Tying payouts to future ratings has a logic. Are you saying, though, that tier status would be ratings-based rather than on-the-field: i.e., would Tech for example have not only to be a dominant team but to average in the top 16 for viewership to get top 16 money? This is a deal that absolutely depends on the participation of a large percentage of the blue-bloods. It will work just fine without any given 10 of the "second 32." The 2nd 32 are in no danger of making less in the new agreement than they do now. The blue bloods could theoretically make less if relegated. Notre Dame is unlikely to sign onto an agreement that says UCF may be two tiers above them in prestige, exposure, and money based on how things turn out. If UCF doesn't like it, they can organize a league of teams that think the old-school big-draw teams are greedy. That league would pay out a tiny fraction of the third-tier shares for agreeing to pamper the guys whose current value creates the opportunity for the league. If this league happens, it will be because Texas, ND, Michigan, tOSU, USC, etc want it. They will then agree to terms that permit other teams to play along. The teams that want to play along will have the chance to move up and down. But the guys whose league it really is are not going to want to move down. Telling the senior partners of a newly forming enterprise that they should consider allowing themselves to become junior is not how the world works.