There are 8 of the 65 P schools that are subsidized at amounts beyond 10%: Arizona (11%), Arizona State (18%), Colorado (12%), Utah (15%), Minnesota (11%), Maryland (15%), Rutgers (34%), Virginia (14%).

California has passed a law which goes into effect in 2023. That law will permit players to make money from their likenesses. That goes into effect at precisely the time the Big 10 and SEC will be renewing contracts and a year before the PAC and Big 12 begin to renew theirs which is the same timeline in which their GOR's expire.

This law could put pressure on the Big 10 and SEC to move to paying to maintain competitive advantage for recruits.

This compensation is opposed by the NCAA and this issue could render the NCAA more ineffectual than they already are.

Now couple all of this with what are expected to be large increases in the SEC revenue and incremental increases for the Big 10 where the gap in revenue will be increasing significantly between those two conferences and the PAC and ACC and I would say things could get really interesting.

Here's how it could converge. Right now the biggest reason there is no promotion from the G5 is that every G5 school is subsidized at least by 25% and some a lot more. The only P5 school subsidized more than 18% is Rutgers at 34%. No power conference is going to take a chance on that much red ink. In fact if the SEC and Big 10 move to permit forms of compensation for players it is going to make it that much harder for schools like Rutgers to turn a profit. It could be the perfect tool for winnowing out the under-producers from the power conferences, particularly for smaller private schools.

Assume for a moment that 6 of the 8 schools in the P5 which are presently subsidizing more than 10% of their athletic budget would opt out if faced with more overhead. Now consider some of the more challenged private schools that might opt out as well: Miami, Wake Forest, Duke, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Vanderbilt, and possibly Northwestern. Now we are down to 52 P schools. Oregon State and Washington State struggle to keep up as well so make that 50.

What happens now? Well it's 2023 and the SEC just inked a T1 deal that will take their payouts to 61 million and the Big 10 has gotten a 5% bump for renewing taking their payout to 57 million. The ACC is still locked into the ESPN contract until 2037 and presently it pays about 30 million plus lets say another 5 for the ACCN. The PAC is still stuck around 32 million total and the Big 12 is looking at 38 million. 20 million a year per school for a decade is 200 million they'll be leaving on the table if they don't move.

What happens now? Well the conditions are right for a massive and sudden change within a 2 year period of time.

If the Big 10 loses Maryland and Rutgers who opt out due to debt, they now have 12 slots open. If in the new world the ACC votes to dissolve and they lose 6 schools who opt out: Virginia, Wake Forest, Duke, Miami, Boston College and Pittsburgh that leaves 9 to be absorbed.

I could conceive that the Big 10 would be happy with Notre Dame and Syracuse to round out their East. California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, and Washington gives them a West Coast Division. Colorado, Arizona, Kansas and Iowa State are added to Minnesota, and Nebraska to form another and the Big 10 now stands at 24.

The SEC is minus Vanderbilt. They add Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, and Virginia Tech to go along with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to get to 24.

Baylor, T.C.U., Kansas State and West Virginia would have some decisions to make.

Big 10:
East: Indiana, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Syracuse
North: Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin
South: Arizona, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska
West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

SEC:
East: Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina
North: Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
South: Alabama, Arkansas Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi St.
West: Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Of course if others opted out like North Carolina then West Virginia is ready to go.

Any way you look at it there are way too many catalysts for change lying in wait around 2023 for things to remain the same. But if this kind of movement happens the leverage, the organization, and the benefits of reducing conference overhead duplication will all add to the incentive.

My take would be that the NCAA is opposing this legislation because they don't want policy dictated to them by an individual state. Right or wrong, I don't see them sticking to their guns.

There are already people in college athletics working out the problem of image likeness. I do think the NCAA will change their position in the not too distant future and allow all athletes to make money in this manner. I also wouldn't put it past Congress to directly address the issue should the NCAA keep dragging its feet.

