Southern Cal to the B1G is a huge blow to regionalism and the importance of “fit”. More than ever, the B1G has taken the pursuit of money to a new extreme.

The financial gains from media rights could be overwhelmed by the loss of traditional rivalries and booster support. As a football blue blood, USC is very different from Maryland…but the Terps may be an example for what could occur in the next decade. The PAC was a very closely knit conference. Nine of its top 10 most common opponents (exception being ND) are PAC members. The two most played rivals are Cal and Stanford. If the B1G doesn’t somehow reel-in ND and Stanford, USC may spend a long time building new rivalries.

The good news is that a lot of comments about Frankenconferences are going away.

Yes

TV revenue has made the cost of travel irrelevant.

If the SEC adds Oregon, for example, then regionalism is 100% dead. They don't fit geographically or culturally IMO.

(07-05-2022 02:39 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Southern Cal to the B1G is a huge blow to regionalism and the importance of “fit”. More than ever, the B1G has taken the pursuit of money to a new extreme.

The financial gains from media rights could be overwhelmed by the loss of traditional rivalries and booster support. As a football blue blood, USC is very different from Maryland…but the Terps may be an example for what could occur in the next decade. The PAC was a very closely knit conference. Nine of its top 10 most common opponents (exception being ND) are PAC members. The two most played rivals are Cal and Stanford. If the B1G doesn’t somehow reel-in ND and Stanford, USC may spend a long time building new rivalries.

The good news is that a lot of comments about Frankenconferences are going away.

Regionalism is unquestionably dead. That's a large reason why I believe this USC/UCLA move is much different than the UT/OU move (which for all of its national impact, was still a regional addition for the SEC). It's clear that the leagues don't care if they're literally going from NYC to LA at this point.

In contrast, "fit" really depends upon how it's defined. For the Big Ten, "fit" means top academic schools (with a heavy preference for AAU membership) with major athletic departments. On those counts, USC and UCLA "fit" into the Big Ten in the sense that if you just lifted those schools as-is and placed them in Chicago or Indianapolis, we wouldn't be even questioning fit. (That's not the case for, say, Washington State or Oregon State.) I believe that USC and UCLA are very much *institutional* fits with the Big Ten, but obviously not geographic fits.

The South "East" Conference will soon extend to Austin Texas and Norman, Oklahoma. the "Atlantic Coast" conference extends to Louisville, Kentucky -- and never mind the Atlantic Coast, Louisville is closer to where the Upper Mississippi flows into the Ohio River (to form the Lower Mississippi) than to where the Allegheny and Monongahela form the Ohio. The Big 12, formed from the addition of four Southwestern Conference schools to the Great Plains based Big Eight, extends to West Virginia. And of course, the venerable Big Ten, formed as the "Western Conference" relative to the Ivy League football powers (which is to say, its so old that when it was formed, the Ivy League were football powers) now includes Atlantic Coast schools.

The regionalism of college conferences when I was young in the 60s and 70s is long since dead.

However, each of the P5 is still largely a coalition of schools from neighboring regions, and it is that continuity that is challenged by the USC/UCLA move. It remains to be seen whether they remain on a two school West Coast Island within the Big Ten, or whether Washington / Stanford / Cal and/or Oregon get to join the party, turning that island into a full fledged "west coast wing" of the conference.

It matters to the Sun Belt and MAC.

For G5 leagues it should still be important. Not so much for the P5

(07-05-2022 02:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Regionalism is unquestionably dead. That's a large reason why I believe this USC/UCLA move is much different than the UT/OU move (which for all of its national impact, was still a regional addition for the SEC). It's clear that the leagues don't care if they're literally going from NYC to LA at this point.

In contrast, "fit" really depends upon how it's defined. For the Big Ten, "fit" means top academic schools (with a heavy preference for AAU membership) with major athletic departments. On those counts, USC and UCLA "fit" into the Big Ten in the sense that if you just lifted those schools as-is and placed them in Chicago or Indianapolis, we wouldn't be even questioning fit. (That's not the case for, say, Washington State or Oregon State.) I believe that USC and UCLA are very much *institutional* fits with the Big Ten, but obviously not geographic fits.

I don't think "regionalism" is dead at all.

I think that USC/UCLA was a unique situation in that they have a long history with the B10, have institutional fit (as you mentioned), and so on.

Plus, most on this forum seem to think that this move was a middle move to get to the goal - Notre Dame.

