(08-28-2025 04:04 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 03:51 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  G6 breakaway would be great.

A breakaway of the best schools, if in the best interest of the sport, would be better.

Agreed. The 68 Power schools + 4 others would be good.

(08-28-2025 08:26 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I imagine a lot of discussion centered around whether or not there should be a parallel playoff among their teams who don’t qualify for the CFP. I imagine that the MAC, SBC, C-USA, and MWC would like to have the revenue from those games, while the AC and PAC 12 want to resist being associated with the G6

AC may have a different attitude now about this than in the Aresco era.

(08-28-2025 05:21 PM)Morning MAC Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 04:24 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 04:19 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 04:17 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 04:14 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

That last sentence might as well be him putting on a clown hat and yelling out "look at me, I'm a joke!"

Are you calling Ross Dellinger a joke for reporting what he was told? Am I misunderstanding what you wrote?

I meant the Pac 12 part specifically. Why even raise the idea of them as an "A league"? They clearly don't have the programs to do it. They might have 2 or 3 that can operate like a smaller A program (BSU, SDSU and OSU, and in that order) but the rest aren't able and if your best is below average for an actual A league then that isn't what you are going to be. He's throwing out false hope to people.

Purely speculating,
If Calford brought their olympic sports back to the PAC, would that be enough
for the PAC to receive weighted voting power on the basketball oversight committee,
similar to the Big East?
Maybe this is a way the PAC can put itself on the same level as the Big East,
differentiating itself from the G5.

https://x.com/petethamel/status/19528373...kEWvAMxPmw

I don't see why it would. The only reason the BE was given a seat at the table is that they win a LOT of titles and a lot of NCAAT games in general. Calford do neither of those things (in MBB), thus it's hard to see how they'd move that needle at all.

No need for a breakaway at this point. The P2 will pick a few more programs then separate. P2 and G8, ACC and B12 will join the group. More baggage needs to be eliminated.

"Unifying the FBS Media Rights" would be a disaster. Negotiating a media deal is really the most important thing the Conference Commissioner does and they want to outsource it to some Board. It doesn't secure more money for the G6. It only shifts the blame to someone else. These G6 commissioners want zero accountability for their actions.

(08-29-2025 09:26 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  "Unifying the FBS Media Rights" would be a disaster. Negotiating a media deal is really the most important thing the Conference Commissioner does and they want to outsource it to some Board. It doesn't secure more money for the G6. It only shifts the blame to someone else. These G6 commissioners want zero accountability for their actions.

To be fair, if I’m running a G6 school, of course I want unified FBS media rights! That’s a great deal for my G6 school.

Similarly, all of the misnamed “Super League” proposals where the top 72 schools all aggregate their rights in a private equity funded model are what’s being pushed by the ACC and Big 12 schools because that’s also in their self-interests. Of course they want to aggregate everyone if it means they can simultaneously make more money off of the Big Ten/SEC brands and exclude nearly all of the G6 schools. That’s a great deal for my ACC/Big 12 school.

Everyone is acting in their own self-interests. What matters is who can actually take their self-interests and has the power to actually *implement* them. That universe consists of the Big Ten and SEC (with Notre Dame getting a side piece).

(08-29-2025 09:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 09:26 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  "Unifying the FBS Media Rights" would be a disaster. Negotiating a media deal is really the most important thing the Conference Commissioner does and they want to outsource it to some Board. It doesn't secure more money for the G6. It only shifts the blame to someone else. These G6 commissioners want zero accountability for their actions.

To be fair, if I’m running a G6 school, of course I want unified FBS media rights! That’s a great deal for my G6 school.

Similarly, all of the misnamed “Super League” proposals where the top 72 schools all aggregate their rights in a private equity funded model are what’s being pushed by the ACC and Big 12 schools because that’s also in their self-interests. Of course they want to aggregate everyone if it means they can simultaneously make more money off of the Big Ten/SEC brands and exclude nearly all of the G6 schools. That’s a great deal for my ACC/Big 12 school.