I think the CA law might speed things up though. In that scenario, I think it will become a moot point. I mean, 2023 is an awfully long time to wait for a measure like this to come into effect. Makes me think their Legislature is trying to encourage the NCAA to move rather than upend the system.

There's still potential fallout from other factors though, I completely agree with that.

On a side note, why does Arizona State have such issues? It's a large school located in a relatively wealthy state and happens to be in the middle of a huge market. I'm sure their fan base isn't particularly passionate, but that pretty much describes every PAC school.

It's truly amazing that Oregon State has been struggling to keep up with the rest of the PAC 12 when you consider the following:

1. Oregon State is a large land grant institution. They are the state of Oregon's version of Auburn.
2. Like the state of Alabama, there is no professional football team. However, the state of Oregon does have a professional basketball and a professional soccer team, but I fail to see how they could have an effect on college football.
3. Both U of Oregon and OSU share a state with a fairly good sized metropolis: Portland, while is actually bigger than the Birmingham metropolis that Alabama & Auburn share.

Washington State is in a very remote area (they are only 30 miles away from U of Idaho) and both WSU and U of Washington must compete with the Seahawks for football fans, plus WSU also competes with U of Idaho in addition to U of Washington for football fans & $$'s so I can see why WSU is struggling.
Oregon State though doesn't have all of those problems. Corvallis is definitely not remote, and there is no big FCS team, similar to U of Idaho that Oregon State would have to compete with for fans. Just U of Oregon.

(07-02-2019 05:30 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  My take would be that the NCAA is opposing this legislation because they don't want policy dictated to them by an individual state. Right or wrong, I don't see them sticking to their guns.

There are already people in college athletics working out the problem of image likeness. I do think the NCAA will change their position in the not too distant future and allow all athletes to make money in this manner. I also wouldn't put it past Congress to directly address the issue should the NCAA keep dragging its feet.

I think the CA law might speed things up though. In that scenario, I think it will become a moot point. I mean, 2023 is an awfully long time to wait for a measure like this to come into effect. Makes me think their Legislature is trying to encourage the NCAA to move rather than upend the system.

There's still potential fallout from other factors though, I completely agree with that.

On a side note, why does Arizona State have such issues? It's a large school located in a relatively wealthy state and happens to be in the middle of a huge market. I'm sure their fan base isn't particularly passionate, but that pretty much describes every PAC school.

I think this is exactly correct and is precisely what California is trying to accomplish.

All change inevitably brings unintended consequences. I think a couple of those will be that the inefficacy of the NCAA will be highlighted, and I think it will cause some issues in separating the image of the athlete from the trademark of the schools, and in oversight since no doubt the NCAA will try to poke their noses in by being stickier about eligibility.

(07-02-2019 07:52 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It's truly amazing that Oregon State has been struggling to keep up with the rest of the PAC 12 when you consider the following:

1. Oregon State is a large land grant institution. They are the state of Oregon's version of Auburn.
2. Like the state of Alabama, there is no professional football team. However, the state of Oregon does have a professional basketball and a professional soccer team, but I fail to see how they could have an effect on college football.
3. Both U of Oregon and OSU share a state with a fairly good sized metropolis: Portland, while is actually bigger than the Birmingham metropolis that Alabama & Auburn share.

Washington State is in a very remote area (they are only 30 miles away from U of Idaho) and both WSU and U of Washington must compete with the Seahawks for football fans, plus WSU also competes with U of Idaho in addition to U of Washington for football fans & $$'s so I can see why WSU is struggling.
Oregon State though doesn't have all of those problems. Corvallis is definitely not remote, and there is no big FCS team, similar to U of Idaho that Oregon State would have to compete with for fans. Just U of Oregon.

Oregon State's revenue was 53rd nationally and Washington State's was 63rd. So there is a difference in distinction between the two. But both also lag in viewers and attendance. So when I say struggling I don't mean OSU struggles within their state, but with regards to the ability to draw a viewer base and sell their product they do.

