Yeah they were in the big east for 8 seasons before the ACC but before that they were CSUA or independent before 2005
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
I have no issue with your takes here from that report but there is a looming probability that leftover ACC/B12 schools after additional brand consolidation by Fox and ESPN to the B10 and SEC will result in reduced media payouts than what those remaining schools are getting now, including Louisville and ISU. Which is a primary impetus for the proposed Fed legislation to prevent that.
Now what I previously requested here was any issues with the Louisville Trustee analysis of the Sankey/Petitti report that vigorously opposes amending the SBA.
I’m pretty doubtful of further brand consolidation for a number of reasons but if you view the P2 essentially breaking off then I get your mindset even if I disagree.
I also can’t view that analysis as I have to be logged into x to view that. If you resend a normal link I’ll take a look
Here you go:
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.
Full disclosure I haven’t read the big ten study but both sides here have obv conflicts of interest. The groups that are wildly benefiting want things to stay the same and the groups that aren’t benefiting as much want things to change.
I disagree with using the NBA as a comparison but not for the reasons UL did here but for a ton of the other factors that make the NBA extremely different from college football, mainly star power and a ton of intangibles.
As far as the pooling I think UL actually makes the point for the big ten in that they are arguing that there would still be tiers and this isn’t going to change the inequality at all. That’s been a fundamental problem with this whole idea and part of the reason it’s not gonna happen.
I agree with most of the other comments but still think we are at least one more media deal away from the streaming partners being a major player. I mean peacock even went back and has most of its games on its new nbc sports channel instead of the streaming only due to abysmal ratings.
Lots of things I do agree with in the UL statement though
Of course there is going to be an element of inequality, that has been a given from Campbell, the Project Rudy folks, etc. And that inequality would be driven by TV ratings where, as an example, 80% of the pooled revenues would be shared equally with the other 20% based on TV ratings. That would enable all of FBS to potentially double their existing media revenues with the B10/SEC presumably maintaining their existing revenue advantages.
And although not mentioned, 7x10 realignment would actually enable Legacy B10 members to not continue sharing the "TV Ratings" piece of the pie with the likes of Rutgers, Maryland, UCLA etc. and keep even more for themselves.
There is the note that Nebraska volleyball was profitable every year between 2014 and 2024 except for the covid year. I'm sure they paid their players a lot last season, but the article makes it seem like they would have been profitable had they done another huge match within the football stadium. I imagine they'll do something like that again frequently.
That'll be quite a thing when it happens. How much of a heads up do you think the B1G will give the non-legacy schools that they're going to be booted from the conference? A year? A week? Six months? Three years?
Those schools won't mind at all...you know...it is for the good of all the OTHER schools! It makes sense for everyone!
A week should suffice.
And since 7x10 enables debt-ridden Rutgers to double their media revenues and quit making costly asinine road trips to the Pacific Coast for conference road games, they would accept 24 hours notice.
Downsizing back to 10 would be the best thing to happen to the legacy B10 members. Embrace it, B10 Boy.
Oh I can't wait. So you're saying there won't be any actual news of this until a week before it happens? So Rutgers and USC and Oregon and others won't find out they're being booted from the B1G until January of 2030, since that's when the current media deal ends? And how does this work with the SEC? Their media deal goes through 2034. Are you saying the new 7x10 model will kick in 4 years before that deal is up and ESPN is just SoL?
Whats funny is you keep saying this double and triple revenue thing, when that is total speculation. No one knows if or how much it would actually change. You have to have someone willing to pay that much in the first place, etc.
The B1Gs media number doubled the last time, so why would the Rutgers want out of the B1G if they are going to double it in the next contract regardless. Or are you saying it is going to be double or tripple the double they already would get?
Do I think it could very well mean a significant even double increase for conferences like the Big 12 and ACC, yeah, but the increase for conferences already at the top like the B1G that increase is going to be a much smaller ratio.
A conference like the B12 at 30M media number getting boosted to 90M which would be given across the board would be a triple increase as you say. But for the B1G already getting 70-80 that same 90M equal number, is no where near even double, and is a much smaller increase. Those in the B1G will have to be willing to allow the B12 to have not only that big of an increase but also allow them to be on equal footing and standing. That is more of the problem than anything.
Again all of those numbers are pure speculation, might be more, might be less. Stop spewing them like they are cut in stone.
I would love to go back to some form of the old style conferences of 10ish regional conferences. I could come up with a few really great examples myself, that doesnt mean it is likely to happen. And repeating it on every page in this thread is not going to make it any more likely.
Agree with you...and the bolded part...is exactly why it isn't going to happen! I wish they would...but in reality...why would they??
I see you're having difficulty with interpreting sarcasm.
If/when there is a migration to 7x10, it would be essentially Fed mandated with a multi-year transition plan and the proposed Governance Group with support from the Presidents would dictate and execute the transition, not ESPN/Sankey and Fox/Petitti who currently control college athletics. The timing would be in the 2030 timeframe and yes, ESPN would have to play ball.
I am still waiting for your response to the Louisville Trustee rebuttal to the Sankey/Petitti FTI report. It might be too long for you to comprehend and digest but give it a try.
It would provide answers to most of your questions.
So the final 4 years of the SEC's media deal will be voided?
Does this whole thing go through a vote of Congress?
Yeah but that level of inequality is what UL is railing against here. It also would be spreading inequality in ways it’s not currently spread right now and I think your example is not even close to the right % breakdown groups would demand.
The 7x10 realignment has zero chance of happening and again no one cares that those teams are in the big ten. Those are often easy break games that teams want and need.
I 100% would also be writing this letter if I was UL but also would take a look internally and ask why we are giving our coaches big raises and then crying poor
Crazy to me that the SEC and ESPN are just going to be told that the final 4 years of their contract is officially scrapped. Seems like ripe ground for a major lawsuit, but what do I know.
Every time I ask @cykadelic2 a question he logs off, then comes back 5-10 minutes later with an answer. Do you think he leaves to furiously Google the answers? Lol.
