Abstract

The preceding seven papers built the structure piece by piece: the insulation the Association supplies, the inverted holding that lodges risk away from assets, the cross-subsidy whose two sides drive the strain, and the three pressure dimensions of legitimacy, antitrust, and broadcasting. This paper holds them together and reads the breakaway whole. Its central finding is that the premium the asset-holding conferences pay for insulation and the insulation they receive are not two things but one: the breadth of membership that obliges the haves to cross-subsidize the weak and submit to common rules is the same breadth that diffuses their antitrust exposure, distances their reputation, and grounds the legitimacy of their restraints. To refuse the premium, therefore, is to refuse the insulation, because the premium and the insulation are a single arrangement seen from two sides. The conferences wish to drop the cross-subsidy they experience as a tax while keeping the protection they experience as a service, and they have not understood that the two are inseparable. From this follows a resolution of the puzzle the volume has tracked from the start — that the breakaway is at once persistently sought and never completed. It is persistently sought because the refusal is locally rational, the premium salient and the buffer invisible; it is never completed because the refusal would destroy the very value the refusers mean to preserve, and because every layer of the structure supplies a further obstacle to consummating it. The paper presents the breakaway as a ledger of gains, losses, and constraints; identifies the enforcement commission as the breakaway already run in miniature and already failed; and closes on the inversion the volume’s method has pointed toward throughout — that the breakaway is the strong attempting to strip away their own armor in the conviction that the armor is a tax.

1. Reading the breakaway whole

Each of the preceding papers examined a facet of the enterprise in isolation, holding the others fixed in order to see one clearly. This paper does the opposite. It releases the fixed facets and lets them move together, because the breakaway is the event in which all of them move at once, and it cannot be understood while any is held still. The breakaway is not a governance question, or a financial question, or a legal question, or a media question; it is the single event in which the buffer, the inverted holding, the cross-subsidy, the legitimacy deficit, the antitrust exposure, and the broadcast inventory all bear on one decision. To read it whole is to ask what that decision is once every one of these is in view, and the answer the volume has been preparing is that the breakaway is a refusal of insulation.

The phrase requires care, because it names something the participants would not recognize as a description of their own intent. The conferences do not say they wish to refuse insulation; they say they wish to govern themselves, to keep what they generate, to escape a bureaucracy that lags the market. The structural reading does not contradict their stated aims so much as reveal their hidden cost. When the asset-holders pursue self-governance, relief from cross-subsidy, and freedom from the Association’s drag, they are pursuing the refusal of a premium — and the premium, this paper will show, is the insulation itself. They mean to refuse a tax and find they have refused a shield, because the tax and the shield were never separable. The breakaway is a refusal of insulation in the precise sense that the thing the refusers wish to stop paying is the thing that has been protecting them, and the gap between what they intend and what they would accomplish is the subject of this paper.

The reading is the volume’s keystone, and it rests on every paper before it. It draws the buffer from Paper One, the inverted holding and the spent-capital captive from Paper Two, the cross-subsidy compact and its two sides from Papers Three and Four, the legitimacy deficit from Paper Five, the antitrust paradox from Paper Six, and the sovereignty of the broadcast inventory from Paper Seven. None of these alone yields the reading; together they make it unavoidable. The task of this paper is to show how they combine.

2. The argument in brief

The paper advances five claims. First, the breakaway can be set out as a ledger of gains, losses, and constraints: it offers the conferences rule-setting control, relief from cross-subsidy, and the feasibility of bargaining; it strips them of the legal, reputational, and political buffers and the risk-absorption that membership supplied; and it confines them within contracts and a sovereignty they do not control. Second, the ledger’s losses and the premium the conferences wish to refuse are the same items, because the breadth of membership that obliges cross-subsidy and submission is identically the breadth that diffuses exposure, distances reputation, and grounds legitimacy — so that refusing the premium is refusing the buffer, the two being one arrangement seen from two sides. Third, every layer of the structure supplies an independent obstacle to consummating the refusal: the inverted holding means shedding the risk-holder is holding the risk, the legitimacy deficit means the buffer cannot be rebuilt, the antitrust paradox means narrowing worsens exposure, and the broadcast architecture means the inventory is encumbered and the timetable is not the conferences’ to set. Fourth, the enforcement commission is the breakaway run in miniature — one buffering function taken outside the Association — and its failure is the strongest available evidence that the full breakaway would fail more comprehensively. Fifth, the puzzle of persistent pursuit and perpetual deferral resolves into local rationality against global self-defeat: the refusal looks like a clear gain because the premium is salient and the buffer invisible, and it is never completed because completing it would destroy what it means to preserve, leaving the conferences to pursue endless renegotiation and selective default in its place.