Fun fact, Portland is larger that Birmingham, but the state of Alabama actually has more people than Oregon. The difference isn't too significant...about 700-800K, I think. The population of Alabama is very spread out rather than concentrated in a metro area like many states.

The advantage for the average fan in Alabama is that most cities and towns are within short driving distance of the other cities and towns.

But I think the primary issue with a school like Oregon State is culture. The West Coast is just different when it comes to supporting football.

I'd be alright with how things ended up, but I have a *VERY* hard time imagining any scenario where Duke or Oregon State or Washington State or Miami (FL) or especially Virginia throw in the towel.

(07-04-2019 01:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'd be alright with how things ended up, but I have a *VERY* hard time imagining any scenario where Duke or Oregon State or Washington State or Miami (FL) or especially Virginia throw in the towel.

Would they pay for play? I'm not sure any of them really emphasize football. Washington State at least tries, but they don't put much investment into it. Virginia is ~15% subsidized now. Duke and Vandy have really stepped it up, but I can't conceive of how either want to ramp it up some more. Tossing in the towel is a matter of degree instead of complete surrender with regard to football. And if these schools can divert more funding to the sports they desire to emphasize is it really that farfetched? (Of course all of this is predicated upon ramped up investment levels for pay for play).

(07-04-2019 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Would they pay for play? I'm not sure any of them really emphasize football. Washington State at least tries, but they don't put much investment into it. Virginia is ~15% subsidized now. Duke and Vandy have really stepped it up, but I can't conceive of how either want to ramp it up some more. Tossing in the towel is a matter of degree instead of complete surrender with regard to football. And if these schools can divert more funding to the sports they desire to emphasize is it really that farfetched? (Of course all of this is predicated upon ramped up investment levels for pay for play).

Wazzu is on an upward trajectory in an area quietly growing and expected to keep quietly growing.

Duke has more money than you might think through the Iron Dukes. If Duke wants to do something athletically they have the money to make a go of it.

Virginia is heavily subsidized for the same reason Maryland is heavily subsidized: an athletic director with a fetish over the Capital One Cup. Virginia and Maryland could simply cull some of their 20+ not-profitable-ever-at-any-school-at-any-time-but-counts-toward-the-Cup-Standings sports and easily go back to being in the black.

I've always felt like on the long game front the conference with the most questions to answer is the B1G. 2010 Census changes:

Gained four seats: Texas
Gained two seats: Florida
Gained one seat: Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, Washington
Lost one seat: Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
Lost two seats: Ohio, New York

By conference footprint:
ACC: +0
B1G: -7
Big12: +4
SEC: +6
Pac12: +3

The ACC gains in the Southern footprint were losses in the Northern footprint, but they have a huge TV set advantage. The Big 12 gains but all the eggs are in one Texas sized basket. The SEC gains are a bit overinflated by A&M, and I was surprised to see Missouri on the losing side of the ledger. The Pac is gaining broadly throughout the footprint as one might expect. The only conference staring down demographic red ink is the B1G. They lost SEVEN congressional seats in just 10 years out of their footprint. What will the B1G look like in another 3-4 decades if this continues? What will Raleigh, Atlanta, Orlando, Austin, Dallas, Phoenix, Houston, and Tampa look like in another 3-4 decades?

(07-04-2019 02:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Would they pay for play? I'm not sure any of them really emphasize football. Washington State at least tries, but they don't put much investment into it. Virginia is ~15% subsidized now. Duke and Vandy have really stepped it up, but I can't conceive of how either want to ramp it up some more. Tossing in the towel is a matter of degree instead of complete surrender with regard to football. And if these schools can divert more funding to the sports they desire to emphasize is it really that farfetched? (Of course all of this is predicated upon ramped up investment levels for pay for play).

Wazzu is on an upward trajectory in an area quietly growing and expected to keep quietly growing.

Duke has more money than you might think through the Iron Dukes. If Duke wants to do something athletically they have the money to make a go of it.

