Big12 guy

the SEC is a good fit IMO. Tennessee every year would be worth the price of admission for us casual fans. If not, ...., playing former Big East schools in the B12 wouldn't be a bad consolation prize - but I'm biased of course.

paying attention can see that. Revenue is a better metric today on being able to compete - a whole lot better than the academic rankings. Even Memphis got a commitment for $25M a year from one private source. There are others as well, including KU.

many ways, and can incorporate a different number of teams - but no matter the number, it will smack of a semi pro league. It will not negate the media value of the schools not involved however, and I see it as a hallow threat from the BIG and SEC to bully everyone. Everyone is stuck on revenue, and I think they miss the mark. It's the "free market" of players, and the pay for play system with no limits that is ruining college athletics. here my out - There has ALWAYS been a large chasm between the schools in regards to revenue. Historically, schools like OSU, ND, Texas and some others WAY out earned everyone else for decades and decades long before these conference media contracts came to being. If you look at the link in the previous thread I posted with the NFL operating income, there is a huge disparity between the "rich" NFL teams, and the "not so rich" NFL teams - yet there is parity in the league for many different reasons, but mostly, salary caps and minimums. Since college football could never have a draft, hard minimums and hard caps for player pay could bring that parity, but that can only happen with a central body with revenue sharing and anti trust. I do not have a problem with Texas making more money than KU as an example. They get the ratings, the money, and have spent decades (century) building their brand. Where I draw the line, is that they can now use those riches to buy players. You will never have parity, or a shot of a national title if you can not spend as much as the rich schools - and that is the problem. I'd say all of the B12, and almost all of the ACC do not generate the revenue to compete with the big boys if the criteria is money - and never will. let the athletic departments of Texas and others keep their money and get richer - it's the American way. However, and it's a big however, put hard lines in the sand that they can not outspend any other school in FBS for player salaries. A hard cap if you will. That doesn't mean that a KU, or a VT for that matter, has to spend or play players at the same rate, it just means that they realistically could. If that is coupled with a hard minimum, we could pare down FBS as there are many schools in the MAC that could never reach a minimum (say $15M per school for the sake of argument), and achieve some parity.

very interesting. In my weak research, Louisville and Kansas always surprise me with their revenue or "worth", but they do not show up in your graphic as being particularly strong. Just for chts and kicks, I thought you would be interested in the operating income graphic of the 2024 NFL season. link below

preferred to be in the ACC IMO. Hands down. Full stop. They will not leave the B12, because the B12 is the conference that stood up for them, and gave them a place in a power conference. it certainly wasn't because the B12 was a better place for them, it's more that the ACC did a PAC12, and didn't want them. Just like BYU and Houston. I hope the B12 takes UConn, as history has a way of repeating itself. Tell me again why UConn isn't in the ACC? If the B12 tirns out to be the 3rd power conference, it will not have been because of luck - or timing - or certainly not because they have football brands - it will be because the ACC got too high and mighty for themselves, and then got stuck with a media contract that may as well have been written in the 1970's. KU and a few others, ICLUDING WVU, would have taken an ACC invite in a heartbeat when the B12 was down to the hatefull 8. Any school in the B12 at that time would have jumped to the PAC 12 as well - but they just didn't pass the smell test because their fans are beer drinking from a can crowd, and by god, Stanford and Cal just couldn't stomach that. SAME with the ACC. Look where Stanford and Cal are now. That should tell you everything you need to know. WVU will never make the cut with the likes of the high and mighty academic ACC - EVER.

in the BIG has to announce it before July 1. If they announce it tomorrow, before the bill has a vote, it seems to me it would be allowed.

in the BIG has to announce it before July 1. If they announce it tomorrow, before the bill has a vote, it seems to me it would be allowed.

and the power 4 conferences are indeed prevented from expanding, the top 3 football brands in the ACC may be looking hard of making an announcement before the thing is voted on. The timing is tough for those that may have an invite to the BIG or SEC, as the media contracts don't line up this year, and the ACC has laid out how much it will cost to switch this year. The idea that the B12 could be raided doesn't concern me much, as we have already lost all the blue bloods, and being the best of the rest is where I think the B12 will land.

