I've seen it posted here many times that eventually the big dogs will split from their conference mates to make what is essentially a semi pro league.

Basically it would be one top division made solely out of Alabama, Ohio State, Penn State, Tennessee, Michigan, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas, FSU, USC, etc, etc, etc...

From a TV revenue standpoint I think it would be a big money maker. From a fan's standpoint I'm not so sure.

(09-05-2017 01:57 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  I've seen it posted here many times that eventually the big dogs will split from their conference mates to make what is essentially a semi pro league.

Basically it would be one top division made solely out of Alabama, Ohio State, Penn State, Tennessee, Michigan, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas, FSU, USC, etc, etc, etc...

From a TV revenue standpoint I think it would be a big money maker. From a fan's standpoint I'm not so sure.

I'm not so sure it would be that big a money maker. If you take away the top 3-4 teams from each conference to create a super division, you'd pretty much eliminate bowl games along with the CFP, both of which make the networks big money. Then factor in basically alienating 2/3 of the college football fandom and it just might backfire.

The other reasons I don't see that happening would be:

1) The ego factor. I find it hard to believe that the tOSU, TX, ND, etc are going to accept being a second or third wheel behind Alabama. Factor in say someone like LSU, how long do you think they'll accept being middle of the pack before they say the heck with this.

2) Logistics. Most teams travel long distance maybe twice, early on for a big matchup and a bowl game. If FSU for example is going back and forth to the west coast (and vice versa with a USC) on a regular basis, that would create headaches to be sure, not to mention costly.

3) The academic factor. Many of these schools (like in the B1G) share more than athletics in their conference. They share research, resources, etc. I think someone like Wisconsin wouldn't sit back and grin & bear it if Michigan left the B1G hi & dry leaving the rest to fend for themselves to play football in the super division. They'd probably tell them to take the cooperation and stuff it.

4) Other sports. Sure football might be where the money is at, not many of the top football schools are also top in the other sports such as men's BB. I doubt the remainders would be in a hurry to schedule their former colleagues in the non football sports.
Then again, throw enough money at the top 16 (or so) and who knows.

Who knows. Throw enough money at the top 16 (or so) and everything could change.

(09-05-2017 02:37 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 01:57 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  I've seen it posted here many times that eventually the big dogs will split from their conference mates to make what is essentially a semi pro league.

Basically it would be one top division made solely out of Alabama, Ohio State, Penn State, Tennessee, Michigan, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas, FSU, USC, etc, etc, etc...

From a TV revenue standpoint I think it would be a big money maker. From a fan's standpoint I'm not so sure.

I'm not so sure it would be that big a money maker. If you take away the top 3-4 teams from each conference to create a super division, you'd pretty much eliminate bowl games along with the CFP, both of which make the networks big money. Then factor in basically alienating 2/3 of the college football fandom and it just might backfire.

The other reasons I don't see that happening would be:

1) The ego factor. I find it hard to believe that the tOSU, TX, ND, etc are going to accept being a second or third wheel behind Alabama. Factor in say someone like LSU, how long do you think they'll accept being middle of the pack before they say the heck with this.

2) Logistics. Most teams travel long distance maybe twice, early on for a big matchup and a bowl game. If FSU for example is going back and forth to the west coast (and vice versa with a USC) on a regular basis, that would create headaches to be sure, not to mention costly.

3) The academic factor. Many of these schools (like in the B1G) share more than athletics in their conference. They share research, resources, etc. I think someone like Wisconsin wouldn't sit back and grin & bear it if Michigan left the B1G hi & dry leaving the rest to fend for themselves to play football in the super division. They'd probably tell them to take the cooperation and stuff it.

4) Other sports. Sure football might be where the money is at, not many of the top football schools are also top in the other sports such as men's BB. I doubt the remainders would be in a hurry to schedule their former colleagues in the non football sports.
Then again, throw enough money at the top 16 (or so) and who knows.

Who knows. Throw enough money at the top 16 (or so) and everything could change.

If it ever happened it would consist of 60 to 72 schools. That's pretty much what we have now. I would think you would still have 4 conferences paired off into scheduling agreements and functioning like 2 leagues. It would have a centralized officiating office that would provide teams of officials to all 4 conferences and it would have it's own governance structure. So that's not too far fetched as it could be administered much more cheaply and efficiently than the present behemoth that is the NCAA.

