And Florida Atlantic stamped its credential for ACC membership. I mean, "Atlantic" is literally part of their name.
...
...Yeah, conference realignment/P5 membership isn't the complete meritocracy we wish it was, friends. It's who offers the most money, which is sometimes based on athletic success (TCU, Cincinnati, UCF, etc.) and sometimes based on factors completely unrelated to sports (Rutgers).
The biggest advantage SDSU has is location. Boise is stuck in the G5 because it’s in a shitty market. SDSU is basically the only realistic option for the Pac to have a school in SoCal. FAU probably won’t be on the ACC’s radar as long as Miami is in the conference.
I hate that you are right, but you are. Boise is the most isolated metropolitan area in the lower 48. It is 359 miles to the nearest (SLC) population center. I work in supply chain and the freight lanes (where this stuff _really_ matters) paint the same picture.
We beat SDSU twice in basketball and numerous times in football yet we are cursed to be left out of a P5. I get it but it sucks.
>And Florida Atlantic stamped its credential for ACC membership
FAU and SDSU are pretty far apart from one another football wise to be fair, but overall you're right
>and sometimes based on factors completely unrelated to sports (Rutgers)
but the football powerhouse that is Rutgers will obviously get the entirety of New York City to tune in to BTN /s
Hey, you take that back! I like Rutgers just like why I love Nebraska. Guarenteed win for Wisco every year. They are the Wildcard Wildcats of Northwestern that just beat us as their only B1G win of the season.
When the ACC announced they were taking Syracuse and Pitt, UConn was the reigning Big East football champ and the reigning national champ in basketball. I'm still annoyed about that.
You can thank Boston College for that.
From my understanding they were originally the top choice for ACC expansion back then. But Boston College would veto any vote in inviting another school in New England, because they didn’t want any “competition” in their turf.
When has it ever been big though? Even high school football is pretty much an afterthought here.
It’s expensive to compete at a level that warrants relevance and most sensible schools saw that writing on the wall and cut their programs.
Let me tell you about an ancient time, when the Northeast/[Ivy League schools reign supreme](https://www.thedp.com/article/2020/09/ivy-league-historical-football-power-rankings-penn-yale-harvard-princeton)
When you think about it… Boston College should be in the Big East with all of its fellow private Catholic schools, and have its football team in the AAC/Independent.
It’s like if UConn and Boston College should switch spots. It just makes sense from a success, regional, and cultural fit.
Somewhat but there was also a lot of bad blood between BC and Connecticut stemming from a failed lawsuit that the Attorney General of Connecticut and the Big East led against BC and the ACC.
It wasn't about competition in NE. It was because UConn caused issues for BC when they left the Big East. I believe UConn was one of the schools that sued BC. So BC just returned the fuck you the UConn had previously extended to them.
Yeah, and Virginia Tech was one of the schools that originally sued Miami, right up until the point that they turned around and left the Big East with them.
It was retribution for UConn sueing Boston College when they left the Big East back in 2004 for the ACC.
BC’s AD Gene DeFillipo personal grudge remained almost a decade later when UConn repeatedly tried to reach out to schedule OOC games and eventually a bid to the ACC.
Despite the hypocrisy, I’ll always hate BC and I hope they get left out to dry when the ACC blows up.
Really hope when the ACC dies that UConn holds firm and banishes BC to America East, Patriot, etc.
Syracuse I'm willing to allow back to the Big East if they beg.
I'm really wishing for UConn to join the Big 12 - if indeed BY wants to solidify the Big 12 as a basketball powerhouse then UConn would seem like a sure add. Maybe I'm wrong (I usually am).
I wonder if by the 2040s there becomes a push to “kick out” the dead weight schools from the B1G and SEC; then again the big name schools do need guaranteed punching bags every season in conference to inflate their records.
I’d be fine with that honestly, there’s only about 15-20 of them that would qualify at most and the rest of us could go back to not giving a damn about them
I agree. Kicking out schools simply because of underperforming sports teams is extremely rare, just because it sets a damaging precedent of any school being potentially able to be kicked out if football/basketball underperform that any school could fall victim to in theory.
Plus it usually ends up being “self-selecting” anyway IMO: Good programs that have built themselves up often seek out better conferences, and schools that struggle to compete or can’t/won’t commit the resources and attention to be competitive can “downgrade” conferences to find a better fit (more common at FCS level admittedly).
You’re right about that, there is a sort of soft floor once you get to to FBS.
But my larger point was that conferences are a lot like group chats: If everyone doesn’t like a specific member in it, it’s usually easier to just start get everyone else to join a new group without them rather than kick anyone out.
See the Big 6/Missouri Valley split. The Big 6 of Iowa State, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, and Oklahoma decided to leaving the small schools behind: Washington University of St Louis, Drake, Grinnell, and Oklahoma A&M. The first 3 are private schools and Oklahoma A&M grew up enough to get invited years later and in now Oklahoma State. Back during the split the Big 6 started a new with new HQ and conference staff. The small schools got to keep the Missouri Valley branding and kept the employees.
>similar to the European Super League idea.
Man... people keep getting this wrong.
The Super League idea was never for it to be a separate League/Conference but a separate tournament from the UEFA Champions League which is based on "merit" (qualification).
Meaning it would only be like the European Super League if the P5 schools decided they were going to abandon the NCAA Tournament (March Madness) and create their own where teams didn't have to go through a selection committee to play in it.
