In light of how revenue is generated and distributed, has anyone heard discussion or consideration by a conference to convince an existing member institution to align with a different conference? Of course, it would be written up as a "mutually beneficial decision", similar to how long-term, under-performing coaches "retire" with a golden parachute.

The thought was prompted by Bowlsby's recent comments rationalizing the stance to stay at 10 schools. Each of the big conferences have one or two schools that no longer fit the conference profile and do not perceive to add any value. There are cases of regional overlap in small markets (Purdue/Kansas State) and low revenue (Wake Forest), but Washington State and Mississippi State immediately stand out as lacking in several important areas. Both schools are at or near last in their conference in terms of academics, revenue, brand impact, markets, and about every other category you can think of. Yes, they both have history as founding members of their conferences, but is there an arrangement that can be made so both the conference and school benefit in the long term? What if Washington State could immediately be admitted with full benefits to the MWC (they are a perfect fit MWC in almost all areas if you just forget about their PAC history) plus a $100 million thank you gift paid out over 10 years for their dedication and contribution to the PAC. If you do the revenue sharing math, each current institution comes out ahead, an additional spot is opened to add a high quality school, and Washington State becomes a competitive, if not top dog, institution in their new conference. I seriously doubt the value of the PAC network would drop a penny by losing Washington State (or Oregon State, for that matter), especially if it allowed round robin again for football content. Almost a mirror scenario can be argued for Mississippi State if they could land in the AAC (everyone can see that will become a south/southwest conference before too long).

If there is a group of people anywhere in this country that would have an opinion on such a move, I figured this would be it! My apologies if this has been discussed on another thread recently. I am new here and really enjoying it so far.

Any small-market school would be nuts to give up a good thing.

But the other members of the conference could decide to leave and start a new conference, ala WAC --> MWC.

The dollar amount would be astronomical. Schools derive a lot of prestige from being in a top-tier athletic conference, and that prestige translates directly into applications for admittance.

Think of it this way: what is the only advantage that Washington State has over Idaho as an institution? Pac-10 membership. That's why they get so many more students applying, and it doesn't hurt when recruiting professors, either. You could make the same cause for MSU and UAB/Southern Miss, or Wake Forest and George Washington.

(04-18-2013 02:24 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  Any small-market school would be nuts to give up a good thing.

But the other members of the conference could decide to leave and start a new conference, ala WAC --> MWC.

True... put a different way, would any major conference have the nerve to make such an offer and kindly hint that it is a take it or leave it? Some of these schools have not done anything incredulous that would justify forfeiture of their conference membership, but they are also building decades long tract records of not being even close to the top 2/3's in any category compared to the rest of the membership. These old conference contracts may be eternally binding for founding members... just not sure.

(04-18-2013 02:27 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The dollar amount would be astronomical. Schools derive a lot of prestige from being in a top-tier athletic conference, and that prestige translates directly into applications for admittance.

Think of it this way: what is the only advantage that Washington State has over Idaho as an institution? Pac-10 membership. That's why they get so many more students applying, and it doesn't hurt when recruiting professors, either. You could make the same cause for MSU and UAB/Southern Miss, or Wake Forest and George Washington.

Absolutely true. I just wonder if the rest of the conference membership will eventually tire of a few schools leeching, whether intentional or not. It would appear at this point that no top tier schools are wanting to leave their conference, and revenue can be raised more by subtraction than addition.

(04-18-2013 02:31 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 02:24 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  Any small-market school would be nuts to give up a good thing.

But the other members of the conference could decide to leave and start a new conference, ala WAC --> MWC.

True... put a different way, would any major conference have the nerve to make such an offer and kindly hint that it is a take it or leave it? Some of these schools have not done anything incredulous that would justify forfeiture of their conference membership, but they are also building decades long tract records of not being even close to the top 2/3's in any category compared to the rest of the membership. These old conference contracts may be eternally binding for founding members... just not sure.

They can't make a "take it or leave it" offer. If they don't have a legit reason for kicking a member out i.e. temple, who was only an associate member at that; they will be sued and lose and will be stuck in an awkward relationship with said school.

