The post ACC’s Expanded Football Schedule Is Primarily About TV Inventory appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA – MARCH 9: A general view outside the ACC Hall of Champions prior to the championship game between the Duke Blue Devils and the NC State Wolfpack in the ACC women’s basketball tournament at First Horizon Coliseum on March 9, 2025 in Greensboro, North Carolina. (Photo by Lance King/Getty Images) Getty Images On paper, the ACC’s eight-game conference schedule was the best approach when it came to competing for College Football Playoff spots. Limiting the number of challenging games minimizes losses for top programs, and maximizes the number of teams – and potential revenue – for the league when it comes to the postseason. College football isn’t played on paper, though. And you could argue that today’s landscape is primarily dictated by meetings within ESPN and Fox. As the sport’s two primary rights holders continue to dictate narratives, conference affiliations and push soaring revenues, it’s only natural that they’d get final say in what the TV inventory looks like. And so they have, in the case of both the SEC and ACC’s recent decisions to expand their conference schedules to nine games. ACC’s Competitive Advantage Today The ACC’s decision came on Monday, along with a mandate for each team to play 10 games per year against power conference teams, aligns it with the Big Ten, Big 12 and (recently) SEC’s own scheduling arrangements. It all makes sense from a perceived “fairness” standpoint. And the ACC won’t have much trouble hitting the number between its Notre Dame arrangement (five games per year) and existing ACC/SEC rivalry games. Where the problem arises is around how creating extra hurdles might impact the conference when it comes to securing College Football Playoff spots relative to its peers. Unlike the Big Ten and SEC, in particular, top ACC teams don’t have a… The post ACC’s Expanded Football Schedule Is Primarily About TV Inventory appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA – MARCH 9: A general view outside the ACC Hall of Champions prior to the championship game between the Duke Blue Devils and the NC State Wolfpack in the ACC women’s basketball tournament at First Horizon Coliseum on March 9, 2025 in Greensboro, North Carolina. (Photo by Lance King/Getty Images) Getty Images On paper, the ACC’s eight-game conference schedule was the best approach when it came to competing for College Football Playoff spots. Limiting the number of challenging games minimizes losses for top programs, and maximizes the number of teams – and potential revenue – for the league when it comes to the postseason. College football isn’t played on paper, though. And you could argue that today’s landscape is primarily dictated by meetings within ESPN and Fox. As the sport’s two primary rights holders continue to dictate narratives, conference affiliations and push soaring revenues, it’s only natural that they’d get final say in what the TV inventory looks like. And so they have, in the case of both the SEC and ACC’s recent decisions to expand their conference schedules to nine games. ACC’s Competitive Advantage Today The ACC’s decision came on Monday, along with a mandate for each team to play 10 games per year against power conference teams, aligns it with the Big Ten, Big 12 and (recently) SEC’s own scheduling arrangements. It all makes sense from a perceived “fairness” standpoint. And the ACC won’t have much trouble hitting the number between its Notre Dame arrangement (five games per year) and existing ACC/SEC rivalry games. Where the problem arises is around how creating extra hurdles might impact the conference when it comes to securing College Football Playoff spots relative to its peers. Unlike the Big Ten and SEC, in particular, top ACC teams don’t have a…

ACC’s Expanded Football Schedule Is Primarily About TV Inventory

GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA – MARCH 9: A general view outside the ACC Hall of Champions prior to the championship game between the Duke Blue Devils and the NC State Wolfpack in the ACC women’s basketball tournament at First Horizon Coliseum on March 9, 2025 in Greensboro, North Carolina. (Photo by Lance King/Getty Images)

Getty Images

On paper, the ACC’s eight-game conference schedule was the best approach when it came to competing for College Football Playoff spots. Limiting the number of challenging games minimizes losses for top programs, and maximizes the number of teams – and potential revenue – for the league when it comes to the postseason.

College football isn’t played on paper, though. And you could argue that today’s landscape is primarily dictated by meetings within ESPN and Fox.