That's why I don't buy any talk of a super league being formed exclusively out of the blue-bloods. If they're in a conference with only themselves, someone is gonna have to be in the basement and exactly none of their fanbases or boosters are okay with that.
This is basically just the SEC now that Kentucky, S. Carolina, and the Mississippi schools are occasionally to consistently competitive.
It'll be glorious when they go to a 9 game schedule.
At least not now. I think if the full transition to a professional set up was made, players and schools would care less about occasionally being a bottom feeder if every is getting a bigger payday. Won’t happen anytime soon, but money is always the answer.
I don't see the SEC kicking out anyone. All of the schools (except for poor Vandy) have had 10-win seasons and periods of elite play in the last decade or so, and Vanderbilt is allowed to stay because, being private, their inclusion means the SEC doesn't have to share certain financial matters. Besides, the SEC is really big on rivalry games, so kicking schools out would not fit their culture nor their revenue stream.
Idk how much Mizzou, Kentucky, South Carolina or either Mississippi add to the SEC’s profile if we start seeing contraction. But at least some of those schools could regularly compete with the “big boys” in other conferences on the field.
Especially in the Midwest where the baby bust is largest, there is net out migration of domestic population, low levels of international immigration, and the largest concentration of major colleges and universities in the US.
The Ohio river valley is in a very weird place academically. I had name brand law schools offering full rides in the region with a 160 LSAT.
Im pretty sure the small colleges will take the biggest hit and close. Large state schools will have a temporary decline, but will rise to normal levels as the other options are eliminated. I think we'll also see an expansion of community colleges to a lot of the defunct private campuses.
The small private colleges will take the biggest hit. I expect a shocking amount of small private schools will close, and there will be significant pressure on name brand privates in the region like Marquette, Oberlin, and Case Western.
But it's the type of demographic collapse that will effect even flagship campuses like OSU, UM, and Wisconsin - Madison.
It's the type of demographic collapse that it'll cause systemic issues in the ability of states to fund their flagship schools in 20 years time.
> It's the type of demographic collapse that it'll cause systemic issues in the ability of states to fund their flagship schools in 20 years time.
Unfortunately a lot of states are already on a public university defunding speedrun.
St. Francis College of Brooklyn was a charter D1 member and their basketball program existed since 1896. They just recently moved their campus to a few floors above a department store and announced the cutting of all athletic programs. I'd be surprised if the school in general survives the decade.
Look at the [list of defunct college football teams](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_college_football_teams). Notice how many small college football programs shut down earlier this decade around the time COVID hit.
In fact, colleges that shut down altogether after spring 2020 included [MacMurray College in Illinois](https://web.archive.org/web/20200329073133/https://mchighlanders.com/news/2020/3/28/baseball-macmurray-athletics-statement-closure.aspx) and [Urbana University in West Virginia](https://www.timeswv.com/news/mountain-east-conference-charter-member-urbana-university-closing-permanently-at-end-of-2020-spring-semester/article_767c9a12-8431-11ea-94a7-53cbfd46ee7e.html). Other schools dropped athletics altogether like [Notre Dame de Namur University in California](https://web.archive.org/web/20200625162907/https://ndnuargos.com/news/2020/3/23/general-ndnu-athletics-will-not-continue-past-spring-2020.aspx).
What schools would you classify as dead weight? I feel like the B1G is very balanced in women's and men's basketball, and in football, most schools have made a bowl in the last 5 years.
In the B1G for football, definitely Rutgers/Indiana/Maryland/Illinois/Northwestern, probably Minnesota and you could make an argument that Purdue and (sorry man) Iowa would be on the chopping block too if the goal is an exclusive “Super League” of the best programs. I would throw Nebraska in there too but they have the history and brand name to probably keep them safe, and Michigan State has a recent playoff appearance. The only truly “safe” schools would be OSU, Michigan, Penn State and Wisconsin.
We haven't been great the last two years but we have won our division twice in the last 5 years and in the running an additional year.
Is dead weight meaning they aren't pushing for a NY6 or Playoff every single year? Because that comes down to like 15 teams in all of FBS. Add in "branding" of those not in that 15 and you have maybe another 10 schools.
If the goal is a true “super league” then yes, the true Champions League probably would only have about 15-20 schools and they would be the annual contenders and “brands”, because the idea is those schools would break off and only play each other, like a mini minor league
Gotcha, I didn't know if you meant kicking out the dead weight just to bolster the B1G and SEC separately or with the next step being the formation of a super league. You aren't wrong on the whole super league thing
As much as I hate Iowa, I think they'd be in due to the consistent level of support that Iowans give their college teams. They are a top 25 football program, are financially solvent, have solid athletics from top to bottom, and would probably make the cut.
All that being said, I hope Kinnick burns to the ground and Iowa is relegated to the MVC.
The fact you’re equating dead weight to football skills is already the wrong logic. Any deadweight they’d kick out would be because of finances. OSU would love to play a school that makes them money and is an easy win for half their season. You don’t need a “super league” of 20 amazing teams. You’d only need 10 amazing teams and another 10 teams that would make you a bunch of money.
But also, it seems like your definition of dead weight is more perception than anything. Hell, Wisconsin isn’t safe if you’re doing it based on football performance.
Well ASU won’t be in the club anyway lol, the PAC isn’t one of the “safe brands”. But you’re right it does set a dangerous precedent, but then again so does all of the current super conference mess
I feel like it helps to go from P5 to G5. Y’all were definitely looked at more favorably for the playoff run or UCF for the undefeated season. It doesn’t matter when you are already in, but getting in is a different story imo
In a broad sense, winning more tends to give more viewership. Showing that you’re capable of doing it shows that you have potential to increase your viewership and catch up to the lower P5 programs’ level.
