If Duke and WF "dropped down" from full time P-5 football would the ACC toss them out? Why would the ACC do that? Nothing is gained. Suppose that only Miami, Clemson, FSU, UNC, NC State, VT, Syracuse, and Louisville competed full time at the top level. There is no reason to toss out GT, UVa, WF, Duke, Pitt, or BC. In fact the upper division can play and the lower division can play.

NC State would play 7 conference games - Miami, Clemson, FSU, UNC, VT, Syracuse, and Louisville. We would continue to play Wake Forest and attempt to schedule bi-annual games with GT, Uva, and Duke.

My point is that two tiers need not mean conference expulsions

WF, Duke, UVa, BC, Pitt, and GT could invite SEC straggler Vandy and play a 6 game conference slate. Duke will continue to play UNC, Wake will put UNC on the schedule, VT will still play UVa. This Junior Varisity ACC football would have 6 league games, and school like Vandy would still be able to play TN, Alabama, etc., etc.

(10-24-2018 01:19 PM)Statefan Wrote:  If Duke and WF "dropped down" from full time P-5 football would the ACC toss them out?

Why would Duke or Wake Forest do that?

I could see the ACC consisting of:
Miami, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Navy, and Notre Dame
Georgia Tech, Duke, Wake Forest, Carolina, UVa, NC State

or if Notre Dame decided to participate in the upper echelon:

Miami, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Maryland, and NC State
Vanderbilt, Georgia Tech, Duke, Wake Forest, Carolina and UVa

(10-24-2018 01:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  I could see the ACC consisting of:
Miami, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Navy, and Notre Dame
Georgia Tech, Duke, Wake Forest, Carolina, UVa, NC State

or if Notre Dame decided to participate in the upper echelon:

Miami, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Maryland, and NC State
Vanderbilt, Georgia Tech, Duke, Wake Forest, Carolina and UVa

I think that last grouping could be something that happens if this court case breaks in favor of paying players.

But it gives rise to a question about basketball. What if basketball splits into two or three tiers as well?

What if the new groupings wind up like this:

1. No cap (or high cap) on football tier.
2. Lower cap on football tier.
3. Scholarship only tier for football.
4. No cap (or high cap) on hoops tier.
5. Lower cap on hoops tier.
6. Scholarship only tier for hoops.

The direction I see us heading in is one where there are 2 24+ member mega leagues that control college sports content:

The SEC + Texlahoma 4 + 6 others (ACC/WVU?)

The Big Ten + AAU Pac 12 schools + ND & assorted others

(10-24-2018 08:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The direction I see us heading in is one where there are 2 24+ member mega leagues that control college sports content:

The SEC + Texlahoma 4 + 6 others (ACC/WVU?)

The Big Ten + AAU Pac 12 schools + ND & assorted others

The problem with consolidating past a certain point is that the TV networks start paying so much freaking money that they begin to control you and how you operate.

Just want to remind everyone what Jim Delany said back in 2013 about Pay for Play:

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany wrote in a declaration filed in court last week and revealed by SI.com's Andy Staples that he envisions his league dropping back to a Division III non-scholarship model if the court sides with the plaintiffs.

"[I]t has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model ... These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."

"It's not that we want to go Division III or go to need-based aid," Delany added to SI.com. "It's simply that in the plaintiff's hypothetical -- and if a court decided that Title IX is out and players must be paid -- I don't think we'd participate in that. I think we'd choose another option ... If that's the law of the land, if you have to do that, I don't think we would."

So be wary of Pay for Play being the impetus for contraction or be wary of previous pious "academics is what matters and we will drop down rather than take part in pay-for-play" or be wary of BOTH.

I know where I stand and it's on be wary of BOTH.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...y-players/

Cheers,
Neil

(10-24-2018 08:59 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Just want to remind everyone what Jim Delany said back in 2013 about Pay for Play:

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany wrote in a declaration filed in court last week and revealed by SI.com's Andy Staples that he envisions his league dropping back to a Division III non-scholarship model if the court sides with the plaintiffs.

"[I]t has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model ... These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."