Conferences NEED depth. They need schools to fill schedules and these schools are good enough for that. Not everyone can be a winner, but at least they fit in some way. If the Pac-12 was formed today Washington St would still be chosen over Idaho or Boise or anyone else.

Let's go with Washington State to the MWC in a hypothetical. Here's where it goes wrong:

1. The two conferences would have to work in unison, because obviously there's no way Washington State is going to willingly walk away unless they know there's a place they can go.

2. No matter how much all parties play it up as this Solomon-esque compromise that makes everyone fat and happy, anyone paying attention will see through it in seconds. The Pac-12 will get pilloried by fans and the national media for bullying a school out, Washington State fans and alumni will raise cane over going to a lesser (in perception) conference and the Mountain West will get criticism for taking on a castoff.

3. There would be a lot of hurt feelings and outright anger from the conference members, because they've forged strong relationships with Washington State. Maybe if they had entered the conference three years ago and weren't working out, but internally it would be a cluster****, maybe even more so than externally.

4. The Pac 12 doesn't have a school they really want in, but can't because of Washington State. If Notre Dame were 1,000 miles to the west and made a grand play to get in, maybe. Otherwise, who is the Pac 12 going to target with that one open slot? There's no way Texas comes alone. The departure of Washington State means, what, they invite five Big XII schools instead of four? Good news for Baylor, I guess. Unless they add a school from the Mountain West ...

5. ... in which case the MWC would probably see that play coming and block it quickly. If they "trade", say, UNLV for Washington State, it's going to further cement their status as second-rate to the Pac 12. Even if that's already the case, you don't want to remind people of it by letting a good program go to make room for the weakest Pac-12 program, as though this were European football-style relegation.

It won't happen at the highest level. It's more likely in the lower leagues, but that's an issue of not meeting benchmarks and being an absolute drain and outlier. Washington State isn't to the Pac-12 or Mississippi State to the SEC what Texas-Pan American was to the Sun Belt.

You don't need hypotheticals to figure out why this won't work. Just call up a few Tulane old-timers and ask if they wish Tulane was still in the SEC today. There is no amount of money that could convince Baylor, Wazzu, Miss State, Purdue, etc. to leave their current league voluntarily.

By the way, not that it matters, but Wazzu is not a founding member of the conference that is now called the Pac-12, originally the AAUW. It was formed in 1959, Wazzu joined in 1962, and after the Oregon schools joined in 1964, people started calling the league the Pac-8 and the name was officially changed a few years after that.

Hey Jr,
Remember our recent discussions regarding trading schools like baseball cards? Well here we go... again.

(04-18-2013 04:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  You don't need hypotheticals to figure out why this won't work. Just call up a few Tulane old-timers and ask if they wish Tulane was still in the SEC today. There is no amount of money that could convince Baylor, Wazzu, Miss State, Purdue, etc. to leave their current league voluntarily.

By the way, not that it matters, but Wazzu is not a founding member of the conference that is now called the Pac-12, originally the AAUW. It was formed in 1959, Wazzu joined in 1962, and after the Oregon schools joined in 1964, people started calling the league the Pac-8 and the name was officially changed a few years after that.

Thanks for the clarification, Wedge. I did indeed mean a founder of the PAC, but they were certainly not among that original core prior to PAC. Any move to eliminate a conference member would be Darwinian, for sure. Perhaps if the O'Bannon case succeeds and schools truly do conform to either a legitimate non-profit or an outright for profit model, some of these issues will work themselves out.

(04-18-2013 02:35 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 02:27 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The dollar amount would be astronomical. Schools derive a lot of prestige from being in a top-tier athletic conference, and that prestige translates directly into applications for admittance.

Think of it this way: what is the only advantage that Washington State has over Idaho as an institution? Pac-10 membership. That's why they get so many more students applying, and it doesn't hurt when recruiting professors, either. You could make the same cause for MSU and UAB/Southern Miss, or Wake Forest and George Washington.

