Here they are folks. The 2025-26 regular season ratings for football & M&W basketball. Post season numbers are not included. These numbers are pulled from the rating tracker threads. Notre Dame basketball numbers are included but their football numbers are not. That’s the price you pay for being independent. Sorry but not sorry Irish.

ACC 2025-26 Ratings Rankings
(Football + Basketball M&W)
1 Duke 6.077M + 42.218M= 48.295M
2 NC 13.902M + 31.296M= 45.198M
3,Miami 36.856M + 3.151M= 40.007M
4 FSU 27.93M + 2.485M= 30.415M
5 Clemson 23.320M + 5.453M= 28.773M
6 Louisville 9.44M + 18.276M= 27.716M
7 GT 24.892M + 631k= 25.523M
8 Syracuse 11.627M + 7.703M= 19.33M
9 NC State 7.184M + 10.122M= 17.306M
10 Pitt 12.852M + 3.061M= 15.913M
11 VT 11.58M + 3.14M= 14.72M
12 Virginia 9.176M + 5.54M= 14.716M
13 Stanford 7.423M + 2.074M= 9.497M
14 SMU 5.120M + 4.207M= 9.327M
15 Cal 6.444M + 1.006M= 7.45M
16 Wake Forest 5.175M + 1.35M= 6.525M
17 Notre Dame 0 + 6.07M
18 BC 3.782M + 318k= 4.1M

The break down & rankings by sport.

2025-26 ACC Basketball M&W Regular Season Ratings
1 Duke 42.218M
2 North Carolina 31.296M
3 Louisville 18.276M
4 NC State 10.122M
5 Syracuse 7.703M
6 Notre Dame 6.07M
7 Virginia 5.54M
8 Clemson 5.453M
9 SMU 4.207M
10 Miami 3.151M
11 Virginia Tech 3.14M
12 Pittsburgh 3.061M
13 Florida State 2.485M
14 Stanford 2.074M
15 Wake Forest 1.35M
16 California 1.006M
17 Georgia Tech 631k
18 Boston College 318k

2025 ACC Football Regular Season Ratings
1 Miami 36.856M
2 FSU 27.93M
3 GT 24.892M
4 Clemson 23.320M
5 NC 13.902M
6 Pitt 12.852M
7 Syracuse 11.627M
8 VT 11.58M
9 Louisville 9.44M
10 Virginia 9.176M
11 Stanford 7.423M
12 NC State 7.184M
13 Cal 6.444M
14 Duke 6.077M
15 Wake Forest 5.175M
16 SMU 5.120M
17 BC 3.782M

It should be noted that UConn would have finished 3rd in basketball and probably not a distant third with a ACC schedule with ESPN coverage.

Quote:The notable change is with revenue from the league’s multimedia contracts. The first 40 percent of that money from sources will be split evenly among the schools. Of the remaining 60 percent, three-quarters will be distributed based on football TV viewership, and one-quarter will be based on men’s basketball viewership.

FOOTBALL IS KING

Why are you including last year's basketball numbers? The Brand Fund is based on the FISCAL year, which runs July 1st 2026 to June 30th 2027. Last year's numbers were set at the end of June.

(10-26-2026 08:08 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Why are you including last year's basketball numbers? The Brand Fund is based on the FISCAL year, which runs July 1st 2026 to June 30th 2027. Last year's numbers were set at the end of June.

It’s on a 5 year average, is it not? Also they go with last season football numbers, same school year.

(10-26-2026 04:45 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 08:08 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Why are you including last year's basketball numbers? The Brand Fund is based on the FISCAL year, which runs July 1st 2026 to June 30th 2027. Last year's numbers were set at the end of June.

It’s on a 5 year average, is it not? Also they go with last season football numbers, same school year.

Honestly, so much has happened this year, I don't remember.

(10-26-2026 09:07 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 04:45 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 08:08 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Why are you including last year's basketball numbers? The Brand Fund is based on the FISCAL year, which runs July 1st 2026 to June 30th 2027. Last year's numbers were set at the end of June.

It’s on a 5 year average, is it not? Also they go with last season football numbers, same school year.

Honestly, so much has happened this year, I don't remember.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...lement-acc

This new revenue-distribution model -- or "brand initiative" -- is based on a five-year rolling average of TV ratings, though some logistics of this formula remain tricky, including how to properly average games on the unrated ACC Network or other subscription channels. The brand initiative will be funded through a split in the league's TV revenue, with 40% distributed evenly among the 14 longstanding members and 60% going toward the brand initiative and distributed based on TV ratings.

Top earners are expected to net an additional $15 million or more, according to sources, while some schools will see a net reduction in annual payout of up to about $7 million annually, an acceptable loss, according to several administrators at schools likely to be impacted, in exchange for some near-term stability.

The brand initiative is expected to begin for the coming fiscal year.