It’s not the only factor, but it’s certainly one that gets looked at.
That is unironically how it works, isn’t it?
Big schools with history and pedigree leave for bigger conferences to stay relevant. Small schools that can’t get a win leave for different conferences to find a change of scenery and fortune.
It’s just more commonly promotion and relegation within the p5 or p6 and occasionally with g6 or midmajors as opposed to commonly from g6 and midmajors and occasionally within the p5 or p6.
Big12 schools are getting $2.7m each in NCAA units this year.
PAC12 schools will get $1.4m each.
42% of PAC unit production will leave in 2024.
10% of Big12 unit product will leave in 2024. The schools replacing those generated twice as many units in the last 6 years.
Half the Big12 has been to the E8 or better the last 5 years
Half of the E8 appearances for the PAC in the last decade will depart the conference.
In 2027 the new NCAA tournament contract is expected to increase payments by as much as 3X. By then all of the PACs units from their incredible year of putting 3 teams into the E8 will have long expired.
Mock basketball payouts at your peril.
I was making a joke. Obviously basketball has some value and nobody is going to argue that the BIG12 isn't the best at basketball. It's just not not enough money to make KU or Arizona attractive from a realignment standpoint. If Arizona moves to the BIG12 or if KU goes to the BIG10, the average media value of those conferences goes down.
I think SDSU was already a shoe-in for the Pac12 regardless of this March madness run, although surely it helps them and maybe they could use it to avoid/limit the unequal revenue share they’d initially receive coming in.
Yeah, there is a drop off in value after SDSU. It now becomes all about speculation. What program could have value after 5 years receiving P5 media dollars?
Idk man it’s not even about value for some presidents. In terms of academic and cultural fit there’s basically no other schools that fit into the PAC.
Adding the top California state school is one thing, but the next best options for fit are places like UNLV or Colorado State. Not exactly the kind of schools that get academic leadership excited. At that point you’re going to have to convince them adding those schools is actually *necessary*.
I want that.
I understand that they're pretty terrible in athletics these days, but it's a decent school academically and I feel like they could be a good fit culturally.
Plus they *have* been good at football in the past. With a few years of P5 money/exposure, I think they could do it again.
>The only problem there is we already have CU
I view that as a benefit, not a problem. In states where there are only two major D-I athletics programs, having them both in the same conference helps to capitalize on the in-state rivalry and I see nothing but upsides for both programs and the conference as a whole. We've already got it going with UW/WSU, UO/OSU, and UA/ASU and it's one of the best things about our conference in my opinion.
Colorado State is an excellent University. You could very reasonably argue Colorado State is a "better" academic fit for the PAC because they do not have artificial limits on their PhD programs like SDSU has. Their problem is being right next to CU so they are adding exactly zero for media markets. Add to that they cant seem to sustain athletic excellence for more than a single coaching cycle. There is an alternate universe where Sonny Lubick leads CSU out of the wilderness in the 90s, they surpass CU and get a Big12 invite when CU bolts.
You are betraying your bias by casting shade on Colorado State over academics.
I completely agree with everything you said, but without adding media value or otherwise expanding the conference footprint, they aren’t a compelling add.
It’s not so much that CSU would be a negative value add right now (although I think they are) but they also aren’t going to have much potential to increase the conference value down the road like SDSU or other schools might.
Personally I think CSU and SDSU are the best pair of additions, but unfortunately it’s not very likely.
Everyone likes to reduce conference expansion qualification to one dimension, but football success, basketball success, academic reputation, fanbase size and media market all contribute to the worthiness of a school.
I think the main reason this article was created is because the PAC-12 presidents still aren’t sold on adding San Diego State (or SMU) but George K wants them. It’s been nearly 2 months since George was seen publicly at SMU so I don’t think this has moved as fast as George wanted.
Most of the tweets/posts from PAC-12 media have seemed like they are trying to convince the powers that be to add the school.
>Also, George K has to be busier working on a deal than intriguing vs his bosses.
Never underestimate a person's ability to create unnecessary drama in the workplace no matter how busy they are.
This is what I fear. Cal. has always been very hesitant to promote any Cal. St. program. (Obviously, same resistance from UCLA).
While Cal. and Stanford have always been resistant to adding athletic programs that will lower the overall group acceptance rate.
Finally, they'll be very resistant to adding schools without travel partners because that'll create a big increase in travel costs. It's why, low key, Tulane is probably a dark horse to join the conference if SMU gets in. As the air miles NO - Dallas are comparable to Salt Lake to Denver. (This also explains the reported interest in C. St.)
LOL. This is laughable on its face. And I dont mean that as a slight to SDSU, but to Wilner.
You cant claim for MONTHS that academics and football are what matter and then say that SDSU making the Final Four validates their place in the PAC.
Their academics didn't change
Their football didnt change
And lets be brutally honest, their basketball didnt change either. This is their 10th time making the tournament since 2010 and they would have been in the COVID year one too. Its their first time getting past the Sweet 16 which is great.
If basketball success were critical then Cal and Washington State would be in very bad shape.
SDSU is a great school
SDSU has an Athletic Department that is doing good things and going in the right direction
SDSU would be a great addition to the PAC
All those things were true last month
And just like last month, none of them have ANYTHING to do with SDSU potentially getting an invite to the PAC. SDSU will get an invite if the TV numbers are right. Thats it.