"It's not that we want to go Division III or go to need-based aid," Delany added to SI.com. "It's simply that in the plaintiff's hypothetical -- and if a court decided that Title IX is out and players must be paid -- I don't think we'd participate in that. I think we'd choose another option ... If that's the law of the land, if you have to do that, I don't think we would."

So be wary of Pay for Play being the impetus for contraction or be wary of previous pious "academics is what matters and we will drop down rather than take part in pay-for-play" or be wary of BOTH.

I know where I stand and it's on be wary of BOTH.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...y-players/

Cheers,
Neil

The crass cynical reading of that is that (1) Delany is serious and (2) it wouldn't be ABOUT high minded reasons in the slightest, it'd be about the Big Ten deciding they have enough status to get away with whatever they have to do to separate from the explicitly pay to play schools and still get media contracts that would generate a healthy surplus (to be burrowed away in unnecessary and extravagant "necessary costs", of course, rather than being handed over to the Universities) ... when compared to the lower costs of operating at that lower level.

Now, this would be a massive shake-up and would probably break the CFP system apart, with claims of breach of contract and counterclaims of a new legal precedent rendering the old agreements null and void ... but part of the shake-up could well be the Big Ten and PAC-12 saying "we are going to ban our schools playing (explicit) pay to play schools, we are going to send our champions to the Rose Bowl, you (explicit) pay to play schools do what you want to do".

Given the big Division II and III voting membership in the NCAA, a Big Ten / PAC block would have the inside track on making sure that the (explicit) pay to play schools set up a new organization outside of the NCAA framework, so they can set themselves up a "Collegiate Football Playoff".

(10-24-2018 01:19 PM)Statefan Wrote:  If Duke and WF "dropped down" from full time P-5 football would the ACC toss them out? Why would the ACC do that? Nothing is gained. Suppose that only Miami, Clemson, FSU, UNC, NC State, VT, Syracuse, and Louisville competed full time at the top level. There is no reason to toss out GT, UVa, WF, Duke, Pitt, or BC. In fact the upper division can play and the lower division can play.

NC State would play 7 conference games - Miami, Clemson, FSU, UNC, VT, Syracuse, and Louisville. We would continue to play Wake Forest and attempt to schedule bi-annual games with GT, Uva, and Duke.

My point is that two tiers need not mean conference expulsions

WF, Duke, UVa, BC, Pitt, and GT could invite SEC straggler Vandy and play a 6 game conference slate. Duke will continue to play UNC, Wake will put UNC on the schedule, VT will still play UVa. This Junior Varisity ACC football would have 6 league games, and school like Vandy would still be able to play TN, Alabama, etc., etc.

Why? Because the networks or corporations paying for the rights of those who hire the best players won't be paying the rest the same. That's why!

As schools decide to pay, or not to pay they will be segregating themselves and those who will pay will join a new coalition and the conferences as we know them will cease to exist or simply be morphed in part into division in a new pay for play tier.

It's the finances that will mandate that some stick together and separate themselves from the rest.

(10-24-2018 11:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 08:59 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Just want to remind everyone what Jim Delany said back in 2013 about Pay for Play:

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany wrote in a declaration filed in court last week and revealed by SI.com's Andy Staples that he envisions his league dropping back to a Division III non-scholarship model if the court sides with the plaintiffs.

"[I]t has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model ... These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."

"It's not that we want to go Division III or go to need-based aid," Delany added to SI.com. "It's simply that in the plaintiff's hypothetical -- and if a court decided that Title IX is out and players must be paid -- I don't think we'd participate in that. I think we'd choose another option ... If that's the law of the land, if you have to do that, I don't think we would."

So be wary of Pay for Play being the impetus for contraction or be wary of previous pious "academics is what matters and we will drop down rather than take part in pay-for-play" or be wary of BOTH.

I know where I stand and it's on be wary of BOTH.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...y-players/

Cheers,
Neil

The crass cynical reading of that is that (1) Delany is serious and (2) it wouldn't be ABOUT high minded reasons in the slightest, it'd be about the Big Ten deciding they have enough status to get away with whatever they have to do to separate from the explicitly pay to play schools and still get media contracts that would generate a healthy surplus (to be burrowed away in unnecessary and extravagant "necessary costs", of course, rather than being handed over to the Universities) ... when compared to the lower costs of operating at that lower level.

