mjfhokie

There was a time that we felt comfortable that the defense or ST would have at least one score themselves.. I think this is how the low offensive production some years was offset.

Lawsuits galore are going to happen with likely conflicts between how different states rule. Title IX regulations are the start of lawsuits - What about states with new NIL laws, challenges to "unapproved" NIL deals, restrictions of transfers, and players not renewing, etc.? Also how was it decided that the ex-players that are receiving House lawsuit funding only date back to 2016? I am sure as you go back in time the players had less and less compensation. Where would it end? More & more ways to not track or to afford big NIL deals will also occur if/when true NIL is limited to less than $100K or less by the $600 review committee. Crypto, bag men, sports gambling, even old fashioned money laundering? What happens when a player does not report his NIL deal and is caught?; answer is another lawsuit. It also occurs to me that one of the true impact areas where an athlete could actually claim real value in NIL (instead of a fake pay to play) would be in supporting or being a spokesperson for sports gambling. College athletes could very well be effective at persuading other college students or alumni to try gambling - while still claiming they are clean. There truly could be a case provide a high value for these services. Of course, does payment of NIL in "bonus bets" really count? Of course the biggest coin to drop could be when the IRS gets involved. Income taxes on players, SS taxes for employee and employer, and loss of any tax breaks for supporting your University's athletic department. Finally a question - has there been any discussion of whether a true NIL or even the University paid income can mandate players not to boycott bowls or hold them to standards for grades or behavior clauses?

Interesting article on the math of 9 games versus 8 games in a schedule. A probability comparison of playing an additional SEC team was done and simply adding a 50-50 game to replace a 90-10 game substantially reduced percentage chance of top record. Two key items: First, adding another SEC game increases strength of schedule - especially since most SEC schools have 3 or 4 "easy" games on their schedule. Add one 50-50 game to each team's schedule makes a 9 win season almost half as likely. Second, introducing a 9th game will reduce the number of teams at .500 or above (and decrease the number of teams with only 3 SEC losses). I looked at last year's SEC standing and while there was only one .500 team (4-4), there were six 5-3 teams. Assuming that 4 losses is the maximum number of losses for an SEC team to make the playoff (i.e. Alabama/ LSU and USC were all 9-4 last year & just out of the playoff), a 9th game (on average) would put three more teams on the bubble with no room for error against non-conference foes. Of course, this could be addressed with taking into account SOS for non-conference games - but I seen no reason for SEC to push for that.

The case that was dropped is not the bigger lawsuit of FSU versus the ACC. Instead it was FSU versus ESPN to get a copy of the ESPN contract with ACC. Since it is now available, no reason to continue to push for contract, i.e. ESPN complied with Florida law to provide public access (albeit redacted) to the State of Florida and FSU. In terms of the bigger picture lawsuit, FSA is continuing its lawsuit against ACC. As quoted from the article: "This case was separate but related to the ongoing litigation between FSU and the ACC playing out in Leon County (where FSU sued the ACC) and North Carolina (where the ACC sued FSU)." and "That dueling litigation is unaffected by the end of the Attorney General’s suit." Reading the comments, sone seemed to misinterpret.

I liked the article, but found it attacking too many issues. Overall, merging all of these issues makes it very hard to just look at the list without his commentary. That said, for teams with a plus ranking (like the Hokies), he indicated how many times the team would have made a 12 team playoff over the past 20 years as a measure. This ability to make the 12 team playoffs was the real focus of his grading. The NIL/transfer aspects are skewing the ratings as much if not more than realignment in many cases. While I like some of the discussion on realignment impacts (such as USC and Oklahoma falling into a "be careful what you wish for" category), it is heavily influenced by NIL issues which are at their root financially (and realignment driven) for teams in new leagues, but largely unchanged if a team stayed in the same league. It also gave plus rankings to many of the PAC schools that joined the Big 12 by comparing their current circumstances to the No PAC reality of 2024 that they were facing instead of a 2022 when the PAC was in place (which the fans and teams likely remember as a base case). I think the fans and athletic programs would not view that as a positive. That said, it is far better than the Oregon State/ Washington State 2024 reality that were easily identified as the biggest losers in the analysis. In terms of the ACC, a lot focused on Coastal chaos being eliminated. Gave minuses to several ACC Coastal teams (including UVA and Duke) as having very little chance to place in the tops of the ACC under the new system (no sneaking in). Similarly, Louisville and NCSU were deemed as teams that were stuck behind FSU and Clemson that may have improved chances. Also note that the ACC was not the only conference with stronger/weaker division issues. SMU had the top rating because they now have a chance (dividing by zero leaves an infinite better chance of making the playoff) and the fact that they were the NIL/booster champions behind Texas in the old SW conference (before the death penalty). ** Edited by mjfhokie at 8/6/2024, 7:02:29 PM ** Edited by mjfhokie at 8/6/2024, 7:04:16 PM

I was surprised to see the article's mention of 5 million subscribers in 5 years. With 130 million households in the US, that represents only 4 percent of all households. Although expensive, I can see them meeting the 5 million level. There are many sports fans out there.