As the sport’s two primary rights holders continue to dictate narratives, conference affiliations and push soaring revenues, it’s only natural that they’d get final say in what the TV inventory looks like.

And so they have, in the case of both the SEC and ACC’s recent decisions to expand their conference schedules to nine games.

ACC’s Competitive Advantage Today

The ACC’s decision came on Monday, along with a mandate for each team to play 10 games per year against power conference teams, aligns it with the Big Ten, Big 12 and (recently) SEC’s own scheduling arrangements.

It all makes sense from a perceived “fairness” standpoint. And the ACC won’t have much trouble hitting the number between its Notre Dame arrangement (five games per year) and existing ACC/SEC rivalry games.

Where the problem arises is around how creating extra hurdles might impact the conference when it comes to securing College Football Playoff spots relative to its peers.

Unlike the Big Ten and SEC, in particular, top ACC teams don’t have a ton of opportunities to collect name-brand pelts during conference play. That makes avoiding losses (and thus, accumulating wins) their biggest advantage to-date.

Last year, the league secured two College Football Playoff spots with Clemson and SMU, partly because of limited challenges on their schedules. Clemson played three ranked teams before the Playoff (went 1-2, with the one win being against SMU in the ACC Championship Game). SMU went 2-1 vs. ranked teams, beating Louisville and Pittsburgh before losing to Clemson – but neither Louisville nor Pitt were ranked at the end of the year.

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA – DECEMBER 7: The ACC Championship 20th game logo is shown on a board before the game between the SMU Mustangs and the Clemson Tigers at Bank of America Stadium on December 7, 2024 in Charlotte, North Carolina. (Photo by Isaiah Vazquez/Getty Images)

Getty Images

ESPN’s Push For More

Dynamics like that, common for ACC teams over the years, have been great for the league. But perhaps less so for its TV footprint. And specifically, the impact of ESPN’s ACC inventory across platforms (including the ACC Network).

While it’s great for ESPN and the league to have some highly-ranked teams they can spotlight week-to-week, it’s less advantageous to have a couple dominant teams just stomp out lesser teams both in- and out-of-conference.

Currently, most ACC teams schedule another power conference team on top of their existing eight games, with some – notably Clemson and Georgia Tech in recent years – adding more.

But for most, it’s still leaving three lesser games on the schedule, which are harder sells for ESPN to drive both tune-in and advertiser interest. iSpot data around second-by-second measurement shows ad reach in the latter half of blowout games can decline by nearly 50% versus peaks during the same game; making large swaths of that ad inventory far less valuable.

By adding another conference game, that’s theoretically an extra eight or nine games of “competitive” inventory between programs casual fans recognize. That could mean more losses for teams across the ACC. But it also means better games on ESPN networks and streaming, which is how the SEC arrived at the same decision.

What The Future Holds For The ACC

More losses for ACC teams could conceivably harm the conference’s College Football Playoff aspirations, depending on the form the event takes in the coming years.

Previous proposals from the SEC and Big Ten have different methods of splitting up fields of 12, 14 and 16 teams. The SEC and ACC going to nine conference games apiece removes some advantages for both in a scenario where the only guarantees were conference champions.

For the ACC, moving to nine conference games may make it more likely to favor a structure where the top two teams from the conference automatically make the field. The real concession there is that the ACC and Big 12 accept “second-tier” status versus the Big Ten and SEC, which would both get more automatic bids.

That could be the cost of keeping the conference afloat in the short-term, since it maximizes the avenues for football-focused members like Clemson and Florida State (who previously sued the league) to compete for national titles.

Yet the possibility exists, too, that Clemson and Florida State fail to make the College Football Playoff in a scenario where the ACC is guaranteed two spots, and then uses those exclusions as reason for leaving later this decade.

But what other choice does the conference have right now?