Now, this would be a massive shake-up and would probably break the CFP system apart, with claims of breach of contract and counterclaims of a new legal precedent rendering the old agreements null and void ... but part of the shake-up could well be the Big Ten and PAC-12 saying "we are going to ban our schools playing (explicit) pay to play schools, we are going to send our champions to the Rose Bowl, you (explicit) pay to play schools do what you want to do".

Given the big Division II and III voting membership in the NCAA, a Big Ten / PAC block would have the inside track on making sure that the (explicit) pay to play schools set up a new organization outside of the NCAA framework, so they can set themselves up a "Collegiate Football Playoff".

I'll tell you what would happen with the Big 10 Bruce. They would separate the academic alliance from athletics as it should have been done half a century ago. Then the schools that want to play in the top tier of Football will do so and those who don't want to won't. But they will keep their longstanding academic alliances. That's what will happen.

And I seriously doubt that Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Penn State, Nebraska or Michigan State would give up playing the sport at the highest tier.

In other words it wouldn't be Delaney's place to say and in a new legal reality it would be up to the individual schools.

(10-24-2018 08:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The direction I see us heading in is one where there are 2 24+ member mega leagues that control college sports content:

The SEC + Texlahoma 4 + 6 others (ACC/WVU?)

The Big Ten + AAU Pac 12 schools + ND & assorted others

So the SEC plus Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, possibly two North Carolina schools, and one of Miami, West Virginia, Georgia Tech, Louisville, or Kansas.

And the Big 10 plus the 4 Cali schools, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Notre Dame.

That's not wholly unlikely.

(10-24-2018 11:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The crass cynical reading of that is that (1) Delany is serious and (2) it wouldn't be ABOUT high minded reasons in the slightest, it'd be about the Big Ten deciding they have enough status to get away with whatever they have to do to separate from the explicitly pay to play schools and still get media contracts that would generate a healthy surplus (to be burrowed away in unnecessary and extravagant "necessary costs", of course, rather than being handed over to the Universities) ... when compared to the lower costs of operating at that lower level.

Can't see it playing out that way.

Delany is predatory but he's also realistic enough to know that being on the second tier of college football and basketball is not going to generate even one-tenth as much money as the Big Ten generates now. And that's where they would be, on the second tier, if they stick with NCAA-style "amateurism" while another group of schools skims off the best available football and basketball players by paying them above the table.

There are Big Ten schools, and other P5 schools, that have bills to pay. They've invested in expensive athletic facilities and issued bonds that are supposed to be paid off with future revenue and/or donations that wealthy donors have pledged to make in the future. These universities are not going to voluntarily step into a situation where the revenue dries up but the bonds or loans still have to be paid off.

I came up with this about 10 years ago before the ND/ACC agreement and Clemson becoming a power. I figured the chosen 20 would become a pay league and the remaining schools would re-align as best they could. Some private schools would drop football all together.



Major Collegiate Athletics Association
-----
North
-----
Michigan
Nebraska
Ohio State
Penn State
Wisconsin

East
-----
Alabama
Auburn
Florida
Florida State
Georgia

South
-----
Arkansas
Louisiana State
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas A&M

West
-----
Oklahoma
Oregon
Washington
Southern California
Texas



ACC
-----
North
-----
Boston College
Maryland
Rutgers
Syracuse

West
-----
Cincinnati
Louisville
Pittsburgh
West Virginia

East
-----
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Virginia
Virginia Tech

South
-----
Clemson
Kentucky
Georgia Tech
Miami



SEC
-----
East
-----
Central Florida
Memphis
Missouri
Mississippi
Mississippi State
South Florida

West
----
Baylor
Houston
Kansas
Oklahoma State
Texas Christian
Texas Tech



Big 10
-----
Connecticut
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Iowa State
Kansas State
Michigan State
Minnesota
Purdue
Temple



Pac-10
-----
Arizona
Arizona State
California
Colorado
Oregon State
San Diego State
UCLA
UNLV
Utah
Washington State



Big 16
------
West
-----
Boise State
Fresno State
Nevada
San Jose State

East
-----
Charlotte
East Carolina
Massachusetts
Navy

North
-----
Air Force
Colorado State
New Mexico
Texas-El Paso

South
-----
Southern Methodist
Texas-San Antonio
Tulane
Tulsa


Independent
-----
Army
Notre Dame
BYU

Saturday's paper here in Greensboro listed 37 football games available for viewing. 37! That did not count the Wednesday, Thursday or Friday night games.
What that means is that even if a pay-for play league existed, nothing would change.

