This letter is a great breakdown of what’s at stake and what’s needed:
“That's the landscape Louisville says is unsustainable: 50 states, 30-plus NIL laws, constant litigation and no central authority with real enforcement power.
So what are they asking for?
Three things.
First, congressional action to create uniform national NIL rules and legal protections. Second, a governing body that can actually govern, whether that's a strengthened NCAA or something new. Third, a hard and enforceable spending cap, modeled after professional sports leagues, to slow what they describe as an escalating financial arms race.
And there is one more idea tucked inside the letter that would fundamentally reshape the system.
Louisville suggests Congress consider amending the 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act — the law that allows the NFL to bundle all of its television rights together and sell them as one national package.
College sports don't work that way. The SEC negotiates its own television deal. The Big Ten negotiates its own. The ACC negotiates its own. Everyone is selling separate inventory in the same marketplace. Louisville's argument is that this fragmented system is widening the financial gap between the richest conferences and everyone else. If media rights could be negotiated more collectively — even partially — the overall revenue pie might grow and the financial floor might rise for schools outside the Big Ten and SEC.”
Your final paragraph is what the BT and SEC intend to fight tooth and nail to keep - their huge TV deal revenue disparity. And it is easy to understand that their position that it is not their duty to give freebies to the ACC just because it expanded with very poor sense of the marked and the value of various types of schools as well as the disparate values of both revenue sports.
So I think the 'compromise' that BT and SEC will make is agree to a new Top Tier that includes not just them, but also ACC and Big 12. And they will agree that either or both ACC and BT can expand beyond their current numbers of members if they feel that helps their TV deals. Remember they agreed to give SMU only a half share of what members of Major conference unofficial grouping are given. BT and SEC will, agree to guarantee multiple annual playoff slots to both ACC and Big 12. And share equally acing the 4 leagues for playoff money.
And what they will get to keep is that each league will have its own TV deals for regular season games, meaning that BT and SEC will continue to have that monetary advantage.
And that means the ACC needs to act to add to its value from the Big 12. And by now everyone should have figured out why types of schools have the most potential to add lasting value: state flagships and land grants that have meaningful football history over the past 30 years; schools located in states and TV markets that have proven histories of large TV audiences for CFB.
Big 12 schools that fit 1 or both of the above: Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, Utah, BYU (which has 0 chance to ever get invited into the ACC), Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma St, Cincy, WVU, UCF.
Would I feel bad about the ACC taking Big 12 members? Not in the least. The Big 12 clearly knew that the BT was about to wreck the Pac, and Colorado and Arizona were both openly acting to persuade Arizona St and Utah to leave the Pac with them as soon as the BT announced it had offered SC and UCLA. So the Big 12 was more than happy to destroy the Pac, Wirth help via knowledge from the BT and probably ESPN
If the Big 12 did lose teams to the ACC, it would have plenty of options to replace: the entire new Pac of 8 schools (Wash St, Ore St, Fresno St, San Diego ST, Boise St, Utah St, Col St, Texas St), New Mexico, UConn (a school that Yormark LOVES), USF, Memphis, Tulane. Toss Yormark BC to pair with UConn, and he'd be giddy, especially if he got to keep KU and Houston for basketball.
