Both your suggestions would increase the amount received per team, but not the overall revenue. They are relocating the pie rather than growing it, so that means that someone else has to get less, for the teams to get more. That someone else would either be the NCAA or our broadcast partners, both of which would object to reducing their share of the revenue.
No cap = more parity. This is becoming more and more obvious as we go on. TTU making the women’s CWS, Duke landing Mensah from Tulane over other schools, Notre Dame making the CFP final… if people actually want parity no cap is the best way to get it
No cap may result in new programs who afford paying huge NIL being at the top but it won't result in parity.
Not sure how you can look at the results of college sports the last two years and say that in sincerity
I understand your argument. I suppose an alternative argument is that the same examples you cited above are an indication that football schools are now successfully buying their way to dominance and other sports as well.
Be careful what you wish for. Autobids might be 20 divided among 4 conferences.
It does make me wonder if the Memphis to the Pac 12 rumor might have some validity.
Possibly but I can’t see it being a Big East/PAC12 move
I can see Memphis looking for a big east affiliation for their basketball and Olympic sports. I can see Ackerman thinking that bringing in another quality basketball program and expanding the conferences geographic coverage makes sense for the Big East.
Maybe. But as we know with Yormark it doesn’t really matter if the commish wants a school. It’s the presidents.
In the big 12. Is the same true in the big east?
Would be one hell of a baseball conference to boot.
Yup… but who am I to dispute the Sun Belt Syndicate? I actually liked the map.
Your data is evidence of that no caps on cash spent led to a shake up of the teams at the top. Not of parity. You'd have to show that the Teams you named as entering the top tier aren't pushing others with less money out of it.
I think John Silver pointed out that it is actually the AD's. The Presidents do whatever the AD's want consistent with increasing fundraising. My brother the academic pointed out to me that Presidents are measured on their fund raising, full stop. The Provost handles the academic side of things.
Usually schools initiate contact with conferences, not the other way around.