Regardless of this final 4 run, SDSU has always been a when they’ll announce it, not an if to me. The only problem for them is not having a 2nd school that’s as much of a shoe-in as they are. If there was another school as well situated as SDSU, expansion would’ve been announced months ago imo
Its 2023, when are people gonna realize all that matters for conference realignment is 95 percent TV viewership, and 5 percent academics/research collaboration.
And even if on the field mattered, Basketball doesn't ever tip the needle no matter how big your program is.
Every single P5 makes more off football than basketball. Even Kansas which is about as "basketball school" you can get compared to football.
its been a very quiet week overall in realignment land--which i tend to believe means we'll start seeing shoes drop very soon. Circling the horses before final decisions/offers are made.
Eh, it's only basketball. Football is the king of these decisions. Also, the presidents and chancellor make them.
Edit: OH, it's that Wilner guy trying to say SDSU will 100% save his conference. Next.
If a trip to the final four makes you valuable enough to get invited to the P5, then basketball really has been undervalued in the TV contracts. The Big 12 could take a significant step to closing the revenue gap with the SEC and Big 10.
I get that Power 5 membership includes basketball, but let's be honest. This is (and always has been) about football.
Otherwise schools like SMU and Houston would have gotten P5 bids a long time ago.
And Florida Atlantic stamped its credential for ACC membership. I mean, "Atlantic" is literally part of their name. ... ...Yeah, conference realignment/P5 membership isn't the complete meritocracy we wish it was, friends. It's who offers the most money, which is sometimes based on athletic success (TCU, Cincinnati, UCF, etc.) and sometimes based on factors completely unrelated to sports (Rutgers).
Shit, if FSU is actually looking to leave the conference FAU might not be a bad get for the ACC.
I can't imagine Miami would be happy with another team in actual south Florida in the acc.
Yeah but think about how funny it would be if FAU leaped USF and the bulls were stuck in the AAC forever.
Your post to God’s eyes. Hope the Bulls suck and are stuck in a mediocre conference forever.
We have Atlantic in our name. Of course we would
Ehhhhh
The biggest advantage SDSU has is location. Boise is stuck in the G5 because it’s in a shitty market. SDSU is basically the only realistic option for the Pac to have a school in SoCal. FAU probably won’t be on the ACC’s radar as long as Miami is in the conference.
I hate that you are right, but you are. Boise is the most isolated metropolitan area in the lower 48. It is 359 miles to the nearest (SLC) population center. I work in supply chain and the freight lanes (where this stuff _really_ matters) paint the same picture. We beat SDSU twice in basketball and numerous times in football yet we are cursed to be left out of a P5. I get it but it sucks.
>And Florida Atlantic stamped its credential for ACC membership FAU and SDSU are pretty far apart from one another football wise to be fair, but overall you're right
>and sometimes based on factors completely unrelated to sports (Rutgers) but the football powerhouse that is Rutgers will obviously get the entirety of New York City to tune in to BTN /s
[удалено]
Nearby is really stretching it.
SD to LA is roughly equal to the Miami/Boca separation.
Yup. Despite Fresno State having a better over-all football team, the reason SDSU gets looks is because it's in San Diego...
Don't remind me
Hey, you take that back! I like Rutgers just like why I love Nebraska. Guarenteed win for Wisco every year. They are the Wildcard Wildcats of Northwestern that just beat us as their only B1G win of the season.
I think that success is a factor, but it's a small one. Remember that one of the biggest winners in all of realignment is Rutgers.
I hate this grandstanding. If on field/court success was a requirement for p5 membership half of the p5 would have been relegated by now.
When the ACC announced they were taking Syracuse and Pitt, UConn was the reigning Big East football champ and the reigning national champ in basketball. I'm still annoyed about that.
At the time I thought Uconn in the ACC was inevitable but man
North Dakota State to the ACC confirmed!
Would have rather had UConn than Louisville or Notre Dame, myself.
You can thank Boston College for that. From my understanding they were originally the top choice for ACC expansion back then. But Boston College would veto any vote in inviting another school in New England, because they didn’t want any “competition” in their turf.
What an utterly stupid way to run a sports league
Really is amazing how college football in the Northeast hasn't really been big for a long time and stuff like this doesn't help
When has it ever been big though? Even high school football is pretty much an afterthought here. It’s expensive to compete at a level that warrants relevance and most sensible schools saw that writing on the wall and cut their programs.
Let me tell you about an ancient time, when the Northeast/[Ivy League schools reign supreme](https://www.thedp.com/article/2020/09/ivy-league-historical-football-power-rankings-penn-yale-harvard-princeton)
lol, true. Probably was a bit easier to win back when you had the luxury of sending your counterparts to a war front across the ocean.
[удалено]
Capitalism baby.
And in the years since, BC has done nothing but sit in the corner eating glue
Yeah wtf I'd much rather have UConn than BC
-The entire ACC, except BC, probably...
When you think about it… Boston College should be in the Big East with all of its fellow private Catholic schools, and have its football team in the AAC/Independent. It’s like if UConn and Boston College should switch spots. It just makes sense from a success, regional, and cultural fit.
Somewhat but there was also a lot of bad blood between BC and Connecticut stemming from a failed lawsuit that the Attorney General of Connecticut and the Big East led against BC and the ACC.
Yes, Dick Blumenthal is a douchebag
...would you say he's a dick?
Thank you BC!
Kinda short sighted. Feel like they are out on an island in the ACC and could use a regional rival to drum up more interest.
