a few of the articles or podcasts is that moving forward, the "brands" of the past is not enough to carry schools into the future without the underlying money needed for the athletic budget, but more importantly, the NIL money or the ability to pay the top players. Things seem to be evolving, but the top "brands" continue to bring in the eyeballs, and it doesn't seem to matter how they perform on the field. Remarkably for example, Nebraska continues to bring in ratings, fans, selling merchandise, money, and they have done a thing since they were added to the BIG. If FSU and or Miami end up in the P2, USF becomes indispensable for the Florida market. While there are many spouting off that there are better schools (brands) to add assuming the ACC implodes, I don't think there are any guarantees that the ACC won't figure things out, even if they lose some top schools. TT, Utah, and Kansas have all recently announced extreme capital infusion into their programs in the B12. I watch with interest on which schools in the B12 and ACC do the same. So far, VT is the only non blue blood that have made long term institutional changes in their funding model. Texas schools may all be able to do it with "oil" money, and Utah went the PE rout. Schools like K-State, Iowa State, WVU, Cincy, and others are scrambling to find the kind of money it will take to compete. USF seems to be finding the money somewhere, and based on their history, it's pretty surprising to me anyway.