(10-25-2018 05:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  Saturday's paper here in Greensboro listed 37 football games available for viewing. 37! That did not count the Wednesday, Thursday or Friday night games.
What that means is that even if a pay-for play league existed, nothing would change.

The number of broadcasts would not change, in fact with streaming the number of offered games will go up. However what would change is the amount the pay for play tier would get versus the other games. Tier 2 (capped compensation) earns less than they do now. Tier 3 (scholarships only) get streamed to small audiences and earn even less. Pay for play gets a content valuation raise.

(10-25-2018 05:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 05:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  Saturday's paper here in Greensboro listed 37 football games available for viewing. 37! That did not count the Wednesday, Thursday or Friday night games.
What that means is that even if a pay-for play league existed, nothing would change.

The number of broadcasts would not change, in fact with streaming the number of offered games will go up. However what would change is the amount the pay for play tier would get versus the other games. Tier 2 (capped compensation) earns less than they do now. Tier 3 (scholarships only) get streamed to small audiences and earn even less. Pay for play gets a content valuation raise.

It won't matter, JR.
The same number of people that watched Army vs. Miami (O) on Saturday will watch watch them if a pay-for play league existed.
It won't matter if they don't make as much money, because the reductions would be unilateral. The only thing that would occur is the insane amounts of money now being paid to coaches would subside. The product on the field would not be diminished because players for those teams wouldn't have qualified for pay anyway.
Content valuation is only important in the current system.

(10-25-2018 12:09 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 11:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The crass cynical reading of that is that (1) Delany is serious and (2) it wouldn't be ABOUT high minded reasons in the slightest, it'd be about the Big Ten deciding they have enough status to get away with whatever they have to do to separate from the explicitly pay to play schools and still get media contracts that would generate a healthy surplus (to be burrowed away in unnecessary and extravagant "necessary costs", of course, rather than being handed over to the Universities) ... when compared to the lower costs of operating at that lower level.

Can't see it playing out that way.

Delany is predatory but he's also realistic enough to know that being on the second tier of college football and basketball is not going to generate even one-tenth as much money as the Big Ten generates now. And that's where they would be, on the second tier, if they stick with NCAA-style "amateurism" while another group of schools skims off the best available football and basketball players by paying them above the table.

There are Big Ten schools, and other P5 schools, that have bills to pay. They've invested in expensive athletic facilities and issued bonds that are supposed to be paid off with future revenue and/or donations that wealthy donors have pledged to make in the future. These universities are not going to voluntarily step into a situation where the revenue dries up but the bonds or loans still have to be paid off.

If the Big10 did stick to that though it would weaken the so called "top tier". If the PAC and ACC went along with them saying we'll do what we have to to stay amateur then the pay for play league would be dead in the water imo. If people want to watch the best players in the country play football and basketball then there's professional leagues for that already. People want to watch their schools or the schools they associate themselves with play those sports. You can't build a national brand for a league of college programs with large parts of the country's schools not going along.

(10-24-2018 11:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 11:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 08:59 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Just want to remind everyone what Jim Delany said back in 2013 about Pay for Play:

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany wrote in a declaration filed in court last week and revealed by SI.com's Andy Staples that he envisions his league dropping back to a Division III non-scholarship model if the court sides with the plaintiffs.

"[I]t has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model ... These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."

"It's not that we want to go Division III or go to need-based aid," Delany added to SI.com. "It's simply that in the plaintiff's hypothetical -- and if a court decided that Title IX is out and players must be paid -- I don't think we'd participate in that. I think we'd choose another option ... If that's the law of the land, if you have to do that, I don't think we would."

So be wary of Pay for Play being the impetus for contraction or be wary of previous pious "academics is what matters and we will drop down rather than take part in pay-for-play" or be wary of BOTH.

