In the simplistic world view of sports fans having one of the nation's most profitable college sports brands speaking in terms of not wanting to pay players, but rather to focus on the academic mission of the school at first appears to be....well .... hypocritical in light of the history of that school's sports program. But what the average sports fan never considers are these issues and perhaps more:

1. What does the direction of the macro economy indicate with regards to investments?

2. How do the variables of the future economy affect sports as a whole?

3. Does the likely trajectory of the economy favor inflation or deflation in athletics as a product?

4. How does that possible trajectory impact the short range and long range planning of our institution's investment in that product?

Swarbrick, Delany, some of the presidents of ACC schools, and some of the presidents of private schools everywhere (and some state schools) are having to weigh carefully the trajectory of sports revenue moving into a very uncertain future for not only sports, but more particularly for the long term health and stability of the U.S. economy. Last week in Chile that future was dealt yet another serious obstacle when the leadership of France, England, Germany and Italy joined one of our adversaries, Putin in the position of supporting a new global economic venture emanating from China, AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank).

That news coupled with Putin's refusal to trade commodities in Dollars (which started before the first of the year and was a direct challenge to status of the dollar as World Reserve Currency) has sent ripples through the global trade system that could lead to the dropping of the dollar from it's supremacy in global trade that it has held since 1945. So how on earth something so seemingly remote from the venues of college athletics have anything to do with the issue of paying players, or for that matter with realignment?

Well for starters the United States is over 60 Trillion dollars in NET debt. Folks that is debt which is unsecured by any kind of land holdings, precious metals, gross domestic product, or actual hardware (military or otherwise) that we may hold as an asset. It is the culmination of years of having the economy manipulated and siphoned by the Federal Reserve and the politicians on both sides of the aisle that it has purchased to do their bidding both internally and through foreign policies that even our closest former allies now reject. Your corporate conglomerate owned TV networks are not talking about it (so far only the NY Times dares to speak out) so I don't fault you for being unaware of the presently precarious situation that we find ourselves in economically. But people like Swarbrick and others are not ignorant of the fiscal realities that face our nation, and consequently the institutions with which they have been entrusted. The debate over the best course of college athletics is an open and undecided one for good reason. Depending upon how things play out the decision to pay, or not to pay, college athletes could have profound implications upon the future economic health of our schools. And, I might add either side could prove to be right.

Let's say the dollar is knocked out of its present position of supremacy in global trade. What that means is that the U.S. would have to exchange dollars for another currency through which it would conduct trade. This is why the U.N. is presently proposing a global currency controlled by the U.N. They see this issue as being a possible catalyst to WWIII quite literally and are trying to head off the political triggers before they are tripped. In the initial phase of the loss of WR Status the affect upon the average American home would be an inflation in all goods of initially 35% and then higher as the debt continued to mount at home. After the shock of 2008 U.S. liquidity was freed by the change of a term. The declaration of bankruptcy for "National" debt is what locked down the libor and consequently the trade in 2008. So this option was not a quick fix solution (although one that likely would have been better long term for the American citizens) for big business. So, we quit calling our debt "National" which can be declared bankrupt followed by the issuing of a new currency as nations such as Brazil have done in the past. Instead we opened up our trade again (and protected our biggest corporations from being attached) by making a legal change in the distinction of that debt by calling it "Sovereign" debt. With "Sovereign" debt the creditors of our nation may directly attach the savings, retirement, and common checking accounts of the citizens of the nation to collect. Ask the Greeks what they think about this? Although the riots in Greece over their sovereign debt issue were reported here, the motivation of those riots was not. Over one long weekend the German bank levied a flat 10% reduction against all of the citizens of Greece and deducted that levy electronically from all forms of their personal assets. Since 2008 this has become a possibility here. So not only do we face the possibility of hyperinflation, but also the possibility that foreign creditors will take levies against our holdings personally while the very politicians and corporations that created the fiasco walk away free and clean.

