“I put quotes around some of the more potent statements in the article.” Dismantling FTI Study by SEC and Big Ten As a Trustee at University of Louisville and current Chair, I am constantly questioned more about the state of affairs of college Athletics than any other aspect of higher education. Yes, it is a big mess and the current chaos is unsustainable. It is made worse by self-interests by the SEC and Big Ten who put forth their position to purposely stop the debate on reforms-much of which has to occur legislatively. The following are the thoughts and opinions of me, our President Dr. Gerry Bradley, and our athletic director Josh Heird. The FTI study commissioned by the SEC and Big Ten has some significant vulnerabilities. Dismantling their core arguments: The Conflict of Interest Problem This is the elephant in the room and should be the starting point for any rebuttal. The SEC and Big Ten — the two conferences that benefit most from the current fragmented system — hired and paid FTI Consulting to produce this study. “That's like asking Coca-Cola to commission research on whether Pepsi tastes better.” Sankey and Petitti have every incentive to protect the current structure because it preserves their outsized share of the pie relative to the Big 12, ACC, and everyone else. An independent analysis commissioned by Congress or a neutral academic body would carry far more weight. The fact that the commissioners felt compelled to commission this study at all suggests Campbell's argument is gaining traction where it matters — on Capitol Hill. The CFA Historical Comparison Is Deeply Misleading The study's use of the College Football Association era as "proof" that pooling fails is perhaps its weakest argument. The CFA operated in the mid-1980s, before the explosion of cable television, before ESPN became a powerhouse, before streaming existed, and before live sports became the single most valuable commodity in all of media. “Comparing the media landscape of 1984 to 2026 is like comparing horse-drawn carriages to Tesla.” The CFA also wasn't a true pool of all college football — it excluded the Big Ten and Pac-10, and Notre Dame ultimately left to cut its own deal. That's not a failure of the pooling concept; it's a failure of an incomplete, voluntary coalition without legal authority. Campbell's proposal specifically addresses this by seeking a Congressional mandate, not a voluntary arrangement. The NBA Comparison Actually Supports Pooling FTI argues that the NBA's $6.9 billion deal succeeded because it sold smaller packages to more distributors, not because of aggregation. But think about what they're actually conceding here: the NBA collectively pools all 30 teams' rights through the league office and then strategically parcels them out. That is exactly what pooling means. “The NBA doesn't let the Lakers negotiate separately from the Pelicans for national rights.” FTI is essentially arguing that the NBA's pooling strategy worked because of how the pool was managed — which is an argument for smart pooling, not against it. The question isn't whether to pool; it's how to structure the packages once you do. The "136 Teams" Scale Argument Ignores How Packaging Works FTI says managing 136 schools is harder than 30 NBA or 32 NFL teams. But no serious media rights negotiator would sell one giant package of all 136 teams. You'd create tiered packages: a premium tier of marquee football matchups (SEC, Big Ten headliners), a second tier, conference-specific packages, streaming-only packages, regional packages, and so on. The NFL doesn't sell one monolithic package either — it sells separate packages to CBS, FOX, NBC, ESPN, and Amazon. More content to package actually gives you more leverage with buyers and more ways to create competitive bidding, not less. The sheer volume of college football and basketball content is a feature, not a bug, in a media environment starving for live sports. “The "Current Growth Trajectory" Argument Is Self-Serving Math” FTI claims that at current growth rates, conferences will outperform the $7 billion pooling projection on their own. “This conveniently ignores that the current growth trajectory is wildly uneven — it's great for the SEC and Big Ten, and disastrous for everyone else.” The ACC is locked into a deal through the 2030s at rates far below market. The Big 12, despite adding teams, still lags significantly. If you only measure the winners under the current system, of course the current system looks fine. The pooling argument is about maximizing total value across all of college sports, not just for the two richest conferences. FTI is essentially saying "the system works" while half the system is financially drowning. The "Decentralization Preserves Brand" Argument Is Nostalgia, Not Economics The claim that decentralization preserves college sports' unique character is a branding argument masquerading as a financial one. The NFL is the most centralized major sports league in America and also the most valuable. The Premier League centrally sells its broadcast rights and has the most valuable sports media deal in European football. Centralized rights management doesn't erase conference brands or rivalries — Alabama vs. Auburn doesn't become less compelling because a central entity negotiated the TV deal. Fans tune in for the games, not for the conference office that sold the broadcast rights. “The Streaming Era Changes Everything Perhaps the biggest blind spot in the FTI study is that it appears to underweight the transformative impact of streaming.” Tech companies like Apple, Amazon, and Netflix are spending aggressively on live sports. These companies want scale — they want massive content libraries to drive subscriptions globally. A fragmented college sports landscape where you need deals with four or five separate conferences is less attractive to these buyers than a single negotiating partner who can offer a comprehensive package. “The NFL's model of creating competitive bidding among tech giants and traditional networks is precisely what pooling could replicate for college sports.” The Bottom Line “The FTI study reads like a sophisticated defense of the status quo by the parties who benefit most from it. Its strongest arguments actually support smarter pooling rather than no pooling, its historical analogies are anachronistic, and it sidesteps the fundamental question: if centralized rights management is the proven model for every successful professional league in the world, why would college sports be the one exception? The real question Campbell is raising isn't whether pooling is perfect — it's whether the current system, which has led to chaotic realignment, massive inequality, and existential threats to non-revenue sports, is sustainable. The FTI study doesn't answer that.” Sources: SEC, Big Ten study: Pooling TV rights 'dangerously unworkable' - ESPN Billionaire booster says conference commissioners blocking change - ESPN Cody Campbell pushes for Congress to create new entity to save college sports Sports Broadcasting Act May Be Too Archaic to Save College Sports - Sportico SEC, Big Ten study - Washington Post SEC, Big Ten study - WTOP News Want to publish your own Article?