Their advantages over time. Not the conferences.

are not wrong - but it's all about the household. In addition, while on the road - which is often again for me - the AirBNB type of places all seem to have ROKU, and it becomes convenient to dial into UTUBE TV to get the channels I usually want. Staying at the hotels is usually not a problem of course, but how long before they cut cable as well?

really bad. probably no differently than VT getting on TV before the Big East and then Vick. It was a game changer for VT, at least in my perspective.

with the Atlantic coast. However, K-State and Iowa State continue to have rabid passionate fans, fill up their not so small stadiums whether they are winning or losing, and get consistent media ratings if and when they are on a channel. Out here in flyover, many put VT into the same basket as you just put Iowa State and K-State.

ya, ROKU could give them more exposure as a "streaming" channel, but even the BIG's content is finite.

will go through after getting over a major hurdle, and Fox's announcement of buying ROKO shows that there is a consolidation between the streamers and traditional linear programing. That will have a bearing on live sports distribution, and will effect future media contracts. I believe the competition moving forward will get even more intense, and while I don't know if the B12 will capitalize with their next media deal, or not, ESPN+ may be in a position to lose market share. The G6 conferences may also see a bump in their media payouts, as there will be a lot of slots to fill, in both linear and streaming moves to live sports programing.

a court decision for Sorsby on Monday of last week, and the BIG announced they would not schedule them in any sport moving forward. (the BIG has since retracted that on the threat of being sued). It seems everything is being decided in the courts, and that is where the disconnect is IMO. TT may very well do the right thing and not play the kid, but I'm not holding my breath.

and others of their hypocrisy than defending TT. Everyone jumped to the "morality" of the situation, and defending the sanctity of the game. These are the very same folks that pay the NIL, kill conferences, stymie rivalries, and throw the student athletes of the non revs under the bus to "be in the club". Wasn't trying to take a shot at VT per se, but i can see why you could take that from my post. BTW, I have been an advocate of VT and TT scheduling games from the get go. I think it's a no brainer from where I'm sitting, current situation notwithstanding.

I agree with both you and Baltimore, the BIG and the SEC are not the ones to now all of a sudden honor tradition, "save" college football, and be the ones to set the rules. While I guess that it is the victors that write the history books, this mess isn't over yet - by a long shot. You guys want to take TT down? OK, I might even join the lynching mob on that one, but that is by no means law and order. Players being paid - across the board in all sports, even the non revs is way OK with me. finding that formula is beyond my paygrade though. NIL however, as it stands today, needs to be as illegal as gambling on your team. No one stood up and demanded that Michigan (just an example) lured a quarterback from another school with a $12M NIL deal. One player receiving almost half of the budget of many MAC schools. Tennessee, the school, sued the NCAA for the ability to pay their players NIL money - and won. I'm first in line for enforceable rules, but when everyone is up in arms because of the "integrity" of the game, lets call a spade a spade. The "P2" imploded the PAC, almost imploded the B12, and they now have eyes on the ACC. All of that history and all of those traditions were cast aside for - money. Is the Sorsby situation much different? "Integrity" of the game, C'mon man. If this is indeed the line to "fix" college football (athletics), count me in, but please, don't virtue signal that this mess is all on Sorsby, TT, or the judge. It is a symptom of the disease that the BIG, SEC, and networks created.

kid from playing, he was cut loose.

way there will be a break off from the NCAA - or the NCAA dissolves. Either way, it will not be college athletics as we have known it. It will be a pro league.

came out, and the NCAA banned Sorsby. He was banned from playing, and TT not only complied, they did not complain, nor did they try to fight it. Then you get a judges order on Monday that states that the kid is eligible. We all know what the right thing is for the "integrity" of the game, but that argument sounds hollow to me given the developments over the past several years. It's easy to call out TT. What is the right thing to do for the kid? He is 22, and no where out there is anyone talking about that. A judges ruling states that he is eligible, and not even TT has come out and said they agree with the ruling. As a matter of fact, I have yet to see one article, or even on poster that has come out in favor of that ruling - including me. Pay his scholarship, pay his NIL, keep him on the team and support his recovery - but don't play him. It will not matter what TT does here. Kick him off the team, and go to court. Have the B12 ban him, and go to court. Play him, and be ostracized by all of the hypocrisy the sport has exhibited over the years. This is a text book example of why the NCAA needs to have anti trust. I don't know how you can fairly compensate the players - it's a mess - but a simple rule that gambling on your team? That should be an easy one, and a judge (bias or not) should not e the one making the rules.

also needs to be taken care of. This hasn't played out, and everyone is making assumptions on a judges decision. My posts show where I stand on Sorsby - but this isn't about the kid anymore.

not the problem, the judges ruling is. You can stand on a pedestal all you want, but it wasn't TT that sued - it was the kid - and he won. This isn't over yet - it's only been a few days since the injunction. Maybe the Big 10, ACC, and the SEC can form a scheduling alliance. We kind of know how that works out, don't we? VT should schedule TT, and settle it on the field.

taken to court by the players if they set their own rules? The only way that works is if they become a for profit entity, pay taxes, and have collective bargaining. Not a chance they do that IMO.

came down. He can play this year, and he has an NIL contract. I would cut him, and not pay him. Let him take that to court, as I would take my chances on that. This narrative that Sorsby is a kid that made a mistake makes my stomach turn. Just the fact that he signed a $5M NIL deal to play one season for a college football team makes my stomach turn. However, a double fisted middle finger to the self righteous Big Ten will stay there for the rest of my life (except for IU of course).