Absolutely true. I just wonder if the rest of the conference membership will eventually tire of a few schools leeching, whether intentional or not. It would appear at this point that no top tier schools are wanting to leave their conference, and revenue can be raised more by subtraction than addition.

It will happen sooner or later, although probably not anytime soon. Pac split in 1959. WAC split in 1998. MVC split to become Big 8, SWC split to join with B8 schools in 1996, SEC left the Southern conference in 1933, ACC left Southern Conference in 1953. When conferences got too big and unwieldy or had too many unlike institutions, they split. The sooner conferences move to 16 teams, the sooner it happens.

(04-18-2013 04:28 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Hey Jr,
Remember our recent discussions regarding trading schools like baseball cards? Well here we go... again.

Although a funny idea, a "baseball card trade" needs to happen if the O'Bannon lawsuit succeeds. Legitimate non-profit programs will need to band together based on similar profiles, and the for-profit teams will need to pull their weight. As experienced in the pro sports world, your partner members have a leash for the ebb and flow of performance over the years, but it is not a long one.

Yeah USAFMedic triage is hell and unless it is driven by the absolute need to survive it won't be tolerated. Inviting someone to leave unless it is truly mutually beneficial will only serve to destroy the trust among the remaining members of any conference that tries it. I don't think any of them would want to pay that price.

Now lets say a suggested move would enhance the prospects of the team that is offered a chance to leave, then it could get interesting.

Hypothetically speaking should Virginia Tech and N.C. State be given permission to entertain an offer from the SEC free of an exit fee then both of those schools could stand to earn more and the ACC could free two spots for expansion into new markets that would earn them more. Maybe then something could be done. Let's say the ACC used those four slots (the two they have now and the additional two that would open up should Va Tech and N.C. State move to the SEC) then they could land Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Iowa State and Cincinnati to move to 18 and have three divisions of 6. The SEC could take Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Oklahoma and West Virginia and do the same. They could then partner and both of the teams that voluntarily took the move and both conferences could come out way ahead. That might work if the two schools were interested. But, it would have to be their decision and no one else's for it to work.

(04-18-2013 04:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 02:35 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 02:27 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The dollar amount would be astronomical. Schools derive a lot of prestige from being in a top-tier athletic conference, and that prestige translates directly into applications for admittance.

Think of it this way: what is the only advantage that Washington State has over Idaho as an institution? Pac-10 membership. That's why they get so many more students applying, and it doesn't hurt when recruiting professors, either. You could make the same cause for MSU and UAB/Southern Miss, or Wake Forest and George Washington.

Absolutely true. I just wonder if the rest of the conference membership will eventually tire of a few schools leeching, whether intentional or not. It would appear at this point that no top tier schools are wanting to leave their conference, and revenue can be raised more by subtraction than addition.

It will happen sooner or later, although probably not anytime soon. Pac split in 1959. WAC split in 1998. MVC split to become Big 8, SWC split to join with B8 schools in 1996, SEC left the Southern conference in 1933, ACC left Southern Conference in 1953. When conferences got too big and unwieldy or had too many unlike institutions, they split. The sooner conferences move to 16 teams, the sooner it happens.

Good point. I guess we can rinse and repeat every decade or so!

That's twice now that people have named Purdue as the weakest Big 10 school. That's funny, because most conferences would jump at the chance to take a land grant school that is 2 hours from Chicago and has 42,000 students, 400,000 alumni, and a $1.7 billion endowment.

It's not like they're a drag on the conference athletically. They've been to 9 bowl games this millenium, including the Rose Bowl. They've got solid basketball too, with 2 Sweet 16's in the past 5 years and more conference titles in basketball than any other Big 10 school.

The Big 10's weakest link for football is Indiana, and the weakest link for overall fan support is Northwestern. But IU has a top-5 basketball program and Northwestern is an academic heavyweight in the #3 market, so they're not really weak links either. The conference really doesn't have any weak links.

