[GK3]

In any economic endeavor, the rich get richer. It's virtually impossible to compete for the top spot if you aren't in it already.

This cynical comment is so absurd that perhaps it doesn't merit a response, but I'm still surprised that nobody has commented. The entire economic history of the United States is literally based on entrepreneurship and industry disruption. But in case we need obvious examples:

I suppose IBM with 85% market share in the personal computer market at one point could never be toppled by upstarts founded in garages, to the point that they eventually stop manufacturing the product entirely.
I suppose it's impossible for General Motors (just under 50% market share in 1980) to have sold fewer cars in the US last year than Toyota (6% market share at the time).
I suppose it would be impossible for Altavista not to continue to reign supreme in the search engine space, just as MySpace will indefinitely exploit its dominance of the social media segment.
Inconceivable that taxi medallions won't make their owners richer every year since it's impossible for an alternative mode of mass market private transportation to emerge.
Unbelievable that movie studios wouldn't continue to print money, and that the most successful studio of them all (MGM) would have to declare bankruptcy and be acquired by an online retailer and content streamer.
Pan Am, TWA and Eastern not only don't dominate U.S. air travel, they don't even exist anymore. The airline with the highest market cap in the world is Southwest, which was basically a regional airline until about 25 years ago.
Obviously there are unlimited examples, even without resorting to cotton kings and railroad barons.

I wasn't referring to history as much as today. The gap between rich and not rich, and the advantages the rich have been able to secure for preferred paradigms that protect themselves via a corrupt political system, have never been greater in our history. You can roll out all the examples you did, but they are from another era. Anti-trust law enforcement has atrophied so much that it's hard to believe any laws to curb anti-competitive practices even exist.

We live in an oligopoly-dominated world now.  As an entrepreneur who will not compromise my values, I know just how hard it is to even gain traction in a world dominated by oligopolies when you offer a different paradigm, let alone became a market leader in them as a new company.

Can anyone make a credible argument to me that the Pac-12 or whatever it calls itself is ever going to be one of the two best college football conference from here on out? The SEC and Big Ten aren't going to stop pushing the envelope to get bigger and better. I want to see the argument for how this is going to happen. Put that case forward and I will retract my statement that was

I agree that football on the West Coast is never going to be the market that one finds in the Mid West or South. For reasons perhaps best left for academics to study, the sport simply doesn't seem to be as important as elsewhere.  Basically I do not see much change and a negative change more likely than a positive one.  With the advent of the NIL the rich get richer and I am sure a 5 star guy for whom academics is not all that important would prefer to play for an SEC school than one on the "West Coast.  We will continue to attract the guys who understand the long term importance of an education, but our recruiting is restricted by academic requirements.  This puts a premium on us hiring coaches who are top recruiters and top coaches.  This is a combination that is hard to find.

[GK3]

In any economic endeavor, the rich get richer. It's virtually impossible to compete for the top spot if you aren't in it already.

This cynical comment is so absurd that perhaps it doesn't merit a response, but I'm still surprised that nobody has commented. The entire economic history of the United States is literally based on entrepreneurship and industry disruption. But in case we need obvious examples:

I suppose IBM with 85% market share in the personal computer market at one point could never be toppled by upstarts founded in garages, to the point that they eventually stop manufacturing the product entirely.
I suppose it's impossible for General Motors (just under 50% market share in 1980) to have sold fewer cars in the US last year than Toyota (6% market share at the time).
I suppose it would be impossible for Altavista not to continue to reign supreme in the search engine space, just as MySpace will indefinitely exploit its dominance of the social media segment.
Inconceivable that taxi medallions won't make their owners richer every year since it's impossible for an alternative mode of mass market private transportation to emerge.
Unbelievable that movie studios wouldn't continue to print money, and that the most successful studio of them all (MGM) would have to declare bankruptcy and be acquired by an online retailer and content streamer.
Pan Am, TWA and Eastern not only don't dominate U.S. air travel, they don't even exist anymore. The airline with the highest market cap in the world is Southwest, which was basically a regional airline until about 25 years ago.
Obviously there are unlimited examples, even without resorting to cotton kings and railroad barons.

I wasn't referring to history as much as today. The gap between rich and not rich, and the advantages the rich have been able to secure for preferred paradigms that protect themselves via a corrupt political system, have never been greater in our history. You can roll out all the examples you did, but they are from another era. Anti-trust law enforcement has atrophied so much that it's hard to believe any laws to curb anti-competitive practices even exist.

We live in an oligopoly-dominated world now.  As an entrepreneur who will not compromise my values, I know just how hard it is to even gain traction in a world dominated by oligopolies when you offer a different paradigm, let alone became a market leader in them as a new company.

Can anyone make a credible argument to me that the Pac-12 or whatever it calls itself is ever going to be one of the two best college football conference from here on out? The SEC and Big Ten aren't going to stop pushing the envelope to get bigger and better. I want to see the argument for how this is going to happen. Put that case forward and I will retract my statement that was

I agree that football on the West Coast is never going to be the market that one finds in the Mid West or South. For reasons perhaps best left for academics to study, the sport simply doesn't seem to be as important as elsewhere.  Basically I do not see much change and a negative change more likely than a positive one.  With the advent of the NIL the rich get richer and I am sure a 5 star guy for whom academics is not all that important would prefer to play for an SEC school than one on the "West Coast.  We will continue to attract the guys who understand the long term importance of an education, but our recruiting is restricted by academic requirements.  This puts a premium on us hiring coaches who are top recruiters and top coaches.  This is a combination that is hard to find.