As long as we’re sharing add-money-to-buy-a-cup-of-coffee opinions, I’d like to see the conference membership cap set at 24.

Get all the Magnificent 7 and Silicon Valley schools into destination conferences that make them happy. Get Louisville into the SEC where they can even make Kentucky interesting. Let Duke go anywhere and see if anybody notices.

That is in the nature of a micro-adjustment. On a more grand scale:

Go back to the year 1905. Take a box of really great cigars. Have a long chat with Theodore Roosevelt and tell him everything that is going to happen if he doesn’t smack everything into shape right here and now. Then let the man cook.

(10-12-2026 08:04 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 06:29 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 05:02 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 03:17 PM)Blust3 Wrote:  A cap of 22 or 24 no longer protects college football. It allows SEC and B1G becomes monopoly and destroys ACC as they destroyed PAC12.

So? The ACC to me is Jim Phillips. The Big Ten to me is Tony Petitti. The SEC to me is Greg Sankey. The schools are in these conferences, some are charter members. But we saw with UCLA/USC and Texas/Oklahoma that they would leave for a higher payday if they had a chance. The only difference in the case of the Big Ten and SEC is there isn't considered to be a more valuable conference ... yet.

I've said before that for a lot of these if schools "upgrade" it usually allows the school in question better competition and the conference a better school. The Big 12 thought it was better that Texas and Oklahoma stayed but more people watched Texas play Georgia the last two years than they watched Texas play any Big 12 opponent since 2015. You don't think fans would rather Miami play either Ohio State or Alabama than play Boston College (it's not 1984 and Doug Flutie isn't still playing!) If the ACC is "killed" or becomes the new Pac 12, honestly it doesn't bother me. If a "superconference" between the top SEC and Big 10 schools forms and Illinois is left behind, it's Illinois's fault for not being good enough to be included. Is it fair Miami makes less money than Rutgers? No it's not. Give them a chance to get on a level playing field, don't handicap them just to protect Jim Phillips or Louisville.

Protecting a program with several non rev sports ranked yearly including right now, top 10 brand in basketball, and holds our own in football on the field, spending on roster/program, and in drawing eyeballs to tvs....

Would like to do that same autopsy into over 1/2 of the Big 10 and bottom third of SEC... TV likes UofL baseball, volleyball, and both basketball teams...I'd like to see those dollars made for tv and conference vs say PSU. Would be a fun exercise.

PSU women's volleyball has eight women's national championships, all in or after 1999 and we've got two men's as well. Go ahead, stack Louisville up next to it with your no volleyball championships in either gender. You win basketball, obviously, but our non-revenue sports literally lap yours. We're strong in ice hockey, WVB, men's wrestling, lacrosse and soccer. And when I say strong I mean the team either has or wants national championships in all of them. We're talking laughing baby vs hydrogen bomb here.

You completely missed the point....We were being targeted as being a protected entity at the expense of other schools....I pointed out that we have multiple other sports that get eyeballs and make money for tv (ESPN) such as baseball, basketball, and volleyball. I'm not sure wrestling, hockey, lacrosse, etc that you named are doing the same numbers. Not even sure I recall you all on national tv in volleyball currently.

Point is, we hold our own, make money for conference and tv partners, and don't need to be targeted as a program needing protection.

We're more than carrying our weight compared to multiple money leaches in the Big 10.

The risk on that 6 years before the 3 year waiting period goes away is that Congress could later extend that.

I do think 22 is a bad number. It is perhaps worse than no cap. It likely leaves schools stranded and doesn't bring anyone up.

20 leaves room for anyone who actually contributes financially to the Big Ten or SEC as opposed to schools taken because the Big Ten and SEC are playing Risk. And the idea of anti-trust is to stop entities from playing Risk to the detriment of other parties.

(10-13-2026 04:39 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 08:04 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 06:29 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 05:02 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 03:17 PM)Blust3 Wrote:  A cap of 22 or 24 no longer protects college football. It allows SEC and B1G becomes monopoly and destroys ACC as they destroyed PAC12.

