That's possible, that the distribution model will change enough that the value of conferences will decrease faster than the value of their individual schools, but all we've talked about is just having less money. Less money doesn't equal top teams abandoning their conferences. Predicting how the distribution model will change is a nearly impossible errand. If you're really good at it, you can make billions. But the argument to date has been that the bubble is going to pop, resulting in less TV money, and that USC won't agree to tighten their belt. That's been the point I'm arguing. Is it possible that new distribution models will result in reduced value for conferences? Sure. But that's not a given. Fans of PAC 12 schools might be more willing to pay money to watch USC play ASU than they are to watch USC play some unknown school every year. IF that's true, then regardless of how that content gets to them, the conference will remain worthwhile. Will that be enough? Who knows, but it's one of a myriad of possibilities that result in the conferences staying.

Superconferences worry me more than unequal revenue sharing or top teams going independent. If there's another series of cuts, I have hope that Utah makes the cut, but I'm certainly not confident in that.