So do you think the Power Hungry 2, will destroy College Football?!?!?!
Or do you think the 8 other Conferences will finally stop playing scared đąđŦ, and show some courage and stand up against them?
89 Replies
Cause of P2, NFL pulls so far ahead, whole thing becomes jocular
(In response to this post by Stech)
V
VTCALS72
1y
Isn't it really like 10 restaurants close together and most of the business goes to only 2? It really does not matter whether it is the glitter, better food or just the "cool" factor, If 2 are really all that is needed then what is there to "stand up to?"
(In response to this post by Stech)
Remember "The Alliance"?
That was an attempt to "stand up against" the SEC and Texas.
It lasted about ten seconds.
The P2 has the power now. And it needs to be more than just non-P2 ADs and commissioners standing up to it. Fans in the end need to do that with their dollars and viewship, and I am not certain that will happen. And the government has been feckless in all of this, too.
And WRT the non-P2s refusing to play them and start their own league, I think the P2 would say, "Go ahead, make my day." They'd love this I think.
Now, in my opinion, this is all bad for the sport. But those ruining it won't care in the end, nor will they be held accountable.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
I hate what college football has become just as much as anyone else here, but I truly believe that government cannot legislate solutions to problems that the majority does not believe is a problem, or doesn't want to be solved. I agree wholeheartedly that the fans have the power to disrupt the current trajectory, but I also agree that most don't have the backbone to actually follow through with that. I've been trying to do my part - I haven't watched college football since before COVID, and I dropped cable/ESPN. I think others are joining these ranks, but not quickly enough to make a difference yet. My prediction is that by the time the majority of fans finally get fed up, it will be too late, and the business model will crash and burn, which may mean that many schools have to drop down to FCS, or drop football altogether.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
T
Truthahn
1y
The Alliance could easily have broken up the SEC's advantage, had the B10 been sincere wrt their interest in it.
A B12+ACC "Alliance" would be different in that neither is likely to be able to poach from each other as things currently are.
I'd like us to at least set up a scheduling arrangement between the two, and also the PAC. We need to protect each other from the P2 freezing us out, and that is at least a small step in that direction.
I'd also like to see us promote and participate in an NIT-style post season football tournament (with no changes to our involvement in the CFP). That could be structured to have minimal or no involvement from the P2, as they choose, and include all of the other conferences. That would be a big step, IMO, to mitigating power of the P2.
** Edited by Truthahn at 7/2/2025, 1:06:14 PM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
The Big Ten went to the Dark Side really fast.
And so would every school in the ACC and the BigXII as soon as they got a P2 invite.
Also, this same BigXII was a group the ACC didn't even want to work with or invite to the Alliance.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
T
Truthahn
1y
The B10 has always been eager to throw their weight around to keep the others down.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
The ACC and Pac-12 thought that their academic elitism would save them.
It didn't and won't.
Instead of being a force against Texas and the SEC, USC and the B1G just imitated them.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
to save an athletics organization. It's nonsensical. Even if you buy into the ivory tower egghead stereotypes, none of them would see that as logical.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
I agree that it's nonsensical. But what other reason would "the Alliance"
have for NOT inviting the Big XII schools to be a part of their meetings?
(In response to this post by Pylons)
1y
was elitism through and through.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
H
hokieZ71
1y
Go back to when Texas and OU announced they were leaving the Big XII in 2021. Perfect time for the ACC and Pac 12 to pick the carcass clean. ACC could add Baylor, TCU, West Virginia and Cincinnati. Two private Texas schools to fit the private academic model, WVU and Cincinnati to make some rivalry sense with Louisville, VT and Pitt already in the league. 3 new states for ACCN $$$, Texas and Ohio massive states (which made loads more sense 4-5 years ago) Texas and Ohio massive ones loads of rivalries, including dancing partners for Baylor/TCU. (Much more sensible parters than Calford)
The Pac 12 could have added Kansas, Kansas State, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. Elite hoops school, AAU and geographic sense from Kansas down to Texas. Contiguous states could even be argued for the Pac 12. A major branch into the Midwest time zone to get some earlier start exposure for the west coast schools.