The brand fund, combined with the separate "success initiatives" fund approved in 2023 and enacted last year that rewards schools for postseason appearances, would allow teams that hit necessary benchmarks in each to close the revenue gap with the SEC and Big Ten, possibly adding in the neighborhood of $30 million or more annually should a school make a deep run in the College Football Playoff or NCAA basketball tournament and lead the way in TV ratings.

I think UofL sits around 10 million in football so far this year, then if we get our 18.5-20 mil for basketball that should put us in the combined Top 5 for this current season. That should look better than past recent years, when bigger picture analysis and decisions are being made.

Absolutely UL should be in the top 5 benefactors of the “Brand fund” in both of the money sports.

Through the first 8 weeks of this football season, Louisville is already ahead of their season total for 2025. The Cards still have NC, Pitt & ranked Kentucky to go.

ACC Top 6
1 FSU 19.93M
2 Clemson 16.777M
3 Miami 14.888M
4 NC 13.94M
5 Louisville 9.644M
6 Pittsburgh 9.029M


Go Cards!

HUGE Thank You's and Props to Lenvillecards!!!.... for tracking down and posting these numbers for us! As we all know in here these numbers matter even more than on court/field results in the game of realignment and staying alive in the top level of football mostly.

March Madness TV Ratings 1st & 2nd Round - Better than Football Media want to believe

Here is a list of top tv ratings games from 1st/2nd round March Madness where the sport as a whole does well, and the ACC handles its own for sure. It doesn't get talked about enough, especially from those sports media that cover both football and basketball...Like Forde, Rece Davis, and others that cross over.

(10-29-2026 09:04 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  March Madness TV Ratings 1st & 2nd Round - Better than Football Media want to believe

Here is a list of top tv ratings games from 1st/2nd round March Madness where the sport as a whole does well, and the ACC handles its own for sure. It doesn't get talked about enough, especially from those sports media that cover both football and basketball...Like Forde, Rece Davis, and others that cross over.

The problem is that the MBB Tournament finances are the exclusive property of NCAA D1 through June 30, 2032. That means that the Indianapolis-based bureaucracy/fiefdom gets first dibs on funding (to provide governance over sports and sponsor nearly 30 national championships; fund educational programs and legal costs; and pay executives & lobbyists generously). Then 360+ member institutions also fight for their share of the MBB Tournament revenues (for items such as achieving educational standards to athletes or just participating in conference competitions). Finally, the actual value creators…teams that win games and attract viewership…can split the remaining balance. Making matters worse, the value creating share is actually distributed-out over a six year window in order to keep the basketball brands hooked on the NCAA financial protocol.

Unless the P5 (ACC, B12, B1G, Big East and SEC) can coalesce around a reasonable alternative to NCAA control, MBB Tournament ratings are nearly meaningless. There is no plan on how to effectively transition from the current financial model, to something that rewards value creation. The ACC may have the best basketball brands (e.g., Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Syracuse, etc.), but these universities’ accomplishments in the NCAA Tournament don’t result in commensurate financial compensation.

I don’t know how much leeway conferences have with their conference tournament, but since the conference tournaments usually get better ratings and coverage than the average regular season game, maybe the ACCT could span over 2 weekends, double elimination?

(10-29-2026 10:52 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 09:04 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  March Madness TV Ratings 1st & 2nd Round - Better than Football Media want to believe

Here is a list of top tv ratings games from 1st/2nd round March Madness where the sport as a whole does well, and the ACC handles its own for sure. It doesn't get talked about enough, especially from those sports media that cover both football and basketball...Like Forde, Rece Davis, and others that cross over.

The problem is that the MBB Tournament finances are the exclusive property of NCAA D1 through June 30, 2032. That means that the Indianapolis-based bureaucracy/fiefdom gets first dibs on funding (to provide governance over sports and sponsor nearly 30 national championships; fund educational programs and legal costs; and pay executives & lobbyists generously). Then 360+ member institutions also fight for their share of the MBB Tournament revenues (for items such as achieving educational standards to athletes or just participating in conference competitions). Finally, the actual value creators…teams that win games and attract viewership…can split the remaining balance. Making matters worse, the value creating share is actually distributed-out over a six year window in order to keep the basketball brands hooked on the NCAA financial protocol.

Unless the P5 (ACC, B12, B1G, Big East and SEC) can coalesce around a reasonable alternative to NCAA control, MBB Tournament ratings are nearly meaningless. There is no plan on how to effectively transition from the current financial model, to something that rewards value creation. The ACC may have the best basketball brands (e.g., Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Syracuse, etc.), but these universities’ accomplishments in the NCAA Tournament don’t result in commensurate financial compensation.

Yeah great points....NCAA with its current stranglehold on the post season contract sucks. If we could somehow scoot them aside, only keep them around to "party plan" and maturely oversee the sports bylaws (not what we have now)....I guess we lean heavy on the ACC Success Initiative to get each of our schools value payout for what we bring to the table