Following the pandemic, for the G5 conferences especially, geography will be more important than before because of travel budgets and lost class time, and will become more of a factor in future conference makeup considerations. The MAC and MWC are in pretty good shape, but the rest of the conferences are not.

SMUstang

Is the MWC in good shape geographically? There's fewer schools in the west so it's a little tougher, but from a geography standpoint you could argue that the MWC should be football only while the other schools split up into more regional multi-sport conferences.

How do you figure the MWC is in any better shape than any other FBS conference? The MAC certainly is, and the Big 12 isn't bad, but everybody else seems pretty scattered.

(06-14-2021 09:28 AM)TDenverFan Wrote:  Is the MWC in good shape geographically? There's fewer schools in the west so it's a little tougher, but from a geography standpoint you could argue that the MWC should be football only while the other schools split up into more regional multi-sport conferences.

Perhaps the MWC should divide into two smaller conferences. One for the mountain time zone schools, and one for the pacific time zone schools. It would be good if every conference divided up by time zones. But I know that will not happen and the A5 has enough money it doesn't matter.

SMUstang

(06-14-2021 09:24 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Following the pandemic, for the G5 conferences especially, geography will be more important than before because of travel budgets and lost class time, and will become more of a factor in future conference makeup considerations. The MAC and MWC are in pretty good shape, but the rest of the conferences are not.

SMUstang

Counterpoint: this pandemic showed that the only thing that conferences can really count on is TV revenue, which is where geography is irrelevant.

Now, I think geography is always going to be a practical factor (e.g. why every proposal that has Gonzaga joining a stronger Eastern-based conference is nonsensical regardless of the potential TV money), but I just think so many people are misreading what the pandemic showed here regarding college sports.

Most of the critics of pandemic-related travel issues (e.g. Nebraska and Rutgers in the Big Ten) were people that didn't like conference realignment in the first place. Yet, they totally gloss over the fact that the only reason why at least the P5 conferences were able to salvage a fair amount of revenue this year was because of lucrative TV contracts... which were completely what conference realignment was all about.

(06-14-2021 09:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 09:24 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Following the pandemic, for the G5 conferences especially, geography will be more important than before because of travel budgets and lost class time, and will become more of a factor in future conference makeup considerations. The MAC and MWC are in pretty good shape, but the rest of the conferences are not.

SMUstang

Counterpoint: this pandemic showed that the only thing that conferences can really count on is TV revenue, which is where geography is irrelevant.

Now, I think geography is always going to be a practical factor (e.g. why every proposal that has Gonzaga joining a stronger Eastern-based conference is nonsensical regardless of the potential TV money), but I just think so many people are misreading what the pandemic showed here regarding college sports.

Most of the critics of pandemic-related travel issues (e.g. Nebraska and Rutgers in the Big Ten) were people that didn't like conference realignment in the first place. Yet, they totally gloss over the fact that the only reason why at least the P5 conferences were able to salvage a fair amount of revenue this year was because of lucrative TV contracts... which were completely what conference realignment was all about.

I agree to some extent. But the West Virginia move to the Big XII, Rutgers move to the B1G and the Pittsburg, Syracuse, and Louisville move to the ACC, and Connecticut move to the Big East were driven by $, nothing less. They are all outliers.

SMUstang

Travel isn't an issue with the SBC since all members have travel partners. When a school sends their teams out for away games they'll get a two-fer out of it. And the bulk of the conference is pretty concentrated. The rectangle of Little Rock down to Lafayette, over to Statesboro up to Atlanta is fairly compact.

(06-14-2021 10:04 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 09:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 09:24 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Following the pandemic, for the G5 conferences especially, geography will be more important than before because of travel budgets and lost class time, and will become more of a factor in future conference makeup considerations. The MAC and MWC are in pretty good shape, but the rest of the conferences are not.

SMUstang

Counterpoint: this pandemic showed that the only thing that conferences can really count on is TV revenue, which is where geography is irrelevant.

Now, I think geography is always going to be a practical factor (e.g. why every proposal that has Gonzaga joining a stronger Eastern-based conference is nonsensical regardless of the potential TV money), but I just think so many people are misreading what the pandemic showed here regarding college sports.