After this, I expect more regional moves, not less.

For one thing, being an "airport/flyover" conference is harder on the fans/alumni - and somehow, in the wake of the recent pandemic slowdowns, and the changes in tastes and viewing habits - I don't think they want to overturn that applecart too much.

That said, I also won't be surprised at moves of desperation - comparable to WVa joining to B12.

So I guess, we'll see.

(07-05-2022 02:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 02:39 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Southern Cal to the B1G is a huge blow to regionalism and the importance of “fit”. More than ever, the B1G has taken the pursuit of money to a new extreme.

The financial gains from media rights could be overwhelmed by the loss of traditional rivalries and booster support. As a football blue blood, USC is very different from Maryland…but the Terps may be an example for what could occur in the next decade. The PAC was a very closely knit conference. Nine of its top 10 most common opponents (exception being ND) are PAC members. The two most played rivals are Cal and Stanford. If the B1G doesn’t somehow reel-in ND and Stanford, USC may spend a long time building new rivalries.

The good news is that a lot of comments about Frankenconferences are going away.

Regionalism is unquestionably dead. That's a large reason why I believe this USC/UCLA move is much different than the UT/OU move (which for all of its national impact, was still a regional addition for the SEC). It's clear that the leagues don't care if they're literally going from NYC to LA at this point.

In contrast, "fit" really depends upon how it's defined. For the Big Ten, "fit" means top academic schools (with a heavy preference for AAU membership) with major athletic departments. On those counts, USC and UCLA "fit" into the Big Ten in the sense that if you just lifted those schools as-is and placed them in Chicago or Indianapolis, we wouldn't be even questioning fit. (That's not the case for, say, Washington State or Oregon State.) I believe that USC and UCLA are very much *institutional* fits with the Big Ten, but obviously not geographic fits.

Agree that UCLA and USC have great profiles. Elite academics, large enrollments, massive research institutions and from a highly desirable market…these are university presidents’ dreams. UCLA is at the top of the ladder, even amongst B1G universities. In terms of profiles, the B1G hit a home run expansion.

I was defining “fit” more in terms of culture and rivalry. Michigan and Ohio State have a synergy creating rivalry…the games involve more than their passionate fans. USC, UCLA and the entire PAC lost value because good rivalries will be lost…NorCal vs SoCal helped all Cali schools. If Southern Cal struggles on the field, booster donations could take a quicker tumble. Potential media payouts is now so much more important than strong regional ties.

(07-05-2022 03:42 PM)HerdFanGuest Wrote:  For G5 leagues it should still be important. Not so much for the P5

Yep, it certainly means bupkis for the B1G/SEC, and didn't seem to mean alot to the B12 during the latest expansion either (adding Ohio and Florida), but when you start hitting the lower payouts for the G5 leagues then it seems to matter more. Regionalism seemed to be a driving force in Marshall and USM moving to the SunBelt from C-USA.

(07-05-2022 03:22 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  It matters to the Sun Belt and MAC.

Does it really matter for the Belt? I would not call a conference that stretches from San Marcos to Norfolk regional, especially since those schools aren't complete outliers. Even the MAC's longest drive (NIU to Buffalo) is a faster drive than going from App State to somewhere like Southern Miss. Same goes for the AAC/MWC/C-USA for that matter, though I won't begrudge any of them since it's not like the G5 has the luxury of keeping sensible geography when survival has often been on the line. The fact the MAC has basically kept its current form for generations is the true anomaly.

Not yet.

Lets see what schools end up in the P2.

(07-05-2022 09:05 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 03:22 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  It matters to the Sun Belt and MAC.

Does it really matter for the Belt? I would not call a conference that stretches from San Marcos to Norfolk regional, especially since those schools aren't complete outliers. Even the MAC's longest drive (NIU to Buffalo) is a faster drive than going from App State to somewhere like Southern Miss. Same goes for the AAC/MWC/C-USA for that matter, though I won't begrudge any of them since it's not like the G5 has the luxury of keeping sensible geography when survival has often been on the line. The fact the MAC has basically kept its current form for generations is the true anomaly.

But each division is...

The old saying was conferences go in cycles. That is what they said about the PAC in the stretches while it was down.

In the era when the power conferences only had 8-10 members all you needed was 3 in the Top 25 to have national respect. The expanded SEC and B1G have squeezed out the other power conferences which has in turn affected their value.