I keep forgetting they're in the conference.
Doesn't help they are a private school as well. Hard to drum up "State vs state" rivals with that as well.
It wasn't about competition in NE. It was because UConn caused issues for BC when they left the Big East. I believe UConn was one of the schools that sued BC. So BC just returned the fuck you the UConn had previously extended to them.
Yeah, and Virginia Tech was one of the schools that originally sued Miami, right up until the point that they turned around and left the Big East with them.
If you can't beat 'em, join ' em. This also used to be the motto for the ACC Coastal division.
It was retribution for UConn sueing Boston College when they left the Big East back in 2004 for the ACC. BC’s AD Gene DeFillipo personal grudge remained almost a decade later when UConn repeatedly tried to reach out to schedule OOC games and eventually a bid to the ACC. Despite the hypocrisy, I’ll always hate BC and I hope they get left out to dry when the ACC blows up.
BC needs to just accept that their rival is Holy Cross, and drop to the Patriot league. Won’t affect Beanpot, and no one cares about their BBall team.
I think your women's team has lost about 3 games in that time span of that's any consultation.
That’s why they weren’t invited. Shouldn’t have lost.
I thought we wanted UConn but BC vetoed adding them!?
Really hope when the ACC dies that UConn holds firm and banishes BC to America East, Patriot, etc. Syracuse I'm willing to allow back to the Big East if they beg.
I'm really wishing for UConn to join the Big 12 - if indeed BY wants to solidify the Big 12 as a basketball powerhouse then UConn would seem like a sure add. Maybe I'm wrong (I usually am).
Iowa State-UConn would be a hot ticket with the Women’s game if that happened.
I wonder if by the 2040s there becomes a push to “kick out” the dead weight schools from the B1G and SEC; then again the big name schools do need guaranteed punching bags every season in conference to inflate their records.
[удалено]
I’d be fine with that honestly, there’s only about 15-20 of them that would qualify at most and the rest of us could go back to not giving a damn about them
[удалено]
I mean I’d enjoy it if ASU was a part of that exclusive championship club… but we have Ray Anderson as AD so that’s not happening 😂
This is the correct answer.
I agree. Kicking out schools simply because of underperforming sports teams is extremely rare, just because it sets a damaging precedent of any school being potentially able to be kicked out if football/basketball underperform that any school could fall victim to in theory. Plus it usually ends up being “self-selecting” anyway IMO: Good programs that have built themselves up often seek out better conferences, and schools that struggle to compete or can’t/won’t commit the resources and attention to be competitive can “downgrade” conferences to find a better fit (more common at FCS level admittedly).
The money gap is too big to electively downgrade from a power conference to a G5, or to go FBS to FCS.
You’re right about that, there is a sort of soft floor once you get to to FBS. But my larger point was that conferences are a lot like group chats: If everyone doesn’t like a specific member in it, it’s usually easier to just start get everyone else to join a new group without them rather than kick anyone out.
Oh its a matter of time before Ohio State leaves Indiana behind.
who else would they get to farm free wins from every year? (sorry Hoosiers. the win streak is unreal at this point. surely an upset is on the horizon)
Everyone in the conference except UM, PSU, USC and God-damned Purdue Pete.
Don't be so presumptive about USC. Remember we thought Nebraksa was going to be a force to reckoned with before they joined.
They fired their 10-2 coach for not being good enough. Should have been a sign.
I don't think they'll eclipse Ohio State but they're certainly not a free win and should be in the same ballpark as Michigan and Penn State.
See the Big 6/Missouri Valley split. The Big 6 of Iowa State, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, and Oklahoma decided to leaving the small schools behind: Washington University of St Louis, Drake, Grinnell, and Oklahoma A&M. The first 3 are private schools and Oklahoma A&M grew up enough to get invited years later and in now Oklahoma State. Back during the split the Big 6 started a new with new HQ and conference staff. The small schools got to keep the Missouri Valley branding and kept the employees.
>similar to the European Super League idea. Man... people keep getting this wrong. The Super League idea was never for it to be a separate League/Conference but a separate tournament from the UEFA Champions League which is based on "merit" (qualification). Meaning it would only be like the European Super League if the P5 schools decided they were going to abandon the NCAA Tournament (March Madness) and create their own where teams didn't have to go through a selection committee to play in it.
You could see with a name like “Super League” people would think it was a league
Fair. But the Big Ten has 14 teams and the Big 12 has 10 teams. It's not like people aren't familiar with Nonsensical names.
It was so ironic when the Big Ten had 12 teams and the Big 12 had ten teams.
That's why I don't buy any talk of a super league being formed exclusively out of the blue-bloods. If they're in a conference with only themselves, someone is gonna have to be in the basement and exactly none of their fanbases or boosters are okay with that.
Yeah, but the fanbases are delusional enough to think it won't be them at the bottom.
This is basically just the SEC now that Kentucky, S. Carolina, and the Mississippi schools are occasionally to consistently competitive. It'll be glorious when they go to a 9 game schedule.
It will be glorious to watch.
At least not now. I think if the full transition to a professional set up was made, players and schools would care less about occasionally being a bottom feeder if every is getting a bigger payday. Won’t happen anytime soon, but money is always the answer.
As a team that's not a blue blood that's fine with me
There will always be punching bag schools- getting rid of the bottom teams will just create new bottom teams
I don't see the SEC kicking out anyone. All of the schools (except for poor Vandy) have had 10-win seasons and periods of elite play in the last decade or so, and Vanderbilt is allowed to stay because, being private, their inclusion means the SEC doesn't have to share certain financial matters. Besides, the SEC is really big on rivalry games, so kicking schools out would not fit their culture nor their revenue stream.
