I’ll take the other side of this one. No way the WCC dissolves in two years. No way does the new Pac-12 take SMC. And no way is SCU a D2 school in 5 years.
SCU is also definitely not restarting football. But that’s a more likely outcome than either SCU going D2 or the WCC dissolving in 2027.
I’ll go even a bit further: the new Pac-12 is much more likely to dissolve before the WCC. No school in the league will stay if the Big 12 wants them. If SDSU puts some decent football revenue together, why wouldn’t they be a target? Boise? Wazzu? Pick off the top 2-3 new Pac-12 teams, and you’re left with a pretty middling group that will have to backfill with members from the Big West. And the big war chest from the old Pac-12 will be all spent up, so they won’t have assets to be in a pole negotiating position. Gonzaga followed the money and may be right to do so. But they’re departing for a house built on sand that every member (including them) is trying to leave at the first best opportunity. Someone will be stuck holding the bag, and when bags must be held, it doesn’t help to be the small, “basketball-only” school in eastern WA.
To add to that, there are 31 conferences. With more than 20 of them single bid conferences. Even if the WCC couldn’t hold 8 teams together, the odds of SCU and the remaining schools being unable to add a school or join another conference are pretty low.
I’m with Patty and don’t share Bettererer’s doom and gloom prediction of dropping to D2 in 2 to 5 years.
As KevinD points out there are 31 conferences. ~360 D1 schools playing basketball, over half of them do not play FBS (1A football). All of those schools aren’t going to drop to D2. Also worth noting that most (not all) of the remaining WCC schools are fairly healthy financially, and not struggling the way many smaller private schools are these days. At least SCU, LMU and Pepp have endowments of ~$1billion or more; SCU is on it’s way towards $2billion.
I don’t know what the future of the WCC looks like but if bringing in schools such as Cal Baptist and Denver is necessary to maintain stability and at least 8 schools then so be it.
Maybe we’ll reach a point where the WCC will no longer be considered a mid-major conference. But so what, I’ll continue to support and follow Bronco athletics regardless.
And Patty’s take on the reformulated PAC-whatever is spot on.
As a Spokane resident, I’m witness to to the chatter and on this; has been all over the news, blogs, etc. for the past several weeks. Most GU alums and fans are ecstatic…and most are also missing or completely ignorant to the facts and reality Patty laid out above.
It may turn out fine for GU longer term and maybe the PAC attains some level of stability and is still viable as a power conference in 5 to 8 years. But that is far from certain. IMO it appears it will be the weakest of the 5 power conferences (6 power conf in basketball including the Big East) and as such it will be a ripe target to get pilfered in the next round of major realignment whenever that happens.
Betterer’s point about the NIL cannot be understated. There is a huge chasm between what some schools and businesses in communities can provide athletes vs. others. Despite the riches of the Bay Area, this is not a hotbed for NIL. So even the likes of Cal and Stanford will be severely challenged. Where does that leave schools like SCU, despite the sound financial footing they are on?
Is the future of football that there are 60 or so teams in a four-conference super league vying for 12-14 tournament berths, and a 200 super league of men’s hoops vying for 64 spots in the NCAA tourney? Is it likely that, at some point in the next decade that the NCAA will cease to be what it is today and each sport will govern itself?
It’s hard to see into the crystal ball. (“Ask again later.”). But one thing is for certain, I wouldn’t count on anything looking like it does today.
I really enjoy and appreciate the thoughtful, elevated, and civil tone of the conversation here. It’s a pleasure to read and consider.
I agree with Weave that any effort to predict the conference endgame is futile; there are so many moving parts and disparate interests involved. College sports fans live in interesting times.
UConn passed on becoming a football only member of the PAC.
The PAC still needs to find an 8th football playing school to be considered a legit league. They struck out on Memphis, Tulane, UNLV, Air Force and now UConn, maybe a few other Mountain West. Options are dwindling. They may have to go lower and try to draw someone like: UTEP, NewMexico St., UTSA, North Texas…those would be west of the Mississippi options.
I think UTEP is committed to joining the Mountain West. The Mountain West’s supposed next target is Hawaii as a full member. Texas State turned them down and will stay in the Sun Belt.
The PAC is taking another run at Memphis, but it’s a hard sell because the financial penalty is pretty immense, and Memphis has had its lonely eyes on the ACC for decades. They don’t want to be committed to a lesser West Coast league if/when the Florida State and Clemson bombs detonate closer to their side of the country.
The PAC’s best move might be to fight the MWC for the best of the rest in Texas: UTSA and North Texas are both in huge metros. Tarleton State rode boosters to FBS football like a mini-SMU.
