All businesses attempt to increase market share and exposure. There is a reason why MLB, NFL, NHL continue to expand and look for new markets, as opposed to contract. It pulls in overall viewership and fans. If you are in too few markets, your overall monetization opportunity declines, and you will eventually see far less distributions. However, the problem in NCAAF is that you have conferences that are financially managed independently - and these conferences are more interested in the well being of solely their teams, rather than the product as a whole. To make matters worse, within these exclusive group of teams in a conference you have a flawed equal-rev share model, so the less valuable entities take a higher percentage than they deserve. Should Vanderbilt really get the same as Alabama, or Wake Forest the same as FSU? Tickets and merchandise helps provide some difference, but TV is now the really big contributor now. If teams that draw greater audiences were compensated based on their actual draw/ratings, you would have less movement. While it puts smaller market teams at a disadvantage, they should be at a disadvantage because they don't inject the same value, and they are more easily replaceable. Irregardless of the league, VT shouldn't be compensated on television revenue the same as Ohio State or Texas, but VT shouldn't be compensated the same as Wake Forest or Syracuse. VT may be okay because we are in the middle (or upper middle), but if you're FSU or Texas then you start to inquire about alternatives to increase your pay. At some point in the future if TV contracts shrink, you'll potentially see another breakaway where the Northwesterns and Vanderbilts get left behind or have to take a smaller piece of the pie.