Conference Realignment Updates

Donate To GopherHole
Great Plains Gopher said:
More insanity. This is what social anarchy looks like, driven by greed, and with no local government to keep order (the NCAA is now fatally neutered).
Click to expand...
Imagine asking the government to gain more control over your life or things. Kings and dictators would love you for your faithful allegiance in wanting them
 



and to be fair, the B1G does not "need" to expand. the conference just added 4 new schools. that means a lot of change in terms of scheduling for all sports.

and as some have pointed out, adding new members does not guarantee more TV money. that depends on which teams are added and their perceived value.

college sports are also going through a sea change with the House decision, revenue-sharing, new roster and scholarship rules, etc.

so the B1G is not going to be adding any teams for a while - maybe a long while - unless those new teams bring in such advantages that adding them is a no-brainer.
 

swede2 said:
I've asked this question and still have yet to see a satisfactory answer. Too much "hassle"? That's a conclusion without explanation.

There's already precedence - Chicago which doesn't participate in the B1G athletic conference. And Nebraska, who isn't AAU.

If AAU was paramount, California and Stanford would be members.

And no B1G school would turn down a research consortium with MIT or other first rate academic institutions because they don't pay B1G athletics.

The rest of the world has moved on from the idea that college athletics are academic endeavors. B1G president's should too.
Click to expand...
I think it's as simple as the Academic leaders have given the greenlight to the Athletic leaders to bring on any institution as long as its AAU. Stanford and Cal, would be fine, but the Athletic leaders at this time don't see it as a fit. It's the tail wagging the dog here and academics is the tail.
Personally, I like that the B1G has academic standards...B1G smart/SEC dumb :love:
BTW. The research consortium with MIT is dictated by AAU membership, not B1G membership.
 




Taji34 said:
Explain which part? Why AAU membership is still a requirement to join the conference? Or why AAU membership got tied to conference membership in the first place? The answer is simple for both.

The Big Ten Academic Alliance (formerly named the Committee on Institutional Cooperation) was formed in 1958, including all existing conference members and the University of Chicago (a founding member of the conference who withdrew in 1946). At the time, inviting just the conference members was likely just out of convenience. There was likely already cooperation between the schools at the time and this just formalized it a bit more.

Why did they do this? Because at the time, sports were not a money maker for the universities, research grants were. So if sharing research access, among the other things the CIC enabled, meant more research grants from the government then it made a lot of sense to do.

At a certain point, the decision was likely made to make AAU membership a requirement to join the conference as a full member. Why? Because any school joining the conference would want in on the CIC, and as the existing members you don't want to dilute the quality of the research shared.

So what started as likely a decision of convenience, turned into a requirement for new members.

As for why it's still a requirement, it's also simple. Research STILL brings in more money to the universities than athletics. Each year, Big Ten Academic Alliance schools engage in $10 billion in funded research. Compare that to the $880 million in revenue the conference made from athletics. Research brings in more money by a factor of roughly 10:1.

You may ask "Why not just split the 2? Make joining the conference as a full member for sports not automatically grant membership to the academic alliance.". While that is a potential route they could go (and should athletics ever surpass research in the money that it brings in to schools, almost certainly a route that will be pursued), at the moment it's too much hassle. Any school considering joining the conference for athletics is likely going to make sure academic alliance membership comes with, because it means a lot of potential research money, and will likely make it a deal breaker. Further, if we admit someone, and then try to revoke their membership in the athletic alliance that is just begging for a costly lawsuit to happen (and is likely at least part of the reason Nebraska was not kicked from the academic alliance when they lost AAU membership).
Click to expand...
Some just don't get the reasoning or importance. Stanford, Cal, and UNC all pull in well north of $1.2B yearly in research dollars.
 

MWC and PAC fail to agree on scheduling arrangement for 2025. What do OSU and WSU think is their endgame? How do they fill out a FB slate this late in the game?
 



swede2 said:
MWC and PAC fail to agree on scheduling arrangement for 2025. What do OSU and WSU think is their endgame? How do they fill out a FB slate this late in the game?
Click to expand...
I would imagine OSU and WSU will really want to join a conference of some sort for a scheduling agreement

Does the big 12 agree to schedule a few games per year?
AAC?
ACC?

I’m not sure who has open dates left to schedule in 2025
 

sports.yahoo.com

Sources: Pac-12 rebuilding conference, targeting Boise State, San Diego State, Fresno State, Colorado State

The Pac-12 is mobilizing its long-discussed plan to rebuild the league with additions from the Mountain West Conference.
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com

If CSU, Fresno, Boise, & the other SDSU bolt the MWC, what other schools join them? I assume that these four named would be to.the exclusion of the remaining MWC. But it's hard to imagine the PAC2 drawing any former members back into the fold with this lineup. Who else is out there that makes any kind of sense (not that sense has to made in 21st century college athletics). Utah State and UNLV have to be candidates.