I know where I stand and it's on be wary of BOTH.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...y-players/

Cheers,
Neil

The crass cynical reading of that is that (1) Delany is serious and (2) it wouldn't be ABOUT high minded reasons in the slightest, it'd be about the Big Ten deciding they have enough status to get away with whatever they have to do to separate from the explicitly pay to play schools and still get media contracts that would generate a healthy surplus (to be burrowed away in unnecessary and extravagant "necessary costs", of course, rather than being handed over to the Universities) ... when compared to the lower costs of operating at that lower level.

Now, this would be a massive shake-up and would probably break the CFP system apart, with claims of breach of contract and counterclaims of a new legal precedent rendering the old agreements null and void ... but part of the shake-up could well be the Big Ten and PAC-12 saying "we are going to ban our schools playing (explicit) pay to play schools, we are going to send our champions to the Rose Bowl, you (explicit) pay to play schools do what you want to do".

Given the big Division II and III voting membership in the NCAA, a Big Ten / PAC block would have the inside track on making sure that the (explicit) pay to play schools set up a new organization outside of the NCAA framework, so they can set themselves up a "Collegiate Football Playoff".

I'll tell you what would happen with the Big 10 Bruce. They would separate the academic alliance from athletics as it should have been done half a century ago. Then the schools that want to play in the top tier of Football will do so and those who don't want to won't. But they will keep their longstanding academic alliances. That's what will happen.

And I seriously doubt that Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Penn State, Nebraska or Michigan State would give up playing the sport at the highest tier.

In other words it wouldn't be Delaney's place to say and in a new legal reality it would be up to the individual schools.

I wonder what the long reaching affects will be as a whole. Will there be actual "contracts"? Will the NCAA eventually be forced to create "salary caps" similar to the pros? Who knows.

Also, don't forget that politics will play into any decision that would be made about playing at the top tier.

Right now, schools from "most" of the major conferences are getting $$$ from media/TV contracts. As long as that money keeps flowing in, the academic types are OK with athletic spending because it tends to benefit the entire university. IF schools are suddenly faced with having to create a Pro-Style structure where they have a pseudo GM who deals with salaries, salary caps, etc, will they WANT to continue in the top tier?

I can't speak for every school, but if this were to happen, you'd have a hard time convincing the school administrators, regents, and politicians in the state of Wisconsin to put that level of resources into what amounts too 2 sports. It would be a hard sell in this state to convince the taxpayer to further fund the University knowing full well the amount of $$$ it will take to "sign" the top players.

If anything, I could see football and maybe men's basketball becoming separate entities that could compete in a different conference. All sports, other than those 2, would still be B1G, but football and basketball would be split with the pay-4-play teams being in a separate football conference and the rest still playing in the B1G.

The results would be equally interesting, entertaining, and confusing.

(10-25-2018 07:26 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 12:09 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 11:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The crass cynical reading of that is that (1) Delany is serious and (2) it wouldn't be ABOUT high minded reasons in the slightest, it'd be about the Big Ten deciding they have enough status to get away with whatever they have to do to separate from the explicitly pay to play schools and still get media contracts that would generate a healthy surplus (to be burrowed away in unnecessary and extravagant "necessary costs", of course, rather than being handed over to the Universities) ... when compared to the lower costs of operating at that lower level.

Can't see it playing out that way.

Delany is predatory but he's also realistic enough to know that being on the second tier of college football and basketball is not going to generate even one-tenth as much money as the Big Ten generates now. And that's where they would be, on the second tier, if they stick with NCAA-style "amateurism" while another group of schools skims off the best available football and basketball players by paying them above the table.

There are Big Ten schools, and other P5 schools, that have bills to pay. They've invested in expensive athletic facilities and issued bonds that are supposed to be paid off with future revenue and/or donations that wealthy donors have pledged to make in the future. These universities are not going to voluntarily step into a situation where the revenue dries up but the bonds or loans still have to be paid off.

If the Big10 did stick to that though it would weaken the so called "top tier". If the PAC and ACC went along with them saying we'll do what we have to to stay amateur then the pay for play league would be dead in the water imo. If people want to watch the best players in the country play football and basketball then there's professional leagues for that already. People want to watch their schools or the schools they associate themselves with play those sports. You can't build a national brand for a league of college programs with large parts of the country's schools not going along.