(09-05-2017 02:37 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  I find it hard to believe that the tOSU, TX, ND, etc are going to accept being a second or third wheel behind Alabama. Factor in say someone like LSU, how long do you think they'll accept being middle of the pack before they say the heck with this.

They wouldn't be 2nd or 3rd wheel. They're 2nd, 3rd... wheel to Alabama right now. If anything consolidating the big boys into one large conference would achieve more parity.

(09-05-2017 02:37 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  1) The ego factor. I find it hard to believe that the tOSU, TX, ND, etc are going to accept being a second or third wheel behind Alabama. Factor in say someone like LSU, how long do you think they'll accept being middle of the pack before they say the heck with this.

It's fan and booster ego as much as anything else, and it's built on lopsided W-L records. "King" programs won't adjust well when half have records of .500 or less and two-thirds have records that don't match their boosters' massive sense of entitlement.

All that money that pays for $10 million/year head coaches and $1 million/year coordinators and HDTVs in each football player's locker will dry up when a team goes .500 or worse over a 10-year period, and if you put the 20 richest programs in one league then that is exactly what will happen.

Manchester United needs opponents like Bournemouth and Hull to produce the W-L records Man U fans expect. Ohio State needs several portions of Rutgers and Indiana for the same reason, and if not them then others at that level would have to take their places on the Buckeyes' football schedules.

(09-05-2017 02:37 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  4) Other sports.

This, too, and this might be the biggest reason. We have lots of threads on these boards in which we pretend that football is the only sport played by these colleges, but it's not. There's no net revenue in a coast-to-coast league for all collegiate sports, no matter who would be in it.

The king programs might not go on forever splitting media revenue equally with their conference partners, but conferences similar to what we have now will be around for quite awhile.

No way are the top programs going to take the risk of multiple losing seasons that would certainly come to some of these top flight programs from simply playing each other all the time. The power programs *need* the mediocre programs and cupcakes to prop up their bright and shiny win-loss records and rankings.

Never.

Here is why. Just one game can flip a P5 school from also ran to a top tier program.

https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status...1810657280
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/05/st...pritchard/

I venture to say that even a P4 or P5 break off is improbable simply because no one wants to be the school who always ends up being 0-12, 1-11, or 2-10. In a world where Power teams only play Power teams someone has to be bottom of the barrel. Perennial cellar dwellers will fall apart and become even less competitive. The opportunity to play a couple weaker opponents a year gives these schools a bit of a morale boost.

Now, if the Power Leagues broke away and set a scheduling standard where you had to play 10 Power schools a year but you were free to schedule whoever you like (G5 or FCS or add'l P5) for the first two weeks of the season maybe it could work provided the backlash from the NCAA was a prohibition of its members from playing against whatever the Power leagues called their new organization.

I could see a culling but not a split.

Leaving behind a few of the weaker P5 programs is possible.

(09-06-2017 10:23 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I could see a culling but not a split.

Leaving behind a few of the weaker P5 programs is possible.

I don't think it is possible. The middle teams would know they could be next and setting a prescient for kicking teams out is not in any school presidents best interest.

(09-06-2017 11:04 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:23 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I could see a culling but not a split.

Leaving behind a few of the weaker P5 programs is possible.

I don't think it is possible. The middle teams would know they could be next and setting a prescient for kicking teams out is not in any school presidents best interest.

That's potentially true.

However, as pressure mounts on the major sports as a whole a push to refine the product is possible. If that refining takes place so too might a culling.

(09-06-2017 11:13 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:04 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:23 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I could see a culling but not a split.

Leaving behind a few of the weaker P5 programs is possible.

I don't think it is possible. The middle teams would know they could be next and setting a prescient for kicking teams out is not in any school presidents best interest.

That's potentially true.

However, as pressure mounts on the major sports as a whole a push to refine the product is possible. If that refining takes place so too might a culling.

They'd split from the G5 before they cull their own. Once the split from the G5 happens then we can talk about a possible culling.

(09-06-2017 11:22 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:13 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:04 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:23 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I could see a culling but not a split.

Leaving behind a few of the weaker P5 programs is possible.

I don't think it is possible. The middle teams would know they could be next and setting a prescient for kicking teams out is not in any school presidents best interest.

That's potentially true.