From this synthesis the volume turns to its final question. If the simple breakaway is a bad trade that the structure obstructs, the question that remains is which configurations can actually hold — which end-states are stable given everything the volume has established. Paper Nine takes up the scenarios; this paper establishes what makes the simple breakaway unstable, which is the premise the scenario analysis requires.

3. The ledger of the breakaway

The breakaway can be set out as a ledger, and setting it out plainly is the first step toward seeing why it does not balance as its proponents suppose.

On the side of gains, the breakaway offers three things. It offers rule-setting control: freed of the Association’s one-institution-one-vote governance, in which the haves are outvoted by members who bear none of their costs, a self-governing bloc could write its own rules on compensation, eligibility, and the rest without the dilution Paper Three described. It offers relief from cross-subsidy: the bloc could keep the media-value differential that Paper Seven showed to be the real source of its wealth, ceasing to carry the weak institutions and, in the limit, redirecting toward its own ends the surplus that Paper Four showed flowing to the carried sports. And it offers, as Paper Six established, the feasibility of bargaining: a tighter group is more readily organized into a bargaining relationship than a sprawling association, and bargaining is the path to the one durable form of immunity.

On the side of losses, the breakaway strips the three buffers and the risk-absorption that the volume has anatomized. It strips the legal buffer, because narrowing the group discards the breadth defense and concentrates the market power, worsening the antitrust exposure rather than relieving it. It strips the reputational buffer, because a self-governing bloc cannot outsource its villainy to a broad and faceless association; it must author its own restraints in its own name and absorb in its own name the resentment they generate. It strips the political buffer, because the bloc would hold none of the accumulated legitimacy that made the Association’s rules stick, and would face the legitimacy deficit of Paper Five from the first day. And it strips the risk-absorption of Paper Two, because the body that held the conferences’ exposure would be left behind, and the conferences would hold their own.

On the side of constraints, the breakaway is confined within an architecture the conferences do not control. The inventory that a breakaway would monetize is encumbered under grants of rights that expire on staggered schedules, so the bloc cannot assemble itself on its own timetable, and the two leagues most often discussed as partners cannot combine their inventory for years. The value the bloc would capture is set by networks who hold an effective veto and by an audience whose attention no governing body commands. The breakaway is not a free act; it is an act hedged on every side by contracts and by a sovereignty that lies outside the conferences entirely.

The ledger, even thus stated, looks unfavorable. But its true weight is not visible until one sees that the losses and the premium are the same items, which is the matter of the next section.

4. The keystone: the premium and the buffer are one thing

The central insight of the volume can now be stated, and it is the hinge on which the breakaway turns. The premium the conferences wish to refuse and the insulation they wish to keep are not two separable things; they are one arrangement seen from two sides. The premium is breadth — the obligation to belong to a wide and varied membership, to cross-subsidize its weaker members, to submit to rules written for the whole field. The insulation is also breadth — the diffusion of antitrust exposure across a membership wide enough to make restraints look like governance, the distance that lets a broad association absorb reputational blame, the accumulated legitimacy of a body whose rules have always bound. Breadth is the premium and breadth is the buffer, and they are the same breadth.

This identity is the thing the conferences have not grasped, and it is what makes the breakaway a refusal of insulation whether or not the refusers intend it. They experience the premium as a tax, in the manner Paper Three described: a bundled obligation whose redistributive portion buys them nothing they can name and whose whole they have come to resent out of proportion to its cost. They experience the buffer as a service, in the manner Paper One described: an invisible protection they rarely notice because it works silently and is most apparent only when withdrawn. And they wish, naturally enough, to drop the tax and keep the service. But the tax and the service are one breadth, and one cannot be dropped without the other. To refuse the cross-subsidy is to dissolve the breadth; to dissolve the breadth is to collapse the diffusion, the distance, and the legitimacy that the breadth supplied. The refusal of the premium is the refusal of the buffer, necessarily and not by accident, because the premium and the buffer are the same arrangement.