If ESPN – which owns the playoff – and the SEC have elected to move to nine games for the sake of TV inventory, then the ACC pretty much has to do the same or risk losing its status as a “power conference.” If its teams can win, or at least play for, a national title or two over the next five years, then perhaps the panic about its future is put on hold.

But if it can’t, then this push to nine games potentially dooms it to future defections as the league’s vaunted media deal nears expiration (and teams can leave with far fewer penalties starting next decade). Maybe that happens either way. We’ll never find out, though, with the ACC now squarely relying on the idea of better TV inventory to secure its future.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johncassillo/2025/09/23/accs-expanded-football-schedule-is-primarily-about-tv-inventory/

Market Opportunity
DAR Open Network Logo
DAR Open Network Price(D)
$0.01423
$0.01423$0.01423
-6.50%
USD
DAR Open Network (D) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Michael Saylor Teases Another Bitcoin Buy As MSTR Stock Dips to Five-Month Lows

Michael Saylor Teases Another Bitcoin Buy As MSTR Stock Dips to Five-Month Lows

The post Michael Saylor Teases Another Bitcoin Buy As MSTR Stock Dips to Five-Month Lows appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Michael Saylor, executive chairman of Strategy, remains committed to aggressive Bitcoin acquisitions despite market skepticism. In a recent interview, he hinted at further purchases and accused short sellers of amplifying negative sentiment through bot attacks. Saylor Hints at More Bitcoin Buys Despite MSTR Stock Dip In the conventional Sunday Post on X, Michael Saylor has hinted that his Strategy will continue to purchase Bitcoin. This comes as the company navigates online criticism and market volatility. In an interview with podcaster Natalie Brunell, Saylor shared his conviction that Bitcoin is a valuable long-term investment, despite recent fluctuations. MicroStrategy’s (MSTR) stock recently hit a five-month low of $323 per share, down by 16%. In the meantime, Bitcoin experienced only an 8% decline from its peak.  Source: Google; MSTR Stock Price-September 22nd, 2025 Despite these market dips, Saylor emphasized that the company’s Bitcoin strategy is the best path forward. According to Saylor, the continuous Bitcoin acquisition is central to Strategy’s business model, and he expressed confidence in the asset over time. His remarks show Strategy’s undeterred ambition to stack more BTC during market dips. Strategy Continues Its Bitcoin Acquisition, Now Holding 638,985 BTC Under Saylor’s leadership, Strategy has become a major player in corporate Bitcoin ownership. The company has spent $47 billion on Bitcoin at an average price of $73,913 per BTC. It purchases the asset in bulk, often during price dips. The latest Strategy Bitcoin acquisitions include 1,955 BTC for $217.4 million at an average price of $114,562 per Bitcoin and 525 BTC for $60.2 million at $111,196 per Bitcoin. As of now, Strategy holds a total of 638,985 BTC worth $73.95 billion.  Although Bitcoin’s price briefly peaked at $113,000 before dipping back below $108,000, Saylor remains undeterred. He continues the company’s strategy of acquiring Bitcoin at advantageous prices. MicroStrategy’s position now…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/22 11:10
Here’s the XRP Price If UK Parliament Declares Ripple Key to Global Payments

Here’s the XRP Price If UK Parliament Declares Ripple Key to Global Payments

Ripple’s XRP is trading around $3.00 today, but a new development out of the UK could change everything. According to a tweet from X Finance Bull, Ripple and its token XRP are now being discussed at the UK Parliament as critical infrastructure for global payments.  This isn’t just industry chatter anymore. Lawmakers are looking at
Share
Coinstats2025/09/22 02:00
Watchdog frowns on BARMM move to remove ‘none of the above’ from ballots

Watchdog frowns on BARMM move to remove ‘none of the above’ from ballots

POLLS. Residents queue to vote for the BARMM local elections, at the Ragondingan Central Elementary School, Buadiposo-Buntong, Lanao Del Sur, on May 12, 2025.
Share
Rappler2026/01/21 09:20