It was my understanding that Notre Dame committed that IF they joined a conference it would be the ACC. Wasn't this part of the GOR agreement. As such, is Notre Dame subject to the same restrictions as FSU/Clemson? In terms of realignment, is ND potentially unable to freely leave (instead of unwilling)? If so, is the real push on overturning the GOR intended to free up Notre Dame to join the BIG? In this case, is FSU's role simply to free up ND for the next round of realignment?

First, the GOR was celebrated by all schools when signed. All schools (including FSU and Clemson) signed it enthusiastically, at least in public. This was just after the Big 10 took Maryland and rumors were that BIG was looking to further expand. My key point, however, is another item in the deal that is not being talked about. I believe that the powers that be were under the illusion that the GOR would be renegotiated - as soon as Notre Dame joined the ACC for football. I think that may have been Swoffords biggest mistake - assuming that he could bring in Notre Dame. This goal started affecting decisions going back to the original attempts to include Syracuse and BC instead of the Hokies. Other items included giving ND a 5 game scheduling deal, giving ND partial membership in all sports but football, and a focus on smaller, private institutions in the northeast as part of expansion. (Fortunately for the ACC, there was some pushback by football schools or we likely would have UConn, Navy, and some other schools also taking a piece of the pie.) I believe this focus on ND also impacted the push for a long term deal with the GOR. It had to have been recognized as a good deal in the early years (revenue and the ACC network) with uncertain but diminishing returns. Of course, the diminishing returns were not an issue since it was assumed by the ACC leadership that Notre Dame would be joining the ACC. In fact, a big talking point on the GOR was that ND was locked into joining the ACC if/when they opted or were forced to join a conference. Once ND joined for football, a renegotiation would be forced to occur increasing the payout for all ACC schools. In addition, adding ND would also have increased ACC network viewership and revenue. The ACC and Swofford's big white whale has been Notre Dame. It has affected 20 years of decision making, media contracts, and conference building. Even now, there is talk that "just" adding ND would fix all problems. The ACC incorrectly read the " 'IF' ND joins a conference, it must join the ACC" clause as 'WHEN' and made decisions based on what would be attractive to ND. (Of course, a cynical take could be that Phillips is continuing to try to get ND by adding Stanford as a west coast, private, academic partner for ND, not to mention SMU.) ** Edited by mjfhokie at 7/23/2024, 10:27:46 AM ** Edited by mjfhokie at 7/23/2024, 10:29:45 AM ** Edited by mjfhokie at 7/23/2024, 10:40:27 AM ** Edited by mjfhokie at 7/23/2024, 11:00:33 AM

and Cal with higher viewership than AZ, ASU and Colorado. Based on just viewership ACC additions > big 12 additions. I have not heard that narrative out there. Supposed to be posted under Big 12 Guy post with viewership data. ** Edited by mjfhokie at 7/21/2024, 3:41:40 PM

The payback to the PE firm is the expectancy of a Big future increase in revenue - which goes directly to the PE firm - NOT the schools. If successful, the schools in the league will end up with something similar to the current ACC contract. That is a very long contract term (think decades) with future earnings per team falling behind the conferences that did not have PE and are eligible for full payments. It is very reasonable to assume that the annual PE take of the overall annual conference earnings would be several million per team each year in the future. After all the future value of TV revenue does not increase for a conference because the there was private equity funding was used 10 or 20 years before. Not to mention, the current ACC GOR will be much less restrictive than a GOR required of a PE firm is investing in a conference. Teams would need to sign a GOR that would span the length of the contract (i.e. decades) with even more obtuse penalties and no loopholes. So much for Big 12 being a stepping stone to SEC or BIG (which is still FSU's, Clemson's, and others desired out come and end game). The ACC risked possible future earnings increases for a roll of the dice on the ACC Network revenue and is stuck with a bad contract over the final 15 years of a 25 year GOR. A PE firm is rolling dice on a conference with the expectations that extra money up front over a 3-5 year period will turn into increased revenue over an even longer that 25 year term. Private equity knows the risk and will make the conference pay for it with a long contract period. That is the only way they know they will be successful since there is no hard asset to sell at the end. ** Edited by mjfhokie at 7/18/2024, 5:26:43 PM