Now should such things come to pass what does that mean for us? Austerity! There won't be the disposable income for luxuries. There will be a massive downsizing in the standard of living of most Americans and subsistence living will become the way of life for the vast majority of us. Personal spending in entertainment industries will vanish and that means that all such luxuries will be gone. The corporations won't be bailing them out either. They will be locating more completely overseas along with the minions that engineered this fiasco as they seek shelter away from an enraged public that finally realizes what has happened to them. Pro Sports could be dead as we know it as a result. We would still have television, still work, but would be bereft of the luxuries we have taken as a birthright. In such a world college athletics could exist quite nicely as what they were originally intended to be. In such a world the lavish investments in stadia, massive electronic displays, and luxurious venues would be money that once spent may no longer be recoverable. If this is the future we assume then men like Swarbrick will have had the vision to save their schools from absolute folly.

Now if all of this happens and professional sports go away, but college sports become the new professional sport because of it, just at a vastly reduced rate of expense and pay, then those who pursue doing what it takes to offer the best product could offer a sound case for why they want to go that route. They may become the only sports entertainment product on television. In that case we won't be touting the multi million dollar TV contracts that we tout today, but we would have a secure revenue stream in times of enormous drawbacks in college funding and enrollment. In that case then the choices of the Alabama's and Ohio State's could prove to be the wiser course of action.

So I don't hold Swarbrick and others as hypocrites at all. I see them as reasonable people trying to figure out the best course of action in a perilous future. What I hope is twofold. 1. That the economic outcome of the loss of world reserve status will not be as destructive as many have forecast. 2. That some compromise weighted more toward the position that Swarbrick and others hold prevails. I hold this position not because I'm against the athletes reaping benefits for their work and gifts, but because the athletic industry could well have peaked and could very easily be headed for a bottom and a future where these athletes no longer have a large professional check waiting upon their exit from school. Their educations may truly be worth their service to the school and may well wind up being their best personal economic salvation as well.

It's time to sober up folks. Realignment was started by economic instability and its final iteration may well be dictated by it as well. I hope our schools can work together instead of against one another because we are going to need all the help we can get from each other. At least that is the way I see it coming down. But, if we head down this road and survive it, it will be because we have reinvested in our local communities, states, and personally owned businesses, have rediscovered the merits of anti trust laws, and as a people who have shared a common experience in overcoming tremendously difficult times, we once again will value a wealth of considerations for our future and will weigh them carefully and responsibly before simply handing over such tedious tasks to those who for a price, decide them for us. JR

(03-22-2015 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So, we quit calling our debt "National" which can be declared bankrupt followed by the issuing of a new currency as nations such as Brazil have done in the past. Instead we opened up our trade again (and protected our biggest corporations from being attached) by making a legal change in the distinction of that debt by calling it "Sovereign" debt. With "Sovereign" debt the creditors of our nation may directly attach the savings, retirement, and common checking accounts of the citizens of the nation to collect. Ask the Greeks what they think about this? Although the riots in Greece over their sovereign debt issue were reported here, the motivation of those riots was not. Over one long weekend the German bank levied a flat 10% reduction against all of the citizens of Greece and deducted that levy electronically from all forms of their personal assets. Since 2008 this has become a possibility here. So not only do we face the possibility of hyperinflation, but also the possibility that foreign creditors will take levies against our holdings personally while the very politicians and corporations that created the fiasco walk away free and clean.

Yeah, I would have to say, if that ever happened here in the U.S., the safety of our recent politicians would be questionable to say the least. How this all relates to conference realignment? My guess would be a need at the state/federal level to quit supplementing educational athletic programs that lose money as part of a need to cut federal spending to pay off national debts. I'm sure some schools would try to writes these losses off as advertising or something creative. Still I would not want to see C.R. started due to major economic issues due to our national debt problems.