Have not stopped pay for play in the past with some of these schools. You have to look at which schools got busted by the NCAA when they caught players getting gifts. Reggie Bush of USC is an example. Another one was the tattoo scandal under Tressell at Ohio State. If the Big 10 do that? You could see the schools like Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and others will stay because they now have excuse to give money as gifts to the players out in the open.

(10-24-2018 11:55 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 11:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  My top (pay) tier (Post #23) requires reshuffling of existing FBS conferences. My best guess:

Big Nine: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue, Vanderbilt

AAC (looks like OBE): Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, Temple, West Virginia

ACC: Duke, Georgia Tech, Maryland, Miami, North Carolina, NC State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

Big 12: Baylor, Central Florida, Houston, Kansas State, Memphis, SMU, South Florida, TCU, Texas Tech

Now, some of these schools might be willing to pay for play. My take is that they wouldn't be invited by one of the two Big Dog conferences to join them.

I could see this pared down FBS (106 schools) deciding to cut back on the number of football scholarships (possibly 75 FTEs while allowing partial scholarships to bring the total scholarship roster as high as 90) to further reduce costs. This would allow a reduction of 20 FTEs (10 football and 10 women's sports) without running afoul of Title IX).

I get what you're saying. You think after the big dogs leave, the rest will align themselves regionally.

But the schools will be even more interested in institutional prestige than they were before. For example, your "Big 9" would effectively be the 5 original Big 10 teams taking their pick of the leftovers. They'd never choose to associate with Kentucky.

I think the power would break out like this:
1) The ACC has the most prestigious remaining institutions. So no one will voluntarily leave the ACC.
2) The 5 Midwestern Big 10 schools are just as prestigious, and can invite whoever they want except the ACC. These are the schools that were against adding Rutgers & Maryland to begin with, so they form a new Midwestern-based conference.
3) The Big 12 still has 5 schools after Kansas & Iowa State leave for the Big 10. They stay united and add the best of the rest.
4) In any realistic scenario, some schools still get screwed over. In this case it's UConn, Temple, and SMU.

Mini-Big Ten: Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue, Iowa State, Kansas, & Cincinnati

Mini-ACC: Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, NC State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse. They add Vanderbilt, Maryland, and Rutgers. If VT or UNC gets bumped up a division, they don't add Rutgers.

Mini-Big 12: Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, West Virginia, and KSU add Mississippi State, Houston, Memphis, UCF, USF, Kentucky, and Colorado State.

I hear you. And based on your comments, I've tweaked my model to have the top tier have 4 six team divisions instead of 6 four team divisions. This slightly changes who I have in my top tier. To have a six team division consisting of former Big Ten schools, I dropped Iowa and Missouri. I replaced them with Texas Tech and TCU to join Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas A&M in the former Big 12 division.

That leaves the SEC East with Tennessee, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Florida State. The West is Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, LSU and Arkansas.

This is the point where I leave the reservation and go all in on the Top Tier league. I have each division playing a double round robin every year. Then, each team gets two games outside the megaconference media contract they can use to schedule anyone they want. That could be other schools outside their division but within the Top Tier (like Oklahoma - Nebraska), or it could be a traditional rival left behind in the FBS (for example, Georgia - Georgia Tech, Florida State - Miami, Tennessee - Vanderbilt, etc).

Now my new Big Ten consists of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Minnesota, Missouri, Northwestern and Purdue.

The ACC stands pat at 12 after losing Clemson and FSU. The PAC, Mountain West, MAC and Sunbelt all stay as they are. CUSA loses Southern Miss and UAB to go to 12 teams. The big changes within the FBS are in the American and a new Gulf Coast Conference.

The AAC now has: Cincinnati, Connecticut, East Carolina, Kentucky, Maryland, Rutgers, Temple, Vanderbilt and West Virginia. The Gulf Coast Conference consists of Baylor, Central Florida, Houston, Memphis, SMU, South Florida, Southern Miss, Tulane, Tulsa and UAB (reuniting some old CUSA mates).

Now - is that all actually going to happen? The odds aren't great. But if something momentous were to occur that completely changes the game, who knows what the ultimate fallout will be? There will be some university presidents and BOT's with tough decisions to make. And wisdom is in short supply.