many ways, and can incorporate a different number of teams - but no matter the number, it will smack of a semi pro league. It will not negate the media value of the schools not involved however, and I see it as a hallow threat from the BIG and SEC to bully everyone. Everyone is stuck on revenue, and I think they miss the mark. It's the "free market" of players, and the pay for play system with no limits that is ruining college athletics. here my out - There has ALWAYS been a large chasm between the schools in regards to revenue. Historically, schools like OSU, ND, Texas and some others WAY out earned everyone else for decades and decades long before these conference media contracts came to being. If you look at the link in the previous thread I posted with the NFL operating income, there is a huge disparity between the "rich" NFL teams, and the "not so rich" NFL teams - yet there is parity in the league for many different reasons, but mostly, salary caps and minimums. Since college football could never have a draft, hard minimums and hard caps for player pay could bring that parity, but that can only happen with a central body with revenue sharing and anti trust. I do not have a problem with Texas making more money than KU as an example. They get the ratings, the money, and have spent decades (century) building their brand. Where I draw the line, is that they can now use those riches to buy players. You will never have parity, or a shot of a national title if you can not spend as much as the rich schools - and that is the problem. I'd say all of the B12, and almost all of the ACC do not generate the revenue to compete with the big boys if the criteria is money - and never will. let the athletic departments of Texas and others keep their money and get richer - it's the American way. However, and it's a big however, put hard lines in the sand that they can not outspend any other school in FBS for player salaries. A hard cap if you will. That doesn't mean that a KU, or a VT for that matter, has to spend or play players at the same rate, it just means that they realistically could. If that is coupled with a hard minimum, we could pare down FBS as there are many schools in the MAC that could never reach a minimum (say $15M per school for the sake of argument), and achieve some parity.

got us here in the first place. If the schools could set limits on player compensation, they would have done it long ago. Why is this discussion continually restricted to disparity among FBS conferences. Those who are truly interested in parity of revenue must include all conferences: FCS, Div2, Div 3. Those are the guys who are making do with less and will continue to do so. If you're P4 and you don't include all conferences, you don't care about fairness. You are simply envious of the P2.