(03-23-2015 10:52 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So, we quit calling our debt "National" which can be declared bankrupt followed by the issuing of a new currency as nations such as Brazil have done in the past. Instead we opened up our trade again (and protected our biggest corporations from being attached) by making a legal change in the distinction of that debt by calling it "Sovereign" debt. With "Sovereign" debt the creditors of our nation may directly attach the savings, retirement, and common checking accounts of the citizens of the nation to collect. Ask the Greeks what they think about this? Although the riots in Greece over their sovereign debt issue were reported here, the motivation of those riots was not. Over one long weekend the German bank levied a flat 10% reduction against all of the citizens of Greece and deducted that levy electronically from all forms of their personal assets. Since 2008 this has become a possibility here. So not only do we face the possibility of hyperinflation, but also the possibility that foreign creditors will take levies against our holdings personally while the very politicians and corporations that created the fiasco walk away free and clean.

Yeah, I would have to say, if that ever happened here in the U.S., the safety of our recent politicians would be questionable to say the least. How this all relates to conference realignment? My guess would be a need at the state/federal level to quit supplementing educational athletic programs that lose money as part of a need to cut federal spending to pay off national debts. I'm sure some schools would try to writes these losses off as advertising or something creative. Still I would not want to see C.R. started due to major economic issues due to our national debt problems.

I do think that we would see a reduction in minor sports and that most schools would only offer scholarships for football, basketball, and baseball for men, and soccer, softball, and basketball for women. Olympic sports would have to depend upon corporate sponsorship if they could get it. But such a calamity could prove very damaging to Title IX.

(03-24-2015 06:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 10:52 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So, we quit calling our debt "National" which can be declared bankrupt followed by the issuing of a new currency as nations such as Brazil have done in the past. Instead we opened up our trade again (and protected our biggest corporations from being attached) by making a legal change in the distinction of that debt by calling it "Sovereign" debt. With "Sovereign" debt the creditors of our nation may directly attach the savings, retirement, and common checking accounts of the citizens of the nation to collect. Ask the Greeks what they think about this? Although the riots in Greece over their sovereign debt issue were reported here, the motivation of those riots was not. Over one long weekend the German bank levied a flat 10% reduction against all of the citizens of Greece and deducted that levy electronically from all forms of their personal assets. Since 2008 this has become a possibility here. So not only do we face the possibility of hyperinflation, but also the possibility that foreign creditors will take levies against our holdings personally while the very politicians and corporations that created the fiasco walk away free and clean.

Yeah, I would have to say, if that ever happened here in the U.S., the safety of our recent politicians would be questionable to say the least. How this all relates to conference realignment? My guess would be a need at the state/federal level to quit supplementing educational athletic programs that lose money as part of a need to cut federal spending to pay off national debts. I'm sure some schools would try to writes these losses off as advertising or something creative. Still I would not want to see C.R. started due to major economic issues due to our national debt problems.

I do think that we would see a reduction in minor sports and that most schools would only offer scholarships for football, basketball, and baseball for men, and soccer, softball, and basketball for women. Olympic sports would have to depend upon corporate sponsorship if they could get it. But such a calamity could prove very damaging to Title IX.

If funding or revenues hit rock bottom, invented emergency measures would be made regardless of Title IX.

(03-25-2015 06:29 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(03-24-2015 06:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 10:52 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So, we quit calling our debt "National" which can be declared bankrupt followed by the issuing of a new currency as nations such as Brazil have done in the past. Instead we opened up our trade again (and protected our biggest corporations from being attached) by making a legal change in the distinction of that debt by calling it "Sovereign" debt. With "Sovereign" debt the creditors of our nation may directly attach the savings, retirement, and common checking accounts of the citizens of the nation to collect. Ask the Greeks what they think about this? Although the riots in Greece over their sovereign debt issue were reported here, the motivation of those riots was not. Over one long weekend the German bank levied a flat 10% reduction against all of the citizens of Greece and deducted that levy electronically from all forms of their personal assets. Since 2008 this has become a possibility here. So not only do we face the possibility of hyperinflation, but also the possibility that foreign creditors will take levies against our holdings personally while the very politicians and corporations that created the fiasco walk away free and clean.