Virginia is heavily subsidized for the same reason Maryland is heavily subsidized: an athletic director with a fetish over the Capital One Cup. Virginia and Maryland could simply cull some of their 20+ not-profitable-ever-at-any-school-at-any-time-but-counts-toward-the-Cup-Standings sports and easily go back to being in the black.

I've always felt like on the long game front the conference with the most questions to answer is the B1G. 2010 Census changes:

Gained four seats: Texas
Gained two seats: Florida
Gained one seat: Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, Washington
Lost one seat: Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
Lost two seats: Ohio, New York

By conference footprint:
ACC: +0
B1G: -7
Big12: +4
SEC: +6
Pac12: +3

The ACC gains in the Southern footprint were losses in the Northern footprint, but they have a huge TV set advantage. The Big 12 gains but all the eggs are in one Texas sized basket. The SEC gains are a bit overinflated by A&M, and I was surprised to see Missouri on the losing side of the ledger. The Pac is gaining broadly throughout the footprint as one might expect. The only conference staring down demographic red ink is the B1G. They lost SEVEN congressional seats in just 10 years out of their footprint. What will the B1G look like in another 3-4 decades if this continues? What will Raleigh, Atlanta, Orlando, Austin, Dallas, Phoenix, Houston, and Tampa look like in another 3-4 decades?

Having TV sets doesn't count. Having people who watch your product on TV does. I'm not sold on, or impressed by, the ACC's number of sets when the ACC is 5th of five in terms of the percentage of actual viewers compared to the total # of possible viewers. I expect the ACCN to make money but nowhere near the inflated numbers like those tossed out by the FSU folks. You'll earn 3 to 5 million at the launch with a target range of 7 to 8 within 5 years. I think you're too late to the party in that the BTN numbers are declining and the SEC's plateaued this past year. But we'll see.

I also have my doubts that schools like Maryland and Virginia are going to make any kind of move on non revenues until they are forced to do so.

Football has a declining supply of high school players to draw from. IMO expense of playing and diminishing recruits will spell the end of the tweener teams. Well have those fully committed and those who play with reduced scholarships and closer to the FCS level than that of the top G5's. I think everything above the FCS level will shrink, including the P5.

I don't see your Yellow Jackets dropping down because Tech is a football first school and it's greatest athletic heritage is pegged to the sport. I do think football at the highest level will be by the SEC schools, Oklahoma and Texas schools, and Southern most ACC schools and that Big 10 brands and some PAC brands will simply spend to get players out of the Southeast and Southwest. And that IMO is a decade or two away. I do look for the P65 to shrink overall to around a P48.

(07-04-2019 02:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Having TV sets doesn't count. Having people who watch your product on TV does. I'm not sold on, or impressed by, the ACC's number of sets when the ACC is 5th of five in terms of the percentage of actual viewers compared to the total # of possible viewers. I expect the ACCN to make money but nowhere near the inflated numbers like those tossed out by the FSU folks. You'll earn 3 to 5 million at the launch with a target range of 7 to 8 within 5 years. I think you're too late to the party in that the BTN numbers are declining and the SEC's plateaued this past year. But we'll see.

I also have my doubts that schools like Maryland and Virginia are going to make any kind of move on non revenues until they are forced to do so.

Football has a declining supply of high school players to draw from. IMO expense of playing and diminishing recruits will spell the end of the tweener teams. Well have those fully committed and those who play with reduced scholarships and closer to the FCS level than that of the top G5's. I think everything above the FCS level will shrink, including the P5.

I don't see your Yellow Jackets dropping down because Tech is a football first school and it's greatest athletic heritage is pegged to the sport. I do think football at the highest level will be by the SEC schools, Oklahoma and Texas schools, and Southern most ACC schools and that Big 10 brands and some PAC brands will simply spend to get players out of the Southeast and Southwest. And that IMO is a decade or two away. I do look for the P65 to shrink overall to around a P48.

The cable model, while it lasts, says that TV sets with carriage matter considerably. People in NYC who have access to the ACCN will be paying the ACC whether or not they watch Syracuse. The SEC uses this same strategy to great effect in Texas.

