This stuff is confusing and smarter people may have figured out what teams will expect. This past year, each ACC team (except Stanford, Cal, and SMU) each received about $45 million. With this brand initiative assuming a little overall bump in media, we expecting the below? Clemson = $65 million (from $45 million) FSU = $58 million (from $45 million) Miami = $55 million (from $45 million) NC = $55 million (from $45 million) All others (except Stanford, Cal, and SMU) = $40 million (from $45 million)

Our AD has referenced Iowa State’s Cy Town fan experience project as a possibility for VT in the future. Just wondering what your thoughts were on that? It seems very intriguing.

when completed. Yes am an Iowa State fan. It isn't just football, basketball seasons and then nothing. It is designed for year round revenue, though the football season will be more. it is a mix of Iowa State and private funding. Good to hear it was referenced in the VT presentation.

I have no idea how much the bottom tier of teams will drop for payouts. It’s possible it could even go down to $35m. And if people are willing to accept $35m then maybe $30m is possible also. No matter what, the bottom half is in a bad spot right now for this new payment model. Even with big money donors, the money gap vs the big earners will continue to grow.

However, you want to say it.

It is widely known that ACCN viewership is not reported. And since VT has played many games on the ACCN over the last few years, I believe viewership for VT is largely under reported. I simply do not believe that VT viewership is less than Wake or BC or Syracuse. That simply does not pass the reasonability test.

This is total viewership for the past 5 years across all channels (where data is reported to Nielsen). And this also shows how the data can get adjusted depending on which games the ACC counts for their calculations.

All the ACC schools play on the ACCN and so all schools equally have no data for the ACCN. The numbers above are my personal data that I collected for neilsen reported information on all FBS schools over a ten year period. It is accurate and consistent for all schools. If you would like more information about why VT has fallen so far behind, then I can show you the details later. Just using Wake as a quick example. In 2021 they made the ACC champ game and a decent bowl (both of which always get good numbers). They also got to play Clemson, FSU and Louisville multiple times and benefit from a viewership boost due to opponents. In comparison, VT played a small bowl in 2021 (got waxed by MD), didn’t play in a bowl in 2020 or 2021, and has not been in ACC champ game in a very long time. On top of that, VT has played a very boring OOC schedule lately that gets shoved to secondary networks with fewer viewers. And our conference games have not had as much Clemson, FSU and Louisville.

no data for the ACCN". While true, that is why the "known" viewership numbers fail though. Because all ACCN network appearances are NOT equal. For instance, VT may have appeared on the ACCN 6 times with an avg viewership of 500K (just making up numbers for simple match) for a total additional viewership of 3M, while wake may have appeared there 4 times with an average of 250K viewers resulting in just 1M additional viewership. So it's not true that all schools are equally impacted by the missing data. ** Edited by GusDaMan at 8/8/2025, 12:22:02 PM

Which is why I didn't try to guess at the impact. All I can say for certain is two things... 1. the general public doesn't have any insight into the ACCN numbers 2. we the general public can compare what data is known for the other channels My goal is to make us all be more informed and help our discussions (and long shot maybe have a butterfly effect and help VT to do better). Right now, tv viewership data is very hard to get for the general public and to compare across years or schools. So I have solved for that since it is the data I could find. Hope that helps explain it further

IMO, with the viewership numbers and if we ever actually see the formula, the final tabulation/distribution. Rather than calling them not believable, it might be more accurate to say it is not an apples to apples comparison. Somehow, the metrics need to be normalized for opportunities, opponents, time slots, networks, etc. to truly measure relative value. Otherwise, it is a largely self fulfilling prophecy where the networks and possibly the conference offices get to pick the winners and losers.

I have all of that data that you mentioned. So I know it can be done. But I have no clue what the ACC plans to use or how they will use it. And I fear it will be just like you have said, manipulation to get predetermined results. If anyone here is good at building a web based data dashboard, I’m tempted to just put all of my data out there for anyone to see.

to pick the winners and losers. They gotta keep Clemson and FSU happy.

one former commissioner(Swofford) who pandered to one school(UNC) for a replacement that panders to 3 or 4(UNC, FSU, Clemson and Notre Dame). DDSS with only a few slight differences, the most substantial being a few more schools and less offspring requiring handouts driven by nepotism.