Yeah, I would have to say, if that ever happened here in the U.S., the safety of our recent politicians would be questionable to say the least. How this all relates to conference realignment? My guess would be a need at the state/federal level to quit supplementing educational athletic programs that lose money as part of a need to cut federal spending to pay off national debts. I'm sure some schools would try to writes these losses off as advertising or something creative. Still I would not want to see C.R. started due to major economic issues due to our national debt problems.

I do think that we would see a reduction in minor sports and that most schools would only offer scholarships for football, basketball, and baseball for men, and soccer, softball, and basketball for women. Olympic sports would have to depend upon corporate sponsorship if they could get it. But such a calamity could prove very damaging to Title IX.

If funding or revenues hit rock bottom, invented emergency measures would be made regardless of Title IX.

That is everyone's first assumption, but it misses the main point. The dollar as a monetary unit is in real danger. If King Dollar falls the mess would be so expansive and the societal adjustments so radical, that all bets would be off as to what did survive. Imagine that tomorrow you wake up and a foreign entity to which our country owes money has seized 10% of your savings, retirement portfolio, and your checking account assets. Then imagine that the 90% you have left is worth just over 1/3rd less in its purchasing power. Then absorb that the seizure has been by just one foreign entity that is owed, and not by all, and that each may attach your accounts for up to 10% per year until the debt is collected. That's what the switch from "national debt" to "sovereign debt" does to you legally. If you want to see it in action then just study what is happening in Greece.

A few years back Obama's talking points were centered around how Americans needed to learn to be happy with less. He's not the creator of the crisis. It has been building since the Federal Reserve truly seized control in 1963. We are about to downsize everything, including the number of colleges and universities. That's why realignment has been taking place. Those with guaranteed revenue will be positioned to survive. Some smaller schools will be placed under the umbrella of larger state schools. Some will be technical schools. Others will simply vanish. This would have occurred without a fiscal dilemma. The small colleges grew exponentially to supply baby boomers with an education. With the death of the boomers and the diminished fiscal reach of their children established, the need of these schools has simply passed. So like small branches and streams in a river complex, until their is a flood again, they will dry up. Add to that the ability of technology to provide remote learning and a series of lessons that shall only be taught by a recorded professor and you have eliminated the need for campus buildings and a large staff. Then add to that the declining number of jobs that pay skilled and educated labor sufficiently to justify the expense of college and you have driven a nail into the coffin of the small state schools, and eventually the private schools as well.

Realignment has been the collectivizing of large state schools and the nation's largest and best known private schools. The PAC, Big 10 and SEC are secure because each only has a single or at most two privates to deal with. The Big 12 and ACC on the other hand are in a much less desirable position in that regard. Notre Dame and Duke will make the grade from the ACC if they choose to make it. I doubt that Wake Forest will. Miami, Syracuse, and Boston College should make it, but there is at least some doubt. Pittsburgh is a hybrid and with state funding should be fine. There will be no problem for Georgia Tech, Clemson, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, or Florida State. But look at the Big 12. The snub for Oklahoma State and Kansas State is for a reason. In a financial crisis both of those small states might well keep both campuses operational, or they might be forced with drastic cutbacks to merge their respective state schools to cut down on duplicated fields. The same is true in Iowa and that is why a great school like Iowa State may be in jeopardy. In Texas, A&M and UT will always be safe. T.C.U. and Baylor not so much. If it were about sports Baylor and possibly T.C.U. would both be fine, but it is not about sports. It is about formulating strategies for contending with an impending financial mess and states generally will protect only those institutions for which they have oversight and that excludes privates. A mess, I might add, that will be hastened in its onset by our European allies abandoning the dollar for a safer gold backed Renminbi, which by the way on March 18 in Chile they (Italy, France, Germany, and England) expressed their desire to do.

So in the wake of the kinds of changes I'm talking about, Title IX would be the least of our worries, and therefore a very likely casualty along with many many non revenue producing minor men's sports.

Therefore television networks will wait for the casualties of funding and will then be able to take advantage of this crisis more fully by consolidating the largest alumni bases, and most recognizable brands into a very competitive and comprehensible regional setup. Why? Because in a severe economic crisis it will be cheap entertainment to produce and professional sports franchises won't likely survive. So college ball becomes a replacement for professional sports and scholarships and stipends become a greatly reduced payout for that entertainment rather than million dollar payouts for pro salaries.