Everyone is acting in their own self-interests. What matters is who can actually take their self-interests and has the power to actually *implement* them. That universe consists of the Big Ten and SEC (with Notre Dame getting a side piece).

You can't possibly find value for the G6 in a unified FBS deal.

You want March Madness style credits for games that ESPN and FOX select?

If the media rights holder, lets say ESPN exclusively, had access to every FBS game. Why would they feature any G6 games? They can fill their timeslots with P2 and M2. All the Media Credits would accumulate at the top.

(08-29-2025 09:26 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  "Unifying the FBS Media Rights" would be a disaster. Negotiating a media deal is really the most important thing the Conference Commissioner does and they want to outsource it to some Board. It doesn't secure more money for the G6. It only shifts the blame to someone else. These G6 commissioners want zero accountability for their actions.

Would also be a disaster for fans as the networks use the "megadeal" to parcel out whatever games a team does have to the 4 corners of earth and force you to subscribe to all of them.

(08-29-2025 09:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 09:26 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  "Unifying the FBS Media Rights" would be a disaster. Negotiating a media deal is really the most important thing the Conference Commissioner does and they want to outsource it to some Board. It doesn't secure more money for the G6. It only shifts the blame to someone else. These G6 commissioners want zero accountability for their actions.

To be fair, if I’m running a G6 school, of course I want unified FBS media rights! That’s a great deal for my G6 school.

Similarly, all of the misnamed “Super League” proposals where the top 72 schools all aggregate their rights in a private equity funded model are what’s being pushed by the ACC and Big 12 schools because that’s also in their self-interests. Of course they want to aggregate everyone if it means they can simultaneously make more money off of the Big Ten/SEC brands and exclude nearly all of the G6 schools. That’s a great deal for my ACC/Big 12 school.

Everyone is acting in their own self-interests. What matters is who can actually take their self-interests and has the power to actually *implement* them. That universe consists of the Big Ten and SEC (with Notre Dame getting a side piece).

Well it would make more money for the SEC and Big Ten as well. Its just that if it were even, their advantage would go away. But you could have it weighted like the ACC is now. But the bottom half of the Big Ten and SEC wouldn't like that.

I think the G6 are talking about pooling the G6 media rights. The AAC, PAC and MWC are pretty similar values. The CUSA, MAC and Sun Belt are pretty similar value and have essentially the same type of deal with ESPN with mid-week games.

(08-29-2025 09:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 09:26 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  "Unifying the FBS Media Rights" would be a disaster. Negotiating a media deal is really the most important thing the Conference Commissioner does and they want to outsource it to some Board. It doesn't secure more money for the G6. It only shifts the blame to someone else. These G6 commissioners want zero accountability for their actions.

To be fair, if I’m running a G6 school, of course I want unified FBS media rights! That’s a great deal for my G6 school.

Similarly, all of the misnamed “Super League” proposals where the top 72 schools all aggregate their rights in a private equity funded model are what’s being pushed by the ACC and Big 12 schools because that’s also in their self-interests. Of course they want to aggregate everyone if it means they can simultaneously make more money off of the Big Ten/SEC brands and exclude nearly all of the G6 schools. That’s a great deal for my ACC/Big 12 school.

Everyone is acting in their own self-interests. What matters is who can actually take their self-interests and has the power to actually *implement* them. That universe consists of the Big Ten and SEC (with Notre Dame getting a side piece).

Yeah, it's Power Structure 101

Sankey and Pettiti's job is to look after their entire conference, including the lower earners. As I've said a millions times, they will milk the current socialist conference distribution method dry, and then they will retire and leave it to the next man up.

(08-29-2025 10:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 09:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 09:26 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  "Unifying the FBS Media Rights" would be a disaster. Negotiating a media deal is really the most important thing the Conference Commissioner does and they want to outsource it to some Board. It doesn't secure more money for the G6. It only shifts the blame to someone else. These G6 commissioners want zero accountability for their actions.

To be fair, if I’m running a G6 school, of course I want unified FBS media rights! That’s a great deal for my G6 school.