However, as pressure mounts on the major sports as a whole a push to refine the product is possible. If that refining takes place so too might a culling.

They'd split from the G5 before they cull their own. Once the split from the G5 happens then we can talk about a possible culling.

I agree that will happen first.

(09-06-2017 11:13 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:04 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:23 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I could see a culling but not a split.

Leaving behind a few of the weaker P5 programs is possible.

I don't think it is possible. The middle teams would know they could be next and setting a prescient for kicking teams out is not in any school presidents best interest.

That's potentially true.

However, as pressure mounts on the major sports as a whole a push to refine the product is possible. If that refining takes place so too might a culling.

This is especially true for conference members that maintain small venues and don't travel well. If all you have are 12 guaranteed opportunities to make money from "the" sport that pays for the rest the school offers, then A.D.'s are responsible for making each of those slots account for the greatest profits possible. I just posted the latest revenue totals in another thread on this board. Washington State has slipped to 58 million a year (69th position). They don't fill their venue and it's smallish. Wake is 66th and they are very smallish. Therefore those schools become a drag on many aspects of those away games. Gate split, TV interest, fan interest, etc. all wane for these games as compared to other schools with large travelling fan bases, and large venues of their own which are usually sell outs (which increases donations at the visiting schools whose fan bases usually donate more for the right to purchase those away tickets).

Eventually conference commissioners are going to have to weigh not only the value of an expansion slot, but also the base value acceptable for existing members. And none of this even gets into wins and losses.

IMO, this is precisely why Texas and Oklahoma have to weigh their options. I know that you believe they would be unwise to move anywhere because of their identification and history with the region and each other. But check out their revenues. Texas is 63 million dollars ahead of the B12 conference mean. Oklahoma is 35 million ahead of it. West Virginia is virtually on it. And everyone else is 6 million or more below it, and some of them significantly below it.

In the SEC the median revenue level is higher than the mean. A conference's stability can be measured by whether it's median revenue level is at or higher than its mean.

(09-06-2017 11:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Therefore those schools become a drag on many aspects of those away games. Gate split, TV interest, fan interest, etc. all wane for these games as compared to other schools with large travelling fan bases

For what it's worth, the Pac-12 doesn't split ticket receipts with the visiting team. So USC has no reason to care whether Wazzu sells 30,000 tickets or 100,000. Also, when the distance between schools is not driveable, nobody is counting on selling thousands of tickets to away fans in any case, whether it's Washington playing at Arizona or Florida State playing at Syracuse.

But, if the question is, could each P5 conference make the same amount of TV money with two fewer members, and thus give each remaining member a larger slice of the pie, the answer is absolutely yes. Probably, because of historical and political ties, conferences are not going to dump Vandy or Wazzu or Purdue, but if there is a big upheaval or a mass exodus (e.g., Big 8 to Big 12, or Big East football falling apart) then a few more schools may no longer have a chair at the big kids' table.

(09-06-2017 11:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:13 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:04 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:23 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I could see a culling but not a split.

Leaving behind a few of the weaker P5 programs is possible.

I don't think it is possible. The middle teams would know they could be next and setting a prescient for kicking teams out is not in any school presidents best interest.

That's potentially true.

However, as pressure mounts on the major sports as a whole a push to refine the product is possible. If that refining takes place so too might a culling.

This is especially true for conference members that maintain small venues and don't travel well. If all you have are 12 guaranteed opportunities to make money from "the" sport that pays for the rest the school offers, then A.D.'s are responsible for making each of those slots account for the greatest profits possible. I just posted the latest revenue totals in another thread on this board. Washington State has slipped to 58 million a year (69th position). They don't fill their venue and it's smallish. Wake is 66th and they are very smallish. Therefore those schools become a drag on many aspects of those away games. Gate split, TV interest, fan interest, etc. all wane for these games as compared to other schools with large travelling fan bases, and large venues of their own which are usually sell outs (which increases donations at the visiting schools whose fan bases usually donate more for the right to purchase those away tickets).

Eventually conference commissioners are going to have to weigh not only the value of an expansion slot, but also the base value acceptable for existing members. And none of this even gets into wins and losses.