And most of all, totally eliminate a competitor conference.
Just hubris from the ACC and Pac 12 that they were insulated and ignorance to preclude them from making a forward thinking move.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
had finished off the B12. The Mountain West as well.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
T
Truthahn
1y
I thought the ACC should have taken OK State and Baylor back then (both were in the top 10), and maybe WVU too, back when the B12 was at eight teams, and then encouraged the PAC to take several more, including maybe BYU or Houston. SMU was not on my radar back then, but they would also have been a good choice for either.
The point of this was to form two major conferences from the three, one east and west, roughly split at Texas.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
survive? If at least 1 member didn't care if the conference survived or not because they were planning their exit strategy, then would the Pac-12 been in a position to pick over any carcass?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
Truthahn
1y
And they paid for it. I think they tried a few years earlier to get four teams from the B12. They did get Colorado and Utah somehow. Without the ACC to pull from the other direction, it did not really work to crush the B12.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
for uneven distributions when the previous contract was written up. I don't think they had any of intentions staying.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
want to define that), then I would think the boat is already rocking and the others in the boat are already looking for their own lifeline wherever they can find it.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
stick together after USCLA left. If they had a few B12 schools, say TT, OSU, Kansas (others?), that media offers would have been much different IMO.
I'm not sure that FSU/Clemson would not have still tried to leave the ACC, but a KU and other institutions already in the ACC would have been a lot better than CalFord and SMU (for future media deals). You guys would be a lot more stable than today, and probably not entertain an uneven distribution that is a death nail (again, my opinion).
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
stick together after USCLA left. If they had a few B12 schools, say TT, OSU, Kansas (others?), that media offers would have been much different IMO.
I'm not sure that FSU/Clemson would not have still tried to leave the ACC, but a KU and other institutions already in the ACC would have been a lot better than CalFord and SMU (for future media deals). You guys would be a lot more stable than today, and probably not entertain an uneven distribution that is a death nail (again, my opinion).
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2
2hhoop3
1y
the commitment that Oregon and UW had to the PAC after it was clear USC/UCLA were intent on leaving. The PAC was a sinking ship and most everyone was looking for a lifeboat.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
Truthahn
1y
They only invited those two because it was clear they would join the ACC along with Stanford and Cal if they had no home in the B10.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
about the commitment of UO and UW to the PAC, not necessarily their desired landing spot. You could be right about the B1G's desire for the two, especially at full price. However, the PAC's precarious stability gave the B1G leverage in negotiating the revenue share the two might and did eventually accept.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
1y
if a media contract was even close to the mid $40's thing might have been different. There are teams in the B12 that would have brought that kind of value. the B12 contract was brought down by adding Cincy, Houston, and UCF in my opinion. I believe the payout per school would have been much better without those three, but hindsight is 20/20. I certainly didn't think the 4 corners would ended up in the B12 when those 3 and BYU were added.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
was extremely narcissistic. They thought their number was $50MM and their number was much closer to $30 just like the ACC and Big 12. Only the B1G and SEC were in the $50MM ballpark at that point. It will be interesting to see the 6/30/25 and 6/30/26 numbers released in the coming years and what for guesses turned out to be in reality.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
OSU, Kansas, and K-State when Texas and Oklahoma aren't apart of the equation. I know Kansas men's basketball has value, but we currently don't live in a basketball world anymore. Do the networks view Kansas basketball as still being on the same level as Duke and UNC basketball?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
bring in the same viewership numbers as KU when you get past playing other blue bloods. UNC does.
I continue to say that those in the Mid Atlantic bubble continue to underestimate the football viewership numbers of the hatefull 8. I understand that many here disagree with me, but the media contract without Texas and OU should do the convincing, not me.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
H
HouClone
1y
Being in the Central time zone allows your mostly conference CST viewers flexibility to watch early morning or late evening games. If you are viewer in the PST (like the Pac), the first national game kicks off at 9 a.m. Ugh. For EST viewers, the late games kick off at 10 p.m. EST. That's rough for most working 8-5 people. I don't have the stat handy but there is something out there where viewers exponentially decline after 10 p.m.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
your viewpoint on KU. If the networks believe KU was still as valuable, then I would have thought ESPN or Fox would have convinced the SEC or Big Ten to add them by now. Don't get me wrong, I still view KU in the same light even though the sparkle may not be as bright as when Roy Williams roamed the sideline. However, I realize I don't cut the checks so my opinion is only worth a hill of beans (if that).
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
They were vetted by the BIG.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
indicate KU's value has decreased in this new landscape of college athletics.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
The Big Ten could decide the new stadium isn't enough to change its conclusions. If the Big Ten isn't interested in KU, then I would enjoy seeing KU in the SEC. It might be the only way to resurrect the Border War.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
being decided by the P2, I really don't have an issue with other schools making more media money than KU. Texas for example, made about a $100M more than those in the B12, before they went to the SEC. There has always been a disparity in income and budgets within college football. Being able to bid up the best players is what needs to be addressed, bot how much a school gets in revenue.
Top to bottom, the B12 has parity, not just in football, but in amounts spent on their annual athletic budgets. You could look at them a like a conference filled with VT type schools, top to bottom. It will make for some very competitive football and basketball moving forward.
I may be an outlier, but I don't want KU to be in the BIG - or especially the SEC. The SEC can have Texas, the B12 is BETTER in spite of them leaving.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
V
VTCALS72
1y
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
1y
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
1y
roll right over? I sincerely hope you don't work in a competitive field. I can't imagine having your attitude and trying to be any sort of businessman or entrepreneur.
Also, your "this is just like running a restaurant" thing is maybe the most off-point metaphor for anything that I have ever seen.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
1y
trying to lead people into fighting windmills.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
this late in the afternoon; it's almost time to watch Andy then have your nap.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
That means local schools across the country need to be in the conversation.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
games, they are going to be almost all SEC or Big Ten football games. The other conferences don't move the needle at all.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
V
VTCALS72
1y
as their best return. That does not necessarily mean greatest return to the media just to hit the point that additional revenues don't come from heavily decreasing returns.
This is not college football trying to better college football, this is the media/advertisers etc. using college football to sell stuff.
If national saturation took what 140 teams, then the pro leagues would have 140 teams. But since the pros don't have but 30 ish, that should be the number to watch.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
1y
From the NFL is school pride with nationwide appeal. There is room for more teams as you have so many schools who produce lifelong loyal fans. I care what Alabama does when I believe that VT has a chance to beat them. Without that, I couldnât care less about a semipro team from Alabama. This is what the P2 are missing - they will lose their popularity when the majority of college fans donât have any real skin in the game. Itâs boring and pushing me to the actual pro league that now has more player loyalty and a much more level playing field.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
in a conference with JMU and Liberty.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
V
VTCALS72
1y
A man (school, conference) has got to know their limitations. I mean who doesn't really know that the odds are great that VT ends up in a conference with JMU and Liberty or some level between those and the P2? Not only that but VT has no more control over our own destiny than Washington St and Ore St had when the PAC exploded.
I mean really what can VT or any non anointed school really proactively do right now?
Give specifics, not about "building coalitions" or just win baby, stuff that depends on scores of other schools, but just what VT can really do to move the needle from right where we are?
Your view seems to be that of a desperate contractor who pushes his bonding limits on contract that the odds are he can't fulfill but will barr him from bidding on stuff he could win and be successful at.
And you keep sticking your head in the sand thinking this is just about VT, that somehow we are a P2 program trapped by our own ineptness. Yet about 100 programs are in the exact same place we are. It is not about VT, it is about the bigger picture designed to limit the top level to maybe 3 dozen teams.
** Edited by VTCALS72 at 7/2/2025, 10:46:36 AM
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
field any time the spread said you weren't favored to win. I can hear your speech to the team..."Why try, men? We have to know our limits!" I think it's time for you to have some warm milk and tune out of the conversation, friend.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
S
saret
1y
"...somehow we are a P2 program trapped by our own ineptness." While not the only contributing factor, our ineptness is contributory.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
what they want. That definitely doesn't help anyone outside the P2, but I don't think it's destroyed. It's just different, and not in a good way.
(In response to this post by Stech)
The answer is simpleâĻ.Donât schedule the P2 & donât participate in playoff
Remaining conferences can set up their own playoffs. P2 will capitulate.
(In response to this post by Stech)
T
Truthahn
1y
You can't really call the winner of the SEC/B10 CFP the true national champion. It leaves open the possibility of the NCAA coming in with another CFP that really would have more of a petigree. If two CFPs existed, it would only be a matter of time before the NCAA one produced an arguably better champion, just like the old NIT and NCAA tournaments. After that, the P2 CFP would have to join the others. The NCAA should do this asap, devoting a bunch of NCAA BB tournament money to make it good.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
Of course notâĻ.The ADs, presidents and the BOT/BOVs are sheepâĻ..
(In response to this post by HokiesACC2004)
1y
the other conferences have, but refuse to use. They'd rather eat the turd sandwiches the SEC and Big 10 are serving up for them over and over and over. You always hear how all these guys running these conferences and athletic departments all have big egos, etc., but I don't believe it. I think they're all a bunch of scared money wimps who are afraid of a scrap.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
1y
While I agree in theory that refusing to schedule the P2 *might* give the remaining leagues some leverage, you would need nearly everyone outside the P2 to agree to it in unison. Good luck with that.
Do you think Clemson would agree to stop playing South Carolina ? FSU would stop playing UF? GT would refuse to play UGa,? What if the state legislatures get involved and dictate they all continue to play?
It would also be pretty easy for the P2 to break the union, so to speak, by offering more money to the G6's to come play them.
ACC and Big 12 won't play us? Fine, we'll just bump up the payouts to the MAC and Sun Belt schools to entice them instead. Not to mention the P2 could just agree to schedule more games against each other.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
to do their own thing, you cast the blame on them, and you frame everything they do as illegitimate outside the purview of those leagues. There will no longer be a nationally unified anything. It's not a difficult concept.
Yes, the idea would be for ACC and Big 12 teams to ice the P2 teams out, including rivals. Why would the mid major leagues agree to help the SEC and Big 10? What are they ultimately going to get out of it? They've already been paying those teams to come to their stadiums and lose games for decades - where did that get them? Exactly where they are. All they've got their entire existence is shat upon by them.
(In response to this post by cburgroop)
1y
There is a reason the most valuable brands are consolidating. No one is paying top dollar for a playoff without the P2.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
I don't care what anyone says/thinks, the SEC and Big 10 alone are not worth as much as the SEC and Big 10 are in the context of a national sanctioning body of leagues that all get along to go along. The very second the "national championship" designation becomes de-legitimized, it's worth less. That's the idea. That's the leverage. And that's just in the context of football - the idea would be to freeze them out of everything, not just football.
(In response to this post by Red Hokie)
H
hokieZ71
1y
Just go look at the lists of teams in each league within the âP4â.
USC, Washington, Rutgers and Maryland in the same league.
UCF, West Virginia, Arizona State, Utah in the same league.
Syracuse, Miami, SMU and Stanford in the same league.
Yay, Boise State finally hit the bigtime and got the call up to the Pac 12. Now they get to play Texas State in a league match. WTF?
None of it makes much sense outside the SEC. And you know what? That just makes me hate the SEC the most.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
Truthahn
1y
Texas State is in the middle of the county, in the huge Austin/San Antonia TV market. It is about the same flying to CA as to VA from there. They are swapping neighbors Louisiana and ULM for Colorado State. It is about the same travel cost, IMO. Their vastly improved home PAC schedule will bring in the fans, too. Texas State fans must be thrilled.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
top of the food chain. Whereas Texas State is looking to move up it. If Texas State's ultimate end goal is to someday end up in a more geographic friendly Big XII, then it is highly unlikely that Texas State could achieve that goal remaining in the Sun Belt. That means Texas State's only option is to join either the MWC or Pac-12 while assuming C-USA really isn't an option because it is a shell of its former self. Given who the Pac-12 has added recently, I think even you would agree the Pac-12 is a stronger conference than the MWC.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
1y
making a lateral move by moving from one BCS/power conference (ACC) to join another BCS/power conference (Big Ten). Whereas the Sun Belt has never been considered a power conference at any time. At least by joining the Pac-12, Texas State is taking 1 step closer to joining a power conference. Even if the P2s end up doing their own thing, there is a good possibility that the Pac-12 will be considered a power conference among the conferences left. Can the same thing be said about the Sun Belt?
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
1y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
embraced being the SEC Lite and the MAC may not have fully embraced being the Big Ten lite. Including any relationship the 2 conferences have with their respective "parent" conference. Second, the Sun Belt may be located in the part of the US that is currently seeing a higher growth rate than the part of the US where the MAC is located (including UMass). If that is correct, then logically the networks could view the Sun Belt as having a higher ceiling in terms of "value" than the MAC. There may be others, but those are the first 2 that came to my mind.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
them as an example that like the MAC, they are a G5 conference with no real candidates for the power conferences.
The MAC was considered the little brother of the BIG long before the Sun Belt even existed as a solid G conference. That got them nothing over the decades, so SEC light doesn't really do much for me.
The Sun belt does however, have better potential with their geography, and some of their fan bases. Personally, I think the MAC is dead. maybe with 6 G5 FBS schools in State, Ohio, and 3 in Michigan, they always were. It's not the 90's any more, and the amount of FCS schools that have moved up in the last 20 years is staggering, and has diluted the rosters on all of the G5 schools significantly, and there are just too many mouths to feed when it comes to media exposure, and media dollars.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
IMHO, the Sun Belt has improved the most among the G-5's.
I actually enjoy watching some of their conference football games. The Sun Belt has been proactive, not so with the MAC. C-USA has fallen the most among the G-5's and the AAC is getting weaker by the year. MWC has taken a major hit due to the fall of the old Pac-12. The Sun Belt looks like they want to be the #1 football conference among the G-5 unless the PAC is now considered a G-5 or G-6 conference.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
to get the media dollars, they will try and pick off more Sun Belt schools. The PAC as well, as it comes down to the media dollars.
The MAC and Conference USA probably need to fold with the better programs absorbed by the "G4" That comes with a heavy heart with the MAC, but the reality is, there are too many FBS schools already, and only a few of the MAC schools have actually invested in their athletic programs over the years.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 7/3/2025, 11:10:44 AM
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
1y
football-only member and Horizon League for all other sports, might be the only MAC "candidate" who could eventually end up in a power conference someday. As far as whether the MAC is dead or not, I am not sure at this point because I do think there is a place within DI athletics for regional conferences like the Horizon League, Summit League, Southland, Southern, MAAC (not to be confused with the MAC), NEC, West Coast, Big West (which BTW is essentially a CA conference), and Big Sky. If you compare the MAC's footprint to those conferences, then you will see there really isn't much of a difference between them.
I will say conversations seem to get too focused on power conference vs. G conference vs. DI-FCS conference which I get from a historical perspective. However, given the recent significant changes to college athletics, people may be referencing an archaic model. The schools may end up deciding that the paying of athletics vs. opting out may be enough for DI schools to create their own division level. At the very least it should be the cleanest way to move forward given that fans will start to see more DI athletic contests between schools who pay their athletes vs. schools who have opted out. If a new division level is created, then there may no longer be a need for football to have 2 subdivisions. Particularly if more schools are looking for ways to save money/cut cost.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
I would say just the opposite. All of those FCS schools that have made the leap to FBS have exponentially increased their football investments (expenses). Currently, there are more on the precipice of joining a FBS conference.
That does not sound like there are many that are seriously considering "opting out".
Over 1/2 of the MAC should move down to FCS.
Northern Illinois never, ever, produced the Chicago market in viewership. While they, like others, have potential, their facilities are woefully inadequate. Toledo has the best facilities in the MAC, the best viewership numbers, and close to a G5 blueblood status - yet they have been rejected by the AAC. Toledo and Marshal were to go together.
Toledo had an invite to be a founding member of conference USA back in the day. The president at the time was an "education first" president, and did not support athletics. Private donors kept that program alive. For years they thought the next reshuffling of conferences would get them a Big east/AAC invite, yet it has never materialized, and may not ever.
Toledo, Ohio, Miami, and possibly Buffalo are all candidates to move to a better conference, but the AAC has and is looking South. In addition, AAC members like Memphis and Tulane are looking for an ACC invite if the dominos fall in that direction.
In 2030, or there abouts, when there is another reshuffling of the conferences, I see the AAC, Sunbelt, PAC, Mountain West, and the MAC making moves. With such a concentration in two states, Ohio and Michigan, the MAC will never command the type of media contract that will keep it competitive with the Sun Belt, or the top two G5 conferences for that matter. It's my contention that Conference USA will fold, or just be the new FCS turned FBS conference. Call it the new MAC or Conference USA, it won't matter, as the leftovers of those two conferences will be at the bottom of the rung.
The better schools in the Sunbelt and MAC will either join the PAC or the AAC. The Mountain West could be a stepping stone, but their new contract comes next year, and if they lose their court cases, and UNLV bolts - it's all over for them as well. They will not get a contract to compete with the new PAC, which will add other media partners in the coming weeks or months.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
DI-FBS is the school MUST receive an invitation to join an existing DI-FBS conference. Liberty received a hardship waiver from the NCAA for religious reasons and in part because it is a private school. The NCAA recently denied Sacramento State's request to switch to DI-FBS without a formal invitation from an existing DI-FBS conference. I wasn't surprised by that decision because Sacramento State is a public school and public schools will have an extremely difficult time satisfying any of the hardship waiver criteria.
WRT your comment that more schools are "opting in," a factor you may not be considering is a lot of these moves were announced prior to the recent court ruling. It may become an important factor because schools may not have an idea of the true cost that comes with "opting in." As of today, the Ivy League, the three military academies, Montana, and NE-Omaha are the only DI schools to "opt out" at this time. Even though the deadline has already passed, I do think over time we will see more schools change their mind because it will become too costly for them to sustain it over a long period of time. Also, the recent court ruling did not completely settle the Title IX issue, which is still the giant elephant in the room, and could force schools to rethink their position on this issue. Plus, there is a minimum participation requirement to justify having multiple subdivisions. If either subdivision's numbers drops down to a certain number, then consolidation may not be an option. Since there is still a lot of unknowns/moving parts, it may be hard to reach any definitive conclusions in this dust storm.
One reason I thought Northern Illinois has the potential is DeKalb is a suburb of Chicago. I don't think Northern Illinois' value can really be determined based on its time in the MAC because the conference is...well...the MAC and all the perceptions that come with it. If Northern Illinois does well in the MWC, then I do think there is potential for at least the perception of Northern Illinois' "value" to change. If Northern Illinois is perceived to be more valuable, then it could mean they are more attractive to conferences like the ACC, Big XII, or Pac-12 who want to have a physical presence in Illinois/Chicago market for whatever reason. At least I think Northern Illinois sees the move to the MWC as a potential stepping stone to something better in the future. Particularly when factoring in the unknowns/moving parts.
Link:
Click Here
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
sense dictates that many of the G5 should opt out. Being FBS is extremely important for many in the G5, and while I know Pylons disagrees, I have been told that it does indeed help enrollment and donations to the academic side. Maybe not so much when you get into the realm of top academic universities, but the competition is fierce when you get down to the MAC level. Akron, Kent State, Bowling Green, Eastern Michigan, and probably the entire lot will fight to maintain their FBS programs. We all know that those programs will never be able to produce a sustained football program that will be competitive, but there are more things involved than just the expense/income ratio of the athletic departments.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
is important. Particularly since they are part owner of the FBS Playoffs LLC and receive an "ownership" cut of the money generated by that non-profit organization. At least I believe that is how the BCA LLC, BCS LLC, and FBS Playoffs LLC have been registered for tax purposes. If at some point in the future all the FBS conferences and Notre Dame are no longer "owners" of this non-profit organization for whatever reason, then will the Gs places the same importance that they do now?
I do think at some point the Big Ten and SEC could announce in the future they will be leaving the FBS Playoffs LLC when the current contract (or future contract) expires to form their own non-profit organization. Now the remaining FBS conferences and Notre Dame could choose to keep the FBS Playoffs LLC going without the P2 participation. It is not clear at this time if they would though given the money from their playoffs will likely not be as valuable as the P2 Playoffs or whatever name the P2s want to call their organization and playoffs. It may even be an opportune time to consider consolidating with the DI-FCS and let the NCAA, which already runs the DI-FCS Playoffs as the NCAA DI Playoffs, deal with the headaches that come with organizing and administering the post season.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
the P2 breaking off, and have their semi pro league. Let them compete on the pay for play free agency of NIL, and lets be done with it once and for all.
They would no doubt be able to command a solid media deal for their regular and post season. That being said...
If (as discussed a few times on this board), the ACC, B12, all the G5, and division one basketball conferences had their own association (NCAA is OK), distributed the monies in a more equitable fashion so students athletes all get paid, and more importantly, and education, I think they too would command a hefty media deal for their regular and post season. I think that they could find a pathway to anti trust, and get back to the "business" of college athletics.
Some institutions will want to be in the P2 (I say let them), and some in the P2 may opt not to be. As long as the top athletes have a pathway to transfer to the P2, and make the big bucks, I think it could be a win win.
The basketball tournament would not suffer without the P2, I think it would thrive. A football playoff in the mold of the basketball tournament that pays out by conference championships as well as at large invites like basketball does, would also thrive IMHO.
Personally, I would rather KU not opt in for the P2, but money is funny.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
meetings are still ongoing to the best of my knowledge. Some of those decisions may be delayed to give everyone time to see how something plays out in the courts and/or Congress. Given that all three division levels are represented on the committee, we could see the schools make a few surprising decisions. Once the schools have a better idea on the new NCAA org structure, it may become more obvious to outsiders where things are likely to fall into place. I don't think the schools have established a firm deadline on when everything needs to be in place, so I won't be surprised if they slow play things for as long as they can.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
separate, and lose their golden goose (college athletics).
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
too. As the P2s continue to take a larger slice of the FBS Playoffs pie, there likely comes a point where they will decide they want ALL of the money. Once they cross that threshold, separation may be inevitable. The opt in vs. opt out may even force the separation hand too. Particularly if each side is playing by a different set of rules (i.e. eligibility window, education requirements, etc.).
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
competitive advantage.
I think the rest of college football, including the B12 and ACC, would be better off separating themselves, rather than waiting for the P2 to "fix" things. They have done enough in my opinion.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
will willingly or unwillingly cross a line that will end up triggering a chain of events. As far as what the ACC, Big XII, and Gs should do, I'm not sure that is an easy question to answer. If a conference or conferences willing decide to leave the FBS Playoffs LLC, then will that conference (or those conferences) make as much (or more) money than what they make being an owner of the FBS Playoffs LLC? If the answer is "no," then they will just have to suck it up buttercup and remain on this train until it reaches the end of the line. The same isn't true for the P2s which is why I thought they would be the first to leave the FBS Playoffs LLC whenever the contract expires. I believe the current contract expires in 2027, so we likely won't see any movement at that time. The same probably won't be true when the next contract is scheduled to expire.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
One doesn't have to use their imagination, it's a done deal.
If I were the PAC, I's sit down with the networks and come up with a deal for football only schools to be invited. I think that may be where we are headed in the future.
Memphis could land their basketball and Olympics it he Big East (don't think that will happen, but anything is possible). UConn would make sense as well as football only if there was an "Eastern division". If both the PAC (football only) and the Big East got the media money so it made sense, I could also see BC, Cuse, and others of the old Big East getting their basketball league together again if the ACC were to falter.
Other schools could make sense as well for football only, but not in the Big East. Look at the time zones, and there are a few schools outside the AAC that might make sense as well. If those schools have a place to park their Olympics, then the travel becomes a non issue. Toledo and Ohio as an example could park their athletic departments in the Horizon, and they would do it for a 1/2 share in a heartbeat. from where I'm sitting, they make as much sense for the PAC as the Bobcats.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)