Example: Many have discussed how there’s no easy way to quantify ACC Network ratings. In this situation, the league can create their own quantitative analysis for ACC Network ratings in order to arrive at the exact money distribution they desire. In a very rudimentary example, think of it like this equation. (Clemson’s major network ratings + X) ^y = Clemson’s payout. X is the ACC network rating for Clemson. Which the ACC doesn’t care about. It only cares what it’s paying Clemson. y is the quantitative multiplier that the ACC can use to turn ratings into dollars (it won’t be this simple, but this is a simple explananation) So let’s say that equation now looks like this: (Clemson’s major network ratings + X) ^y = $60M Oh….now the ACC knows it wants to get to $60M for Clemson. And it can use its major TV ratings as a way to quantify that without the need for ACC Network ratings. Because it can set y at whatever it needs to get to $60M. And here’s the great thing about numbers and finances. The quantitative variable y will be different for all 17.33 ACC schools! Because they are all different, some are big in hoops bringing in more NCAA units, reside in major TV markets that create higher carriage fees for the ACCN, have fans that travel to bowl games bringing in added bowl revenue for the league, and on and on and on. So basically, the ACC already knows what it needs to pay Clemson, UNC, Miami and FSU to keep them happy. It knows it can take money away from BC, Syracuse, Wake, Duke, SMU, Stanford, Cal and Pitt in order to do this. Because those schools have to know that taking a few million less a year in the ACC as it currently exists is better than any other option they have. And the ACC knows it can keep payouts very similar for UVA, VT, NC State, GT and Louisville and they will be happy because they have more options than the smaller private schools but they aren’t locks to move to the P2. And the ACC can do all of that by setting X and y however it chooses for all of them. So if Clemson and FSU get $15M more per year and Miami and UNC get $5M more per year, and you take $5M per year away from 8 small and/or private schools in the ACC, bada bing! ** Edited by hokieZ71 at 8/4/2025, 10:27:09 AM

I have no issue with the success initiative, but it was absolutely asinine for the other schools to agree to distribute revenue by viewership. No matter what you do, you cannot control where ESPN slots your broadcasts, and you cannot make people watch your games. You can go undefeated for 3 years in a row and you still aren't in control of either. This conference cannot implode soon enough.

A majority of schools are losing money on this brand initiative so I don't understand how a majority of the schools approved this deal. I could understand 30-40% of the TV revenue being allocated based on brand but 60% is extreme. The big brand schools are going to leave anyway so it doesn't make sense to pay them more so they can save up for their reduced exit fees. From the linked article: The new revenue distribution model, or "brand initiative," will be based on a five-year rolling average. Sixty percent of total ACC television revenue will go toward this initiative. More weight will be given to more recent viewership. A team's total viewership will then be divided by the total ACC viewership to equal its percentage of the money available in this pool. The other 40 percent of the television revenue will be distributed evenly among all league schools.

I don't see any ACC team leaving the conference without a P2 invite. The BIG 12 offers nothing for them to leave. Not knowing the criteria the SEC and BIG would use to move toward expansion, I feel they are content with the status quo. The only thing I see that would trigger expansion, is if the BIG tried to move into the states of North Carolina and Virginia which would cause the SEC to react. The BIG going into South Carolina and Florida wouldn't trigger the SEC as they now deal with completion from the ACC currently. So I think the P2 controls the fate of the current ACC and the timeline. Just my thoughts.

Conference members have to invest - the acc money should be considered extra and fund revenue generation should be based on assuming you dont get the acc revenue That was really unc always didnt support vt to the acc. Vt was perceived as just looking for a conference to aubsidize them not vr commitment to raise the bar

Donations are variable every year and should not be counted on when making budgets. The ACC money is finite and predictable (assuming VT knows all the calculation details and the data being used). Yes VT is far behind many other P4 schools when it comes to donations. But nobody should be relying on donations for athletic department funding. The ACC money is the low hanging fruit that we can get more of just by controlling our own performance on tv. And that is why we need modern and aggressive marketing and coaching.

both donations and TV money are integral components of the athletic department budgets at most schools and predictability is not a significant consideration absent prolonged and continuing failure in department performance. The viewership metrics with their vagueness are just the league's latest plan to game the system to the benefit of their chosen ones.

But I do find it interesting to get more info on the donations and how they are used. My main point was to focus on the ACC revenue tied to tv viewership, which is why I was trying to steer away from the donation aspect. I was really surprised yesterday when I tried to find details about the ACC plan and couldn’t find anything. Just the same press release language used over and over again. I think I have 6 or 7 key questions about the plan, which could greatly alter the payment outcomes.

the viewership calculations. The ACC has locked that down about as well as the AthDept has locked down Merryman. I stand corrected if there is more info out there I've missed.

started to negotiate their own media deals in the 90's? Where does the money come from for those schools in the G6? Texas and ND were very rich schools, disproportionately so, long before the modern age of TV money became a thing.