Similarly, all of the misnamed “Super League” proposals where the top 72 schools all aggregate their rights in a private equity funded model are what’s being pushed by the ACC and Big 12 schools because that’s also in their self-interests. Of course they want to aggregate everyone if it means they can simultaneously make more money off of the Big Ten/SEC brands and exclude nearly all of the G6 schools. That’s a great deal for my ACC/Big 12 school.

Everyone is acting in their own self-interests. What matters is who can actually take their self-interests and has the power to actually *implement* them. That universe consists of the Big Ten and SEC (with Notre Dame getting a side piece).

Well it would make more money for the SEC and Big Ten as well. Its just that if it were even, their advantage would go away. But you could have it weighted like the ACC is now. But the bottom half of the Big Ten and SEC wouldn't like that.

I think the G6 are talking about pooling the G6 media rights. The AAC, PAC and MWC are pretty similar values. The CUSA, MAC and Sun Belt are pretty similar value and have essentially the same type of deal with ESPN with mid-week games.

In what world will the PAC and MWC have pretty similar values?

The PAC will have most of the better half of the current MWC's value plus Wazzu and OSU and their rivalries...plus Gonzaga.

MWC replaces that top-half lost value with UTEP and NIU football and Hawaii, GCU and UC-Davis Olympic sports.

Does not compute.

Or is it that they are both so far behind the P4 that they are pretty similar in value from that perspective?

(08-29-2025 11:02 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 10:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 09:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 09:26 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  "Unifying the FBS Media Rights" would be a disaster. Negotiating a media deal is really the most important thing the Conference Commissioner does and they want to outsource it to some Board. It doesn't secure more money for the G6. It only shifts the blame to someone else. These G6 commissioners want zero accountability for their actions.

To be fair, if I’m running a G6 school, of course I want unified FBS media rights! That’s a great deal for my G6 school.

Similarly, all of the misnamed “Super League” proposals where the top 72 schools all aggregate their rights in a private equity funded model are what’s being pushed by the ACC and Big 12 schools because that’s also in their self-interests. Of course they want to aggregate everyone if it means they can simultaneously make more money off of the Big Ten/SEC brands and exclude nearly all of the G6 schools. That’s a great deal for my ACC/Big 12 school.

Everyone is acting in their own self-interests. What matters is who can actually take their self-interests and has the power to actually *implement* them. That universe consists of the Big Ten and SEC (with Notre Dame getting a side piece).

Well it would make more money for the SEC and Big Ten as well. Its just that if it were even, their advantage would go away. But you could have it weighted like the ACC is now. But the bottom half of the Big Ten and SEC wouldn't like that.

I think the G6 are talking about pooling the G6 media rights. The AAC, PAC and MWC are pretty similar values. The CUSA, MAC and Sun Belt are pretty similar value and have essentially the same type of deal with ESPN with mid-week games.

In what world will the PAC and MWC have pretty similar values?

The PAC will have most of the better half of the current MWC's value plus Wazzu and OSU and their rivalries...plus Gonzaga.

MWC replaces that top-half lost value with UTEP and NIU football and Hawaii, GCU and UC-Davis Olympic sports.

Does not compute.

Or is it that they are both so far behind the P4 that they are pretty similar in value from that perspective?

The PAC numbers look like they are only going to be around $7-8 million or so and the MWC looks like they will still get around $4 million or so. Utah St., Colorado St. and Texas St. are not that valuable.

(08-28-2025 03:48 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

I think the potential of unifying FBS media rights among the G6 conferences is gaining momentum. It was a key talking point at some of the recent football media days, including by MAC Commissioner Jon Steinbrecher and AC Commissioner Tim Pernetti.

The other question I would have is, what does this mean for any potential movement of FCS schools that still have hopes of elevating to FBS?

(08-28-2025 04:15 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 03:51 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  G6 breakaway would be great.

Under the new CFP media agreement beginning in 2026, each of the 64 schools in the Group of Five (G5) conferences is expected to receive just under
$2 million annually.

To get an idea of how much a bump this is, consider that under the 4 team CFP setup, P5 Conferences only got $93m. That's only about $5.1m per school from the B1G, and less than $6m per school in the SEC!