(04-18-2013 04:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yeah USAFMedic triage is hell and unless it is driven by the absolute need to survive it won't be tolerated. Inviting someone to leave unless it is truly mutually beneficial will only serve to destroy the trust among the remaining members of any conference that tries it. I don't think any of them would want to pay that price.

Now lets say a suggested move would enhance the prospects of the team that is offered a chance to leave, then it could get interesting.

Hypothetically speaking should Virginia Tech and N.C. State be given permission to entertain an offer from the SEC free of an exit fee then both of those schools could stand to earn more and the ACC could free two spots for expansion into new markets that would earn them more. Maybe then something could be done. Let's say the ACC used those four slots (the two they have now and the additional two that would open up should Va Tech and N.C. State move to the SEC) then they could land Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Iowa State and Cincinnati to move to 18 and have three divisions of 6. The SEC could take Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Oklahoma and West Virginia and do the same. They could then partner and both of the teams that voluntarily took the move and both conferences could come out way ahead. That might work if the two schools were interested. But, it would have to be their decision and no one else's for it to work.

Good point. That is the kind of thing I was thinking; mutually beneficial. You are an SEC guy, so I'm sure you saw how excited TAMU was to get out from under UT's shadow. Imagine what Mississippi State and Auburn could do by becoming the bad boys of the South in an expanded Big 12, especially if FSU and Clemson end up in the Big 12, as well. If these flagships continue pushing for better academic reputations and research dollars, their recruiting base will need to tighten up, and that leaves a lot of great athletes but only decent students to elect to go to the state school. It is all about what the conference wants to be. If the SEC wants to be the main rival to the BIG, they will have to suffer through some of the hindrances that the BIG already has in what type of student they can recruit. If the Big 12 wants to be an elite athletic conference and decent academically, these trades would work. The devil is in the details, but surely these high level, revenue minded school administrators have looked at all ways to build revenue, including true realignment.

(04-18-2013 04:49 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  That's twice now that people have named Purdue as the weakest Big 10 school. That's funny, because most conferences would jump at the chance to take a land grant school that is 2 hours from Chicago and has 42,000 students, 400,000 alumni, and a $1.7 billion endowment.

It's not like they're a drag on the conference athletically. They've been to 9 bowl games this millenium, including the Rose Bowl. They've got solid basketball too, with 2 Sweet 16's in the past 5 years and more conference titles in basketball than any other Big 10 school.

The Big 10's weakest link for football is Indiana, and the weakest link for overall fan support is Northwestern. But IU has a top-5 basketball program and Northwestern is an academic heavyweight in the #3 market, so they're not really weak links either. The conference really doesn't have any weak links.

You are totally correct. In my original post, I only named Purdue as an example of what many are trying to avoid moving forward, which is doubling up in the same market. Purdue is an average Big 10 school, which would put it at the top in just about any other conference. Athletically, academically, and revenue-wise, Purdue is a top 40 program. I would love to see them in the same conference as Pitt and Va. Tech, though. Along with Michigan State, I always have those four schools in my mind as peers.

(04-18-2013 04:55 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 04:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yeah USAFMedic triage is hell and unless it is driven by the absolute need to survive it won't be tolerated. Inviting someone to leave unless it is truly mutually beneficial will only serve to destroy the trust among the remaining members of any conference that tries it. I don't think any of them would want to pay that price.

Now lets say a suggested move would enhance the prospects of the team that is offered a chance to leave, then it could get interesting.

Hypothetically speaking should Virginia Tech and N.C. State be given permission to entertain an offer from the SEC free of an exit fee then both of those schools could stand to earn more and the ACC could free two spots for expansion into new markets that would earn them more. Maybe then something could be done. Let's say the ACC used those four slots (the two they have now and the additional two that would open up should Va Tech and N.C. State move to the SEC) then they could land Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Iowa State and Cincinnati to move to 18 and have three divisions of 6. The SEC could take Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Oklahoma and West Virginia and do the same. They could then partner and both of the teams that voluntarily took the move and both conferences could come out way ahead. That might work if the two schools were interested. But, it would have to be their decision and no one else's for it to work.