IMO, this is precisely why Texas and Oklahoma have to weigh their options. I know that you believe they would be unwise to move anywhere because of their identification and history with the region and each other. But check out their revenues. Texas is 63 million dollars ahead of the B12 conference mean. Oklahoma is 35 million ahead of it. West Virginia is virtually on it. And everyone else is 6 million or more below it, and some of them significantly below it.

In the SEC the median revenue level is higher than the mean. A conference's stability can be measured by whether it's median revenue level is at or higher than its mean.

Expansion and membership isn't up to the commish, it's up to the members. The commish works for the schools and does their bidding and if they are good and trusted by their members like Delany they sell the presidents on a vision. We are a long LONG ways away from members of the club being asked to leave. FSU still wants an easy win at Wake, Bama still wants and easy win at Vandy, OSU wants an easy win at Purdue etc etc etc. These bottom teams serve a purpose. If you eliminate them then a middle pack team becomes a bottom dweller and their support dwindles and you have the same issue all over again.

(09-06-2017 12:01 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:13 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:04 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:23 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I could see a culling but not a split.

Leaving behind a few of the weaker P5 programs is possible.

I don't think it is possible. The middle teams would know they could be next and setting a prescient for kicking teams out is not in any school presidents best interest.

That's potentially true.

However, as pressure mounts on the major sports as a whole a push to refine the product is possible. If that refining takes place so too might a culling.

This is especially true for conference members that maintain small venues and don't travel well. If all you have are 12 guaranteed opportunities to make money from "the" sport that pays for the rest the school offers, then A.D.'s are responsible for making each of those slots account for the greatest profits possible. I just posted the latest revenue totals in another thread on this board. Washington State has slipped to 58 million a year (69th position). They don't fill their venue and it's smallish. Wake is 66th and they are very smallish. Therefore those schools become a drag on many aspects of those away games. Gate split, TV interest, fan interest, etc. all wane for these games as compared to other schools with large travelling fan bases, and large venues of their own which are usually sell outs (which increases donations at the visiting schools whose fan bases usually donate more for the right to purchase those away tickets).

Eventually conference commissioners are going to have to weigh not only the value of an expansion slot, but also the base value acceptable for existing members. And none of this even gets into wins and losses.

IMO, this is precisely why Texas and Oklahoma have to weigh their options. I know that you believe they would be unwise to move anywhere because of their identification and history with the region and each other. But check out their revenues. Texas is 63 million dollars ahead of the B12 conference mean. Oklahoma is 35 million ahead of it. West Virginia is virtually on it. And everyone else is 6 million or more below it, and some of them significantly below it.

In the SEC the median revenue level is higher than the mean. A conference's stability can be measured by whether it's median revenue level is at or higher than its mean.

Expansion and membership isn't up to the commish, it's up to the members. The commish works for the schools and does their bidding and if they are good and trusted by their members like Delany they sell the presidents on a vision. We are a long LONG ways away from members of the club being asked to leave. FSU still wants an easy win at Wake, Bama still wants and easy win at Vandy, OSU wants an easy win at Purdue etc etc etc. These bottom teams serve a purpose. If you eliminate them then a middle pack team becomes a bottom dweller and their support dwindles and you have the same issue all over again.

I agree with you today.

But, change a few variables and the analysis changes.

(09-06-2017 12:01 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:13 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:04 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:23 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I could see a culling but not a split.

Leaving behind a few of the weaker P5 programs is possible.

I don't think it is possible. The middle teams would know they could be next and setting a prescient for kicking teams out is not in any school presidents best interest.

That's potentially true.

However, as pressure mounts on the major sports as a whole a push to refine the product is possible. If that refining takes place so too might a culling.

This is especially true for conference members that maintain small venues and don't travel well. If all you have are 12 guaranteed opportunities to make money from "the" sport that pays for the rest the school offers, then A.D.'s are responsible for making each of those slots account for the greatest profits possible. I just posted the latest revenue totals in another thread on this board. Washington State has slipped to 58 million a year (69th position). They don't fill their venue and it's smallish. Wake is 66th and they are very smallish. Therefore those schools become a drag on many aspects of those away games. Gate split, TV interest, fan interest, etc. all wane for these games as compared to other schools with large travelling fan bases, and large venues of their own which are usually sell outs (which increases donations at the visiting schools whose fan bases usually donate more for the right to purchase those away tickets).

Eventually conference commissioners are going to have to weigh not only the value of an expansion slot, but also the base value acceptable for existing members. And none of this even gets into wins and losses.

