Well - streamers are starting to buy just a few college games
This time, with just one team (Duke BBall). I know these are non-conference games, but don't think we may see some week 0 match-ups in football with the Netflix College Opener pitting 2 top teams and paying them a lot of money for NIL.
As mentioned here and there and everywhere, I think VT's main goal is to get in the P2, but does the P2 exits in 20 years, or do schools that feel that are big enough just go the ND route and work on their own carrier deals as independents - maybe striking deals with like schools for their non-rev sports to ease scheduling?
Funny thing is I can see this happening, but 20-30 years after that, go back to conferences because while I follow VT, I do still watch a decent amount of games because there is some investment on how it affects VT or that they are playing for the same goal (of course, that has waned some since VT hasn't been in any position to do anything once there are 4 or so games to go). If there is a 24 or whatever number superleague of independents, does that still carry enough weight to keep that kind of money flowing? I know if that happens and VT isn't in the top league, I might take a peak at it, but I am definitely not going out of my way to watch it since I will be focusing on whatever league(s) VT is in. Are there enough casual/gambling fans to keep that freight train going with those type of $$$ contracts once you drop so many college football teams?
Link:
Duke-Amazon
38 Replies
3mo
** Edited by mancunian at 5/1/2026, 9:12:44 AM
(In response to this post by The_VT_Rock)
3mo
become independent in football, and have a 5 or 6 school scheduling agreement with other schools. It doesn't have to be a streamer. What would a network pay for Michigan, Ohio State, ND, USC, Texas, and Bama if they had a scheduling agreement for 10 years? They would have the rights to the home and away games for such an agreement. $150M for each school annually? Then being independent, they keep the playoff money for themselves? At that point, where basketball and Olympics end up is almost irrelevent. Even if they all split their games and ended up 3-3 in their contests, they would all still probably make the playoffs depending on how they scheduled their other games.
(In response to this post by mancunian)
S
SMU Pony
3mo
I bet it'd be more than what they get from their share of the Big Ten media deal
(In response to this post by The_VT_Rock)
S
SMU Pony
3mo
What if Amazon or Apple offered them something crazy ($125M each) for their home football games. OSU and Michigan turn around and tell the Big Ten, we'll stay in the conference, but we keep our home game media revenue via our Amazon deal and will accept a ND/ACC-like deal going forward. Are the other schools going to say no? I don't think so. I also think this may be the future.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
2mo
I could see the Big Ten coming up with some sort of PPV for that down the line. It would generate huge money.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
T
Truthahn
2mo
Those four playing each other every year, and adding in a few Notre Dame games that would surely happen. Why do they need a conference at all?
The ACC would give them all the Notre Dame deal, IMO. Why not?
(In response to this post by reestuart)
T
TerryD
3mo
Nice to see others coming around.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
J
JM397
3mo
the conference became tired of them and it caused issues before they joined the SEC.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
3mo
need multiple hours of programming, its distinct live games.
(In response to this post by JM397)
S
SMU Pony
3mo
IIRC Texas would only play 1-2 games a year on it, and it was usually a body bag OOC game or a weak B12 team like Iowa State or Kansas. I doubt that alone had much of a downward effect on the value of the B12's media valuation.
(In response to this post by mancunian)
3mo
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
H
HouClone
3mo
Why share revenue with the conference when I can get my own deal?
Sincerely,
Texas
The Longhorn Network
(In response to this post by The_VT_Rock)
S
SMU Pony
3mo
ESPN and ACC signed off on Duke doing this (in exchange for Duke agreeing to also do several ESPN-sponsored non-conference games going forward)
(In response to this post by HouClone)
T
Truthahn
3mo
My interpretation is that the ACC got something out of this. I'd like to know exactly what, however, beyond this statement:
"Duke worked with the ACC and ESPN on future scheduling commitments in exchange for the ability to play these three neutral-site games, including participating in select ESPN-owned and operated neutral-site events in the 2027-28 and 2028-29 seasons."
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
3mo
If Duke does well in a made for Amazon game and gets lots of extra attention, then espn gets the follow up benefit by milking that attention for more viewers in the other 10-20 Duke games that they show. It’s basically marketing for them.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
3mo
(In response to this post by The_VT_Rock)
3mo
Sounds like more lack of respect in the university
Within last 10 years VT transitioned into a top 50 natoinal research university with over 35,000. They can do it in athletics/football.
Hiring the top best athletic personnel, top fund raisers, entrerprenuers not folks longing for the good old days.