Good point. That is the kind of thing I was thinking; mutually beneficial. You are an SEC guy, so I'm sure you saw how excited TAMU was to get out from under UT's shadow. Imagine what Mississippi State and Auburn could do by becoming the bad boys of the South in an expanded Big 12, especially if FSU and Clemson end up in the Big 12, as well. If these flagships continue pushing for better academic reputations and research dollars, their recruiting base will need to tighten up, and that leaves a lot of great athletes but only decent students to elect to go to the state school. It is all about what the conference wants to be. If the SEC wants to be the main rival to the BIG, they will have to suffer through some of the hindrances that the BIG already has in what type of student they can recruit. If the Big 12 wants to be an elite athletic conference and decent academically, these trades would work. The devil is in the details, but surely these high level, revenue minded school administrators have looked at all ways to build revenue, including true realignment.

You do realize of course that Auburn is right in the middle of the SEC academically ahead of Missouri and that it is the 5th top money producer in the SEC? I might also add that the state of Kentucky pays Auburn to educate its large animal veterinarians. You know horse doctors for Churchill Downs. You better check the earnings of SEC schools and their academic rankings before performing that triage. You pegged Miss State but they are the only number two school from a state that drags up the rear. Vanderbilt may not be an athletic juggernaut but they more than earn their spot in the lineup academically.

(04-18-2013 04:55 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 04:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yeah USAFMedic triage is hell and unless it is driven by the absolute need to survive it won't be tolerated. Inviting someone to leave unless it is truly mutually beneficial will only serve to destroy the trust among the remaining members of any conference that tries it. I don't think any of them would want to pay that price.

Now lets say a suggested move would enhance the prospects of the team that is offered a chance to leave, then it could get interesting.

Hypothetically speaking should Virginia Tech and N.C. State be given permission to entertain an offer from the SEC free of an exit fee then both of those schools could stand to earn more and the ACC could free two spots for expansion into new markets that would earn them more. Maybe then something could be done. Let's say the ACC used those four slots (the two they have now and the additional two that would open up should Va Tech and N.C. State move to the SEC) then they could land Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Iowa State and Cincinnati to move to 18 and have three divisions of 6. The SEC could take Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Oklahoma and West Virginia and do the same. They could then partner and both of the teams that voluntarily took the move and both conferences could come out way ahead. That might work if the two schools were interested. But, it would have to be their decision and no one else's for it to work.

Good point. That is the kind of thing I was thinking; mutually beneficial. You are an SEC guy, so I'm sure you saw how excited TAMU was to get out from under UT's shadow. Imagine what Mississippi State and Auburn could do by becoming the bad boys of the South in an expanded Big 12, especially if FSU and Clemson end up in the Big 12, as well. If these flagships continue pushing for better academic reputations and research dollars, their recruiting base will need to tighten up, and that leaves a lot of great athletes but only decent students to elect to go to the state school. It is all about what the conference wants to be. If the SEC wants to be the main rival to the BIG, they will have to suffer through some of the hindrances that the BIG already has in what type of student they can recruit. If the Big 12 wants to be an elite athletic conference and decent academically, these trades would work. The devil is in the details, but surely these high level, revenue minded school administrators have looked at all ways to build revenue, including true realignment.

How is that example mutually beneficial? Do you really think that the ACC wants to be competing with the SEC right in their own backyard, the very heart of ACC country?

This example actually shows that NC State and VA Tech have value above and beyond anything else by keeping a territory's exclusivity.

What you propose is impossible and it has nothing to do with being a founding member. Once a school has been accepted for full membership, they are in forever unless they violate something in the bylaws, as spelled out in those conditions. Schools can leave under specified terms but they can't be forced out. And what school would leave the gravy train voluntarily?

Most of these lesser schools have a niche somewhere Mississippi State, for example had a great baseball program until recent years. Their basketball program has had its chare of conference championships and has even gone to a Final 4 (1996).

Wast the PAC the first Power Conference to really try and go to 16?

Larry Scott didn't seem too worried about it.