The point can be made concrete through any one of the buffers. Consider the legal. The cross-subsidy that the haves resent is the price of belonging to a thousand-member association, and that thousand-member breadth is exactly what let the restraints on athlete compensation be defended as the rules of a joint venture rather than condemned as a price-fix among dominant firms, as Paper Six showed. The haves cannot keep the antitrust diffusion while shedding the membership that produced it, because the diffusion was an effect of the membership. The breadth they wish to refuse is the breadth that protected them. Or consider the reputational. The submission to common rules that the haves resent is the same submission that placed the Association, rather than the individual school, in the position of saying no to athletes and absorbing the resulting blame. Shed the common rules and you become the one who says no in your own name. Or consider the political. The diluted vote the haves resent is part of the broad associational governance that gave the restraints their legitimacy as the rules of a wide membership rather than the dictates of a few; shed the dilution and you shed the legitimacy with it. In every case the resented premium and the valued buffer are the same feature, and the refusal of the one is the refusal of the other.

This is why the volume is titled for the buffer at the center. The buffer is not a service the Association sells alongside the membership obligations; it is the membership obligations, viewed from the side of their protective effect. The cross-subsidy, the submission, the diluted vote — the whole premium — is the buffer, and the buffer is the premium. To remove the buffer is to remove the center of the enterprise, and the breakaway is precisely the attempt to remove the center under the impression that one is only removing a tax.

5. The seven obstacles, integrated

The identity of premium and buffer would alone make the breakaway a bad trade. But the structure supplies, beyond it, a series of independent obstacles to consummating the refusal even if the conferences were willing to bear the loss of the buffer — and integrating these obstacles is the work of synthesis, because each was established separately and their force is cumulative.

The first obstacle is the inverted holding of Paper Two: to shed the risk-holder is to hold the risk. The Association holds the conferences’ liability, and a breakaway does not abolish that liability; it transfers it to parties that have spent a century arranging not to hold it and are poorly equipped to take it up. The second obstacle is the spent-capital captive, also of Paper Two: the buffer the conferences would need to reproduce ran on reserves of legal theory and accumulated legitimacy that are now exhausted, so there is no full buffer left to carry away even if they could. The third obstacle is the legitimacy deficit of Paper Five: a new body can draw legitimacy only from tradition it does not have, a statute it cannot get, or the consent of athletes it will not bargain with, so the breakaway’s governance would be illegitimate from the first day. The fourth obstacle is the antitrust paradox of Paper Six: narrowing the group worsens the exposure, and the only escapes — statute or collective bargaining — are foreclosed by legislative paralysis and by the conferences’ refusal of the recognition bargaining requires. The fifth obstacle is the sex-equity exposure, orthogonal to all the others, which no configuration escapes. The sixth obstacle is the encumbered inventory of Paper Seven: the asset a breakaway would monetize is committed under grants of rights that lift only on staggered schedules, so the breakaway cannot be assembled on demand. The seventh obstacle is the networks’ veto and the audience’s sovereignty, also of Paper Seven: the value the breakaway would capture is set by parties outside the conferences, who have their own reasons to prefer the inventory pooled.

Each obstacle is sufficient on its own to make the breakaway difficult; together they make it nearly impossible to complete on the terms the conferences want. And they are not redundant. They arise from different layers of the structure — the holding pattern, the captive’s reserves, the sources of legitimacy, antitrust doctrine, sex-equity law, the broadcast contracts, the attention economy — and each would have to be overcome separately. A breakaway that solved the antitrust problem by bargaining would still face the encumbered inventory; one that waited out the grants of rights would still face the legitimacy deficit; one that somehow rebuilt legitimacy would still hold its own risk and face the networks’ veto. The obstacles compound rather than substitute, and their integration is the structural reason the breakaway has remained, through years of expressed interest, more plausible than imminent. It is not held back by any single barrier but by the accumulation of barriers across every layer of the enterprise at once.

6. The breakaway run in miniature

The volume need not speculate about whether the breakaway would fail, because a small version of it has already been run, and it failed. The enforcement commission is the breakaway in miniature: the conferences took one buffering function — the enforcement of restraints — outside the Association and into a body they controlled, which is exactly what a breakaway would do across every function at once. The experiment is therefore a pilot, and the result of the pilot is the best evidence available for the result of the full undertaking.