IMO the remaining schools to be realigned are: Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and N.C. State. I could see UVa getting out of major college football altogether and keeping their academic high road. They'll be fine with what they have to offer. Notre Dame will be fine either way. Duke is another that may eventually choose to abandon football even as could Vanderbilt and Northwestern. Louisville, West Virginia, Cincinnati and a few others could be right back on the in or out bubble. We'll see.

(03-28-2015 08:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  That is everyone's first assumption, but it misses the main point. The dollar as a monetary unit is in real danger. If King Dollar falls the mess would be so expansive and the societal adjustments so radical, that all bets would be off as to what did survive. Imagine that tomorrow you wake up and a foreign entity to which our country owes money has seized 10% of your savings, retirement portfolio, and your checking account assets. Then imagine that the 90% you have left is worth just over 1/3rd less in its purchasing power. Then absorb that the seizure has been by just one foreign entity that is owed, and not by all, and that each may attach your accounts for up to 10% per year until the debt is collected. That's what the switch from "national debt" to "sovereign debt" does to you legally. If you want to see it in action then just study what is happening in Greece.

A few years back Obama's talking points were centered around how Americans needed to learn to be happy with less. He's not the creator of the crisis. It has been building since the Federal Reserve truly seized control in 1963. We are about to downsize everything, including the number of colleges and universities. That's why realignment has been taking place. Those with guaranteed revenue will be positioned to survive. Some smaller schools will be placed under the umbrella of larger state schools. Some will be technical schools. Others will simply vanish. This would have occurred without a fiscal dilemma. The small colleges grew exponentially to supply baby boomers with an education. With the death of the boomers and the diminished fiscal reach of their children established, the need of these schools has simply passed. So like small branches and streams in a river complex, until their is a flood again, they will dry up. Add to that the ability of technology to provide remote learning and a series of lessons that shall only be taught by a recorded professor and you have eliminated the need for campus buildings and a large staff. Then add to that the declining number of jobs that pay skilled and educated labor sufficiently to justify the expense of college and you have driven a nail into the coffin of the small state schools, and eventually the private schools as well.

Realignment has been the collectivizing of large state schools and the nation's largest and best known private schools. The PAC, Big 10 and SEC are secure because each only has a single or at most two privates to deal with. The Big 12 and ACC on the other hand are in a much less desirable position in that regard. Notre Dame and Duke will make the grade from the ACC if they choose to make it. I doubt that Wake Forest will. Miami, Syracuse, and Boston College should make it, but there is at least some doubt. Pittsburgh is a hybrid and with state funding should be fine. There will be no problem for Georgia Tech, Clemson, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, or Florida State. But look at the Big 12. The snub for Oklahoma State and Kansas State is for a reason. In a financial crisis both of those small states might well keep both campuses operational, or they might be forced with drastic cutbacks to merge their respective state schools to cut down on duplicated fields. The same is true in Iowa and that is why a great school like Iowa State may be in jeopardy. In Texas, A&M and UT will always be safe. T.C.U. and Baylor not so much. If it were about sports Baylor and possibly T.C.U. would both be fine, but it is not about sports. It is about formulating strategies for contending with an impending financial mess and states generally will protect only those institutions for which they have oversight and that excludes privates. A mess, I might add, that will be hastened in its onset by our European allies abandoning the dollar for a safer gold backed Renminbi, which by the way on March 18 in Chile they (Italy, France, Germany, and England) expressed their desire to do.

So in the wake of the kinds of changes I'm talking about, Title IX would be the least of our worries, and therefore a very likely casualty along with many many non revenue producing minor men's sports.

Therefore television networks will wait for the casualties of funding and will then be able to take advantage of this crisis more fully by consolidating the largest alumni bases, and most recognizable brands into a very competitive and comprehensible regional setup. Why? Because in a severe economic crisis it will be cheap entertainment to produce and professional sports franchises won't likely survive. So college ball becomes a replacement for professional sports and scholarships and stipends become a greatly reduced payout for that entertainment rather than million dollar payouts for pro salaries.