IMO, this is precisely why Texas and Oklahoma have to weigh their options. I know that you believe they would be unwise to move anywhere because of their identification and history with the region and each other. But check out their revenues. Texas is 63 million dollars ahead of the B12 conference mean. Oklahoma is 35 million ahead of it. West Virginia is virtually on it. And everyone else is 6 million or more below it, and some of them significantly below it.

In the SEC the median revenue level is higher than the mean. A conference's stability can be measured by whether it's median revenue level is at or higher than its mean.

Expansion and membership isn't up to the commish, it's up to the members. The commish works for the schools and does their bidding and if they are good and trusted by their members like Delany they sell the presidents on a vision. We are a long LONG ways away from members of the club being asked to leave. FSU still wants an easy win at Wake, Bama still wants and easy win at Vandy, OSU wants an easy win at Purdue etc etc etc. These bottom teams serve a purpose. If you eliminate them then a middle pack team becomes a bottom dweller and their support dwindles and you have the same issue all over again.

I know that. But the commissioner is the one that needs to track the data and show the models that would be the most efficient plan moving forward. If money keeps driving the sports market (and it sure seems to be) and if the question of the OP is a split in the P5 (and it is) then after realignment is completed (for the purposes of generated revenue) it is only natural that the evaluation of everything in the operating business model will then be researched and tweaked in order to examine future avenues of revenue enhancement. When that happens it will be the responsibility of the commissioner to conduct the studies and ascertain the information that will be presented to the decision makers. Then the commissioner will have done their job and it will be time for the presidents to do theirs.

Do you think that small privates and basketball schools would be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade football facilities if these kinds of aspects were not already being scrutinized? They will either get with the program and do their part, or they know one day they will be given a deadline by the conference to fulfill their obligation financially.

I submit that the evidence of what is happening at places like Duke and Kansas is that conferences are not only wiling to make these kinds of judgments at some point in the future, but that there is an awareness that they might be willing to make them much sooner.

The likelihood that the Big 10 or SEC would make those moves at any time in the near future is nil. But schools in the Big 12 and even in the ACC are realizing that they have to step up to stay viable, if not to their current conference, at least to be able to survive in another conference if theirs suffers.

Kansas is dealing with the real prospect that they don't add enough without enhancing football. They wouldn't be spending 300 million if they didn't have to. I imagine that has more to do with facilities requirements in the Big 10 and SEC than anything else. I think Duke will do it to help strengthen the earning potential of the conference they love. The ACC can be around a long time if they fix their deficits. And their deficits are small venues and low investment in the top revenue sport.

I agree with Wedge that the PAC isn't likely to sever ties with Washington State. Apparently their business model has already accounted for those inequities since they don't share gate.

But there is a cold war in college football between the producers and those who have clung to their coattails in order to soak revenues they didn't really help to produce.

Look at the strides that Maryland has made this year. Even Purdue is looking up. Could it be they finally got the message privately from their peers to produce? It doesn't have to come in the form of a threat. A few years ago Slive gave the SEC an objective to more for basketball. Last year it paid off.

But should we hit a downturn in revenue, and without the opportunity to cover by addition, then you will see pressure to contribute or leave. It is inevitable in any business model, and that is what big time college athletics is.

(09-06-2017 11:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  In the SEC the median revenue level is higher than the mean. A conference's stability can be measured by whether it's median revenue level is at or higher than its mean.

Why do you think this is? Unless dyslexia is messing with me... when the median is higher than the mean that would mean that there would be a bigger disparity between top half and lopsided lowest couple of revenue producers.

(09-06-2017 12:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:01 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:13 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:04 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  I don't think it is possible. The middle teams would know they could be next and setting a prescient for kicking teams out is not in any school presidents best interest.

That's potentially true.

However, as pressure mounts on the major sports as a whole a push to refine the product is possible. If that refining takes place so too might a culling.

This is especially true for conference members that maintain small venues and don't travel well. If all you have are 12 guaranteed opportunities to make money from "the" sport that pays for the rest the school offers, then A.D.'s are responsible for making each of those slots account for the greatest profits possible. I just posted the latest revenue totals in another thread on this board. Washington State has slipped to 58 million a year (69th position). They don't fill their venue and it's smallish. Wake is 66th and they are very smallish. Therefore those schools become a drag on many aspects of those away games. Gate split, TV interest, fan interest, etc. all wane for these games as compared to other schools with large travelling fan bases, and large venues of their own which are usually sell outs (which increases donations at the visiting schools whose fan bases usually donate more for the right to purchase those away tickets).