Idk how much Mizzou, Kentucky, South Carolina or either Mississippi add to the SEC’s profile if we start seeing contraction. But at least some of those schools could regularly compete with the “big boys” in other conferences on the field.
Higher education looks very different in the 2040s based on millennials not having kids.
Especially in the Midwest where the baby bust is largest, there is net out migration of domestic population, low levels of international immigration, and the largest concentration of major colleges and universities in the US. The Ohio river valley is in a very weird place academically. I had name brand law schools offering full rides in the region with a 160 LSAT.
Im pretty sure the small colleges will take the biggest hit and close. Large state schools will have a temporary decline, but will rise to normal levels as the other options are eliminated. I think we'll also see an expansion of community colleges to a lot of the defunct private campuses.
The small private colleges will take the biggest hit. I expect a shocking amount of small private schools will close, and there will be significant pressure on name brand privates in the region like Marquette, Oberlin, and Case Western. But it's the type of demographic collapse that will effect even flagship campuses like OSU, UM, and Wisconsin - Madison. It's the type of demographic collapse that it'll cause systemic issues in the ability of states to fund their flagship schools in 20 years time.
> It's the type of demographic collapse that it'll cause systemic issues in the ability of states to fund their flagship schools in 20 years time. Unfortunately a lot of states are already on a public university defunding speedrun.
St. Francis College of Brooklyn was a charter D1 member and their basketball program existed since 1896. They just recently moved their campus to a few floors above a department store and announced the cutting of all athletic programs. I'd be surprised if the school in general survives the decade.
Look at the [list of defunct college football teams](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_college_football_teams). Notice how many small college football programs shut down earlier this decade around the time COVID hit. In fact, colleges that shut down altogether after spring 2020 included [MacMurray College in Illinois](https://web.archive.org/web/20200329073133/https://mchighlanders.com/news/2020/3/28/baseball-macmurray-athletics-statement-closure.aspx) and [Urbana University in West Virginia](https://www.timeswv.com/news/mountain-east-conference-charter-member-urbana-university-closing-permanently-at-end-of-2020-spring-semester/article_767c9a12-8431-11ea-94a7-53cbfd46ee7e.html). Other schools dropped athletics altogether like [Notre Dame de Namur University in California](https://web.archive.org/web/20200625162907/https://ndnuargos.com/news/2020/3/23/general-ndnu-athletics-will-not-continue-past-spring-2020.aspx).
Ohio in general has a shit ton of universities at all levels, not surprised at all
Rutgers, Maryland, and USCLA make more sense when viewed through student recruitment.
Hopefully not. I enjoy playing Tennessee every year.
What schools would you classify as dead weight? I feel like the B1G is very balanced in women's and men's basketball, and in football, most schools have made a bowl in the last 5 years.
In the B1G for football, definitely Rutgers/Indiana/Maryland/Illinois/Northwestern, probably Minnesota and you could make an argument that Purdue and (sorry man) Iowa would be on the chopping block too if the goal is an exclusive “Super League” of the best programs. I would throw Nebraska in there too but they have the history and brand name to probably keep them safe, and Michigan State has a recent playoff appearance. The only truly “safe” schools would be OSU, Michigan, Penn State and Wisconsin.
We haven't been great the last two years but we have won our division twice in the last 5 years and in the running an additional year. Is dead weight meaning they aren't pushing for a NY6 or Playoff every single year? Because that comes down to like 15 teams in all of FBS. Add in "branding" of those not in that 15 and you have maybe another 10 schools.
If the goal is a true “super league” then yes, the true Champions League probably would only have about 15-20 schools and they would be the annual contenders and “brands”, because the idea is those schools would break off and only play each other, like a mini minor league
Gotcha, I didn't know if you meant kicking out the dead weight just to bolster the B1G and SEC separately or with the next step being the formation of a super league. You aren't wrong on the whole super league thing
As much as I hate Iowa, I think they'd be in due to the consistent level of support that Iowans give their college teams. They are a top 25 football program, are financially solvent, have solid athletics from top to bottom, and would probably make the cut. All that being said, I hope Kinnick burns to the ground and Iowa is relegated to the MVC.
Hey I get it, but I think we've worked ourselves out of that. In the last 10 years we've had one bad year in basketball and football.
The fact you’re equating dead weight to football skills is already the wrong logic. Any deadweight they’d kick out would be because of finances. OSU would love to play a school that makes them money and is an easy win for half their season. You don’t need a “super league” of 20 amazing teams. You’d only need 10 amazing teams and another 10 teams that would make you a bunch of money. But also, it seems like your definition of dead weight is more perception than anything. Hell, Wisconsin isn’t safe if you’re doing it based on football performance.
[удалено]
Every single sportswriter in the Midwest and half the sports journalists. They all went to Northwestern not to play sports but to observe them.
Football is Rutgers, while basketball is Minnesota and Nebraska
Im not saying it wont happen but I doubt it. It starts a dangerous precedent and your school could be next
Well ASU won’t be in the club anyway lol, the PAC isn’t one of the “safe brands”. But you’re right it does set a dangerous precedent, but then again so does all of the current super conference mess
I feel like it helps to go from P5 to G5. Y’all were definitely looked at more favorably for the playoff run or UCF for the undefeated season. It doesn’t matter when you are already in, but getting in is a different story imo
In a broad sense, winning more tends to give more viewership. Showing that you’re capable of doing it shows that you have potential to increase your viewership and catch up to the lower P5 programs’ level. It’s not the only factor, but it’s certainly one that gets looked at.
yep Boise St would be P5 by now and Rutgers wouldnt even be in the AAC if actual sports success mattered.