(07-04-2019 04:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 02:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Having TV sets doesn't count. Having people who watch your product on TV does. I'm not sold on, or impressed by, the ACC's number of sets when the ACC is 5th of five in terms of the percentage of actual viewers compared to the total # of possible viewers. I expect the ACCN to make money but nowhere near the inflated numbers like those tossed out by the FSU folks. You'll earn 3 to 5 million at the launch with a target range of 7 to 8 within 5 years. I think you're too late to the party in that the BTN numbers are declining and the SEC's plateaued this past year. But we'll see.

I also have my doubts that schools like Maryland and Virginia are going to make any kind of move on non revenues until they are forced to do so.

Football has a declining supply of high school players to draw from. IMO expense of playing and diminishing recruits will spell the end of the tweener teams. Well have those fully committed and those who play with reduced scholarships and closer to the FCS level than that of the top G5's. I think everything above the FCS level will shrink, including the P5.

I don't see your Yellow Jackets dropping down because Tech is a football first school and it's greatest athletic heritage is pegged to the sport. I do think football at the highest level will be by the SEC schools, Oklahoma and Texas schools, and Southern most ACC schools and that Big 10 brands and some PAC brands will simply spend to get players out of the Southeast and Southwest. And that IMO is a decade or two away. I do look for the P65 to shrink overall to around a P48.

The cable model, while it lasts, says that TV sets with carriage matter considerably. People in NYC who have access to the ACCN will be paying the ACC whether or not they watch Syracuse. The SEC uses this same strategy to great effect in Texas.

The SEC carriage rate is 1.30 in footprint. That's based on % of viewers. We'll wait and see what the ACC rate is going to be. The Big 10 gets .49 cents in footprint, the PAC gets .11 cents.

If you are successful you might push 9 million, if your rate is the same as the SEC's which I highly doubt.

The real money is going to be in the # of content games you actually have (national appeal games). That's why Texas and OU are the hot commodity for the SEC and Big 10. That's the future.

(07-04-2019 06:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 04:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 02:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Having TV sets doesn't count. Having people who watch your product on TV does. I'm not sold on, or impressed by, the ACC's number of sets when the ACC is 5th of five in terms of the percentage of actual viewers compared to the total # of possible viewers. I expect the ACCN to make money but nowhere near the inflated numbers like those tossed out by the FSU folks. You'll earn 3 to 5 million at the launch with a target range of 7 to 8 within 5 years. I think you're too late to the party in that the BTN numbers are declining and the SEC's plateaued this past year. But we'll see.

I also have my doubts that schools like Maryland and Virginia are going to make any kind of move on non revenues until they are forced to do so.

Football has a declining supply of high school players to draw from. IMO expense of playing and diminishing recruits will spell the end of the tweener teams. Well have those fully committed and those who play with reduced scholarships and closer to the FCS level than that of the top G5's. I think everything above the FCS level will shrink, including the P5.

I don't see your Yellow Jackets dropping down because Tech is a football first school and it's greatest athletic heritage is pegged to the sport. I do think football at the highest level will be by the SEC schools, Oklahoma and Texas schools, and Southern most ACC schools and that Big 10 brands and some PAC brands will simply spend to get players out of the Southeast and Southwest. And that IMO is a decade or two away. I do look for the P65 to shrink overall to around a P48.

The cable model, while it lasts, says that TV sets with carriage matter considerably. People in NYC who have access to the ACCN will be paying the ACC whether or not they watch Syracuse. The SEC uses this same strategy to great effect in Texas.

The SEC carriage rate is 1.30 in footprint. That's based on % of viewers. We'll wait and see what the ACC rate is going to be. The Big 10 gets .49 cents in footprint, the PAC gets .11 cents.

If you are successful you might push 9 million, if your rate is the same as the SEC's which I highly doubt.

The real money is going to be in the # of content games you actually have (national appeal games). That's why Texas and OU are the hot commodity for the SEC and Big 10. That's the future.