I have been wondering how the recent Chevron decision from the Supreme Court potentially impacts Title IX. Department of Education has been "interpreting" and expanding the 1970s era law for decades. The most recent and one of the hottest political issue is the redefinition of "sex" as being interpreted by the administration. I have to imagine there are multiple "assumptions" and "regulations" over the past several years of bureaucrats implementing Title IX that go well beyond the limits of the law as it was originally written, passed, and intended. Title IX is going to be a hotly debated and litigated issue well beyond the implementation of NIL laws. ** Edited by mjfhokie at 7/16/2024, 2:41:28 PM

Three teams named the Tigers already - LSU, Auburn and Mizzou.

How long until "middle tier" of SEC schools (Florida, Texas A&M, Ole Miss, Auburn, Arkansas, and Tennessee) realize that half of all teams in any conference finish below .500 and find themselves in that tier regularly. If winning sells seats, non P-2 may just be more fun.

Based on the article posted today on the home page, in 2022-2023 VT ran a $12.5 million surplus and UVA ran a $4.9M surplus. It is my understanding that the House agreement requires each program to pay about $20M per year in extra compensation to past and present players. I am an engineer and not an accountant, but that indicates to me that VT has to come up with $8M and UVA needs $15M in athletic department cuts effectively next season. That said, it is my recollection of other posters that VT is one of the few schools outside the P2 even running a positive balance. There is no new revenue source - just $20M in extra cost. Looking at the annual costs, this should require reductions in salary and staff across the board. If the House deal is as reported and going into effect soon, there is going to be multiple universities cutting sports programs, dropping coaches (if they can), and getting rid of non-revenue sports. When does House take affect? What will immediate effect be on VT sports administration and program from a financial status?

It was my understanding this was a mediated settlement with House. Negotiating on behalf of the big schools and assigning 35% of costs to the small schools cannot be legal. This one issue should be more than enough forthe judge to reject the mediated agreement. Seems much more cut and dry than the FSU and Clemson lawsuits that ACC was not representing them well enough. The NCAA was not representing the small schools at all.

Almost all contracts have a clause (often on the front page) defining what jurisdiction any disagreements or issues requiring legal intervention will be held in. I would be very surprised if the lawyers drawing up the contracts for the ACC (both with ESPN and with the league and GOR signatories) didn't tie it down to a NC court. Is jurisdiction missing from the documents?

If the ACC GOR is breakable, the Big 12 GOR is just as breakable. Can not use GOR as a strength of Big 12 but weakness of ACC.

Half full would imply expansion? Half empty would imply losing FSU & Clemson? Or is it simply smooth sailing with no waves in sight. Whatever happens, he is likely right.

I graduated 1988 and school was close to 20K. Go back to 1950s and it was just starting to transform from a military college. In comparison, many of the BIG 10 universities were already the size of VT now. Much bigger core of living alumni at the BIG universities as a result. Difference should be getting smaller in future.

It doesn't matter if it is University, Tech, or State, if you put "THE" in front you are the defacto flagship.

From the GT website: "The Georgia Institute of Technology is one of the nation's top public research universities with more than 45,000 students who study in person at the main campus in Atlanta, at Georgia Tech-Europe in France, at Georgia Tech-Shenzhen in China, as well as through distance and online learning." They have approximately 27,000 in Atlanta of which 18,415 are undergrads. Also note that they are admitting only 3,900 students per year. I do not think that the French or Chinese (or online) students likely play into GT football or sports fans at all. For that matter, most graduate students either have no allegiance or default to their undergrad school if they are sports fans. That puts GT solidly in bottom of the list, not top 20. Based on this, I think these numbers are very suspect. If we do want to count Online enrollment, Liberty University should be the favorite Virginia target of the SEC and BIG with 110,000 total student enrollment. ** Edited by mjfhokie at 6/14/2024, 9:12:25 AM ** Edited by mjfhokie at 6/14/2024, 9:16:20 AM

Bill was stopped in committee. It is dead (for now).

If so, cancelling scholarships would devastate a team/college's football program.