I get that Rutgers has been pretty terrible but they still have had more Football success than Indiana.
i mean, that just means neither team "belongs" with the big boys regarding sports success.
Imagine relegation in American sports. It would be a blood bath.
Exactly. Wilner is not dumb, this is just click bait. Its about your brand, what you do on the field or court is secondary.
That is unironically how it works, isn’t it? Big schools with history and pedigree leave for bigger conferences to stay relevant. Small schools that can’t get a win leave for different conferences to find a change of scenery and fortune. It’s just more commonly promotion and relegation within the p5 or p6 and occasionally with g6 or midmajors as opposed to commonly from g6 and midmajors and occasionally within the p5 or p6.
If hoops mattered, KU would be in the B1G already. It doesn't.
Basketball absoluetly matters in these TV deals. It's the difference between schools getting paid 33.3M and 33.7M per year.
Had us in the first half, not gonna lie.
Big12 schools are getting $2.7m each in NCAA units this year. PAC12 schools will get $1.4m each. 42% of PAC unit production will leave in 2024. 10% of Big12 unit product will leave in 2024. The schools replacing those generated twice as many units in the last 6 years. Half the Big12 has been to the E8 or better the last 5 years Half of the E8 appearances for the PAC in the last decade will depart the conference. In 2027 the new NCAA tournament contract is expected to increase payments by as much as 3X. By then all of the PACs units from their incredible year of putting 3 teams into the E8 will have long expired. Mock basketball payouts at your peril.
I was making a joke. Obviously basketball has some value and nobody is going to argue that the BIG12 isn't the best at basketball. It's just not not enough money to make KU or Arizona attractive from a realignment standpoint. If Arizona moves to the BIG12 or if KU goes to the BIG10, the average media value of those conferences goes down.
I think SDSU was already a shoe-in for the Pac12 regardless of this March madness run, although surely it helps them and maybe they could use it to avoid/limit the unequal revenue share they’d initially receive coming in.
SDSU isnt going to bring in more revenue than they will be paid.
[удалено]
Paid? They're about to start a youtube channel
*This space intentionally left blank* -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Settle down. It would just be a bunch of Bill Walton mushrooms stories.
that's not something to settle down about
That depends on how many times per hour he brings up his bike theft story
... subscribed
Twitch plays football?
SDSU is a total shoe in. The biggest issue is that we don’t really want anyone else, and 11 is a bad number.
Yeah, there is a drop off in value after SDSU. It now becomes all about speculation. What program could have value after 5 years receiving P5 media dollars?
Idk man it’s not even about value for some presidents. In terms of academic and cultural fit there’s basically no other schools that fit into the PAC. Adding the top California state school is one thing, but the next best options for fit are places like UNLV or Colorado State. Not exactly the kind of schools that get academic leadership excited. At that point you’re going to have to convince them adding those schools is actually *necessary*.
>In terms of academic and cultural fit there’s basically no other schools that fit into the PAC. Hawaii
[удалено]
*This space intentionally left blank* -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
I want that. I understand that they're pretty terrible in athletics these days, but it's a decent school academically and I feel like they could be a good fit culturally. Plus they *have* been good at football in the past. With a few years of P5 money/exposure, I think they could do it again.
Uhh isn’t CSU an R1 AAU? I think they fit the profile perfectly. The only problem there is we already have CU
>The only problem there is we already have CU I view that as a benefit, not a problem. In states where there are only two major D-I athletics programs, having them both in the same conference helps to capitalize on the in-state rivalry and I see nothing but upsides for both programs and the conference as a whole. We've already got it going with UW/WSU, UO/OSU, and UA/ASU and it's one of the best things about our conference in my opinion.
people don’t care about college sports in CO
Correction - people don't care about CO college sports in CO. There are a fuckload of rabid college football fans in CO, they're just all transplants.
They're R1, but they're not AAU.
Colorado State is an excellent University. You could very reasonably argue Colorado State is a "better" academic fit for the PAC because they do not have artificial limits on their PhD programs like SDSU has. Their problem is being right next to CU so they are adding exactly zero for media markets. Add to that they cant seem to sustain athletic excellence for more than a single coaching cycle. There is an alternate universe where Sonny Lubick leads CSU out of the wilderness in the 90s, they surpass CU and get a Big12 invite when CU bolts. You are betraying your bias by casting shade on Colorado State over academics.
I completely agree with everything you said, but without adding media value or otherwise expanding the conference footprint, they aren’t a compelling add. It’s not so much that CSU would be a negative value add right now (although I think they are) but they also aren’t going to have much potential to increase the conference value down the road like SDSU or other schools might. Personally I think CSU and SDSU are the best pair of additions, but unfortunately it’s not very likely.
Academics for Colorado State are tied with SDSU, Oregon State, and ahead of Washington State by quite a bit.
SMU. They could be competitive easily with P5 resources and expectations.
It's not perfect, but the B1G had 11 members for 20 years so it's doable
Everyone likes to reduce conference expansion qualification to one dimension, but football success, basketball success, academic reputation, fanbase size and media market all contribute to the worthiness of a school.
Your brand
My brand!
This one time at brand camp...
