Collapse of the PAC-12: Oregon State & Washington State left in the dust

[No Fun Shogun]

In other words, even in the 11th hour, Cal and Stanford are basically overvaluing their brand again?

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

Another thing to note is that Utah had three non-conference opponents lined up for 2024, 2026, and 2027. But in each of those three years, two of the opponents lined up were teams they will be competing against in the Big 12 - BYU all three years, Baylor in 2024, and Houston in 2026 and 2027. Utah will now need to find two new OOC games those years. I've read they won't consider Utah State. Utah has a game against Arkansas scheduled in 2026 but no non-Big 12 P5 games in 2024 and 2027. Interesting to see what they do.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

In the event of both the remaining Pac-12 schools getting into another P5 league and Air Force changing its primary conference to the Patriot League (to be with Army and Navy, football would be independent), the MW would of course look to the Big Sky for football-related expansion. To even out at 14 football members, I would say Eastern Washington, Montana, and Montana State be the new members. As well, the MW can go to 14 full-time members by adding a school that doesn't sponsor football to offset Hawaii being football-only. Seattle U. would be the most obvious choice given the market they are located in (which is why Washington is joining the Big Ten).

 

[BKarchitect]

The ACC was never going to add Cal and Stanford. It is unproductive for the bottom line. And there is precisely zero % chance those adds would placate FSU and Clemson.

FSU, Clemson, UNC and UVA are as gone from the ACC in the long-run as surely as USC, UCLA, UW and UO were gone from the PAC. It’s merely a matter of time, how they are divided up between the B1G and SEC, who gets to ride coattails with them and whether the better remnants of the ACC survive by adding some G5’s or get absorbed into the Big 12.

P5 was the past. P4 may be the current reality. P2 may be the end game. But I think we are heading for a long P3 period where the B1G and SEC are the head honchos and the Big 12/PAC/ACC zombie league remains relevant enough to be along for the ride (and pretty fun truth be told). With the PAC and future ACC “leftover” schools fortifying the MW and AAC. I do not think the future is about inclusion of the SMU’s and Tulane’s…I think it’s about the exclusion of the Wazzu’s and Wake Forests. The networks and media powers are not trying to reorganize and expand - they are trying to whittle down the number of premium seats. And many more schools are going to end up doing nothing wrong other than having the wrong affiliation at the wrong time.

 

[Spydey629]

The best idea at this point is to just merge with the Mountain West, and keep all of the PAC-12 branding - “Conference of Champions” and the like. Make it the PAC-16 and call it a day.

That said, Hawaii is a football only member in the MWC. Let them keep it that way, then see if you can somehow convince Gonzaga to join in everything else. The MWC has been a pretty decent basketball conference the past few years. Add in some PAC-12 brand names and one of the hottest basketball brands in the Pacific Timezone and you’re following the path set by the Big XII. It may not be the premier football conference, but it will be good. And the basketball product will be top notch.

 

[GKJ]

I don’t see why the MWC would let the Pac-12 take over all their branding. They are not the Pac-12 and they beat the Pac-12 to remain standing. If anything they should merge the names to be the ‘Pacific & Mountain Conference’ or something to that effect. The Pac-12 branding means nothing if almost all your schools weren’t in it.

 

[Voight]

Forgot Steve Spurriers exact quote but maybe everyone's just following his advice of if you're going to suck you might as well suck in a more lucrative conference.

 

[Spydey629]

I don’t see why the MWC would let the Pac-12 take over all their branding. They are not the Pac-12 and they beat the Pac-12 to remain standing. If anything they should merge the names to be the ‘Pacific & Mountain Conference’ or something to that effect. The Pac-12 branding means nothing if almost all your schools weren’t in it.

I go simply with name recognition. More casual fans have respect for the PAC-# brand than the Mountain West. Even if it falls off as the top Group of 5 Conference, casual fans will still think it’s a higher status than the second tier leagues.

As it stands right now, I’d rank the MWC as the top Group of 5 conference heading into the season:

Mountain West
American
Sun Belt
Conference USA
MAC

 

[joelef]

This really isn't the reality though. Athletics really doesn't take resources away from academics in any way, shape, or form.

#1 - Ticket sales and TV revenue are the bulk of what's paying for athletics at the big schools.
- This also includes "Reward" money from the NCAA or CFP that comes from the TV contracts.

#2 - Booster donations to athletics. That makes up a ton of the athletics budget. Athletics departments are always fundraising among the fan base. Clemson, for example, has had a program called IPTAY "I Pay Ten A Year" for decades, it's probably up to a hundred bucks a year, or so.

#3 - Student fees. At the big schools, it's a small fee that basically is "Your free student tickets we take up front from everyone" (which makes money if there's more students than student ticket seats in the stadium/arena). The schools that "subsidize athletics" do it in the form of these student fees.

#4 - Marketing. The budget for marketing would need to be WAY HIGHER without athletics. The value add of sports success is massive. They're not putting 3-hour debate club events on TV nationwide. 30 years ago, very few people had EVER HEARD OF Gonzaga. But they bust everyone's bracket twice in a row.... and applications to the school (which includes a fee) skyrocketed, so the school could be more selective and their average test scores and quality of student rose dramatically. Gonzaga is the textbook case of why schools have athletics.