13 Tier 1 teams, 41 Tier 2 teams, and a lot of Tier 3 & 4 that are already in P4 conferences. I would imagine most fans in Tier 2 is convinced their team should be in future P2 Super League (as well as share of Tier 3 & 4 that disagree with the tiers) but it gets very tight for even the Tier 2 teams even if it expands to 40 or 48 total teams/colleges.

Then the band spells out "DUMB" on the field for Duke University Marching Band. How dumb (or stupid?) is that?

Was discussed on the radio in Raleigh. The understanding is that equity firm provides some amount of capital - $50M to $200M to a University athletic department or the University. In return the University is required to pay back an annual percentage starting at 20% of athletic revenue in the first year. This percentage slowly reduces until 100% of initial investment is paid back. After that, the equity firm is guaranteed 2% of all sports revenue for the University in perpetuity - i.e., forever. I do not know where the percentages come from, but the key discussion point was in perpetuity. The argument was that regardless of what happens in the future, it is anticipated that revenue will continue to increase over the next century and beyond. In general, the discussion was that no state or public entity could legally (or wisely) promise a portion of their revenues for perpetuity. It was discussed it would only be helpful in the case of a major one time expense (such as a stadium upgrade OR buying out of a conference). It was also discussed that inevitably the government and politicians would be involved and that it is likely even illegal in many states to allow any agreement in perpetuity. In terms of long term agreements, even the British lease on Hong Kong and our base on Guantanamo Bay were limited to 99 or 100 year terms (my observation, not on the radio). The related discussion was that a much more traditional and well established path for these large expenses is a loan - which universities can get and have gotten with very favorable terms as a public entity ultimately backed by the state. All this said, if I was the private equity firm, I can think of no school that may be a higher risk in this scenario than Florida State. They have proven that they will do everything in the power to get out of a 25 year GOR agreement let alone providing a portion of their revenue in perpetuity. All of this said, I have no idea as to the source of the numbers, etc, but it did provide some insights into how private equity would likely work. At the base is that the private equity firm's legal obligation is maximizing their return on investment for the shareholders. ** Edited by mjfhokie at 5/22/2024, 10:46:27 PM ** Edited by mjfhokie at 5/22/2024, 10:52:13 PM ** Edited by mjfhokie at 5/22/2024, 10:54:22 PM

For all the non-lawyers out there (including me), the following article was in the Raleigh News & Observer this weekend. They don't pretend to know any answers, just try to explain the process and jurisdiction questions.

I have heard mentioned that 98% of college athletes make the pros thrown around. It is then implied that most of these are in non-revenue sports as if football/ basketball players have a higher percentage. The actual stat is that 98.6% of college football players do not make the pros. Of the 1.4% of these football players, the average career in the NFL is 3 years (whether due to injury or simply skill sets). Throw in the fact that those future NFL players are highly focused at likely 8-16 college programs, and we are likely discussing 1-3 players max per year for 50% of P2 programs (as well as the Big 12 and ACC). G5 schools have almost no chance going forward (especially in the transfer world where the top G5 players have ample opportunities to move up). Pretending this is not true and that a degree is not of importance is a disservice (or worse) for the eventual 98.6% of football players (let alone the non-revenue athletes) who will be competing for jobs on the street when they leave school. In addition, a degree will be needed for the majority of the remaining 1.4% that make the pros but never get beyond a 3-4 year rookie contract in the pros (and never qualify for guaranteed money). Simply proposing a half-degree or less strenuous degree that would become the norm for say 50% of football players puts them at a disadvantage to the other college students going forward. In terms of the less than 1% of college football players that do make it to and then stay in the pros, awesome. They will be more than compensated and come out winners regardless of their degree status (or their NIL deal). Of course, even they are just an injury or bad investment away from looking for that "regular" job before they reach middle age. (Note: This is simply based on the future salary implications. I have not even touched on the real value of graduating with no student loans (or worse yet student loans without a completed degree). The financial "aid" loans are holding back a whole generation of "regular" students.) Providing additional compensation through NIL or other means is important and overdue. Pretending that the NIL deal is worth more than the degree, however, is incorrect for the vast majority of student-athletes. That said, when the broadcasters, the big conferences, the lawyers, and college football fans all seem to believe and sell the NIL narrative, it is way too easy for 17 year old kids to believe the false promises of a recruiter or booster - with no concept of the reality of the stats. Because every 17 year old believes they will be a success - otherwise they would not be the successful athlete that they are. PS - Sorry to rant after Stech so politely stopped his rant. ** Edited by mjfhokie at 5/1/2024, 10:03:16 AM ** Edited by mjfhokie at 5/1/2024, 10:03:57 AM ** Edited by mjfhokie at 5/1/2024, 10:12:55 AM