VT athlietc budger is NOW over 200 million, and is growing, to 230 million. That puts us on FSU clemson level.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
S
Stech
3mo
the future. Indiana 3 years ago would not have been a candidate, but a new coach comes in and changed everything. Same with Vanderbilt and their new coach and team, look forward, not backward.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
3mo
They won’t throw around large sums of money and give VT access to the elite club because we might do better in the future. Or because someone else improved. You have to prove your worth with actual results.
One good year won’t be enough. We will need at least three solid years in a row of both winning and big viewership to be considered. Measurable results.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3mo
you are implying by saying 1 year won’t change it. It’s all opinion right now on when and if we go to a P1. I personally think it’s a long shot we go to a P1, because the B1G seems to want to expand both basketball (pretty much done according to ESPN’s Pete Thamel) and football post season, and the SEC is behind them in championships (B1G 3 straight in football) and money lately. So you really think we are going to a P1 in a year?
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
3mo
I was only saying that one good year by VT could be written off by others as luck or an outlier. We need multiple years of being good to silence any doubters and have a solid case for consideration whenever the P2/P1 makes more changes.
I’m on record here saying that I think the next round of change is either 2030 or 2031 based on contracts for the BIG and the playoffs.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3mo
think starting with the 250M budget, then getting Franklin, then Sands moving on so we can get a more experienced football President and AD, we now have a great chance of getting there. The key will be who the new President and AD will be. I really want an AD with NFL player experience, I think that will be critical with the Professional landscape (paying players) that we live in now.
If I use my Crystal Ball 🔮 right now, I think the P4 become the P2 or maybe P3, except if there is a 3 they like now will make a lot less at the bottom and middle of their Conference. I will also be so bold to say I think UVA to the B1G and Virginia Tech to the SEC. Both 🦊 and 🐭want the state and being close to DC like it or not the home of the political base of the country matters. Both parties have been trying to get more power in Washington. They just want to use it differently. So I think that’s an asset for UVA and Tech. Maryland cares more about the Commanders and Ravens than Maryland football.
However, please don’t forget that is my RIGHT NOW statement, things have been changing almost overnight.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
3mo
ESPN is still the big dog for college football, with total control of the ACC and playoffs.
Plus being under the Disney umbrella, they might have some awareness of or contacts regarding merchandising and marketing and fan engagement.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3mo
Guess you are not a risk taker.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
3mo
in BBALL. Stuff thats on ACCNX is basically produced at low cost, and right now isnt generating much revenue. I think there is a push here to redo the ACC TV deal. Would require ESPN to sign off but I think they might be willing to allow CW and Amazon to get some content in such a way it both increases the ACC's take home, and lowers what ESPN has to shell out without giving up TOO much content.
(In response to this post by The_VT_Rock)
S
SMU Pony
3mo
Duke is the #1 brand in the sport and it's not close. Streamers want premium content (standalone/playoff NFL games, prize fights, UFC, F1, NBA Cup) and Duke playing Michigan, UConn and Gonzaga certainly qualifies. I don't think Amazon really benefits from broadcasting BC-Pitt hoops on a Wednesday night in January.
(In response to this post by hokieninsurance)
3mo
You have to always have new content to stay relevant. A partnership with the ACC, where amazon could do some films, maybe a series where they follow 5 to 10 teams (like Hard Knocks), and other things would be regular content that be of greater value than its cost.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
3mo
games involving the "marquee names" in the ACC, then do you think ESPN would still go along with the arrangement?
(In response to this post by hokieninsurance)
3mo
buy the rights to those games. They could do that anytime they want until 2036.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3mo
ESPN's best interest though? It is a question worth asking because allowing the CW or Amazon broadcast a Duke-UNC game or Duke/UNC-UVA game could allow those networks to have a stronger foothold in the market than ESPN would like to see happen. I mean there is a reason conference foes are willing to play OOC games in football, but I don't think they ever consider it in basketball. Particularly if if the 2 teams are scheduled to only play 1 conference game that year. Since Duke-UNC is such a ratings generator, what is stopping Amazon or the CW from convincing them to play a third game as an OOC game? It could be a neutral site game in Charlotte where both teams wear their away jersey with Duke in the black alternative.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3mo
that there are look ins to the ACC contract. The last lookin, ESPN continued the agreement. I don't know if there is another lookin or not, but none of us knew there was the last one either.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3mo
to ACC property (aka games involving 2 ACC schools). ESPN can't stop Amazon or the CW from pursuing traditional OOC games involving ACC teams because ESPN likely doesn't own the rights to the opponent's TV contract. Hence why I am suggesting an OOC game involving 2 ACC schools would likely fall under a different set of rules.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)