If the g6 can figure out a way to get nearly $2m apiece annually, or to plug that hole in their budgets and stage their own playoffs/etc, I think that would be wonderful. However, history is not exactly full of examples of entities that were getting paid for the work or value of others willingly deciding to forego said revenue. In fact, they usually fight tooth and nail when/if the higher value entities try to slow or stop the spigot. Not to mention that the MWC champ was ranked higher than both the M2 champs last year...don't they have an argument that they should get a larger share in 2032 if they continue to outperform the others on the field? Or I guess the Pac could if Boise and the rest continue to win lots of football games starting in 2026?

Just like the P4, the g6 has clumps of stronger and weaker programs. You have Memphis and Boise trying to figure out how to move up, WSU and OSU desperately trying still to not get left behind, and USF with a $95m budget, and on the other side you have Louisiana-Monroe with a $20m (!!) budget. USF's budget is FAR more P4-like than Louisiana-Monroe-like. Those stronger programs want nothing to do with a plan than separates them willingly from the P4, so the weaklings would have to willingly forego the nearly $2m per school they get from the CFP plus also forego the bump they get from playing Boise, USF, Memphis, SDSU, WSU, OSU, etc etc etc.

Seems like they need to focus on not antagonizing the Big Boys, while also exploring additional revenue streams that they can tap on the side.

Well, $2 million is actually a worse ratio of revenues compared to what mid-majors were earning in comparison to the major conferences just twenty years ago. The financial gap continues to widen. The expenses to run high-level college sports continues to grow. In many cases, the geography and travel are becoming more and more burdensome to non-power teams (who cannot afford national set-ups like the P leagues can).

IMO, a threat to separate and stage their own division (and package their rights together) would be an exciting move. If the P do separate, and are pushed to only play each other, a great number of those brands in the long run will actually suffer, because parity always wins out. Not everyone can win in a given year, and then tiers will be established within the P world without a lower division to "build up" against. Ultimately, both sides do very much need each other.

The champions of that level would still get a significant national recognition, and with that it's own revenue, marketing and sales abilities. I just don't think the G6 can afford to dance to the tunes made by the P.

(08-29-2025 12:13 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 04:15 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 03:51 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  G6 breakaway would be great.

Under the new CFP media agreement beginning in 2026, each of the 64 schools in the Group of Five (G5) conferences is expected to receive just under
$2 million annually.

To get an idea of how much a bump this is, consider that under the 4 team CFP setup, P5 Conferences only got $93m. That's only about $5.1m per school from the B1G, and less than $6m per school in the SEC!

If the g6 can figure out a way to get nearly $2m apiece annually, or to plug that hole in their budgets and stage their own playoffs/etc, I think that would be wonderful. However, history is not exactly full of examples of entities that were getting paid for the work or value of others willingly deciding to forego said revenue. In fact, they usually fight tooth and nail when/if the higher value entities try to slow or stop the spigot. Not to mention that the MWC champ was ranked higher than both the M2 champs last year...don't they have an argument that they should get a larger share in 2032 if they continue to outperform the others on the field? Or I guess the Pac could if Boise and the rest continue to win lots of football games starting in 2026?

Just like the P4, the g6 has clumps of stronger and weaker programs. You have Memphis and Boise trying to figure out how to move up, WSU and OSU desperately trying still to not get left behind, and USF with a $95m budget, and on the other side you have Louisiana-Monroe with a $20m (!!) budget. USF's budget is FAR more P4-like than Louisiana-Monroe-like. Those stronger programs want nothing to do with a plan than separates them willingly from the P4, so the weaklings would have to willingly forego the nearly $2m per school they get from the CFP plus also forego the bump they get from playing Boise, USF, Memphis, SDSU, WSU, OSU, etc etc etc.

Seems like they need to focus on not antagonizing the Big Boys, while also exploring additional revenue streams that they can tap on the side.

