College football traditionalists are seething. The sport is moving towards becoming something way different than what they fell in love with. The introduction of NIL, the transfer portal, and playoff expansion have fanned the flames of this evolution and subsequent resentment from fans. However, the crux of this attack on the essence of CFB has been conference realignment. Bluebloods and other historic programs left tradition and loyalty behind to, let’s be frank, maximize money. It led to the PAC-12, a conference etched in the fabric of the sport, being reduced to nothing more than nostalgia. With other conferences afraid of the same fate, a fresh proposal has been brought forth.

When USC President Carol Folt pushed for her football program to leave the PAC-12, she started a trend. Oregon, among others, followed suit to the Big Ten. Then, this ordeal reverberated across from the Pacific coast to the south. Texas and Oklahoma, two programs synonymous with history, joined the SEC. All their fans and communities were quite literally uprooted. USC and Oregon fans are now asked to follow their team across the other side of the country with regularity. A travesty. But while the masses are left agitated, these programs themselves have taken to life in their new environments rather well. Oregon won the Big Ten as new kids on the block. USC, too, has started to flex its additional muscle and boast the top-ranked recruiting class for 2026. You’d think the Big Ten is in great health right now. But even they can’t rest on their laurels.

After how Ohio State blew the competition out of the water last post-season, there’s been a prevalent school of thought that the B1G has overtaken the SEC as the best conference in College Football. The last 2 champs came from the Big Ten, after all.  Whether that’s true is up for discourse. What’s objective, though, is that in order to stay on top, you’ve gotta keep your foot on the gas. Keep the members all on their toes. Nothing ensures parity and competition more than everyone bringing food to the table. That’s the sentiment behind insider and CFB savant TJ Pittinger’s plans to keep the Big Ten afloat. A plan that isn’t his own, but he loved so much that he featured it on his “College Football Addiction” YouTube channel. The premise is pretty straightforward…

“…Treat every member equally. That’s essentially it. While the ACC has delved into a revenue distribution model where “bigger” programs get more money, the success of the Big Ten and the SEC has been in how they treat their Michigans and Alabamas equal to their Marylands and Vanderbilts. Everybody gets the same piece of the pie.” TJ Pittinger relayed a framework of how the B1G can avoid a fate like the PAC-12, which he credited to X user @Genetics56. “I love this,” said Pittinger before proceeding to lay the plan. “[The Big Ten should be] requiring every football program to invest at least $80 million annually by 2030,” he said. TJ Pittinger proceeded to explain why.

“How do you raise the floor? How do you raise the competition level? You say, ‘Guys, you’ve got to be spending your money. You got to be reinvesting what we’re giving you.’” he said. The breakdown of this $80 million sum was proposed to be “$60 million in direct football expenses, plus an additional $14-15 million for revenue sharing and $6-10 million for NIL deals.”

The rationale does seem fair. Pittinger explained how an equal and fair conference would make for better football.  A better product on the field will, in turn, bring in more viewership. Which shall then increase revenue from broadcasters, sponsors, etc. While this idea isn’t foolproof or airtight, it sure seems better than what the ACC is adopting.

The Big Ten ought to be proactive in light of the ACC’s desperate maneuver

Florida State and Clemson, the two “biggest” programs in the ACC, have been involved in two separate lawsuits with the conference to negotiate an exit. The genesis of this is simple. They see the broadcast revenue and other channels of income and realize they’ll fall behind the competition in the B1G or SEC. Making less money means there’s less to pay players once revenue-sharing kicks in. Which means weaker teams. In an attempt to keep their big-time members happy, the ACC is introducing a lopsided revenue distribution model. Out of desperation to avoid vanquishing like the Pac-12.

The new model includes two initiatives that will pay money to certain members. A “success initiative” and a “brand initiative.” The success initiative is relatively fair—programs that do better are paid better. The brand initiative is more problematic. It pertains to FSU and Clemson, or even UNC, with Bill Belichick now raising their stock, getting extra payouts over an SMU, for instance. Right off the bat, the issues that shall arise from this become clear. If members are paid out differently, it will inadvertently create a divide among the conference. Not only will it ruin the sanctity of fair competition, but it could also create a domino effect across other conferences. What happens when OSU asks for more money than Northwestern?

The ACC has opened Pandora’s box. Something that’ll cause a rift between the members themselves. In an effort to save themselves, they may have moved closer to calamity. The Big Ten and other Power conferences will hope for more stability in their own ranks moving forward. Perhaps a proactive move along the lines of what TJ Pittinger suggested is something worth exploring.