IMO the remaining schools to be realigned are: Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and N.C. State. I could see UVa getting out of major college football altogether and keeping their academic high road. They'll be fine with what they have to offer. Notre Dame will be fine either way. Duke is another that may eventually choose to abandon football even as could Vanderbilt and Northwestern. Louisville, West Virginia, Cincinnati and a few others could be right back on the in or out bubble. We'll see.

Would not the effect on alignment be the opposite? If the quality of money goes so soft as to stop paying for minor sports the programs could well regroup to save on traveling costs. In a much diminished economy it makes less sense for teams to travel long distances for games. Even a return of Eastern independents wouldn't be outside of possibility. That would be good news for Notre Dame and State Penn.

Also, I doubt pro sports would go away completely. It was during the Great Depression that Babe Ruth made more than the President, and he justified it by saying he had a better year. There may be contraction or owners would use the economy to bend over the unions so much as to render them ineffective but games will be played as long as people will pay to watch.

(03-29-2015 08:47 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-28-2015 08:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  That is everyone's first assumption, but it misses the main point. The dollar as a monetary unit is in real danger. If King Dollar falls the mess would be so expansive and the societal adjustments so radical, that all bets would be off as to what did survive. Imagine that tomorrow you wake up and a foreign entity to which our country owes money has seized 10% of your savings, retirement portfolio, and your checking account assets. Then imagine that the 90% you have left is worth just over 1/3rd less in its purchasing power. Then absorb that the seizure has been by just one foreign entity that is owed, and not by all, and that each may attach your accounts for up to 10% per year until the debt is collected. That's what the switch from "national debt" to "sovereign debt" does to you legally. If you want to see it in action then just study what is happening in Greece.

A few years back Obama's talking points were centered around how Americans needed to learn to be happy with less. He's not the creator of the crisis. It has been building since the Federal Reserve truly seized control in 1963. We are about to downsize everything, including the number of colleges and universities. That's why realignment has been taking place. Those with guaranteed revenue will be positioned to survive. Some smaller schools will be placed under the umbrella of larger state schools. Some will be technical schools. Others will simply vanish. This would have occurred without a fiscal dilemma. The small colleges grew exponentially to supply baby boomers with an education. With the death of the boomers and the diminished fiscal reach of their children established, the need of these schools has simply passed. So like small branches and streams in a river complex, until their is a flood again, they will dry up. Add to that the ability of technology to provide remote learning and a series of lessons that shall only be taught by a recorded professor and you have eliminated the need for campus buildings and a large staff. Then add to that the declining number of jobs that pay skilled and educated labor sufficiently to justify the expense of college and you have driven a nail into the coffin of the small state schools, and eventually the private schools as well.

Realignment has been the collectivizing of large state schools and the nation's largest and best known private schools. The PAC, Big 10 and SEC are secure because each only has a single or at most two privates to deal with. The Big 12 and ACC on the other hand are in a much less desirable position in that regard. Notre Dame and Duke will make the grade from the ACC if they choose to make it. I doubt that Wake Forest will. Miami, Syracuse, and Boston College should make it, but there is at least some doubt. Pittsburgh is a hybrid and with state funding should be fine. There will be no problem for Georgia Tech, Clemson, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, or Florida State. But look at the Big 12. The snub for Oklahoma State and Kansas State is for a reason. In a financial crisis both of those small states might well keep both campuses operational, or they might be forced with drastic cutbacks to merge their respective state schools to cut down on duplicated fields. The same is true in Iowa and that is why a great school like Iowa State may be in jeopardy. In Texas, A&M and UT will always be safe. T.C.U. and Baylor not so much. If it were about sports Baylor and possibly T.C.U. would both be fine, but it is not about sports. It is about formulating strategies for contending with an impending financial mess and states generally will protect only those institutions for which they have oversight and that excludes privates. A mess, I might add, that will be hastened in its onset by our European allies abandoning the dollar for a safer gold backed Renminbi, which by the way on March 18 in Chile they (Italy, France, Germany, and England) expressed their desire to do.

