ESPN has agreed to pick up its option to continue broadcasting ACC sports through 2036, the network and conference announced Thursday.

The agreement is a critical step toward securing stability for the conference. With the television deal settled, the ACC is now working toward a settlement with Clemson and Florida State that could end those schools’ ongoing lawsuits against the conference.

ESPN had until Feb. 1 to pick up the option on a 20-year contract signed in 2016 that helped launch the ACC Network. Had ESPN declined, the partnership would have ended after the 2027 season.

“We are pleased to extend our media rights agreement with the ACC through 2036, continuing our longstanding relationship,” ESPN chairman Jimmy Pitaro said in a statement. “We remain committed to serving the ACC, its member schools, student athletes and fans via comprehensive live game coverage, storytelling and broad exposure across our unprecedented array of networks and platforms, including ACC Network. The ACC is a pillar of ESPN’s leading commitment to college sports and we are thrilled to continue the partnership over the next decade.”

After ESPN agreed to pick up the option, a decision the ACC board of directors voted to approve Wednesday, sources said the conference is working on additional “value adds,” which could include creating more marquee matchups in football and men’s basketball to maximize content on the networks that would help pave the way toward the new revenue distribution model and a settlement with Clemson and Florida State.

Multiple athletic directors told ESPN this could also involve using the ACC’s relationship with Notre Dame to strategically create more games against the conference’s top-tier teams. Earlier this month, Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua said he was open to playing more games against Clemson in the future. Notre Dame currently plays five to six regular-season football games against the ACC annually and is a member of the ACC in all other sports.

Negotiations surrounding the option ran in conjunction with discussions between the ACC and Clemson and Florida State on a new revenue distribution model aimed at alleviating the schools’ biggest concerns over financial disparities with peers in the Big Ten and SEC, both of which have more generous TV contracts signed over the past two years.

Under the proposed plan, a percentage of the ACC’s television revenue would be included in a “brand” fund, and that money would then be distributed to schools that annually generate the most revenue for the conference in football and men’s and women’s basketball — with Clemson, Florida State, Miami and North Carolina likely at the top of the pyramid, sources told ESPN.

Should that agreement be finalized — something sources said is not imminent but was closely tied to the ESPN option — Clemson and Florida State would be expected to drop their lawsuits.

“We appreciate the ongoing partnership with ESPN and their enduring commitment that further solidifies the ACC as a premier league in all facets,” ACC commissioner Jim Phillips said in a statement. “The extension showcases the importance of our long-standing relationship, and I want to personally thank the entire ESPN team for their leadership and dedication to our collective future.”

Clemson had been cautious in its legal filings to note that its lawsuit was not a move to leave the ACC but rather to determine the costs of doing so. Though Florida State has been more vocal in its desire to test the waters, athletic director Michael Alford has maintained that the Seminoles never declared their intention to leave the ACC and only wanted to explore their options.

Whether either school would have had a landing spot in the aftermath of a departure remained a point of conjecture, but securing their media rights, which each member school signed over to the league in 2016, would have been a critical part of moving to any other conference.

ACC sources suggested a vote to support the new revenue distribution plan may not be unanimous, but one conference administrator said a cut in distribution would likely be worthwhile if it meant stability in the coming years as college athletics works its way through a volatile series of existential shifts in its amateurism model. Multiple administrators who spoke with ESPN noted the severe impact that the collapse of the Pac-12 had on Oregon State and Washington State, and the observably diminished values of those programs has helped spark interest in negotiating a settlement.

The new brand distribution fund would be in addition to the ACC’s “success initiatives,” which the league approved in 2023. That pool of money is funded via revenue from the expanded College Football Playoff and additional payouts from ESPN that derive from the conference adding new members Stanford, California and SMU in 2024. SMU agreed to forgo its TV revenue for its first nine years in the ACC in exchange for an invitation to the conference, while Cal and Stanford agreed to take a 30% share.

The ACC’s success initiatives, which went into place this year, provide additional revenue to schools that play in the postseason. The brand initiatives would also be accessible to any ACC school, though the biggest names would have a clear leg up. Specific metrics have not been finalized.

Between the brand and success initiatives, it is expected that the ACC schools that maximize both revenue streams could close the gap with Big Ten and SEC schools to as little as a few million annually.

As far back as February 2023, Florida State’s Alford started pushing for the ACC television money to be distributed to the teams that bring the most brand value and television ratings. Alford said then, based on a market valuation that he had commissioned, that Florida State contributed roughly 15% of the value in the ACC’s media rights deal but received only 7% of the distributions. At the time, the conference had 14 full members.

The ACC has been in litigation with Florida State and Clemson for more than a year, with both schools filing lawsuits in their home states in hopes of extricating themselves from a grant of rights agreement that, according to Florida State’s attorneys, could mean paying as much as $700 million to leave the conference. The ACC countersued both schools to preserve the grant of rights agreement through 2036.

Clemson and Florida State have argued that the ACC television contract, which earns the conference about half of what the Big Ten receives from Fox, puts the schools at a significant financial disadvantage compared with rivals in the SEC and Big Ten, making it impossible to consistently compete for national championships.

As part of the settlement, Clemson and Florida State are asking the ACC to agree to reduce penalties for exiting the grant of rights after 2031, when TV contracts for the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 are set to expire.

Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy’s revised contract with the school, approved Friday, includes a reduced salary and buyout, as well as provisions that require him to be more involved in fundraising and possibly his own succession plan.

The Oklahoma A&M Colleges Board of Regents, which oversees Oklahoma State, approved the agreement Friday. Gundy’s salary will drop by $1 million and he will earn $6.75 million in the first year of a four-year term that ends following the 2028 season. He has led Oklahoma State since 2005 — only Iowa’s Kirk Ferentz has led the same FBS program longer — but comes off his worst season, as the Cowboys went 3-9 and winless in Big 12 play.