Most of the critics of pandemic-related travel issues (e.g. Nebraska and Rutgers in the Big Ten) were people that didn't like conference realignment in the first place. Yet, they totally gloss over the fact that the only reason why at least the P5 conferences were able to salvage a fair amount of revenue this year was because of lucrative TV contracts... which were completely what conference realignment was all about.

I agree to some extent. But the West Virginia move to the Big XII, Rutgers move to the B1G and the Pittsburg, Syracuse, and Louisville move to the ACC, and Connecticut move to the Big East were driven by $, nothing less. They are all outliers.

SMUstang

Yes, driven by money. When there is enough money to drive such moves, they will happen. When there isn't a lot of money involved, moves will be few and far between.

Also, as Frank's comment implies, pretty much all D-I athletic departments are going to be dealing with a revenue shortfall for the next few years in everything except TV money. Ticket sales, donations, and corporate sponsorships evaporated during the pandemic, and they are not going to return to pre-pandemic levels overnight, if they ever do. In many places, people will just buy tickets less often. Most donors will give less going forward. Diehards who still want to keep their season tickets will buy the tickets and make the bare minimum donation needed to keep them instead of giving more as they used to. Etc., etc.

(06-14-2021 09:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  How do you figure the MWC is in any better shape than any other FBS conference? The MAC certainly is, and the Big 12 isn't bad, but everybody else seems pretty scattered.

I think he means the MW geography is as good as its going to get. I mean---what else can they really do? The west is just spread out.

(06-14-2021 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 09:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  How do you figure the MWC is in any better shape than any other FBS conference? The MAC certainly is, and the Big 12 isn't bad, but everybody else seems pretty scattered.

I think he means the MW geography is as good as its going to get. I mean---what else can they really do? The west is just spread out.

And also because it's thin, there is no room for a 2nd conference. AAC, C-USA and SBC all overlap each other in territory. At the G5 level the MAC is relatively safe due to geography as well.

The AAC has more money, but not enough more to absorb a mountain time zone school. But a P5 conference like the B1G could absorb one if they really wanted.

(06-14-2021 12:07 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 09:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  How do you figure the MWC is in any better shape than any other FBS conference? The MAC certainly is, and the Big 12 isn't bad, but everybody else seems pretty scattered.

I think he means the MW geography is as good as its going to get. I mean---what else can they really do? The west is just spread out.

And also because it's thin, there is no room for a 2nd conference. AAC, C-USA and SBC all overlap each other in territory. At the G5 level the MAC is relatively safe due to geography as well.

The AAC has more money, but not enough more to absorb a mountain time zone school. But a P5 conference like the B1G could absorb one if they really wanted.

Honestly, if Boise joined as a single "all sports" school---it wouldnt be a big deal for the other AAC schools. One trip in each sport---every other year. Plus, some sports only go to multi-school meets or tournaments---so some sports would travel there. I suspect the AAC could absorb ONE MW school and not have it be a huge issue. For Boise, it would be more of an issue as ALL thier trips would be far---but they are used to traveling more than AAC teams are (due to spred out nature of the west) and Boise would have substantially more money to more than offset the added expense.

I think that calculus changes if your talking about adding an entire wing of MW schools. At that point, it gets easier for the new schools coming in (vs a singe Boise addition), but it becomes more expensive for the AAC schools (esepcially those AAC West school that would share a western division with the new MW schools).

(06-14-2021 12:07 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 09:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  How do you figure the MWC is in any better shape than any other FBS conference? The MAC certainly is, and the Big 12 isn't bad, but everybody else seems pretty scattered.

I think he means the MW geography is as good as its going to get. I mean---what else can they really do? The west is just spread out.

And also because it's thin, there is no room for a 2nd conference. AAC, C-USA and SBC all overlap each other in territory. At the G5 level the MAC is relatively safe due to geography as well.

The AAC has more money, but not enough more to absorb a mountain time zone school. But a P5 conference like the B1G could absorb one if they really wanted.