So in the wake of the kinds of changes I'm talking about, Title IX would be the least of our worries, and therefore a very likely casualty along with many many non revenue producing minor men's sports.

Therefore television networks will wait for the casualties of funding and will then be able to take advantage of this crisis more fully by consolidating the largest alumni bases, and most recognizable brands into a very competitive and comprehensible regional setup. Why? Because in a severe economic crisis it will be cheap entertainment to produce and professional sports franchises won't likely survive. So college ball becomes a replacement for professional sports and scholarships and stipends become a greatly reduced payout for that entertainment rather than million dollar payouts for pro salaries.

IMO the remaining schools to be realigned are: Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and N.C. State. I could see UVa getting out of major college football altogether and keeping their academic high road. They'll be fine with what they have to offer. Notre Dame will be fine either way. Duke is another that may eventually choose to abandon football even as could Vanderbilt and Northwestern. Louisville, West Virginia, Cincinnati and a few others could be right back on the in or out bubble. We'll see.

Would not the effect on alignment be the opposite? If the quality of money goes so soft as to stop paying for minor sports the programs could well regroup to save on traveling costs. In a much diminished economy it makes less sense for teams to travel long distances for games. Even a return of Eastern independents wouldn't be outside of possibility. That would be good news for Notre Dame and State Penn.

Also, I doubt pro sports would go away completely. It was during the Great Depression that Babe Ruth made more than the President, and he justified it by saying he had a better year. There may be contraction or owners would use the economy to bend over the unions so much as to render them ineffective but games will be played as long as people will pay to watch.

As to the affect upon realignment I doubt seriously the opposite would happen, but your reasoning is sound, it is just the conclusion that misapply in my opinion. They would need larger overall groups to secure any leverage at all for the sake of keeping value in their product. But, those large groupings would be broken down very carefully into very compact regional divisions (much as you suggest would be the case for the conferences). We stay the course on large conferences, but we utilize divisions the way that conferences were once utilized. That way minor sports (if they survive) stay regional, and most games are within an easy drive for the economic reasoning you state.

I considered the past as it related to the professional franchises, and I diverged from history at that point for two reasons. 1. Networks get more guaranteed fan support out of a school (and they are much cheaper to utilize). 2. The next depression will be protracted and much deeper than the one in 1929. Like in 1929 it will affect great regions of the world economy, but unlike in 1929 the U.S. dollar will not be backed with anything of value. So, we are much more likely to suffer the inflationary fiasco of the Weimar Republic than we are to experience the rock bottom productivity of a deflationary market as in '29. Remember in 1929 a nickel was hard to come by but a nickel bought a sack of potatoes or a hamburger. It is still easier to exist in that environment than the one Germany experienced where workers were paid in cash twice a day and given two hours for lunch so that they could run to the corner market and buy a loaf of bread for 100 Marks knowing that by the end of the day it might be 150 Marks. With no pinning of the dollar to a commodity our next crisis will definitely be inflationary and given the size of our net debt it will reach new record proportions. Surviving will be dependent upon using quilts instead of energy to keep warm, using shade instead of fans to keep cool, (or defeating both by building underground where the temperature is constant) and by growing or raising your own food. Those are just 2 of a very few ways to control your overhead in a way that inflation can't affect it as greatly. For those who can't do either survival will be extremely difficult. Oh, and by the way this will all be happening just as people begin to realize the difficulty of obtaining potable water at an affordable cost. Why? Most of our domestic water supplies are now owned by foreign corporations like Nestle. Coca Cola owns a good bit too. I guess I should be thankful for that. But under deregulation our politicians sold what had been a public asset for nearly two centuries under the guise of cutting government overhead. The citizens no longer share the ownership of water rights, something even the cattlemen and westward expansionists weren't stupid enough to do. The common good always outweighed the profit angle on such an important staple of life, until the 1980's.