The pilot failed in precisely the ways the synthesis predicts. It failed on legitimacy, as Paper Five established: the new body, holding none of the Association’s accumulated tradition, could not make its rules stick, and members complied briefly before hunting loopholes, encouraging challenges, and balking at vesting the body with the power to punish them. It failed on exposure, as Paper Six established: the narrow body’s restraints proved more vulnerable than the broad Association’s, which is why the body has had to extract contractual waivers of the right to challenge it and why the reach of its authority is being contested in the federal court that retains jurisdiction over the settlement. And it failed on reputation, as Paper One’s logic predicts: the body that rejects a payment is the visible author of the rejection, with no broad association to absorb the resulting anger, so the conferences that own the commission have become the named villains of the very disputes the Association once absorbed for them.

The significance of the pilot is that it converts the volume’s structural argument from prediction into observation. One might have argued, before the commission existed, that the conferences could not reproduce the buffer alone; one can now point to their attempt to do so on a single function and to its documented difficulties. They took one piece of the buffer outside the Association and discovered that the piece did not work outside it — that the legitimacy, the diffusion, and the distance the buffer supplied did not travel with the function when the function was moved. This is the strongest possible warning about the full breakaway, because the full breakaway is the same move extended to every function, and the part that has been tried has not held. The conferences have run the experiment that their own breakaway proposal depends upon, and the experiment came back negative.

7. Why the breakaway is persistently sought

If the breakaway is so unfavorable a trade and so thoroughly obstructed, the persistence of the desire for it requires explanation, and the explanation lies in the asymmetry between what is salient and what is invisible. The breakaway is persistently sought because the refusal it embodies is locally rational, and it is locally rational because the premium is vivid while the buffer is unseen.

The premium is vivid in every way that drives institutional resentment. It is a recurring, itemizable cost — the cross-subsidy paid, the votes lost to members who contribute nothing, the rules accepted that were written for others. It is felt at the moment of payment, year after year, by parties who can see exactly what they are giving up. And it is set against a backdrop, established in Paper Seven, that makes it feel especially unjust: the media-value differential persuades the wealthy conferences that they generate nearly all the value, and against that conviction the cross-subsidy reads as an unearned levy on what they have rightfully earned. The premium is the most salient fact of the haves’ membership, present to them constantly and resented continuously.

The buffer, by contrast, is invisible by its nature. It works silently, as Paper One established; an insulation that is functioning produces no event, only the absence of events — the lawsuit not faced directly, the blame not borne in one’s own name, the restraint that holds without being questioned. Parties do not notice protection that works; they notice its cost and forget its benefit, because the benefit takes the form of a harm that did not occur. The conferences therefore see the premium and not the buffer, the tax and not the shield, and from that vantage the refusal looks like a clear gain — a way to keep the assets and the control while shedding a cost that buys, so far as they can see, nothing. The local rationality of the refusal is the rationality of a party that perceives the price of its protection but not the protection, and such a party will pursue the refusal persistently, because from where it stands the refusal is obviously sound. The persistence is not irrationality; it is rationality operating on an incomplete view, in which the most consequential item — the buffer — does not appear.

8. Why the breakaway is difficult to complete

The same refusal that is locally rational is globally self-defeating, and the gap between the local and the global view is why the breakaway is perpetually deferred. Globally, the refusal destroys the value it means to preserve, because the premium and the buffer are one, and it is obstructed besides by the seven barriers of Section 5. The conferences cannot complete the breakaway because completing it would expose them on every front the buffer protected, and because the structure resists the completion at every layer.

The result is not exit but a characteristic substitute behavior that the volume has noted at several points and can now name as a single pattern: selective default and endless renegotiation. Unable to complete the full refusal without collapsing the buffer, the conferences pursue partial refusals that shed pieces of the premium while leaving the Association in place to hold the risk they cannot yet hold themselves. They route decisions to the playoff board where the diluted vote does not reach. They take enforcement into a commission they control. They negotiate format control as the price of staying. Each move is a partial refusal of the premium — a shedding of some cross-subsidy or some governance dilution — that stops short of the full refusal that would dissolve the breadth and collapse the buffer. The conferences default selectively on the parts of the compact they value least while retaining the Association’s risk-absorption, which they still cannot reproduce, and they renegotiate the terms of their membership continually rather than ending it.