So? The ACC to me is Jim Phillips. The Big Ten to me is Tony Petitti. The SEC to me is Greg Sankey. The schools are in these conferences, some are charter members. But we saw with UCLA/USC and Texas/Oklahoma that they would leave for a higher payday if they had a chance. The only difference in the case of the Big Ten and SEC is there isn't considered to be a more valuable conference ... yet.

I've said before that for a lot of these if schools "upgrade" it usually allows the school in question better competition and the conference a better school. The Big 12 thought it was better that Texas and Oklahoma stayed but more people watched Texas play Georgia the last two years than they watched Texas play any Big 12 opponent since 2015. You don't think fans would rather Miami play either Ohio State or Alabama than play Boston College (it's not 1984 and Doug Flutie isn't still playing!) If the ACC is "killed" or becomes the new Pac 12, honestly it doesn't bother me. If a "superconference" between the top SEC and Big 10 schools forms and Illinois is left behind, it's Illinois's fault for not being good enough to be included. Is it fair Miami makes less money than Rutgers? No it's not. Give them a chance to get on a level playing field, don't handicap them just to protect Jim Phillips or Louisville.

Protecting a program with several non rev sports ranked yearly including right now, top 10 brand in basketball, and holds our own in football on the field, spending on roster/program, and in drawing eyeballs to tvs....

Would like to do that same autopsy into over 1/2 of the Big 10 and bottom third of SEC... TV likes UofL baseball, volleyball, and both basketball teams...I'd like to see those dollars made for tv and conference vs say PSU. Would be a fun exercise.

PSU women's volleyball has eight women's national championships, all in or after 1999 and we've got two men's as well. Go ahead, stack Louisville up next to it with your no volleyball championships in either gender. You win basketball, obviously, but our non-revenue sports literally lap yours. We're strong in ice hockey, WVB, men's wrestling, lacrosse and soccer. And when I say strong I mean the team either has or wants national championships in all of them. We're talking laughing baby vs hydrogen bomb here.

You completely missed the point....We were being targeted as being a protected entity at the expense of other schools....I pointed out that we have multiple other sports that get eyeballs and make money for tv (ESPN) such as baseball, basketball, and volleyball. I'm not sure wrestling, hockey, lacrosse, etc that you named are doing the same numbers. Not even sure I recall you all on national tv in volleyball currently.

Point is, we hold our own, make money for conference and tv partners, and don't need to be targeted as a program needing protection.

We're more than carrying our weight compared to multiple money leaches in the Big 10.

We're a Fox conference, you'd have to watch the Fox channels to see it. And yeah, there's less of them. PSU is still more valuable in non-revs than Louisville.

(10-13-2026 10:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  The risk on that 6 years before the 3 year waiting period goes away is that Congress could later extend that.

I do think 22 is a bad number. It is perhaps worse than no cap. It likely leaves schools stranded and doesn't bring anyone up.

20 leaves room for anyone who actually contributes financially to the Big Ten or SEC as opposed to schools taken because the Big Ten and SEC are playing Risk. And the idea of anti-trust is to stop entities from playing Risk to the detriment of other parties.

The idea of anti-trust in this context is to prevent the conferences from getting too large, gobbling up all of the best programs and dominating market share.

(10-13-2026 11:09 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-13-2026 04:39 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 08:04 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 06:29 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 05:02 PM)schmolik Wrote:  So? The ACC to me is Jim Phillips. The Big Ten to me is Tony Petitti. The SEC to me is Greg Sankey. The schools are in these conferences, some are charter members. But we saw with UCLA/USC and Texas/Oklahoma that they would leave for a higher payday if they had a chance. The only difference in the case of the Big Ten and SEC is there isn't considered to be a more valuable conference ... yet.

I've said before that for a lot of these if schools "upgrade" it usually allows the school in question better competition and the conference a better school. The Big 12 thought it was better that Texas and Oklahoma stayed but more people watched Texas play Georgia the last two years than they watched Texas play any Big 12 opponent since 2015. You don't think fans would rather Miami play either Ohio State or Alabama than play Boston College (it's not 1984 and Doug Flutie isn't still playing!) If the ACC is "killed" or becomes the new Pac 12, honestly it doesn't bother me. If a "superconference" between the top SEC and Big 10 schools forms and Illinois is left behind, it's Illinois's fault for not being good enough to be included. Is it fair Miami makes less money than Rutgers? No it's not. Give them a chance to get on a level playing field, don't handicap them just to protect Jim Phillips or Louisville.

Protecting a program with several non rev sports ranked yearly including right now, top 10 brand in basketball, and holds our own in football on the field, spending on roster/program, and in drawing eyeballs to tvs....

Would like to do that same autopsy into over 1/2 of the Big 10 and bottom third of SEC... TV likes UofL baseball, volleyball, and both basketball teams...I'd like to see those dollars made for tv and conference vs say PSU. Would be a fun exercise.

PSU women's volleyball has eight women's national championships, all in or after 1999 and we've got two men's as well. Go ahead, stack Louisville up next to it with your no volleyball championships in either gender. You win basketball, obviously, but our non-revenue sports literally lap yours. We're strong in ice hockey, WVB, men's wrestling, lacrosse and soccer. And when I say strong I mean the team either has or wants national championships in all of them. We're talking laughing baby vs hydrogen bomb here.

You completely missed the point....We were being targeted as being a protected entity at the expense of other schools....I pointed out that we have multiple other sports that get eyeballs and make money for tv (ESPN) such as baseball, basketball, and volleyball. I'm not sure wrestling, hockey, lacrosse, etc that you named are doing the same numbers. Not even sure I recall you all on national tv in volleyball currently.

Point is, we hold our own, make money for conference and tv partners, and don't need to be targeted as a program needing protection.

We're more than carrying our weight compared to multiple money leaches in the Big 10.

We're a Fox conference, you'd have to watch the Fox channels to see it. And yeah, there's less of them. PSU is still more valuable in non-revs than Louisville.

Fully aware of your tv affiliation....Going to need to see some numbers on that non rev prediction. To the eyes, it would seem our BBall, Volleyball, Baseball, and occasional other non rev sports would still do better.

(10-13-2026 12:59 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(10-13-2026 11:09 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-13-2026 04:39 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 08:04 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 06:29 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  Protecting a program with several non rev sports ranked yearly including right now, top 10 brand in basketball, and holds our own in football on the field, spending on roster/program, and in drawing eyeballs to tvs....

Would like to do that same autopsy into over 1/2 of the Big 10 and bottom third of SEC... TV likes UofL baseball, volleyball, and both basketball teams...I'd like to see those dollars made for tv and conference vs say PSU. Would be a fun exercise.

PSU women's volleyball has eight women's national championships, all in or after 1999 and we've got two men's as well. Go ahead, stack Louisville up next to it with your no volleyball championships in either gender. You win basketball, obviously, but our non-revenue sports literally lap yours. We're strong in ice hockey, WVB, men's wrestling, lacrosse and soccer. And when I say strong I mean the team either has or wants national championships in all of them. We're talking laughing baby vs hydrogen bomb here.

You completely missed the point....We were being targeted as being a protected entity at the expense of other schools....I pointed out that we have multiple other sports that get eyeballs and make money for tv (ESPN) such as baseball, basketball, and volleyball. I'm not sure wrestling, hockey, lacrosse, etc that you named are doing the same numbers. Not even sure I recall you all on national tv in volleyball currently.

Point is, we hold our own, make money for conference and tv partners, and don't need to be targeted as a program needing protection.

We're more than carrying our weight compared to multiple money leaches in the Big 10.

We're a Fox conference, you'd have to watch the Fox channels to see it. And yeah, there's less of them. PSU is still more valuable in non-revs than Louisville.

Fully aware of your tv affiliation....Going to need to see some numbers on that non rev prediction. To the eyes, it would seem our BBall, Volleyball, Baseball, and occasional other non rev sports would still do better.

You do know that conference tv payouts are done equally between all teams, right? The only "numbers" I can give you is the Big Ten deal versus the ACC one, which shows Penn State being worth tens of millions of dollars more.

Well in volleyball we're a bigger brand with more fans in general and then add in that the actual program is better with more history and its no competition. Baseball and ice hockey are generally considered to be of a similar status in general revenue with hockey being for northerners and baseball for southerners. PSU wrestling is the current super power in that sport and has won something like 8 of the past ten national championships. Pennsylvania is also the heart of high school wrestling. It was actually a revenue sport at Penn State prior to NIL (so was hockey.) Then you factor in that Penn State has a full dozen more sponsored sports than Louisville and the joke that is your comparison becomes complete.

As to basketball. Irrelevant to the discussion. If Louisville gets to count basketball then Penn State gets to count football.

(10-13-2026 11:18 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-13-2026 10:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  The risk on that 6 years before the 3 year waiting period goes away is that Congress could later extend that.

I do think 22 is a bad number. It is perhaps worse than no cap. It likely leaves schools stranded and doesn't bring anyone up.

20 leaves room for anyone who actually contributes financially to the Big Ten or SEC as opposed to schools taken because the Big Ten and SEC are playing Risk. And the idea of anti-trust is to stop entities from playing Risk to the detriment of other parties.

The idea of anti-trust in this context is to prevent the conferences from getting too large, gobbling up all of the best programs and dominating market share.

Agree. The rule of thumb for excessive duopoly power is about 70%+ concentration…the B1G and SEC currently split 58% of CFP revenues. It’s already a tilted playing field that is encroaching more worrisome levels. It would be bad public policy to provide anti-trust exemptions to what will inevitably turn into a duopoly. The cap at 22 or greater dooms lots of current P4 members.

If PCSA doesn’t pass this year and the new Congress tilts heavily in a different direction, there are provisions that may gain support: 1) athlete’s rights, 2) greater CFP inclusivity and/or 3) NCAA role in FBS governance.

(10-13-2026 01:48 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-13-2026 11:18 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-13-2026 10:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  The risk on that 6 years before the 3 year waiting period goes away is that Congress could later extend that.

I do think 22 is a bad number. It is perhaps worse than no cap. It likely leaves schools stranded and doesn't bring anyone up.

20 leaves room for anyone who actually contributes financially to the Big Ten or SEC as opposed to schools taken because the Big Ten and SEC are playing Risk. And the idea of anti-trust is to stop entities from playing Risk to the detriment of other parties.

The idea of anti-trust in this context is to prevent the conferences from getting too large, gobbling up all of the best programs and dominating market share.

Agree. The rule of thumb for excessive duopoly power is about 70%+ concentration…the B1G and SEC currently split 58% of CFP revenues. It’s already a tilted playing field that is encroaching more worrisome levels. It would be bad public policy to provide anti-trust exemptions to what will inevitably turn into a duopoly. The cap at 22 or greater dooms lots of current P4 members.

If PCSA doesn’t pass this year and the new Congress tilts heavily in a different direction, there are provisions that may gain support: 1) athlete’s rights, 2) greater CFP inclusivity and/or 3) NCAA role in FBS governance.

2) and 3) are non-starters in any legislation. Nobody in the P4 will support it.

(10-13-2026 04:39 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 08:04 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 06:29 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 05:02 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 03:17 PM)Blust3 Wrote:  A cap of 22 or 24 no longer protects college football. It allows SEC and B1G becomes monopoly and destroys ACC as they destroyed PAC12.

So? The ACC to me is Jim Phillips. The Big Ten to me is Tony Petitti. The SEC to me is Greg Sankey. The schools are in these conferences, some are charter members. But we saw with UCLA/USC and Texas/Oklahoma that they would leave for a higher payday if they had a chance. The only difference in the case of the Big Ten and SEC is there isn't considered to be a more valuable conference ... yet.

I've said before that for a lot of these if schools "upgrade" it usually allows the school in question better competition and the conference a better school. The Big 12 thought it was better that Texas and Oklahoma stayed but more people watched Texas play Georgia the last two years than they watched Texas play any Big 12 opponent since 2015. You don't think fans would rather Miami play either Ohio State or Alabama than play Boston College (it's not 1984 and Doug Flutie isn't still playing!) If the ACC is "killed" or becomes the new Pac 12, honestly it doesn't bother me. If a "superconference" between the top SEC and Big 10 schools forms and Illinois is left behind, it's Illinois's fault for not being good enough to be included. Is it fair Miami makes less money than Rutgers? No it's not. Give them a chance to get on a level playing field, don't handicap them just to protect Jim Phillips or Louisville.

Protecting a program with several non rev sports ranked yearly including right now, top 10 brand in basketball, and holds our own in football on the field, spending on roster/program, and in drawing eyeballs to tvs....

Would like to do that same autopsy into over 1/2 of the Big 10 and bottom third of SEC... TV likes UofL baseball, volleyball, and both basketball teams...I'd like to see those dollars made for tv and conference vs say PSU. Would be a fun exercise.

PSU women's volleyball has eight women's national championships, all in or after 1999 and we've got two men's as well. Go ahead, stack Louisville up next to it with your no volleyball championships in either gender. You win basketball, obviously, but our non-revenue sports literally lap yours. We're strong in ice hockey, WVB, men's wrestling, lacrosse and soccer. And when I say strong I mean the team either has or wants national championships in all of them. We're talking laughing baby vs hydrogen bomb here.

You completely missed the point....We were being targeted as being a protected entity at the expense of other schools....I pointed out that we have multiple other sports that get eyeballs and make money for tv (ESPN) such as baseball, basketball, and volleyball. I'm not sure wrestling, hockey, lacrosse, etc that you named are doing the same numbers. Not even sure I recall you all on national tv in volleyball currently.

Point is, we hold our own, make money for conference and tv partners, and don't need to be targeted as a program needing protection.

We're more than carrying our weight compared to multiple money leaches in the Big 10.

Miami, Florida State and Clemson don't have other sports or don't care for other sports. Football is everything to them. So they want to move to a true football conference like SEC or B1G.

(10-13-2026 01:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-13-2026 01:48 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-13-2026 11:18 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-13-2026 10:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  The risk on that 6 years before the 3 year waiting period goes away is that Congress could later extend that.

I do think 22 is a bad number. It is perhaps worse than no cap. It likely leaves schools stranded and doesn't bring anyone up.

20 leaves room for anyone who actually contributes financially to the Big Ten or SEC as opposed to schools taken because the Big Ten and SEC are playing Risk. And the idea of anti-trust is to stop entities from playing Risk to the detriment of other parties.

The idea of anti-trust in this context is to prevent the conferences from getting too large, gobbling up all of the best programs and dominating market share.

Agree. The rule of thumb for excessive duopoly power is about 70%+ concentration…the B1G and SEC currently split 58% of CFP revenues. It’s already a tilted playing field that is encroaching more worrisome levels. It would be bad public policy to provide anti-trust exemptions to what will inevitably turn into a duopoly. The cap at 22 or greater dooms lots of current P4 members.

If PCSA doesn’t pass this year and the new Congress tilts heavily in a different direction, there are provisions that may gain support: 1) athlete’s rights, 2) greater CFP inclusivity and/or 3) NCAA role in FBS governance.

2) and 3) are non-starters in any legislation. Nobody in the P4 will support it.

This assumes that the P4 would actually be able to do anything about such legislation.

They really can't.

(10-12-2026 09:08 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  As long as we’re sharing add-money-to-buy-a-cup-of-coffee opinions, I’d like to see the conference membership cap set at 24.

Get all the Magnificent 7 and Silicon Valley schools into destination conferences that make them happy. Get Louisville into the SEC where they can even make Kentucky interesting. Let Duke go anywhere and see if anybody notices.

That is in the nature of a micro-adjustment. On a more grand scale:

Go back to the year 1905. Take a box of really great cigars. Have a long chat with Theodore Roosevelt and tell him everything that is going to happen if he doesn’t smack everything into shape right here and now. Then let the man cook.

Coach K already stated that Duke would be happy to compete in the Big East. The Blue Devils have multiple endowments and certainly don't need the money or the aggravation. Duke University probably owns enough of Duke Energy, alone, to buy the entirety of Florida State lock-stock-and-barrel.

