90% are driven not by your Jesuit schools seeking similar affiliations. Seattle University's move up and subsequent wandering in D-I is the onlt example that fits your description. But they were non-selective and thus the aimless wandering. UCSD is a more focused desire for similar affiliations and unless they get them they wont move up. (Further students voted to fully self fund the cost of moving up). So far they don;t have the invite they seek, so they remain in D-II.

But in general I think Private and Public schools are two different kettles of fish. I could care less what SU or LU does, they are private, and they do not answer to tax payers, nor should they. If they are willing to open their wallets or raid their pulpit funds, so be it, their choice. Public schools are the ones I care about, and the ones we are talking about mostly when we concern the politics of professionals.

For the public schools the responsibility goes beyond the institution, and includes the State, and the tax payers and their education dollars. That is a higher level of responsibility. But by and large that is ignored in favor of the personal advantage. This is where the scrutiny belongs. Was the due diligence truly done with prudence or is euphoria overtaking, sending the school into a money pit that tax payers will be bailing out for many years to come?

Recognizing the self-serving interests of the athletic department and their media cheerleaders as apart from the University and the tax payer interests is an imperative in understanding how these things happen and whether they make sense.

I again give you the Eastern Michigan example. Tax payers are funding 30:1 ratio. And the school is not growing enrollment. Explain how this is fiasco is in the school's interest ($1000 a year per student against the student body wishes).