Lots of wet dreams in Fargo tonight. If 4-6 teams leave the MWC, the Montana schools plus the xDSUs will have to be on MWC radars.
 

as the Yahoo article notes, the NCAA requires 8 schools to qualify as an FBS conference. so if the four schools mentioned agree to join OSU and WSU in a revamped Pac-12, they need at least two more schools. they have to get to 8 schools by 2026 in order to retain major conference status.

Greg Flugaur floated some possibilities, listing UNLV, Air Force, North Texas and UTSA. don't know if he has heard anything or is just speculating.

but Flugaur does point out that there is going to be a ripple effect. the Mountain West will be looking to replace the schools that depart - possibly targeting some of the top FCS programs and trying to entice them to move up to FBS. Flugaur is also suggesting that more realignment could take place within the G5 schools - perhaps even resulting in a new conference that would create a G6 situation.

the realignment wheel - give it a spin and see if you can win a prize.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
as the Yahoo article notes, the NCAA requires 8 schools to qualify as an FBS conference. so if the four schools mentioned agree to join OSU and WSU in a revamped Pac-12, they need at least two more schools. they have to get to 8 schools by 2026 in order to retain major conference status.

Greg Flugaur floated some possibilities, listing UNLV, Air Force, North Texas and UTSA. don't know if he has heard anything or is just speculating.

but Flugaur does point out that there is going to be a ripple effect. the Mountain West will be looking to replace the schools that depart - possibly targeting some of the top FCS programs and trying to entice them to move up to FBS. Flugaur is also suggesting that more realignment could take place within the G5 schools - perhaps even resulting in a new conference that would create a G6 situation.

the realignment wheel - give it a spin and see if you can win a prize.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a P5 and G5 anymore as certain conferences are no longer guaranteed bids to anything. Is a qualm I have with his analysis
 



short ornery norwegian said:
as the Yahoo article notes, the NCAA requires 8 schools to qualify as an FBS conference. so if the four schools mentioned agree to join OSU and WSU in a revamped Pac-12, they need at least two more schools. they have to get to 8 schools by 2026 in order to retain major conference status.

Greg Flugaur floated some possibilities, listing UNLV, Air Force, North Texas and UTSA. don't know if he has heard anything or is just speculating.

but Flugaur does point out that there is going to be a ripple effect. the Mountain West will be looking to replace the schools that depart - possibly targeting some of the top FCS programs and trying to entice them to move up to FBS. Flugaur is also suggesting that more realignment could take place within the G5 schools - perhaps even resulting in a new conference that would create a G6 situation.

the realignment wheel - give it a spin and see if you can win a prize.
Click to expand...
Of note is that the MWC has never added a FCS school. And while competitively the Montana schools and xDSUs make sense, they remain very small market teams. If these schools depart, the geography of the conference shifts south and perhaps schools further south make more sense. I'm not sure that moving to a picked over MWC is any more enticing than playing for NCs in the FCS though.
 



The Athletic weighs in, including the financial details of the move.

The two-member Pac-12 is starting to rebuild, beginning with four Mountain West schools.

Boise State, San Diego State, Colorado State and Fresno State will join the conference in 2026, the Pac-12 announced on Thursday. The schools will officially join on July 1, 2026.

Each school will be required to pay a $17 million exit fee for a planned leave more than a year in advance. In addition, the Pac-12/Mountain West football scheduling agreement signed last year requires an additional payment totaling around $43 million for adding four schools. The agreement would have charged no fees if the Pac-12 absorbed all 12 schools.

But the Pac-12 has a war chest valued at least in the high tens of millions of dollars from the departure of 10 former schools and the settlement agreement between the sides. It is likely that would be used to cover at least some of the $111 million in total owed through Mountain West exit fees.

In addition to the exit fees, the four departing Mountain West schools will forfeit their league payout (around $7-8 million annually). But if the Mountain West gets further raided in realignment, it’s also possible nine of the 12 members could vote to dissolve the conference, which would waive all those fees and save a lot of money.

the timing is fortuitous, as the Mountain West’s TV deal runs to 2026, and the belief is they would earn more TV money in a rebuilt Pac-12, without the least-valuable Mountain West schools. Mountain West schools currently earn around $6 million annually per school through its TV deal, second-most among Group of 5 leagues.
 
Last edited:

GopherFanatic19 said:
I would love to have FSU and Clemson in the B1G. Just makes our already #1 brand and conference that much better over the SEC.

Plus how awesome would the games be at the bank with FSU, USC, Oregon coming to town. Makes for better football than university of Phoenix type teams
Click to expand...
Better games if UM can compete with those teams.
 

A bit of a gut punch for a WYO grad/fan. It may be time for a call-up of the Montana and Dakota teams and make the best of it. In this new, weird, stupid, greedy, shitty era of college sports, maybe that's as good as it gets for this mid-level group.
 

so far, the B1G is being very cautious with any discussion of expansion. what I keep reading is that the B1G does not want to make any kind of a move until the ACC lawsuits get settled.

assuming B1G sources are being honest (?), they seem willing to wait it out until the ACC comes apart at the seams. The B1G has the best media deal of any P4 conference, they can afford to be picky. they don't have to add anyone unless they're pretty damn sure that the new teams will benefit the conference - in order words, help the B1G get an even better media deal.
 