(10-13-2026 03:06 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-13-2026 01:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-13-2026 01:48 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-13-2026 11:18 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-13-2026 10:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  The risk on that 6 years before the 3 year waiting period goes away is that Congress could later extend that.

I do think 22 is a bad number. It is perhaps worse than no cap. It likely leaves schools stranded and doesn't bring anyone up.

20 leaves room for anyone who actually contributes financially to the Big Ten or SEC as opposed to schools taken because the Big Ten and SEC are playing Risk. And the idea of anti-trust is to stop entities from playing Risk to the detriment of other parties.

The idea of anti-trust in this context is to prevent the conferences from getting too large, gobbling up all of the best programs and dominating market share.

Agree. The rule of thumb for excessive duopoly power is about 70%+ concentration…the B1G and SEC currently split 58% of CFP revenues. It’s already a tilted playing field that is encroaching more worrisome levels. It would be bad public policy to provide anti-trust exemptions to what will inevitably turn into a duopoly. The cap at 22 or greater dooms lots of current P4 members.

If PCSA doesn’t pass this year and the new Congress tilts heavily in a different direction, there are provisions that may gain support: 1) athlete’s rights, 2) greater CFP inclusivity and/or 3) NCAA role in FBS governance.

2) and 3) are non-starters in any legislation. Nobody in the P4 will support it.

This assumes that the P4 would actually be able to do anything about such legislation.

They really can't.

They can kill it.

(10-12-2026 05:02 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 03:17 PM)Blust3 Wrote:  A cap of 22 or 24 no longer protects college football. It allows SEC and B1G becomes monopoly and destroys ACC as they destroyed PAC12.

So? The ACC to me is Jim Phillips. The Big Ten to me is Tony Petitti. The SEC to me is Greg Sankey. The schools are in these conferences, some are charter members. But we saw with UCLA/USC and Texas/Oklahoma that they would leave for a higher payday if they had a chance. The only difference in the case of the Big Ten and SEC is there isn't considered to be a more valuable conference ... yet.

I've said before that for a lot of these if schools "upgrade" it usually allows the school in question better competition and the conference a better school. The Big 12 thought it was better that Texas and Oklahoma stayed but more people watched Texas play Georgia the last two years than they watched Texas play any Big 12 opponent since 2015. You don't think fans would rather Miami play either Ohio State or Alabama than play Boston College (it's not 1984 and Doug Flutie isn't still playing!) If the ACC is "killed" or becomes the new Pac 12, honestly it doesn't bother me. If a "superconference" between the top SEC and Big 10 schools forms and Illinois is left behind, it's Illinois's fault for not being good enough to be included. Is it fair Miami makes less money than Rutgers? No it's not. Give them a chance to get on a level playing field, don't handicap them just to protect Jim Phillips or Louisville.

Protecting Louisville?
You don’t know a damn thing about The ACC.

(10-13-2026 01:48 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-13-2026 11:18 AM)TerryD Wrote:  The idea of anti-trust in this context is to prevent the conferences from getting too large, gobbling up all of the best programs and dominating market share.

Agree. The rule of thumb for excessive duopoly power is about 70%+ concentration…the B1G and SEC currently split 58% of CFP revenues. It’s already a tilted playing field that is encroaching more worrisome levels. It would be bad public policy to provide anti-trust exemptions to what will inevitably turn into a duopoly. The cap at 22 or greater dooms lots of current P4 members.

If PCSA doesn’t pass this year and the new Congress tilts heavily in a different direction, there are provisions that may gain support: 1) athlete’s rights, 2) greater CFP inclusivity and/or 3) NCAA role in FBS governance.

The last chance to prevent a P2 from emerging was last decade. The opportunity was not taken and here we are.

Possible outcome: P2 gobble up most of the value, then antitrust action busts the trust.

This resolves quandaries and speculation about relegating members, unequal revenue distribution and the like. The new groups are based on budget size and geography.

Or the P2 get an antitrust exemption and are allowed to gobble all the value, on the condition that they then subdivide, more or less NFL style, along similar lines.

___

(10-13-2026 02:58 PM)Blust3 Wrote:  Miami, Florida State and Clemson don't have other sports or don't care for other sports. Football is everything to them. So they want to move to a true football conference like SEC or B1G.