#5 - Merchandise. Sports drive merch sales for schools. You win a conference championship in football/men's basketball, you're selling a ton more merch. You go to the NCAA Tournament, you're selling a ton more merch.


You add up those things, and it's almost all of the athletics budget, and it's money that just doesn't exist anymore if a school drops athletics completely.




Well, this more than the NFL, it's all the leagues. The closed system of US sports leagues means they can draft the top 0.001% of players 18-22 into their sport, and that's more than enough talent for them. They don't HAVE to develop any talent on their own.

And that's why US Men's Soccer is good enough to be one of the top 12-20 teams in the world, but no higher -- and why US Women's soccer's era of dominance is fading and they just got bounced in the Round of 16.

Because picking the best people who DEVELOPED THEMSELVES from a country with 340 million people is going to be "good enough" vs much smaller countries.

If STANFORD was a country, they'd be 24th in all-time Olympic medals, ahead of Spain and Greece.

The schools that are comprising the Pac-12 for one more season have alums that won 1431 Olympic medals (48% of US medals). USSR has the second most medals all-time with 1204.

US Soccer is on a downward trajectory because of a lack of development system because college sports do it for them. Some analysts are already calling the Pac-12 breakout a massive disaster for the US Olympic program.

It dosent matter whether they didn’t hear about the school 30 years ago … if your going to college because of there sports program then you shouldn’t be in college

 

[Spydey629]

It dosent matter whether they didn’t hear about the school 30 years ago … if your going to college because of there sports program then you shouldn’t be in college

Not at all. I used to work at a small D-I school. A former president called college athletics the "front porch" of any university.

That is the long and short of it. Kids will go to a school they are familiar with. They learn about schools because of athletics. When a 17-year old kid (or younger) sees the student section having a great time while the sportsball team beats their opponent, it creates an inception moment for that kid. As they research what they want to possibly major in, and if that school matches up, they lock in on that school they knew from March Madness.

Enrollment numbers at a ton of schools reflect that. Gonzaga and UCF are prime examples, just off the top of my head.

 

[joelef]

Not at all. I used to work at a small D-I school. A former president called college athletics the "front porch" of any university.

That is the long and short of it. Kids will go to a school they are familiar with. They learn about schools because of athletics. When a 17-year old kid (or younger) sees the student section having a great time while the sportsball team beats their opponent, it creates an inception moment for that kid. As they research what they want to possibly major in, and if that school matches up, they lock in on that school they knew from March Madness.

Enrollment numbers at a ton of schools reflect that. Gonzaga and UCF are prime examples, just off the top of my head.

The front porch myth is why college sports is in the state it is now .

 

[SJSharksfan39]

Yeah, like having to travel across the country for half your games. I can see how that could cause some roadblocks.

 

[Spydey629]

The front porch myth is why college sports is in the state it is now .

They aren't at all connected.

TV Networks fighting for content (and ratings) have got us to where we are. Rutgers didn't get invited to the Big Ten because they have a long history of athletic success. They just happen to have a NYC adjacent zip code.

I listed Gonzaga for that reason. They don't have football. They get brought up now because they built up a successful basketball program, and raised the profile of their entire institution. UCF is the football example... an Orlando commuter school that didn't even have football 30 years ago (or so).

Robert Morris in Pittsburgh had a spike after a couple NCAA appearances and beating Kentucky in the NIT. I'd have to do the research to see if St. Peters and FDU had similar increases in the past couple years, after their March Madness successes.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

They aren't at all connected.

TV Networks fighting for content (and ratings) have got us to where we are. Rutgers didn't get invited to the Big Ten because they have a long history of athletic success. They just happen to have a NYC adjacent zip code.

I listed Gonzaga for that reason. They don't have football. They get brought up now because they built up a successful basketball program, and raised the profile of their entire institution. UCF is the football example... an Orlando commuter school that didn't even have football 30 years ago (or so).

Robert Morris in Pittsburgh had a spike after a couple NCAA appearances and beating Kentucky in the NIT. I'd have to do the research to see if St. Peters and FDU had similar increases in the past couple years, after their March Madness successes.

UCF started football in 1979

 

[joelef]

They aren't at all connected.

TV Networks fighting for content (and ratings) have got us to where we are. Rutgers didn't get invited to the Big Ten because they have a long history of athletic success. They just happen to have a NYC adjacent zip code.

I listed Gonzaga for that reason. They don't have football. They get brought up now because they built up a successful basketball program, and raised the profile of their entire institution. UCF is the football example... an Orlando commuter school that didn't even have football 30 years ago (or so).

Robert Morris in Pittsburgh had a spike after a couple NCAA appearances and beating Kentucky in the NIT. I'd have to do the research to see if St. Peters and FDU had similar increases in the past couple years, after their March Madness successes.

All the liberal arts school that have closed in the last few years all had sports … didn’t seem to do much for them .Akron ‘ wsu, cal and emu Are up to there eyeballs in debt because of there spot teams .

