(08-03-2022 01:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (08-03-2022 12:04 PM)jimrtex Wrote: Would an athletics consortium between San Diego State and UC-San Diego be feasible?
Someone who was academically/athletically qualified for UCLA, but didn't want to play in New Jersey ("if I wanted to play football in New Jersey, I would have applied to Princeton") could enroll at UCSD but play for the consortium. There may be some students who could have qualified for UCSD but wanted a better athletic experience so went to SDSU instead.
UCSD would also bring Track&Field, Volleyball, Fencing, Rowing, and Water Polo.
That's an interesting thought, but let's be real here: if an athlete is getting a scholarship from UCLA in any sport, they're very likely going to have other P5 options if their concern is truly about travel.
I think you're basically saying that UCSD and SDSU should effectively merge into one shared athletic department. That seems quite unlikely and, even if it were somehow allowed (which it probably wouldn't be), as long as the schools themselves are going to be separate entities, it's going to be a compliance nightmare on a number of levels (e.g. Title IX, which school is liable for what situation, academic standards, etc.).
None of those P5 programs are in Southern California. The idea is that the inclusion of UCSD would mollify the academics at Cal-Berkeley. The CSU's in California are severely handicapped in not being able to grant PhD's. Apparently San Diego State does have doctorate programs, but the sheet of paper is from UCSD. San Diego County has a substantial population and may be able to draw from the Inland Empire where UC Riverside is just developing.
The concept of a consortium is established in the NCAA rules - see NCAA Manual, but does not appear to have been overly successful.
Newbury College-Hellenic College Holy Cross failed after Newbury College closed. I suspect that the consortium may have been a desperation move by Newbury in the first place.
Southern Vermont College-Bennington College. Southern Vermont has closed. At the time the consortium was announced Bennington only had intramurals and it was noted that the first athlete from Bennington would be competing for Southern Vermont.
Columbia-Barnard. This appears to be the most successful likely due to the fact that when Columbia integrated, Barnard was not absorbed.
Alaska Anchorage-Alaska Fairbanks. After state support was reduced this was considered as a way to preserve some athletics. It was unknown whether the NCAA would accept two institutions 300 miles apart.
USF (Tampa)-USF Sarasota/Manatee. This would have established a rowing program at Sarasota/Manatee - maybe they have a lagoon available. Student at the branch campus could also compete in athletics at the Tampa Campus. It appears that the branch campuses (another is in St. Petersburg) have been integrated into the main body.
The Transformation Committee's June 7 minutes mention "consortiums"
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ncaaorg/committ...inutes.pdf
Transformation Committee June 7 minutes Wrote:The NCAA Division I Board of Directors charged the Transformation Committee with reviewing a model for new (or enhanced) membership obligations/requirements, including the appropriateness of a new subdivision, division or even differently defined categories of institutions (e.g., groups, leagues, consortiums).
I have no idea what a "group" or "league" is or whether a "consortium" is the same as under the current rules.
/
The San Diego Union-Tribune on SDSU and Pac-12 Expansion
