I can't think of any reason why they would want to dilute

their per capita revenue, and that would be inevitable if teams with lesser following are added to the ones they already have in their conferences.

This is of course why Syverud and Gee are conceding up front to unequal revenue distribution, but all that would do is perpetuate what we already have by trimming the sails a little bit.

What I'm envisioning is a world in which the Indianas and Vandys would end up better off than they currently are since they would only effectively be competing with around 40 other schools, all with equal media revenue, instead of 134. It's debatable what the "right" number to land on is, but 70 seems to me to be far too many.

Keep in mind that cutting players in on the media revenue, which is where I think this is headed and where it needs to go, is going to dilute each school's current profit. That's another reason why 70 is too optimistic, even with unequal revenue. Recall, their proposal assumes that the full value of media revenue hasn't been tapped yet, which I think is a little dubious. The article even suggests as much, "One TV executive called the idea that there is a lot more untapped money in the market 'naive.'”