is that it became popular largely due to sports gambing there are millions of degenerate gamblers in the US and getting action on Miami(OH) vs U of Ohio makes the game watchable to the degen. If you create the mini NFL, the gambling will be very difficult just like it is on NFL games. There is a much larger arbitrage opp to the degen on less covered games(published line vs final score), just like meme stocks create activity for a certain class vs the people buying MSFT. I am certain ESPN will f*** this whole thing up, as they are the same company that can't make money anymore on Marvel movies, which is a license to print money.

then 3 divisions of 12 ish in the mid (ACC/B12/PAC) level. IMO the whole point of this realignment has been and is to shrink the number of teams at the highest level. Then I think big media has realized there is still a profitable level of viewers to be reached below the top level. I also think the P2 understands they need a higher than G5 level of play from which to get portal players and to provide coaches etc. Again just my opinion but this is the way things have been going since the first domino of Texas and OU to the SEC.

mountain and pacific time zones. In a 32 team league, probably need at least 4 more teams in those zones to have reasonable coverage and maintain fan interest. also note 32 NFL teams play 272 regular season games plus some preseason. 32 college teams can play a max of 192 regular season games against each other and there are no preseason games. Current P2 can't generate enough content or sufficiently cover the time slots for college, the number of teams at the highest level needs to be well into the 40's, imo

ESPN currently owns the media contracts for: CFB playofff 90% of bowl games 80% of conferences 80% of national champion teams over the past decade 5 tv channels that are on most cable packages (ABC, ESPN, 2, U, News) Fox, CBS and NBC are not threats to their cfb monopoly. Not even remotely. ESPN will funnel who they want to the P2 and it really doesn’t matter if they directly own them because they will still benefit from the big brands through OOC made for tv matchups, bowl games, playoffs, and talking about them on their many air time filler programs. ** Edited by HokieAl at 3/7/2025, 8:24:17 AM

Much smaller, we could even see schools like Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Mississippi State and Purdue kicked out of the P2. He says that, but then says his sources tell him UVA, will be included, but not Virginia Tech because of their all sports success. I know All Sports cost money, football makes money, but his media contacts say that doesn’t matter this time. 🤷‍♂️ He also seems to think even though the SEC Presidents have changed their minds before about expansion schools, he gave me the impression in our Subscription post conversation there is little chance of any of this changing. I tried to get him to be more specific with what he was saying, but he said my questions were irrelevant because the P2 plan to have very little expansion because they want to hog (my description of it) the money. If he’s right, our Administrations lack of leadership in Athletics once again, and Virginia Tech is screwed like it was in the early 50’s for joining the ACC. Whit and Jim Phillips love to embrace the past (ie Notre Dame Independence) and if Andy’s got it right, it’s the early 50’s all over again, where we missed out on joining the ACC. That took ~50 years to correct. I hope he’s wrong, but he’s dug in very hard on this, with very few of my questions answered, except they don’t care UVA doesn’t make football money, the P2 are only going to take about 4 more schools, and our politicians in Virginia working together won’t matter. Lastly, I asked him more than once why Hokie83 was hearing almost the opposite more optimistic view, and he acted like I never asked the questions. Honestly I expected more from someone that makes a living getting people to open up, but it became obvious, I wasn’t going to get anymore out of him. I’m not angry at him, I’m disappointed since he expects more from those he interviews, than he gave me. You come to your own conclusions what it all means.

B1G presidents wanted Cal/Stanford. TV said no. Let the dust settle after the House settlement finalizes and see where we are in 3 years. I do wish we had a competent AD during this time. Whit hiring Pry and two first time coordinators should have been grounds for dismissal. Don’t get me started on Ballein being the number 2 in our AD when his resume reads “Beamer Henchman” and having no dedicated fundraiser. But hey, at least Whit gets to golf at BCC and the locals enjoy having coaches that look and talk like them.

"expert" on any expansion. He has his views, it's his journalistic right to come to his conclusion, but it doesn't make him Kreskin. It's all about viewers and only football and basketball bring in those advertising dollars.

From VT leadership on the state of athletics at VT . What will it take or just tell us it's not part of our mission. Poor leadership and the malaise at the Tech is inexcusable.

The academic alliance is strong in them. It is a luxury of the haves that they can and will keep longstanding members. I'm not sure why people keep repeating this about them kicking out members. As long as the B1G and the SEC are bringing in big bucks, they aren't kicking out members. They won expansionpalooza and for at least a generation or so, they will reap the rewards of it, including keeping members who we deem as less worthy than us.

That B1G Academic Alliance (formerly CIC) certainly did some good marketing though. The big thing was quoting total research dollars and letting people think it was all money generated from the alliance when in reality it was just the sum of research expenditures of all the members...practically none of which had anything to do with the alliance. Academic alliances associated with athletic conferences do only very minor things in the grand academic scheme. But I agree no one's getting kicked out.