The courts have played a direct role in everything with restrictions on enforcing NCAA rules, establishing NIL (with no boundaries), and the general unpredictability of rulings and their timing. You could also add individual state legislatures and varying NIL laws being passed to circumvent the few rules that are still in place by ESPN or conferences. I also would questions the schools determining conference affiliation. It may have been true as recently as 10 years ago, but many on this board would say either the Media and/or the Conferences determine who they want. Doors are shut to most schools that are not already in the big conferences. Of course, schools would get to decide if they simply want to drop a sport altogether - not many takers of this approach so far.

See post below. Interesting what it could be mean for FSU & Clemson. Of course, it is as speculative as all click bait - but at least it is not just the daily Big 12 fans talking.

then they certainly have the viewership numbers for ACC and other league networks. Is it simply being kept secret as a tactic or data point that ESPN does not want the ACC to have (or possibly Fox)? Key data in terms of measuring the monetary value of different schools when it come to expansion. It especially hurts the Hokies since we are always the #1 or #2 game on the ACC network. FSU and Clemson get the higher profile ESPN game typically. In addition, our out of conference games with the least interest are the ones that ACC network does not cover, likely because it is known these will have the fewest fans turning in. (see Purdue/VT or Marshall, ODU, etc)

I had not thought about that aspect - it really is a reason to focus on major cites (with NFL franchises) versus the rabid college fan bases. Keep focused on the rabid NFL fan bases. New angle I had not thought of. Good insights.

In following this I keep hearing how streaming is beating cable which was the lynchpin of ESPN's and FOX's revenue streams. I also hear how the SEC is successful with a regional footprint since it focuses on rabid fan bases that actually watch rather than the highest populations areas (which makes a lot of sense). I also see large public universities as having most alumni, funds, and therefore the most eyes following the teams (and how the ACC is weak partially because of the high number of smaller private schools. This all make sense. What I do not understand in the articles/ click bait/ etc is the BIG 10s approach. Why are the rumors that they would be interested in Miami as one of their top 4 or even 2? Georgia Tech (call it a smaller public school) also gets mentioned in these articles. The argument is always that the BIG wants to be in the south Florida and Atlanta markets as if the model is still a cable based/ population focused market. It is in the vein of their adding Rutgers a few years ago. Why does the BIG seem to focus more on the large cities which seems the opposite of the SEC? It also seems to run counter to the "streaming beating cable" argument.

You ignore the four Ivys as well as NDSU (Go Bison - my Dad's alma mater) and three Division 3 programs, VT is #18. If you sort by Winning Percentage, the Hokies are #46 overall and #19 for the P5 schools. When looking at the top 75 using total wins, there are 11 SEC (of 16) and 13 BIG schools (of 18). This includes the latest expansion with TX, OK, USC, UCLA, OR and WA. My favorite though - Miami (of Ohio) is #42 compared with Miami FL at #69. ** Edited by mjfhokie at 4/10/2024, 10:01:21 AM

Apparently some NIL organizations have been classified as 501c3 already. Multiple ways it can affect VT. If Tech's NIL collective does not have tax deductible option why would I put my money there when I can get some deduction credit from Hokie Club? How does that affect encouragement from athletic department toward NIL instead of traditional scholarships and facilities? The issue of taxes impacts both the donor and the player side. Most comments below involve the player side. Also, how does it affect competitiveness if some NIL collectives are 501c3 and others are not? Is there any way to know what universities have NIL through 501-c3 and which do not? Does VT's Triumph or other have 501-c3 status? All of that said, I agree with the sentiment that football is hard to justify for any tax deduction (including possibly Hokie Club)? Legal fees and the IRS may start to eat up all donations before this is all settled.

Interesting article on how IRS is starting to weight in on NIL collectives. Initial opinions from IRS are that NIL collectives should not have tax exempt status (despite many already having been grants 501C3 status). If this would go through what are the implications going forward? If the NIL is not tax exempt, are the payments to student athletes subject to taxes? How is NIL funded if not via collectives? Is the only out in this case that players are employees? Could this apply to college athletic departments also? What are the Title IX implications? At what point do smaller colleges simply decide not to pursue athletics? This thing just keeps getting messier.

So much for Louisville being a dominant basketball add to the ACC.