My favorite story of the past couple of days is the Sacramento community coming together to try to speed run the Hornets into a “power” conference. The Kings owner has promised they can play basketball games in Golden One, and apparently they’re announcing tens of millions of dollars in capital and NIL commitments if they can get into the PAC.
That would be delightful. I would be genuinely happy for Sac State and Sacramento while cackling at the fact that the Zags left the WCC to share a league with the Hornets of Sacramento State.
Heard the Sac St. story as well. Seems a stretch…a big stretch, but if they can drum up the funds, money talks.
I still believe the PAC, or the PAC and Mountain West both made a strategic mistake by not coming to a compromise and simply joining forces under the PAC brand. I know that means the PAC accepting the lower tier Mountain West (SJSU, Wyoming, New Mexico, etc.) but that seems no worse than where they currently sit where they may now have to bend over backwards just to get someone, anyone to join to get to 8 football schools.
I’m not sure where the Pac - MountainWest talks fell apart, or who was too greedy but I have a hard time believing it was MountainWest as they’d have nothing to lose in joining forces w/ WSU and OSU and assuming the PAC brand which has at least some value and they get to call themselves a Major conference whether they legitimately are or not. They still could have brought over GU. And they would have been at 14 football schools and could afford to be a little more selective if they wanted to try to get to 16 football schools instead of both conferences now being in desperation mode and competing with each other to land other schools which puts both at a negotiating disadvantage with whatever school(s) they’re pursuing.
Hindsight I guess…
Weave is right. ‘TV’ outlets of all forms (networks, cable, streaming, etc.) are desperate for sports content. And others have entered the sports media landscape that weren’t involved several years ago from Amazon, to Youtube, ION (i believe they air some WNBA), the CW and many others. There’s only so much content to go around; which is why you see Cornhole and TAG on ESPN and FoxSports.
The beneficiaries of the demand for more content are the non-revenue sports such as those Weave lists, and more air-time for non-Power conference D1 football and basketball (ie- our ESPN contract). This will prop up athletic programs at non-power conf schools and motivate them to stick it out at the D1 level even if the financials are challenging as it provides another form of exposure to attract students, elevate the perceived ‘level’ of the schools, etc.
I also agree with Weave’s earlier post that at some point you may see the power conferences split off in some fashion in football (most likely) and possibly basketball. Could simply add a ‘super’ division in football, effectively 1A, 1AA, 1AAA, and basketball could split at the Division 1 level to two tiers, effectively how football is today.
The nice thing about most universities being tax exempt is that you can see their financials on ProPublica from the last 10 years. Unlike Gonzaga, St. Mary’s is a good example of how basketball success does not guarantee improving the financial health of your college.
It will be interesting to see if universities are ever able to pay players directly. If that is the case, we are better positioned than anyone in the WCC to throw money at players if the school decides it would be well spent marketing dollars.
The ceiling for gonzaga was so much higher to begin with given the dearth of sports/activity in Spokane. A lot of pent up
demand and money. SMC (and SCU and USF) has a difficult time breaking through the noise in a saturated and ambivalent Bay Area market.
And there it is. The big bejeweled billion-dollar boot just dropped:
Report: 70-Team CFB Super League Concept Pitched to ADs; Would Infuse $9B into Sport (https://Report: 70-Team CFB Super League Concept Pitched to ADs; Would Infuse $9B into Sport)
A few hurdles to cross, but this is gonna happen in our lifetime. Just took a little private equity cash dangled in front of the conference commissioners to put it in the open.
Interestingly, by my read, the power four conferences (not five–looks like the Pac12 is on the outside looking in) will stay intact, but the 70* teams will be in tiered payouts and there will be relegation among the tiers.
(*Someone check my math…there are 65 teams in the ACC, B10, SEC and B12??? So that leaves Notre Dame and which four lucky teams? WSU, OSU, Boise St and _______ (insert your favorite armed forces academy team)???)
All games against Group of Five and FCS opponents will be eliminated. That works. Personally, I am tired of Alabama’s body bag games.
And then there is an “expanded” playoff. I wonder how far they will go and if they will effectively neuter the supersilly bowl season. 24? (34% of teams–if you ain’t ranked, you’re done)?
All this ultimately leads to what happens with basketball. Will they try to pull the same model?
Optimistically, I would say that this just increases the number of D1 basketball conferences that don’t play football. Or they create a separate system for football like they do for hockey.
Realistically? March madness expands to 72, or 78, or 96 teams. But in addition to taking up all the extra at large bids, the big schools/conferences use a hypothetical super league proposal as their leverage to coerce 1 bid conferences in playing most if not all the play in games. People write very strongly worded tweets, posts, letters, but nothing comes of it.