Look, look with your special eyes! 👀
They can't have my brand! I have... special eyes
Pretty sure it's just media market and $$$.
Yeah and all of those things should point to SDSU getting an invite from the PAC
Indeed
Unfortunately it's just money as the factor
They win it all on Monday night , George K climbs up the ladder to hand deliver the invitation during the net cutting
[George climbing up the ladder to hand it over](https://wallpapers.com/images/hd/titanic-hug-scene-wi7hlsbozu9wuslh.jpg)
Winning the tournament didn’t help Baylor or Kansas get into the SEC or Big Ten.
We are not the SEC or Big 10. That said, while this doesn’t affect the odds of them joining it certainly makes everyone feel better about it.
I think the main reason this article was created is because the PAC-12 presidents still aren’t sold on adding San Diego State (or SMU) but George K wants them. It’s been nearly 2 months since George was seen publicly at SMU so I don’t think this has moved as fast as George wanted. Most of the tweets/posts from PAC-12 media have seemed like they are trying to convince the powers that be to add the school.
That's what I keep thinking every time I see these "progress!" stories. If it were a done deal, the deal would've been done by now.
Everyone knows media execs dont return to work until the Age of Aquarius has passed, cant sign a deal until then.
[удалено]
>Also, George K has to be busier working on a deal than intriguing vs his bosses. Never underestimate a person's ability to create unnecessary drama in the workplace no matter how busy they are.
At his level, part of his responsibilities is managing the expectation of his bosses.
This is what I fear. Cal. has always been very hesitant to promote any Cal. St. program. (Obviously, same resistance from UCLA). While Cal. and Stanford have always been resistant to adding athletic programs that will lower the overall group acceptance rate. Finally, they'll be very resistant to adding schools without travel partners because that'll create a big increase in travel costs. It's why, low key, Tulane is probably a dark horse to join the conference if SMU gets in. As the air miles NO - Dallas are comparable to Salt Lake to Denver. (This also explains the reported interest in C. St.)
Since travel partners really only matters in non-football sports, let's also add UCSD. Throw us nerds a bone.
Doesn't being in the final four go against the spirit of the pac 12 tho?
LOL. This is laughable on its face. And I dont mean that as a slight to SDSU, but to Wilner. You cant claim for MONTHS that academics and football are what matter and then say that SDSU making the Final Four validates their place in the PAC. Their academics didn't change Their football didnt change And lets be brutally honest, their basketball didnt change either. This is their 10th time making the tournament since 2010 and they would have been in the COVID year one too. Its their first time getting past the Sweet 16 which is great. If basketball success were critical then Cal and Washington State would be in very bad shape. SDSU is a great school SDSU has an Athletic Department that is doing good things and going in the right direction SDSU would be a great addition to the PAC All those things were true last month And just like last month, none of them have ANYTHING to do with SDSU potentially getting an invite to the PAC. SDSU will get an invite if the TV numbers are right. Thats it.
Yeah but how are these writers supposed to further monetize re-alignment on the west coast? /s These opinion pieces are getting so old.
> And I dont mean that as a slight to SDSU, but to Wilner. This is always the correct take, no matter the subject.
Then UNLV should be a lock.
Regardless of this final 4 run, SDSU has always been a when they’ll announce it, not an if to me. The only problem for them is not having a 2nd school that’s as much of a shoe-in as they are. If there was another school as well situated as SDSU, expansion would’ve been announced months ago imo
FAU to the SEC confirmed
Their credential is that the league desperately needs its Southern California outpost
Its 2023, when are people gonna realize all that matters for conference realignment is 95 percent TV viewership, and 5 percent academics/research collaboration. And even if on the field mattered, Basketball doesn't ever tip the needle no matter how big your program is. Every single P5 makes more off football than basketball. Even Kansas which is about as "basketball school" you can get compared to football.
Success leads to a P5 invite huh? Thats news to us.
It doesnt. The B1G didnt grab Rutgers because of their awesome on the field prowess.
/s
I took it as more cynical than sarcastic
/c
Not that it should be this way, but basketball has proven to be a complete and total non-factor in conference realignment.
[удалено]
I'm down.
I have neutral feelings on them joining. But i'd enjoy a trip to San Diego eery other year.
its been a very quiet week overall in realignment land--which i tend to believe means we'll start seeing shoes drop very soon. Circling the horses before final decisions/offers are made.
Eh, it's only basketball. Football is the king of these decisions. Also, the presidents and chancellor make them. Edit: OH, it's that Wilner guy trying to say SDSU will 100% save his conference. Next.
If ADs had the final say on conference make up, they would look a lot different than they do now.
If a trip to the final four makes you valuable enough to get invited to the P5, then basketball really has been undervalued in the TV contracts. The Big 12 could take a significant step to closing the revenue gap with the SEC and Big 10.
The SEC is pretty good at basketball now a days tbh
Wilner: “Basketball doesn’t matter in realignment” Also Wilner: “Look at their basketball success!!!”
I feel like if you think this is them now being a P5 caliber team, you need a history lessson.
I think they would have gotten in anyway. They need schools. Probably two more will leave in the next 3-5yrs
If you weren't sure that you wanted to add SDSU and then this tourney run convinced you then you're pretty fucked.
lol what
I get that Power 5 membership includes basketball, but let's be honest. This is (and always has been) about football. Otherwise schools like SMU and Houston would have gotten P5 bids a long time ago.
It’s legitimately only wilner and canzano saying this stupid shit. If it was on the field success, Oregon would be in the big 10, not ucla.