I don't want Clemson in the B1G. I liked conferences when they were more regionally based, like most people. Still bummed we have to have Maryland and Rutgers, and although the Pac 10/12 was always my second favorite conference, something is lost when the alumni bases don't overlap much and rivalries are strained or lost. But, at least I feel somewhat of a cultural connection to the four new schools as well as Rutgers and perhaps even Maryland. Clemson and Florida State get into that deep south vibe and that is a vibe I just don't care for after many years cheering against them and the SEC.

Anyway, I wonder if the rebuilt PAC conference could lure Stanford and Cal or if that would feel too much like slumming it to them. I wonder what their $$ would look like back in a new look PAC conference?
 

Schnauzer said:
Anyway, I wonder if the rebuilt PAC conference could lure Stanford and Cal or if that would feel too much like slumming it to them. I wonder what their $$ would look like back in a new look PAC conference?
Click to expand...
I don't think so, strictly because Stanford and Cal are run by elitist academic snobs. They wouldn't want to be seen as slumming it with those 6 schools.

It should happen though, for sure.
 

Zeppelin Gopher said:
I don't think so, strictly because Stanford and Cal are run by elitist academic snobs. They wouldn't want to be seen as slumming it with those 6 schools.

It should happen though, for sure.
Click to expand...
Those two would not join a conference with Fresno and Boise State, definitely slumming
 

Schnauzer said:
I don't want Clemson in the B1G. I liked conferences when they were more regionally based, like most people. Still bummed we have to have Maryland and Rutgers, and although the Pac 10/12 was always my second favorite conference, something is lost when the alumni bases don't overlap much and rivalries are strained or lost. But, at least I feel somewhat of a cultural connection to the four new schools as well as Rutgers and perhaps even Maryland. Clemson and Florida State get into that deep south vibe and that is a vibe I just don't care for after many years cheering against them and the SEC.

Anyway, I wonder if the rebuilt PAC conference could lure Stanford and Cal or if that would feel too much like slumming it to them. I wonder what their $$ would look like back in a new look PAC conference?
Click to expand...
I can't imagine the 6-Pac will command anywhere near ACC dollars, even with Cal and Stanford. These schools are all misfits - left behind in the realignment game because they don't add TV sets. The reality is the new PAC is simply the best of the MWC, which wasn't exactly a media deal juggernaut. CSU, for instance, has been begging for years to join the Big 12. The Big 12 repeatedly said no. The other SDSU desperately wanted into the PAC. The PAC said no. These are schools with a little name recognition but no marketability or fan interest.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
****until further developments - the new 6-team conference out west will be known as..................

The 6-PAC.

thank you very much.
Click to expand...
I mean it works....but the numbers after conference names haven't really meant anything for a long time anyway. The SEC/ACC the right idea in terms of a name in that it works no matter how many teams are in them.
 

yeah - the general consensus is that the "new" PAC-12 will essentially become the 6th "Group Of" conference - making it 4 Power conferences and 6 other conferences.

but the New PAC will be - at least in theory - eligible to grab one of the top 5 seeds in the CFP.

I'm still going to be watching this play out - because of the possibility that the Mountain West will try to recruit one of the Dakota powers (S Dak St or N Dak St) to move up to FBS.
 

GopherPoke said:
A bit of a gut punch for a WYO grad/fan. It may be time for a call-up of the Montana and Dakota teams and make the best of it. In this new, weird, stupid, greedy, shitty era of college sports, maybe that's as good as it gets for this mid-level group.
Click to expand...
I would expect back fills of NMSU and UTEP to the Mountain West? I still don't know that the Dakota schools will move up.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
yeah - the general consensus is that the "new" PAC-12 will essentially become the 6th "Group Of" conference - making it 4 Power conferences and 6 other conferences.

but the New PAC will be - at least in theory - eligible to grab one of the top 5 seeds in the CFP.

I'm still going to be watching this play out - because of the possibility that the Mountain West will try to recruit one of the Dakota powers (S Dak St or N Dak St) to move up to FBS.
Click to expand...
Don't they need to have at least 8 teams to be eligible for an auto bid?
 

The Pac-12 is poaching four Mountain West schools to stand alongside Oregon State and Washington State in an effort to preserve the league. Boise State, San Diego State, Colorado State and Fresno State applied for Pac-12 membership and all have been accepted, the conference announced on Thursday. The foursome will officially become Pac-12 members on July 1, 2026.
www.cbssports.com

Pac-12 poaches Mountain West schools to join Oregon State, Washington State as conference rebuilds

Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State and San Diego State will join the Pac-12 in 2026
www.cbssports.com www.cbssports.com
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom