...would be a very funny bit, I have to admit.

per conference. Nobody needs to watch a team that had a losing conference record.

Now, we are letting teams in that have losing records in their conference? I think I'll pass on that idea.

the entire SEC got in last year. If there is going to be more money involved, and there will be when the next contract comes up, why in the world would they water down the payouts by expanding the field? 64 is a good number for basketball.

athletics interesting. The Big 10 is bad enough, but the preening, prawning, and whining from the SEC about not getting their way at all times is on another level.

teams? I have no doubt we are headed there, and that’s why the talking heads keep saying UNC and UVA are top targets for P2 expansion.

They aren't KU, UNC, or Duke. It's more about UVa's connection to UNC, their academic reputation, and perhaps in general, getting into the state while having a preference of UVa a bit more so over VT. And if anything, it might also be their overall athletic programs in non-revs. But I don't think any P2 president is sitting there thinking, we might go to 76. Better grab the Hoos.

16, where it doesn’t go to the NCAA and is paid to the schools and conferences, that’s a money changer. I heard Former ESPN President John Skipper and Former Fox Sports CEO Bob Thompson say college basketball is way underrated for up coming money. They both run influential consulting firms and hired a lot of the people in charge of both ESPN and Fox Sports. I would not underrate their opinion on where this is going for money on basketball. PS This is about money, the other sports and academics is a smoke screen, got to go with Pylons on this one. Because if that mattered most, Stanford would dwarf both of those schools and they aren’t even mentioned, and the B1G took Oregon and Washington over them. Actions speak louder than words. ** Edited by Stech at 2/26/2026, 12:34:37 PM

more SEC and Big 10 teams in the field.