The schools offer year-round sports programs. They are interested now in moving because of the revenues. They want to continue to fund all their sports, including football, at the high level they want.

You could try asking, you know.


2025 National Champions 5th crown, Florida State Seminoles

(10-13-2026 03:17 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 09:08 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  As long as we’re sharing add-money-to-buy-a-cup-of-coffee opinions, I’d like to see the conference membership cap set at 24.

Get all the Magnificent 7 and Silicon Valley schools into destination conferences that make them happy. Get Louisville into the SEC where they can even make Kentucky interesting. Let Duke go anywhere and see if anybody notices.

That is in the nature of a micro-adjustment. On a more grand scale:

Go back to the year 1905. Take a box of really great cigars. Have a long chat with Theodore Roosevelt and tell him everything that is going to happen if he doesn’t smack everything into shape right here and now. Then let the man cook.

Coach K already stated that Duke would be happy to compete in the Big East. The Blue Devils have multiple endowments and certainly don't need the money or the aggravation. Duke University probably owns enough of Duke Energy, alone, to buy the entirety of Florida State lock-stock-and-barrel.

University endowments are not being used to fund sports programs. Probably not anywhere. Definitely not a place like Duke.

(10-13-2026 04:10 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 05:02 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 03:17 PM)Blust3 Wrote:  A cap of 22 or 24 no longer protects college football. It allows SEC and B1G becomes monopoly and destroys ACC as they destroyed PAC12.

So? The ACC to me is Jim Phillips. The Big Ten to me is Tony Petitti. The SEC to me is Greg Sankey. The schools are in these conferences, some are charter members. But we saw with UCLA/USC and Texas/Oklahoma that they would leave for a higher payday if they had a chance. The only difference in the case of the Big Ten and SEC is there isn't considered to be a more valuable conference ... yet.

I've said before that for a lot of these if schools "upgrade" it usually allows the school in question better competition and the conference a better school. The Big 12 thought it was better that Texas and Oklahoma stayed but more people watched Texas play Georgia the last two years than they watched Texas play any Big 12 opponent since 2015. You don't think fans would rather Miami play either Ohio State or Alabama than play Boston College (it's not 1984 and Doug Flutie isn't still playing!) If the ACC is "killed" or becomes the new Pac 12, honestly it doesn't bother me. If a "superconference" between the top SEC and Big 10 schools forms and Illinois is left behind, it's Illinois's fault for not being good enough to be included. Is it fair Miami makes less money than Rutgers? No it's not. Give them a chance to get on a level playing field, don't handicap them just to protect Jim Phillips or Louisville.

Protecting Louisville?
You don’t know a damn thing about The ACC.

How about losing our actual rivals for two games vs Louisville?

Big 12 for UofL in it, with new tv deal in 2031/32, exit/entrance fee paid for by first wave of ACC schools sounding like the place to be more and more.

(10-13-2026 06:28 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(10-13-2026 03:17 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 09:08 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  As long as we’re sharing add-money-to-buy-a-cup-of-coffee opinions, I’d like to see the conference membership cap set at 24.

Get all the Magnificent 7 and Silicon Valley schools into destination conferences that make them happy. Get Louisville into the SEC where they can even make Kentucky interesting. Let Duke go anywhere and see if anybody notices.

That is in the nature of a micro-adjustment. On a more grand scale:

Go back to the year 1905. Take a box of really great cigars. Have a long chat with Theodore Roosevelt and tell him everything that is going to happen if he doesn’t smack everything into shape right here and now. Then let the man cook.

Coach K already stated that Duke would be happy to compete in the Big East. The Blue Devils have multiple endowments and certainly don't need the money or the aggravation. Duke University probably owns enough of Duke Energy, alone, to buy the entirety of Florida State lock-stock-and-barrel.

University endowments are not being used to fund sports programs. Probably not anywhere. Definitely not a place like Duke.

Plenty of universities have athletic endowments. UNC has a sizable one and I’m sure Duke does as well. Even ECU has one in excess of $30M.