(09-09-2020 12:39 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  The economics that existed at the time of the McKinsey Report have changed. At that time, it was not financially wise to go from D-1 to D-3. Now, it is foolhardy to continue at D-1 without a gigantic investment by the administration. The P5 schools have almost all of the money, and will not be satisfied until they have 100% of everything. The only G5 schools that will continue (long-term) in D1 are those who are willing to throw money down the toilet in order to appear "big time". Rice is one of a handful of universities with the financial heft to keep it going. But, for how long?

The economics are continuing to cause a rift between schools that is only going to become more acute. And the rift is growing not just between G5 and P5 but also between P5 schools. The legal issue goes back to the 80s when the courts ruled that each school could negotiate their own contracts for revenue. It was just a ploy by more affluent programs to increase their revenue margin. This was handled at the conference level as the individual schools pooled their worth at This level as opposed to the entire NCAA division level. The affluent conferences added programs to increase revenue. This was the conference realignment race and P5/G5 "value" relegation. In the beginning, the P5 conferences were relatively equal in revenue. Now, the conferences are becoming significantly unequal in revenue and as such, "value". The result is P5 conferences have a revenue rift forming. This rift may lead to a further degradation in the value of conferences and a true marketing of individual institutions. Monetary concessions will need to be made by institutions. To compound the environment further, traditional TV packaging is changing and revenue from this will change. Conferences may not be the level of negotiating in the future. This will level the field between the majority of individual institutions within FBS and minimize the P5/G5 designation.