This pattern is the breakaway’s actual form. The breakaway does not arrive as an event; it proceeds as a process of partial refusals, each one testing how much of the premium can be shed before the buffer gives way, and each one stopping short because the conferences sense — even when they cannot articulate — that the next increment of refusal would cost them protection they cannot do without. The threat of full departure is the permanent backdrop against which the renegotiation proceeds, useful precisely because it is never carried out: a threat consummated loses its leverage, while a threat maintained extracts concessions indefinitely. The breakaway is therefore most valuable to the conferences unconsummated, as a standing threat that improves their terms within the structure, and least valuable consummated, as an act that would expose them. They will continue to seek it and continue not to complete it, because both the seeking and the not-completing serve them, and the equilibrium is the perpetual deferral the volume has observed throughout.

9. The inversion: the strong stripping their own armor

The synthesis ends where the volume’s method has pointed from the beginning, in an inversion of the breakaway’s usual telling. The breakaway is ordinarily narrated as the strong asserting their power — the wealthy conferences throwing off the weak members and the bureaucratic association that have held them back, claiming the autonomy their dominance entitles them to. The structural reading inverts this entirely. The breakaway is the strong attempting to strip away their own armor, in the conviction that the armor is a tax.

The inversion completes the analysis of Paper Two, which found in college sports the rare asymmetric relationship in which formal authority and substantive power point in opposite directions, so that the apparently dominant party is the substantively exposed one. The breakaway is the moment that asymmetry comes to a head. The conferences, acting on their substantive dominance — their hold on the assets, their command of the media value — move to discard the formal governor that has held their risk. But the formal governor’s risk-absorption was the armor that let them be dominant without being exposed, and in discarding it they would convert their dominance into vulnerability. The strong, by acting on their strength, would strip away the protection that made the strength safe to hold. This is not the strong overpowering the weak; it is the strong disarming themselves under the impression that the armor is a burden, and the volume’s entire apparatus has been, in a sense, an effort to make the armor visible so that the disarming can be seen for what it is.

The reading carries the volume’s consistent analytical commitment to its conclusion. Throughout, the work has preferred to ask how the system produces its outcomes rather than to attribute the outcomes to the will of any actor, and the breakaway has been the hardest test of that preference, because it presents itself so insistently as an act of will — the powerful choosing to leave. The structural account shows that the will is operating on an incomplete view, that the choice the conferences believe they are making (to shed a tax) is not the choice the structure would execute (to shed a shield), and that the outcome is governed less by anyone’s intent than by the identity of premium and buffer that no participant has named. The breakaway is what the system produces when asset-holders act on a dominance whose protection they cannot see, and the system produces, from that action, the perpetual deferral that protects them from the consequences of their own refusal.

10. Conclusion

The breakaway, read whole, is a refusal of insulation. The premium the conferences wish to refuse — the cross-subsidy, the submission, the diluted vote — and the insulation they wish to keep — the antitrust diffusion, the reputational distance, the accumulated legitimacy — are one arrangement seen from two sides, because all of them are breadth, and the breadth is both the tax and the shield. To refuse the premium is therefore to refuse the buffer, whether or not the refusers intend it, and the breakaway is the attempt to remove the center of the enterprise under the impression that one is removing only a cost. The refusal is obstructed, beyond this identity, by seven independent barriers arising from every layer of the structure, and the enforcement commission has already run the refusal in miniature and failed. The breakaway is persistently sought because the refusal is locally rational, the premium salient and the buffer invisible; it is never completed because the refusal would destroy the value it means to preserve and is resisted at every layer, so the conferences pursue selective default and endless renegotiation in its place, maintaining the threat precisely because a threat consummated would expose them and a threat maintained extracts concessions indefinitely. And the whole is an inversion of its usual telling: the strong attempting to strip away their own armor, disarming themselves in the conviction that the armor is a tax.