Lots fo discussion here about strength of Big 12 versus ACC and who is stronger if/when BIG and SEC split off. What has surprised me is the opinion from so many is that the Big 12 is/will be better than ACC as a conference. That said, how/why does ACC get a better allocation of the recently negotiated CFP payoff? Going into the next round of realignment, it is still up for debate as to which is stronger as alternative to the P2 - at least from the eyes of ESPN. from Yahoo sports: "The Big Ten and SEC will combine to earn about 58% of the CFP’s base distribution (29% each). The figure would greatly exceed the ACC and Big 12’s combined distribution number, which is expected to be around 32%. The ACC will get 17.1% while the Big 12 receives 14.7%. The remaining amount (roughly 10%) will be distributed to Notre Dame and the 64 Group of Five teams."

The question was asked way back when the lawsuit was first announced, but my recollection is that there was no clear cut answer. Has there been any info dug up since then regarding this question. In my simple mind, I see why the SEC states would be supportive of this, but I would think both Tech and UVA would have been for more "managed" use of NIL. Or is it because we want a more "managed" approach with the athletic department having more control of the process. Of course, the Virginia AG may have his own reasons, but for something affecting so many fans/voters there is inevitably a political impact. That said, reading the comments on the board, general conversation is concern about what this means for college football - especially for the non-P2 schools.

How do you schedule 17 teams fairly for football- even if you go to 9 or 10 games? Without divisions there is some expanded flexibility, but still a challenge. Not sure how the odd number works overall. Would not be an easy job. Would allow for one non-conference game every week as there would always be a bye (similar to the basketball schedule). As a fantasy football commish, I can only say that odd numbers only cause problems - unless full round robin. 8 ACC games/yr: Play 7 for 2 years, and the other 7 for 2 years plus 1 rival? - only play 15 teams in 4 year stretch? Play 8 for 2 years, and the other 8 for 2 years - no rivals? 9 ACC games/yr: Play 7 for 2 years, and the other 7 for 2 years plus 2 rivals every year? - likely works? 10 ACC game/yr - Play 6 for 2 years, and the other 6 for 2 years plus 4 rivals every year? - likely works and keeps more rivalries going --------------------------------------- And does 18 team basketball simply go to 1 game each team (17 games) plus maybe 3 rivals (if any)? Much easier.

What if the sixth game was always Stanford?

Then is this rumor simply a way for the SEC to bait the BIG into joining them in splitting up the ACC? Assuming that each league wants a "limited" expansion beyond 16 each, they likely both prefer 4 new teams to 8 teams or larger. With the current rumor being spread, the SEC makes it known they are interested in UNC and UVA - the 2 first options of the BIG in the southeast for market size, new but contiguous states, and "academics" (although I would say UNC's academic scandal ranks up there with the worst of the SEC). The SEC also knows that those 2 schools would strongly prefer the BIG to the SEC. Therefore, throw up the rumor and get the BIG to start making offers to ACC schools. Very quickly you are at 6-8 teams wanting to leave the ACC and having options to leave. The combined effort of the SEC and BIG then results in the GOR (supposedly) blowing up. In this scenario, I see the SEC grabbing FSU and Clemson (per the rumor & who they want) and then settling for VT and NCSU - when the BIG offers UVA and UNC. They would agree NCSU was their 2nd NC target (but know that UNC is unlikely). They also get VT - the more SEC like school - especially when it comes to football. So where does the BIG end up? They take UNC and UVA (which they definitely prefer) and then get selective. Force ND to make a decision first and then grab one to three of the AAU schools left - GT, Miami and/or Duke. All three are smaller, private universities that only fit into the SEC because Vandy needs a partner. (and Vandy is not moving any needles in this process, in fact they only hope that the next iteration in 10 years isn't dropping/ demoting some schools from the BIG and SEC). In addition, it sounds like Miami is on the outs because Florida is already allowing FSU to join within their state. If it goes beyond 20 in each conference, then I see the PAC/Big 12 teams moving (as well as whoever is left in the Big East alumni). After all, they can be picked off 1 or 2 at a time - no minimum number of schools needed to break their GOR or league loyalties. ** Edited by mjfhokie at 7/7/2022, 6:35:33 PM

Does the Supreme Court decision on NIL apply to all tiers? Or by having an option for NIL (i.e., if good enough to warrant NIL deal, HS players & transfers can always decide to go to a Tier 1 school) can the Tier 2 schools play by the old school rules (i.e. scholarships and some expense money). If so, I could definitely see a Tier 2 that may even include some of the academically focused schools (& fans) wanting to be in Tier 2.