subsequent transfers, in order to spend that year focused on demonstrating progress toward a degree. … ——— It’s clear Tim Sands (and VT and probably majority of the ACC schools) greatly prefers the Student Athlete model ove the Pro model. I think I might have said this before: if the P2 adopts a full pro model (players becomes employees), the ACC will position itself as an alternative traditional conference (one that aligned with the student athlete model and the NCAA)

Just like Mr. Thomas.

Best wishes

He clearly doesn’t know that the P2 has much more power than ND. ND can take maybe one school with it at most. The SEC won’t agree to anything like a 6 game scheduling agreement.

** Edited by RandomAsianGuy at 3/24/2026, 12:07:52 PM

But the B10 primarily looks at AAU status. We are not an AAU member. Our biggest market is Washington DC area and the B10 already has half of it with UMCP. Virginia as a state is smaller than Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. Its population is similar to Arizona’s, but it’s no longer growing as fast. VT’s location is hard to get to. Not an ideal setup for a nationwide conference. It’s just logical for the Big Ten to look at other programs first. I think we are very low on their list, if we’re on it at all. On the other hand, I think we are relatively high on the SEC’s list, probably higher than FSU, Clemson, and GT. I’m a fan, but I also try to look at the situation objectively. Sorry if I sounded a little harsh. It’s just my opinion.

But we should try to be realistic. The B10 is not a possibility. Like you, I don’t trust the media, but we need to follow the actual reporting. If VT were ever considered by the Big Ten, there’d have to be at least some kind of leak or mention somewhere. I haven’t seen anything. When UMCP got poached, there were murmurs beforehand. UMCP didn’t vote for the exit fee increase, which showed they might have had other options. I also remember UNC, UVA, and even GT being mentioned as possibilities for the B10. VT? Not a peep. It’s not just late reporting. Since then, I haven’t heard a single thing about VT and the Big Ten. The only thing VT had was reporting that the SEC considered VT as a partner for Texas A&M. VT didn’t pursue that avenue, and again, what I’m saying is that VT’s only real chance is with the SEC. Even if VT becomes AAU, the Big Ten is still a very long shot. Without AAU, zero chance. Just my 2 cents.

credible sources indicating that VT has ever been considered by the B10. It’s only this board. We feel like we are a good fit for the B10. But the feeling is NOT mutual. I had stated that VT’s only hope was to tag along with UNC to the SEC (and people didn’t like it, lol). So far, no reporters or credible pundits have mentioned VT’s name as a P2 candidate. The closest thing is this Flug’s YouTube video claiming that if UVa isn’t going to the SEC, VT has a chance, which is an exact scenario I had posted before. Again, my view is this. I don’t see many ACC schools will be picked by the P2. Not because the ACC schools don’t want the P2 membership, but because there are not that many valueable ACC schools for the P2. And VT is not there yet in my opinion.

but they don't dictate realignment decisions. At this point, VT would be grateful for any P2 offer.

1. It would open up a path for VT to the SEC. And I'm telling you. realistically, the SEC is the only P2 option for VT. People on this board like the B10 for some reason, but the feeling isn't reciprocal lol. 2. Even if VT doesn't get any invite, losing UVa isn't going to be a fatal blow to the ACC. So far, the B10 has only invited AAU schools and that would limit their choices (FSU, Clemson, and VT are out. again, VT has zero chance with the B1G in my view).

So his source claims that Abigail Spanberger will block UVA from joining the SEC. That's a wild claim. I guarantee you: If UNC is heading to the SEC and UVA doesn't have an offer from the Big Ten, UVA would definitely jump at the SEC offer. Now, if UVA receives offers from both the SEC and the Big Ten, then yeah, Spanberger might push UVA to choose the Big Ten. But the question is why the B10 would invite UVa without getting UNC? By the way I agree with you. The only way for VT to get into the P2, in my opinion, is to join the SEC as a tag-along to UNC (I've been saying this many times). But it's Flug, so I'll take this with a huge grain of salt. Flug always implied that the ACC was going to lose so many teams and explode. Now he's saying nothing is imminent and nothing is certain. Flug still "predicts" a big scoop (4 schools) for the SEC. I don't see the SEC adding more than two schools. We'll see.

I found this interview was informative. Basically he echoed the article @SMU Pony had posted a few days ago. He talked about other issues but the main thing was about broader economic headwinds facing non NFL media rights deals (particularly college sports). Below is Grok’s summary: - Declining traditional pay-TV subscriptions - Streaming platforms still losing money at scale or not generating sufficient profit (Disney reportedly $20B in losses) - Consolidation among big media companies (e.g. potential Paramount-Warner type mergers) reducing the number of serious bidders for rights - NFL and NBA mega-deals setting high benchmarks that college football may struggle to match in the next cycle He doesn’t seem to believe the college sports media revenue would continue to grow exponentially. I still think the B10 and the SEC will see significant revenue growth. But not sure about other conferences. We will see.

I think the ACC is done with CW as they are pivoting to MWC and P12. The original Raycom's contract (currently with CW) expires in 2027. What's murky is whether the rights to those games (a package of one football game and two men’s basketball games per week, plus women's basketball) go back to the ACC or to ESPN. A 2022 N&O article states that in 2027 “each ACC school will get an immediate bump of about $3 million more per year from the ACC.” So maybe the ACC already sold this package to ESPN for around $45 million a year ($3 million × 15 schools). Even if it goes to ESPN, Disney may still decide to sublicense the package to another broadcaster. I'm hoping for NBC, CBS, or at least TNT.

The WH roundtable I posted about before actually happened yesterday. I watched a good chunk of it. Read the article. Greg Sankey, Jim Phillips, Yormark, and the AAC commissioner all spoke in favor of the SCORE Act. The president seems to believe the pre-NIL era was better and that some type of salary cap is necessary. The president did say he's going to issue an EO, but it's entirely unclear what it would contain, and I think it's premature to claim that it'll be struck down or have no bearing on college sports. This is something to follow. ** Edited by RandomAsianGuy at 3/7/2026, 1:00:15 PM

the TV networks and the P2. The CBS/TNT merger might be good news for the Big 12, as they may be more interested in mid-tier products. I don't see Amazon, Netflix, or YouTube going after mid-tier college sports content. We'll see.

Let’s see what people will say after the 2024-2025 revenue numbers come out, which should show the ACC schools getting $10M+ more than the B12 schools.

** Edited by RandomAsianGuy at 3/2/2026, 6:20:00 PM

** Edited by RandomAsianGuy at 3/2/2026, 6:13:03 PM

That’s exactly why the ACC's long term contract with ESPN is such a big deal. ESPN already exercised its option to extend with the ACC through 2036. The ACC may lose some schools around 2030 and the Big 12's contract expires in 2031. But should ESPN keep paying for two mid tier conferences? What would be ESPN’s best move? What if ESPN lowballs the B12, what would be the 4C schools best strategy? If I were ESPN, I would lowball the B12 and if they don’t take the offer, move the better Big 12 properties to the ACC and be done with it.