Cuse, Pitt, WVA, UVA, VT, NCSU, Cincy, UCF, Duke, GT and, drum roll, Vandy, MD and Rutgers when the P2 kicks them out. New Big 12, SMU, TT, TCU, Baylor, Houston, OSU, KU, KSU, Isu, BYU and Northwestern/Nebraska/ Miss St when they get kicked out. PAC also gets to 12 teams with Cal, Stanford, AZ, SZ ST, Colorado, Utah additions That gets the "mid" level to 3 conferences of 12 to 13 teams each. New Big 10 the 14 remaining teams plus UNC and Miami, and holding a spot for ND. .New SEC Add Clemson and FSU. Maybe they take Kansas and drop Vandy and Miss St That puts about 32-34 in the P2, 38 or so in the little p3 and everybody else in G5 or lower. Yeah, just a WAG but I do think we will see some of the lower P2 teams get kicked out as UNC, Clemson, FSU, Miami and ND are added in.

about almost everything, believes the entire conference model is going to implode directly. Since I know most don't pay for The Athletic, and it's not worth paying for anyway, here's the part pertinent to this discussion: "I believe the traditional conference model in football will crumble by the early 2030s. It’s already too unwieldy, and the revenue-sharing era will expose the chasms within conferences between schools that can afford to compete at the highest level and those that can’t. Len Perna, ringleader of the group spearheading a proposed FBS Super League, told me late last year they were targeting 2032. It might not be that exact model, but it will be something that generates even more money and makes more sense geographically." You're always going on about how ESPN and FOX are behind everything and are pulling everyone's strings behind the scenes. If that's actually true, then I imagine something, if not exactly like, relatively like Len Perna's idea is what's ultimately going to win out, because his entire career has been spent in pro sports and the related broadcasting, law, licensing, sales, and marketing. Since Mandel thinks it will happen, it almost definitely won't, but I'll link to the details of Perna's plans below anyway for you to read, if you haven't already.

yields too small of pie slices. I am still holding low 30s for the top level and 36 ish for the 2nd level and well really nothing for the other 50 or so.

put together the concept, who are all in pro sports and TV marketing, are confident that the change in format and removal of the traditional conference paradigm will allow all the participating teams to make more TV money than they're making now. This article is from last Spring, so that means they think it would be more valuable than the current SEC and Big 10 contracts. You should really read the entire thing if you're going to comment.

wants way fewer teams, not more. I think the pro model is being looked as and the pro leagues have somewhere in the low 30s of teams. Now just logically, if 30ish NFL or MLB or NBA teams didn't have the market saturated, more would be added. But 30s is where they are and again, just my opinion but that is about all big media wants for the big leagues.

Again, did you read the article?

is wrong and really has no basis. That is why I pointed out that the pro model is based on 30ish, not 70.

But, I guess you know more than the career pro sports and broadcast marketing guy. Have a wonderful Friday!

not necessarily merit-based, but certainly unequal. I think that's where we're heading as opposed to adding or expelling teams. Just pay some teams less.ACC may actually be ahead on this one.

Seeing Tech Athletics struggling in ACC play and P2 foes . Not sure the commitment there to reach out and ramp up contribution. This Administration continues to struggle to find the successful path forward . Leadership must change for VT be part of the conversations . We cannot be looked as free loaders . I guess we have Enter Sandman . Step it up Hokies!

Too bad it will never happen.

Pac-10 Old order SEC before adding SCar and Ark Old order ACC before adding Miami, et al. SWC Big 8 Big Ten (when it was actually 10 schools) WAC Old Eastern Independents If I could make an executive decision to bring these back in something very close to the previous form, I would.

Remember when FSU joined the ACC in 1992 and won the conference 9 straight years (and 11 of 12 before expansion in 2004)? That’s the risk with round robin. Boring domination at the top by one or two teams. This is where the NFL does it right. Keep the repetitive part small and provide variety so that top teams at least get to beat different opponents each year.

The Pac-10, SEC, Big 8, etc. weren't like that. Also, FSU was always the outlier and not part of the conference culture. And if one dominant team at the top is a problem, then perhaps the ACC pre-FSU invite would have been much better as a round robin conference. BTW, I preferred our Big East round robin schedule to the divisional schedule of the ACC. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 3/7/2025, 1:09:09 AM

They interrupted our 33-year annual series with Miami, as well taking the upstart TechMo Bowl with GT from us. Sorry. Still bitter 😭

Would be fun too. Especially with winners/runners up getting playoff bids.

Remember Arizona and Arizona St were members of the WAC prior joining the Pac-8 in 1978.

I'm not sure 2 the extra conference games are worth giving up the opportunity to challenge yourself against teams from the other conference. Besides, the WAC prior to 1978 would have looked like this: Arizona, Arizona St, BYU, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado St, and UTEP. It would also open up the door to bring back the Big West (CS-Los Angeles, San Diego St, Fresno St, San Jose St, Pacific, UC-Santa Barbara, Long Beach St, CS-Fullerton, UC-Irvine, Utah St, UNLV, and New Mexico St.

And that round robin, rivalries etc is part of the reason I believe we will see the ACC/B12 and PAC at no more than 12 teams each. 32 teams in the P2. 36 teams in that three conference league and everybody else in what we now call the G5.