Like anything, the issue is one of criteria. In this case, what criteria do you use to evaluate what "national appeal games" are? Is it sheer number of viewers? Is it a percentage of viewers in various markets? Is it any game with at least one national brand or does it take two national brands (i.e, OK vs. Texas counts, but does OK vs. Vanderbilt?) Is it stakes (playoff, division or conference championships), rivalries, etc?

(07-05-2019 10:29 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 06:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 04:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 02:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Having TV sets doesn't count. Having people who watch your product on TV does. I'm not sold on, or impressed by, the ACC's number of sets when the ACC is 5th of five in terms of the percentage of actual viewers compared to the total # of possible viewers. I expect the ACCN to make money but nowhere near the inflated numbers like those tossed out by the FSU folks. You'll earn 3 to 5 million at the launch with a target range of 7 to 8 within 5 years. I think you're too late to the party in that the BTN numbers are declining and the SEC's plateaued this past year. But we'll see.

I also have my doubts that schools like Maryland and Virginia are going to make any kind of move on non revenues until they are forced to do so.

Football has a declining supply of high school players to draw from. IMO expense of playing and diminishing recruits will spell the end of the tweener teams. Well have those fully committed and those who play with reduced scholarships and closer to the FCS level than that of the top G5's. I think everything above the FCS level will shrink, including the P5.

I don't see your Yellow Jackets dropping down because Tech is a football first school and it's greatest athletic heritage is pegged to the sport. I do think football at the highest level will be by the SEC schools, Oklahoma and Texas schools, and Southern most ACC schools and that Big 10 brands and some PAC brands will simply spend to get players out of the Southeast and Southwest. And that IMO is a decade or two away. I do look for the P65 to shrink overall to around a P48.

The cable model, while it lasts, says that TV sets with carriage matter considerably. People in NYC who have access to the ACCN will be paying the ACC whether or not they watch Syracuse. The SEC uses this same strategy to great effect in Texas.

The SEC carriage rate is 1.30 in footprint. That's based on % of viewers. We'll wait and see what the ACC rate is going to be. The Big 10 gets .49 cents in footprint, the PAC gets .11 cents.

If you are successful you might push 9 million, if your rate is the same as the SEC's which I highly doubt.

The real money is going to be in the # of content games you actually have (national appeal games). That's why Texas and OU are the hot commodity for the SEC and Big 10. That's the future.

Like anything, the issue is one of criteria. In this case, what criteria do you use to evaluate what "national appeal games" are? Is it sheer number of viewers? Is it a percentage of viewers in various markets? Is it any game with at least one national brand or does it take two national brands (i.e, OK vs. Texas counts, but does OK vs. Vanderbilt?) Is it stakes (playoff, division or conference championships), rivalries, etc?

While stakes drive interest, generally we are talking about 2 iconic brands playing each other. Texas or Oklahoma in the SEC will play within the rotation Texas A&M, L.S.U., Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, and Florida. That's 7 potential games against top 20 brands. Toss the other in with them and it's 8.

Put them in the Big 10 and it would be Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State and Nebraska with 2 or 3 of those being more top 30ish.

Put them in the PAC and it drops to Washington, U.S.C., and then drops again to Stanford, Oregon, and U.C.L.A. So two top 20 brands and 3 top 30ish brands.

Put them in the ACC and it's Clemson, Florida State, and sometimes Virginia Tech or Miami and occasionally Georgia Tech. So two top 20 brands and 3 top 30-40ish brands.

Games against other top 20 brands draw the nations eyes.

Texas against Arkansas would be big regionally. Texas against Missouri or Oklahoma against Missouri would be strong regionally. Texas against Vanderbilt would be no better than Alabama against Vandy.

So content games exponentially increase your revenue. Now obviously in any conference OU and UT would not play all of those brands every year, but in the SEC you might easily have them playing 3 in the regular season and another in the CCG should they make it that far. That's still more value competitively than the Big 10 would offer and much more than the PAC or ACC.