Well, $2 million is actually a worse ratio of revenues compared to what mid-majors were earning in comparison to the major conferences just twenty years ago. The financial gap continues to widen. The expenses to run high-level college sports continues to grow. In many cases, the geography and travel are becoming more and more burdensome to non-power teams (who cannot afford national set-ups like the P leagues can).

IMO, a threat to separate and stage their own division (and package their rights together) would be an exciting move. If the P do separate, and are pushed to only play each other, a great number of those brands in the long run will actually suffer, because parity always wins out. Not everyone can win in a given year, and then tiers will be established within the P world without a lower division to "build up" against. Ultimately, both sides do very much need each other.

The champions of that level would still get a significant national recognition, and with that it's own revenue, marketing and sales abilities. I just don't think the G6 can afford to dance to the tunes made by the P.

The base payment (not counting academic bonuses, the $4 million for playing in games) in the last year of the PAC was $465 million for the P5 and $116 million for the G5. Now, the P4 and Notre Dame get 90.8% and the Gs 9.2% (without adjusting for the Oregon St./Washington St. deal). So from 80/20 to 91/9. And while payouts doubled, the Gs are going from $116 million to about $128 million.

(08-29-2025 12:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 12:13 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 04:15 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 03:51 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  G6 breakaway would be great.

Under the new CFP media agreement beginning in 2026, each of the 64 schools in the Group of Five (G5) conferences is expected to receive just under
$2 million annually.

To get an idea of how much a bump this is, consider that under the 4 team CFP setup, P5 Conferences only got $93m. That's only about $5.1m per school from the B1G, and less than $6m per school in the SEC!

If the g6 can figure out a way to get nearly $2m apiece annually, or to plug that hole in their budgets and stage their own playoffs/etc, I think that would be wonderful. However, history is not exactly full of examples of entities that were getting paid for the work or value of others willingly deciding to forego said revenue. In fact, they usually fight tooth and nail when/if the higher value entities try to slow or stop the spigot. Not to mention that the MWC champ was ranked higher than both the M2 champs last year...don't they have an argument that they should get a larger share in 2032 if they continue to outperform the others on the field? Or I guess the Pac could if Boise and the rest continue to win lots of football games starting in 2026?

Just like the P4, the g6 has clumps of stronger and weaker programs. You have Memphis and Boise trying to figure out how to move up, WSU and OSU desperately trying still to not get left behind, and USF with a $95m budget, and on the other side you have Louisiana-Monroe with a $20m (!!) budget. USF's budget is FAR more P4-like than Louisiana-Monroe-like. Those stronger programs want nothing to do with a plan than separates them willingly from the P4, so the weaklings would have to willingly forego the nearly $2m per school they get from the CFP plus also forego the bump they get from playing Boise, USF, Memphis, SDSU, WSU, OSU, etc etc etc.

Seems like they need to focus on not antagonizing the Big Boys, while also exploring additional revenue streams that they can tap on the side.

Well, $2 million is actually a worse ratio of revenues compared to what mid-majors were earning in comparison to the major conferences just twenty years ago. The financial gap continues to widen. The expenses to run high-level college sports continues to grow. In many cases, the geography and travel are becoming more and more burdensome to non-power teams (who cannot afford national set-ups like the P leagues can).

IMO, a threat to separate and stage their own division (and package their rights together) would be an exciting move. If the P do separate, and are pushed to only play each other, a great number of those brands in the long run will actually suffer, because parity always wins out. Not everyone can win in a given year, and then tiers will be established within the P world without a lower division to "build up" against. Ultimately, both sides do very much need each other.

The champions of that level would still get a significant national recognition, and with that it's own revenue, marketing and sales abilities. I just don't think the G6 can afford to dance to the tunes made by the P.

The base payment (not counting academic bonuses, the $4 million for playing in games) in the last year of the PAC was $465 million for the P5 and $116 million for the G5. Now, the P4 and Notre Dame get 90.8% and the Gs 9.2% (without adjusting for the Oregon St./Washington St. deal). So from 80/20 to 91/9. And while payouts doubled, the Gs are going from $116 million to about $128 million.

A smaller slice of a growing pie.

Well, um, eh .... good luck folks.