The school dropped football in 1939, but reinstated the program in 1969. It is worth noting that Chicago was a member of the CIC until the mid-2010s which I think was about the same time the Big Ten rebranded the CIC into the Big Ten Academic Alliance. There may even be a connection between the two events.

schools out; now I think unequal revenue sharing at first and then ultimately some kind of super league (NFL lite) is more likely.

athletes a salary? If not and the Big Ten votes to go down that path, then what happens to the schools who don't want to pay them?

But all of them will have the TV money to compete. But I can't see them kicking out Northwestern.

leave on their own accord, it may be semantics. The public perception may still be that "the conference kicked out the school(s) who didn't want to pay their athletes." There is even a possibility that there may be two camps within the group of schools who want to pay their athletes; one camp wants to pay for all athletes and the other camp who only wants to pay for certain sports. I guess there could even be a third camp if you wanted to include the club sports too.

People in the media, podcasters and posters are acting like a super league is near and that the B1G and SEC traditional bottom feeders are getting kicked out. None of them have any evidence of course, but it doesn't stop them from spewing their conjecture. If a school, like Northwestern, wants to pull a University of Chicago, that's totally different. But I don't think Northwestern is dropping nearly a billion dollars into the renovation of Ryan Field to drop out of the top tier of the sport.

The reason Northwestern can invest that money into the stadium upgrades is because they don't have to worry about that additional cost. If Northwestern was paying its athletes (and I am talking about all of its athletes...not just football and basketball), then it may not have been willing to make that kind of investment in the facility upgrades. It is likely the Big Ten and SEC have a few members that are riding this gravy train for as long as they can. How long they remain on the train is TBD because no one knows what future cost these schools will have to take on in order to "compete at the highest level" regardless whether it is in the NCAA, a new association, or even a pro league. I do think schools like Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota, Indiana, and Purdue may not be in a position to be able to absorb a sudden increase in cost as some of the other Big Ten members. Particularly if the courts are the source for this sudden increase.

But one thing I am certain of, they aren't going to be called into the Big Ten office and told to bring their playbook. They aren't getting kicked out.

What you need to now watch is the hires UVa makes for MBB. Potential football soon. Possibly WBB very soon. VT in my opinion is always way behind. Never proactive.

They all know people in important spots, but even those people are speculating.

It's been that way for just about 100% of the expansions. All seem to come out of left field except maybe Oregon & UW.

but even he said we are looking at around 2030 for the decision. That's 5 years away, so much will change in 5 hours these days, much less in 5 years. ** Edited by Stech at 3/7/2025, 1:52:55 PM

he, and anyone else that parrots the tired "UVA is P2 bound, and VT will be left behind!" line of BS doesn't know what they're talking about. They act like rich tourists from China show up in LA and Manhattan wearing UVA sweatshirts and Ralph Sampson jerseys. It's a joke. Nothing in the entire history of conference realignment, nor any real life, practical evidence indicates that's correct. In fact, it's the exact opposite, if anything. The truth pretty much lies in the middle, like it usually does - most casual observers outside of the immediate catchment areas for the respective schools couldn't tell you the difference between UVA and VT, because they don't care. When you combine that with the objective fact that even UVA students and alumni don't watch UVA football, and that UVA is half the size of VT, meaning less sure-thing consumers of the product (and, again, UVA students and alumni are apathetic about UVA football) rolling off the assembly line every year, that tired narrative is laughable, and should be put to bed. If one is moving "up" to the exclusion of the other, it won't be UVA.

is inevitable. But at this point it might take 10+ years to shake out. First they'll force those schools to accept a lower payout, in the model of the ACC's reverse Robin Hood plan.

said that an ideal outcome would be 30 teams in a super league structure. If anyone's gonna have some inside dope its that guy.

TV ratings, period. Otherwise you just don’t have enough numbers to generate the money. I know if Virginia Tech gets left out of the P2 the P2 will lose a lot of eyeballs/money. I love UVA too, but watching them get mauled in football by the SEC is not going to get eyeballs in the state of Virginia. They are sadly mistaken if they think that.

they would post it; they'd be the Woodward/Bernstein of sports and set for life. I think there will be some consolidation but I think Andy's number is too low because colleges can't play as many games as the NFL. Today I'd say the low number is in the 40's...maybe 48? IMO, the two substantial items that have happened or come to light the last couple of weeks are that (1) there is a path out of the ACC for anyone that wants it bad enough; and (2) the two highest rated college football games in the last two decades had teams on the west coast participating (USC and Oregon). They may not be as football crazy as the south and midwest, but there are lots of eyeballs and wallets out there.

** Edited by Stech at 3/7/2025, 9:54:26 AM