 

[Spydey629]

All the liberal arts school that have closed in the last few years all had sports … didn’t seem to do much for them .Akron ‘ wsu, cal and emu Are up to there eyeballs in debt because of there spot teams .

Name one. What liberal arts school shut down because of their athletic program?

The only school I know of that did anything that drastic because of athletics is St. Francis of NY. But that was a different animal entirely. Being in the middle of Brooklyn, they rented every one of their facilities. They dropped all sports to save cash, because the rent was jacked up.

 

[joelef]

Name one. What liberal arts school shut down because of their athletic program?

The only school I know of that did anything that drastic because of athletics is St. Francis of NY. But that was a different animal entirely. Being in the middle of Brooklyn, they rented every one of their facilities. They dropped all sports to save cash, because the rent was jacked up.

What I’m saying is that having sports programs didn’t help them

 

[KevFu]

Name one. What liberal arts school shut down because of their athletic program?

The only school I know of that did anything that drastic because of athletics is St. Francis of NY. But that was a different animal entirely. Being in the middle of Brooklyn, they rented every one of their facilities. They dropped all sports to save cash, because the rent was jacked up.

St. Francis Brooklyn SOLD THEIR CAMPUS, that's why they started renting athletics facilities in the first place. That wasn't tenable so they shut down athletics.

They had their own basketball arena/pool building on campus and played in it from 1971-2022.

 

[Spydey629]

St. Francis Brooklyn SOLD THEIR CAMPUS, that's why they started renting athletics facilities in the first place. That wasn't tenable so they shut down athletics.

They had their own basketball arena/pool building on campus and played in it from 1971-2022.

Thanks. I didn’t know all of the details. My daily interactions with the NEC ended in 2014.

 

[KevFu]

It dosent matter whether they didn’t hear about the school 30 years ago … if your going to college because of there sports program then you shouldn’t be in college

You're connecting one statement to a totally ridiculous scenario that (hopefully) doesn't exist and completely ignoring the vast amount of common sense in between the first statement and your ludicrous extreme position.

In order to apply to a college -- for academic reasons, and not "because they have good sports" -- you have to know that college exists.

- People finding out that a school exists because of sports is real.
- People who did THEN doing research, seeing programs offered at that school, and realizing "This is actually a good school for me" is also very real.
- People making the mental connection of "there must be smart/qualified people running this school if their teams are that successful" is also real.
- The sense of community, and the quality of "student life" at schools with good sports teams are also very real.

- People like us, who care about sports a lot, generally will consider the sports program when picking a college. Not as a top priority, or "picking a school based on sports/win percentage."

But when you have academic programs and locations and campuses that are RIDICULOUSLY SIMILAR among a handful of finalists... the "student life" that seems a lot more fun because of sports "winning" over sports fan applicants is a very real.

What I’m saying is that having sports programs didn’t help them

Ah, but it did. They had a lot of international students via their water polo program, which was quite good; and that brought in students who weren't commuters, increasing revenues for the university.

 

[MMC]

 

[Spydey629]

Hmmm…. The two schools making the most noise about not getting enough money, are blocking the schools they’d have to share it with?

This is my shocked face.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

aka - four schools looking for a new conference.

Surprised that Virginia and VT didn't do the same.

 

[HisIceness]

The ACC was never going to add Cal and Stanford. It is unproductive for the bottom line. And there is precisely zero % chance those adds would placate FSU and Clemson.

FSU, Clemson, UNC and UVA are as gone from the ACC in the long-run as surely as USC, UCLA, UW and UO were gone from the PAC. It’s merely a matter of time, how they are divided up between the B1G and SEC, who gets to ride coattails with them and whether the better remnants of the ACC survive by adding some G5’s or get absorbed into the Big 12.

P5 was the past. P4 may be the current reality. P2 may be the end game. But I think we are heading for a long P3 period where the B1G and SEC are the head honchos and the Big 12/PAC/ACC zombie league remains relevant enough to be along for the ride (and pretty fun truth be told). With the PAC and future ACC “leftover” schools fortifying the MW and AAC. I do not think the future is about inclusion of the SMU’s and Tulane’s…I think it’s about the exclusion of the Wazzu’s and Wake Forests. The networks and media powers are not trying to reorganize and expand - they are trying to whittle down the number of premium seats. And many more schools are going to end up doing nothing wrong other than having the wrong affiliation at the wrong time.

Your last paragraph, at some point we're going to start hearing about how the "big boys" aka Ohio State and Michigan are going to want to kick the "lesser" schools out.

It may not be right away, but once the novelty of this crazy realignment goes away, the "haves" are going to revolt against the "have nots" and demand their exclusion. Once this realignment goes through there will not be much more gold to dig so to speak, but what will be "to dig" is exclusion of the smaller schools.

 

[joelef]

Your last paragraph, at some point we're going to start hearing about how the "big boys" aka Ohio State and Michigan are going to want to kick the "lesser" schools out.

It may not be right away, but once the novelty of this crazy realignment goes away, the "haves" are going to revolt against the "have nots" and demand their exclusion. Once this realignment goes through there will not be much more gold to dig so to speak, but what will be "to dig" is exclusion of the smaller schools.

Hasn’t it always been like that yjough?