(08-29-2025 12:28 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 12:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 12:13 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 04:15 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 03:51 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  G6 breakaway would be great.

Under the new CFP media agreement beginning in 2026, each of the 64 schools in the Group of Five (G5) conferences is expected to receive just under
$2 million annually.

To get an idea of how much a bump this is, consider that under the 4 team CFP setup, P5 Conferences only got $93m. That's only about $5.1m per school from the B1G, and less than $6m per school in the SEC!

If the g6 can figure out a way to get nearly $2m apiece annually, or to plug that hole in their budgets and stage their own playoffs/etc, I think that would be wonderful. However, history is not exactly full of examples of entities that were getting paid for the work or value of others willingly deciding to forego said revenue. In fact, they usually fight tooth and nail when/if the higher value entities try to slow or stop the spigot. Not to mention that the MWC champ was ranked higher than both the M2 champs last year...don't they have an argument that they should get a larger share in 2032 if they continue to outperform the others on the field? Or I guess the Pac could if Boise and the rest continue to win lots of football games starting in 2026?

Just like the P4, the g6 has clumps of stronger and weaker programs. You have Memphis and Boise trying to figure out how to move up, WSU and OSU desperately trying still to not get left behind, and USF with a $95m budget, and on the other side you have Louisiana-Monroe with a $20m (!!) budget. USF's budget is FAR more P4-like than Louisiana-Monroe-like. Those stronger programs want nothing to do with a plan than separates them willingly from the P4, so the weaklings would have to willingly forego the nearly $2m per school they get from the CFP plus also forego the bump they get from playing Boise, USF, Memphis, SDSU, WSU, OSU, etc etc etc.

Seems like they need to focus on not antagonizing the Big Boys, while also exploring additional revenue streams that they can tap on the side.

Well, $2 million is actually a worse ratio of revenues compared to what mid-majors were earning in comparison to the major conferences just twenty years ago. The financial gap continues to widen. The expenses to run high-level college sports continues to grow. In many cases, the geography and travel are becoming more and more burdensome to non-power teams (who cannot afford national set-ups like the P leagues can).

IMO, a threat to separate and stage their own division (and package their rights together) would be an exciting move. If the P do separate, and are pushed to only play each other, a great number of those brands in the long run will actually suffer, because parity always wins out. Not everyone can win in a given year, and then tiers will be established within the P world without a lower division to "build up" against. Ultimately, both sides do very much need each other.

The champions of that level would still get a significant national recognition, and with that it's own revenue, marketing and sales abilities. I just don't think the G6 can afford to dance to the tunes made by the P.

The base payment (not counting academic bonuses, the $4 million for playing in games) in the last year of the PAC was $465 million for the P5 and $116 million for the G5. Now, the P4 and Notre Dame get 90.8% and the Gs 9.2% (without adjusting for the Oregon St./Washington St. deal). So from 80/20 to 91/9. And while payouts doubled, the Gs are going from $116 million to about $128 million.

A smaller slice of a growing pie.

Or, if you will, the G6 is the cheesecake, the p4 is the cheesecake factory.

(08-28-2025 04:24 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 04:19 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 04:17 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 04:14 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

That last sentence might as well be him putting on a clown hat and yelling out "look at me, I'm a joke!"

Are you calling Ross Dellinger a joke for reporting what he was told? Am I misunderstanding what you wrote?

I meant the Pac 12 part specifically. Why even raise the idea of them as an "A league"? They clearly don't have the programs to do it. They might have 2 or 3 that can operate like a smaller A program (BSU, SDSU and OSU, and in that order) but the rest aren't able and if your best is below average for an actual A league then that isn't what you are going to be. He's throwing out false hope to people.

Whether or not it’s realistic, why WOULDN’T the PAC-12 strive to be an a league?

Instead of a breakaway maybe just try to get better guaranteed bowl payouts and games for G6 teams? While bowl games are meaningless they at least offer tv time in December. While they might not make more money on CFP payouts they might be able to get more money through whatever the new bowl system looks like. I'd assume we'd need bowls Tuesday through Friday in December and early January.