[DC 86]

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 don't want to veer the thread any further into sociopolitical territory but the tech examples I gave are relatively recent, not ancient history. We'll have to agree to disagree, but I expect industries to continue to be disrupted and for unforeseen players to emerge and rise to the top in different segments, as has always happened in this country.

But focusing on college football, it very well may be that the SEC and Big-X will continue to dominate, but there's nothing structural preventing the Pac-12 or anyone else from challenging them, regardless of how popular the sport is in the south or midwest.

We are now in a Wild West era in which players are making their decisions based on NIL, with no transfer restrictions in place, with coaches changing schools at unprecedented rates. Conferences are defined by their top teams. USC is already flexing their muscle. If Stanford wanted to be a national power it could do so without drastically compromising its admissions standards. No FBS university has wealthier alumni. $40 million a year gets you elite high school recruits, a few elite transfers and an elite coaching staff. Oregon certainly has resources as well. There are cultural reasons why it probably won't happen, but it's not because a college football oligopoly prevents west coast schools from competing.

USC hasn't formed its collective yet, but you can bet it will be a powerful one. They've already invested on coaching with immediate recruiting/transfer effects. California remains a very fertile recruiting area. Recruits would love to stay in state if the money is available. We're not going to continue to see 26/30 of the top recruits in the state go to non-Pac 12 schools once conference schools start competing financially.

Again, it may or may not happen, but nothing structural prevents the Pac-12 from competing nationally. I expect USC to be a national title contender within a short amount of time, which will immediately raise the conference's profile. Whether UCLA, Oregon, Stanford and Washington follow - and they have the resources - remains to be seen. I'm not advocating for Stanford to necessarily compete financially, but we could if we wanted to, and other conference schools can too, and probably will. So far, the recent developments in the sport have been exploited by the SEC, but they actually present a threat to the SEC's dominance since it will benefit schools that have the will to compete financially. Schools that were hindered by their unwillingness to compete in attracting recruits with cash in McDonald's bags now find themselves on a level playing field in that respect.

[DC 86]

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 don't want to veer the thread any further into sociopolitical territory but the tech examples I gave are relatively recent, not ancient history. We'll have to agree to disagree, but I expect industries to continue to be disrupted and for unforeseen players to emerge and rise to the top in different segments, as has always happened in this country.

But focusing on college football, it very well may be that the SEC and Big-X will continue to dominate, but there's nothing structural preventing the Pac-12 or anyone else from challenging them, regardless of how popular the sport is in the south or midwest.

We are now in a Wild West era in which players are making their decisions based on NIL, with no transfer restrictions in place, with coaches changing schools at unprecedented rates. Conferences are defined by their top teams. USC is already flexing their muscle. If Stanford wanted to be a national power it could do so without drastically compromising its admissions standards. No FBS university has wealthier alumni. $40 million a year gets you elite high school recruits, a few elite transfers and an elite coaching staff. Oregon certainly has resources as well. There are cultural reasons why it probably won't happen, but it's not because a college football oligopoly prevents west coast schools from competing.

USC hasn't formed its collective yet, but you can bet it will be a powerful one. They've already invested on coaching with immediate recruiting/transfer effects. California remains a very fertile recruiting area. Recruits would love to stay in state if the money is available. We're not going to continue to see 26/30 of the top recruits in the state go to non-Pac 12 schools once conference schools start competing financially.

Again, it may or may not happen, but nothing structural prevents the Pac-12 from competing nationally. I expect USC to be a national title contender within a short amount of time, which will immediately raise the conference's profile. Whether UCLA, Oregon, Stanford and Washington follow - and they have the resources - remains to be seen. I'm not advocating for Stanford to necessarily compete financially, but we could if we wanted to, and other conference schools can too, and probably will. So far, the recent developments in the sport have been exploited by the SEC, but they actually present a threat to the SEC's dominance since it will benefit schools that have the will to compete financially. Schools that were hindered by their unwillingness to compete in attracting recruits with cash in McDonald's bags now find themselves on a level playing field in that respect.