There were tense discussions about Gundy’s future following the season before the sides reached an agreement on a revised contract. Gundy, a former Oklahoma State quarterback, is 169-88 at his alma mater with a Big 12 title and 10 AP top-20 finishes.

The deal includes a provision that Gundy, at the request of athletic director Chad Weiberg, be more involved in fundraising and donor initiatives. His salary reduction will be applied toward athlete revenue sharing when the House v. NCAA settlement goes into effect later this year.

Another provision in the agreement, also at Weiberg’s request, would call for the possible identification and development of a coaching successor, and helping with a coaching transition.

Gundy would be owed $15 million if fired during the next three years and $10 million if fired during the final year of the term. His previous contract called for him to receive a percentage of his remaining compensation if fired.

Gundy, 57, reshaped his coaching staff during the offseason, hiring coordinators Todd Grantham (defense) and Doug Meacham (offense), and other new assistants.

Friday’s deadline for filing objections to the nearly $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement yielded more than a dozen legal challenges representing hundreds of college athletes attacking the landmark deal. Four antitrust experts told ESPN the deal is still likely to be approved, but some objections have the potential to delay, reshape or derail it.

Any significant delay in the settlement could create a new wave of chaos for college athletic departments that have made plans to begin paying their athletes this summer. Many of the contracts athletes have already signed would allow the schools to back out of paying players if the settlement is not approved. Some states have passed laws that would clear the way for their schools to start paying players even if the settlement fails, which could give them an advantage in recruiting or retaining athletes.

The settlement would allow schools to directly pay their athletes moving forward and force the NCAA to pay prior damages to a group of more than 100,000 former and current athletes who claimed to be victims of antitrust violations. The large majority of those damages would be paid to football and men’s basketball players.

The athletes and lawyers who filed objections in the last week raised concerns with several parts of the pending settlement, including:

• claims that future limits on how much schools can give to their athletes create a new illegal cap, violating the same laws that prompted these cases to be filed;

• claims that the $2.8 billion damages payout is too low and the formula used to distribute that money is unfair to women athletes, walk-on athletes and others;

• a clause that places a limit on team rosters could eliminate thousands of opportunities for athletes to play Division I sports in the future;

• alleged conflicts of interest for the plaintiffs’ attorneys, including a clause that obligates them to “use reasonable efforts to support” NCAA lobbying in Congress for a new law limiting future antitrust challenges on the spending limits established through the settlement.

Judge Claudia Wilken, who has presided over multiple NCAA-related lawsuits in the past decade, has scheduled a hearing on the settlement for April 7. Her mandate is to determine whether the deal is “fair, reasonable and adequate” for all Division I athletes and their schools. Wilken can approve the deal in its current form, ask for revision based on the objections or reject the deal and push the cases toward trial.

“These objections are not made by folks who just want to get on the record. There is a real possibility these impact the settlement,” said Jeremi Duru, a sports law professor at American University. “Some of them are quite valid, and I do think Judge Wilken will view them that way.”

Duru and three other specialists in antitrust and sports law told ESPN that the objections raise legitimate problems that could reshape or potentially even derail the deal, but they all said it is more likely than not that Wilken will approve the settlement.

“This is so far down the tracks it’s going to be hard to stop,” University of Illinois sports law professor Michael LeRoy said. “A judge at this point is loath to create uncertainty for the parties. My heart is saying don’t accept the settlement, but the rational part of me says: How doesn’t this get done?”

Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler, co-lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, did not respond to phone calls seeking comment about the objections.

The lead plaintiff who initially filed the first of these three antitrust claims, former Arizona State swimmer Grant House, told ESPN last month the deal was not perfect but that he believes it is a “huge step forward” for athletes. “I think that the best that could be done was done, at least as perceived through the lawyers’ and experts’ eyes,” House said.

House said he often didn’t find out about developments in the negotiations until they were reported in the news during the past few years, which left him frustrated and feeling detached from the process. He said he’s hopeful that the settlement is a step toward giving athletes a more permanent, impactful voice in the future.

At the same time, college sports leaders view the settlement as their own stepping stone toward regaining control over a system and marketplace that has swung in favor of athletes during the past several years. Their plan is to use the new benefits athletes will receive to convince Congress to provide them with an antitrust exemption.

Some player advocates worry that the settlement, instead of being a launching pad for increased benefits for athletes, could wind up shackling the athletes-rights movement that has gained significant momentum in the past decade.

If the NCAA does get antitrust help from Congress — the odds of which are still uncertain but have at least improved since November’s election — it would be difficult for athletes to negotiate a higher cap.

“No one gets everything they want in a settlement,” said Rutgers professor Michael Carrier, an antitrust specialist. “Student-athletes are [going to be] doing better through the settlement than they have done before. There is reason to applaud that, but if it makes it harder for future student-athletes to challenge restraints then that’s not ideal.”

Duru said the settlement doesn’t have to fairly “order the future of college athletics with all other considerations playing into the decision” for Wilken to approve it, but “courts often do consider factors outside the particular dispute before them.”

Wilken received several letters urging her to consider the “broader implications” of the deal. Former National Basketball Players Association executive director Michele Roberts filed a 35-page brief with the court this week warning the settlement could pose long-term harms to athletes by stripping them of negotiating power. The Biden administration’s outgoing Department of Justice also submitted a “statement of interest” earlier this month raising similar concerns.

“We believe the settlement produces a newer version of an old status quo where athletes may have more money but no more power,” states the letter that Roberts co-wrote. Roberts has urged leaders of professional sports’ unions to speak out against the settlement, something they haven’t done yet. But only groups that have filed an official objection as of Friday will be able to speak at the April hearing or appeal whatever ruling emerges.