Fit still matters as USC/UCLA wouldn't have gotten in without the academics. The money difference has just become so big. Prior to 2010 the ACC was the highest earning conference at like 10 million per team. The difference between the power conferences prior to that was just a few million.

The acceleration to this whole process began with the PAC-Texoma failed move. The prior era of expansion had to do with mainly getting stronger on the field over media money. Had Penn State ended up in the ACC instead of B1G that could have changed the tide of history.

(07-05-2022 09:26 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 09:05 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 03:22 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  It matters to the Sun Belt and MAC.

Does it really matter for the Belt? I would not call a conference that stretches from San Marcos to Norfolk regional, especially since those schools aren't complete outliers. Even the MAC's longest drive (NIU to Buffalo) is a faster drive than going from App State to somewhere like Southern Miss. Same goes for the AAC/MWC/C-USA for that matter, though I won't begrudge any of them since it's not like the G5 has the luxury of keeping sensible geography when survival has often been on the line. The fact the MAC has basically kept its current form for generations is the true anomaly.

But each division is...

Exactly. It doesn't matter how far Southern Miss is from App State, because App State will only make one conference game trip west of Georgia each football season. Besides that one game, the Sun Belt is a regional bus league for App.

It's the reason why the SBC has no intention of getting rid of divisions any time soon.

(07-05-2022 02:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  In contrast, "fit" really depends upon how it's defined. For the Big Ten, "fit" means top academic schools (with a heavy preference for AAU membership) with major athletic departments. On those counts, USC and UCLA "fit" into the Big Ten in the sense that if you just lifted those schools as-is and placed them in Chicago or Indianapolis, we wouldn't be even questioning fit. (That's not the case for, say, Washington State or Oregon State.) I believe that USC and UCLA are very much *institutional* fits with the Big Ten, but obviously not geographic fits.

This is correct. There's a reason the B1G and Pac were formerly business partners on TV deals, scheduling, the short-lived Alliance, and the Rose Bowl. The Pac was basically (but not entirely) a Western version of the B1G. Same types of institutions, values, etc.

USC and UCLA fit the B1G in every way except for on the map.

The days of small region conferences is dead, but we still largely have super region conferences with distinct identities that shine through

Texas is not Georgia but they both still have a version of Southern Culture and common values despite very distinct regional differences

Now USC and UCLA violate that because Southern Cal has no commonality with the B1G’s Northern Culture

(07-05-2022 02:39 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Southern Cal to the B1G is a huge blow to regionalism and the importance of “fit”. More than ever, the B1G has taken the pursuit of money to a new extreme.

The financial gains from media rights could be overwhelmed by the loss of traditional rivalries and booster support. As a football blue blood, USC is very different from Maryland…but the Terps may be an example for what could occur in the next decade. The PAC was a very closely knit conference. Nine of its top 10 most common opponents (exception being ND) are PAC members. The two most played rivals are Cal and Stanford. If the B1G doesn’t somehow reel-in ND and Stanford, USC may spend a long time building new rivalries.

The good news is that a lot of comments about Frankenconferences are going away.

Regionalism and "fit" aren't necessarily the same thing. The two LA schools are absolutely institutional fits with the Big Ten even though they are obviously not regional fits.

I think regionalism is still important to the SEC, and I'll believe the SEC admits far-flung members when I see it. UNC/Duke/Virginia are who the SEC wants, either now or in a decade when the ACC GOR is close to expiring. Kansas neighbors two old Big 8 rivals in SEC states so if you squint, they make sense geographically, so I think they're in play too.

Regionalism and fit are still factors but they are nothing compared to mighty money.

Oklahoma is not a good fit for the BIG culturally or instititionally but I am sure the BIG would have accepted OU if UT had wanted to join the BIG with OU.

I actually think GT and FSU have a better chance than UNC and UVa for the BIG admission due to the media market and better rating.

(07-07-2022 10:23 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  The days of small region conferences is dead, but we still largely have super region conferences with distinct identities that shine through

Texas is not Georgia but they both still have a version of Southern Culture and common values despite very distinct regional differences

Now USC and UCLA violate that because Southern Cal has no commonality with the B1G’s Northern Culture

Thats what I was thinking. The SEC is still pretty regional. The Pac12 and ACC are as well. The Big10 and Big12 are slightly more scattered---but each still has an easily defined region as its center core. Those regional cores have not really been abandoned. Whats changed is the willingness of P5 conferences to add beyond those center cores.