What remains is the question the synthesis makes urgent. If the simple breakaway is a bad trade that the structure obstructs, and if the present equilibrium is a perpetual deferral that serves the conferences only as an unconsummated threat, then the enterprise is not in a stable resting state but in a holding pattern that the underlying forces will continue to strain. Paper Nine asks which configurations could actually hold — which end-states are stable given the identity of premium and buffer, the foreclosed escapes, the encumbered inventory, and the sovereignty of the broadcast money. It examines the few arrangements that could resolve the strain rather than defer it: a full breakaway paired with the collective bargaining that alone would make it durable, a reformed association with tiered governance that legitimizes the haves’ autonomy without dissolving the breadth, a postseason-centered separation that fractures one function while pooling the rest, and a legislative settlement that supplies by statute the insulation the conferences cannot rebuild alone. The synthesis has shown why the enterprise cannot rest where it is; the final paper asks where, if anywhere, it can come to rest.

Notes

1. This paper is a synthesis and introduces no new external claims; its factual premises were established and sourced in Papers One through Seven, and are referred to here by cross-reference rather than re-cited. The reference list gathers the cross-cutting sources on which the synthesis most depends, together with the foundational works underwriting its analytical frame.
2. The identity of premium and buffer is the volume’s keystone claim. It holds that the breadth of membership is at once the obligation the haves resent and the protection they rely upon, so that the cross-subsidy, the submission to common rules, and the diluted vote cannot be shed without dissolving the diffusion, the distance, and the legitimacy they produce. The claim unifies Papers One through Six and is the precise sense in which the breakaway is a refusal of insulation.
3. The “seven obstacles” of Section 5 are not ranked; each arises from a different layer of the structure and each is independently sufficient to impede the breakaway. Their force is cumulative because they must be overcome separately, and no single solution addresses more than a few at once.
4. The enforcement commission as “breakaway in miniature” converts the volume’s argument from prediction to observation. The pilot — one buffering function taken outside the Association — exhibited the legitimacy, exposure, and reputational failures the synthesis predicts for the full undertaking, and its documented difficulties are the best available evidence for the full breakaway’s likely result.
5. The persistence-and-deferral resolution distinguishes local from global rationality: the refusal is rational from the vantage that sees the premium and not the buffer, and self-defeating from the vantage that sees their identity. The substitute behavior — selective default and maintained threat — is what a party caught between the two vantages will produce, and it is the enterprise’s actual present condition.
6. The inversion of Section 9 completes the asymmetric-relationship analysis of Paper Two, in which formal authority and substantive power point in opposite directions. The breakaway is the moment the substantively dominant party, acting on its dominance, would expose itself by discarding the formal governor that held its risk — the strong disarming themselves.

References

Anderson, E. (2017). Private government: How employers rule our lives (and why we don’t talk about it). Princeton University Press.

Big 12 AD challenges SEC, Big Ten to break away from NCAA amid CSC frustrations. (2026, May). Saturday Down South. https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/news/college-football/big-12-ad-challenges-sec-big-ten-to-break-away-from-ncaa/

Greg Sankey admits interest in SEC and Big Ten breaking away from NCAA. (2026, March 12). OutKick. https://www.outkick.com/sports/college-football-realignment-sec-big-ten-ncaa-governance-greg-sankey-nil-rules

Hansmann, H. (1996). The ownership of enterprise. Harvard University Press.

House v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2025) (final approval of settlement).

If the Big Ten and SEC want to break away from the NCAA, it’s time for the rest of college athletics to call their bluff. (2026, May). Yahoo Sports. https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/article/if-the-big-ten-and-sec-want-to-break-away-from-the-ncaa-its-time-for-the-rest-of-college-athletics-to-call-their-bluff-183506028.html

Mailbag: Breaking down the Pac-12/Mountain West settlement, the SEC/Big Ten breakaway, the Poinsettia Bowl and more. (2026, May 23). The Press Democrat. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2026/05/23/mailbag-breaking-down-the-pac-12-mountain-west-settlement-the-sec-big-ten-breakaway-the-poinsettia-bowl-and-more/

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021).

Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Harvard University Press.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1922)

With potential split from CSC on the table, college sports leaders struggling to find solutions to money problems. (2026, May). Yahoo Sports. https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/article/with-potential-split-from-csc-on-the-table-college-sports-leaders-struggling-to-find-solutions-to-money-problems–the-big-ten-and-sec-should-break-away-and-do-their-own-deal-144449817.html

---