to play TT in any sport. The Sorsby situation is indefensible in my opinion, but it puts TT in a tough position. You have a judge that has ruled that the kid can play. You also have a $5M NIL deal that TT is on the hook to pay. Do you go against a judges ruling? I would, but I don't know the legal ramifications of that. Do you give the kid his money, then cut him loose? I would, but $5M is a lot of money. This is already in the courts, so I'm not sure it's as cut and dry as we think. The bigger picture is that judges have neutered the NCAA. The Big 10 stepping to the virtue signaling plate to make a stance is one of the most hypocritical things I have seen them do since covid. The BIG has their own issues, and they should mind their own business. If conferences attempt to put rules in place, they too will be taken to court, just like the NCAA has. From where I'm sitting, the options for college football (athletics) is going down hill and fast. This ruling and situation is a much bigger deal than one kid. It's easy to say it's all TT's fault, but it could have been any school, in any conference.

seems to me that TT had no Idea of this when they bought (recruited) him. Are they now in a position to spend millions whether he gets kicked off the team or not?

I'm sitting, the fact that there are no rules is the point. It's the wild west with NIL, poaching other conference members, paying players (legally or not), and as you know, the list is endless. Now, the BIG says this is going too far? It's not that I disagree, but the precedent of not having rules has already been set - by the very conference that say's this is going too far. It is not just borderline hypocrisy, it is falling on deaf ears out here in flyover. Again, Sorsby should never play another college football game, on that we agree. I think we could both agree that there needs to be "rules" - but this smacks of rules for thee, but not for me.

Sorsby - that is indefensible IMO. The Big 10 however, should mind their own business. It is not their place to "sanction?" Texas Tech, or cast judgments.

as they will. TT will see them in the playoffs. It's not like TT has a long and storied history with the BIG institutions anyway. Now, how would you guys react if it was VT and not TT?

they will not go to uneven conference distributions. They don't need too. However, if there is a quality school like a Utah that will accept a permanently smaller % of the media distribution, that, IMO, may happen. ** Edited by Big12 guy at 6/8/2026, 6:47:21 PM

Made yearly. Contract (OOC) games are made years in advance. The conferences schedule around ND games, they always have. Ask yourself this - which media company that owns the rights to any conference would not accommodate a ND game?

be the best example, but the do have a November game this year against UNC - what gives with a November game against a P4 school? I think I'm just saying that the football scheduling is not the driving force for ND's football in the ACC. The B12 had no issue accommodating BYU's late season game with ND, and that game was scheduled last minute. If ND was not in the ACC currently, do you really believe that the ACC would not allow schools to schedule ND in October and November?

telling anyone that will listen, that ND will have no problem scheduling P4 games later in the season. They might have difficulty with Michigan, Ohio State, and some other blue bloods, but...... Stanford? Clemson? Navy? - then look at the 10 schools that ND has played historically, and you will find some former Big East schools, MSU. Purdue, and of course USC. BTW, none of the ACC schools, except for a few former Big East schools are on that list. Of course, you also have the B12 schools that would schedule them in a heart beat, and adjust their "conference schedules" to accommodate, but none of those schools are traditional ND opponents - so, while ND could schedule about any of the B12 schools, anytime they want, I do not think that ND has too. Purdue and MSU would sign a "Clemson" deal in a heartbeat. ANY ACC school would do the same. There might even be an SEC school or 3 that would do the same thing - regardless of the 9 game conference schedule. While I'm not saying the schedule would be a cake walk, ND could do it. How does UConn get games in October or November? How did BYU do it before they joined the B12? Hell, if UConn can do it, you don't think that ND could? ND needed a place for their basketball and non revs. Not a lot of conferences that are better with those when compared to the ACC. ND sold those 5 games to have a place for their non revs - NOT for the ability to schedule Duke, WF, NCSU, and others in football. ND could, and would schedule better P4 schools if they were not stuck in the ACC deal they signed on to.

up will be very interesting with Paramount and CBS. Will they try to outbid Fox for BIG content? Or will they bet on the B12? There is a lot of content, and while Fox and ESPN are the two biggest payers at the moment, there is room for CBS to be a legit competitor in the space.

wanted a conference network when Nebraska, A&M, Mizzou, and Colorado were in the conference. Texas didn't want to share, and we all know the history. Also, the NCAA, or other conferences of FBS and Division 1 basketball if you will, have more leverage that you think on the "P2" IMO. The P2 may have gotten ahead of themselves trying to monopolize the football money, whether they deserve it or not. The rest of college athletics - you know, the non football part, and the non rev part, still have a say in all of this.

position. Look at the new PAC - the numbers were great until they weren't. Memphis, USF. Tulane - all were going to the new PAC, but the numbers never materialized. I think it's the same thing with the mythical new conference with the best of the ACC and B12. Where is the beef? It is certainly possible, but they will have to reveal the numbers to the institutions before any of them will move.