Eventually conference commissioners are going to have to weigh not only the value of an expansion slot, but also the base value acceptable for existing members. And none of this even gets into wins and losses.

IMO, this is precisely why Texas and Oklahoma have to weigh their options. I know that you believe they would be unwise to move anywhere because of their identification and history with the region and each other. But check out their revenues. Texas is 63 million dollars ahead of the B12 conference mean. Oklahoma is 35 million ahead of it. West Virginia is virtually on it. And everyone else is 6 million or more below it, and some of them significantly below it.

In the SEC the median revenue level is higher than the mean. A conference's stability can be measured by whether it's median revenue level is at or higher than its mean.

Expansion and membership isn't up to the commish, it's up to the members. The commish works for the schools and does their bidding and if they are good and trusted by their members like Delany they sell the presidents on a vision. We are a long LONG ways away from members of the club being asked to leave. FSU still wants an easy win at Wake, Bama still wants and easy win at Vandy, OSU wants an easy win at Purdue etc etc etc. These bottom teams serve a purpose. If you eliminate them then a middle pack team becomes a bottom dweller and their support dwindles and you have the same issue all over again.

I know that. But the commissioner is the one that needs to track the data and show the models that would be the most efficient plan moving forward. If money keeps driving the sports market (and it sure seems to be) and if the question of the OP is a split in the P5 (and it is) then after realignment is completed (for the purposes of generated revenue) it is only natural that the evaluation of everything in the operating business model will then be researched and tweaked in order to examine future avenues of revenue enhancement. When that happens it will be the responsibility of the commissioner to conduct the studies and ascertain the information that will be presented to the decision makers. Then the commissioner will have done their job and it will be time for the presidents to do theirs.

Do you think that small privates and basketball schools would be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade football facilities if these kinds of aspects were not already being scrutinized? They will either get with the program and do their part, or they know one day they will be given a deadline by the conference to fulfill their obligation financially.

I submit that the evidence of what is happening at places like Duke and Kansas is that conferences are not only wiling to make these kinds of judgments at some point in the future, but that there is an awareness that they might be willing to make them much sooner.

The likelihood that the Big 10 or SEC would make those moves at any time in the near future is nil. But schools in the Big 12 and even in the ACC are realizing that they have to step up to stay viable, if not to their current conference, at least to be able to survive in another conference if theirs suffers.

Kansas is dealing with the real prospect that they don't add enough without enhancing football. They wouldn't be spending 300 million if they didn't have to. I imagine that has more to do with facilities requirements in the Big 10 and SEC than anything else. I think Duke will do it to help strengthen the earning potential of the conference they love. The ACC can be around a long time if they fix their deficits. And their deficits are small venues and low investment in the top revenue sport.

I agree with Wedge that the PAC isn't likely to sever ties with Washington State. Apparently their business model has already accounted for those inequities since they don't share gate.

But there is a cold war in college football between the producers and those who have clung to their coattails in order to soak revenues they didn't really help to produce.

Look at the strides that Maryland has made this year. Even Purdue is looking up. Could it be they finally got the message privately from their peers to produce? It doesn't have to come in the form of a threat. A few years ago Slive gave the SEC an objective to more for basketball. Last year it paid off.

But should we hit a downturn in revenue, and without the opportunity to cover by addition, then you will see pressure to contribute or leave. It is inevitable in any business model, and that is what big time college athletics is.

Yes, upgrading to survive the next round of possible realignment is something the ACC and (especially) Big XII schools should do. But that is a completely different conversation than culling schools from power conferences.

The more likely (though not totally likely) scenario would be a split from the G5 and only allowing 1 G5 game to count towards bowl eligibility. That increases the value of all games from the power conferences. Also if that happens it is in the best interest of all the power schools to keep the amount of power schools the same or even grow by a handful. Inventory is still key especially when it comes to streaming. The more games/teams a streaming provider offers the more people will use that service.

Of course that would be a pure FB move and the rest of college sports would stay mostly the same with maybe a culling of a few bottom level BBall conferences.