The question then becomes why would the Big 10 want to "absorb" a Mountain Time Zone school? How much would the Big 10 benefit from Colorado and/or Utah and would the benefits outweight the obvious travel inconveniences? Of course 1-2 California schools add many more travel miles, hours, inconvenience, and an extra time zone but also many more potential fans and eyeballs. Of course the answer when it comes to expanding to the Pac 12 is neither but given the choice California schools might still come out ahead of Colorado and Utah despite being further away.

(06-14-2021 09:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 09:24 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Following the pandemic, for the G5 conferences especially, geography will be more important than before because of travel budgets and lost class time, and will become more of a factor in future conference makeup considerations. The MAC and MWC are in pretty good shape, but the rest of the conferences are not.

SMUstang

Counterpoint: this pandemic showed that the only thing that conferences can really count on is TV revenue, which is where geography is irrelevant.

Now, I think geography is always going to be a practical factor (e.g. why every proposal that has Gonzaga joining a stronger Eastern-based conference is nonsensical regardless of the potential TV money), but I just think so many people are misreading what the pandemic showed here regarding college sports.

Most of the critics of pandemic-related travel issues (e.g. Nebraska and Rutgers in the Big Ten) were people that didn't like conference realignment in the first place. Yet, they totally gloss over the fact that the only reason why at least the P5 conferences were able to salvage a fair amount of revenue this year was because of lucrative TV contracts... which were completely what conference realignment was all about.

But the TV is relatively small relative to travel expenses except for the P5.

Even with travel partners, it is impractical to fly women's volleyball teams thousands of miles to compete. The NCAA/conferences are going to have to make regional play permanent for the minor olympic sports. If they don't, many athletic departments will go bankrupt, and schools will be forced to downgrade. Plus it's better for the athletes to compete against opponents that they know and have been competing against all of their lives.

(06-14-2021 02:10 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  Even with travel partners, it is impractical to fly women's volleyball teams thousands of miles to compete. The NCAA/conferences are going to have to make regional play permanent for the minor olympic sports. If they don't, many athletic departments will go bankrupt, and schools will be forced to downgrade. Plus it's better for the athletes to compete against opponents that they know and have been competing against all of their lives.

You're not going to bus more than a few hours. Flying to Texas for two games/matches/meets (in a travel partner setup) is not really that different than flying to Florida or Alabama or even western Tennessee (from Boone, NC's perspective).


Yes, being in a bus-able league with rivals would rock. But none of the SBC members are complaining about travel or loss of class time.

(06-14-2021 12:29 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 12:07 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 09:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  How do you figure the MWC is in any better shape than any other FBS conference? The MAC certainly is, and the Big 12 isn't bad, but everybody else seems pretty scattered.

I think he means the MW geography is as good as its going to get. I mean---what else can they really do? The west is just spread out.

And also because it's thin, there is no room for a 2nd conference. AAC, C-USA and SBC all overlap each other in territory. At the G5 level the MAC is relatively safe due to geography as well.

The AAC has more money, but not enough more to absorb a mountain time zone school. But a P5 conference like the B1G could absorb one if they really wanted.

The question then becomes why would the Big 10 want to "absorb" a Mountain Time Zone school? How much would the Big 10 benefit from Colorado and/or Utah and would the benefits outweight the obvious travel inconveniences? Of course 1-2 California schools add many more travel miles, hours, inconvenience, and an extra time zone but also many more potential fans and eyeballs. Of course the answer when it comes to expanding to the Pac 12 is neither but given the choice California schools might still come out ahead of Colorado and Utah despite being further away.

Personally, I think Colorado would be a great fit in the Big Ten on pretty much all metrics: academics, key market (both large and fast-growing), institutional profile, etc. (Utah is getting much more out of the way.) However, CU is an even better fit in the Pac-12, so they're right where they should be.

(06-14-2021 02:21 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 02:10 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  Even with travel partners, it is impractical to fly women's volleyball teams thousands of miles to compete. The NCAA/conferences are going to have to make regional play permanent for the minor olympic sports. If they don't, many athletic departments will go bankrupt, and schools will be forced to downgrade. Plus it's better for the athletes to compete against opponents that they know and have been competing against all of their lives.

You're not going to bus more than a few hours. Flying to Texas for two games/matches/meets (in a travel partner setup) is not really that different than flying to Florida or Alabama or even western Tennessee (from Boone, NC's perspective).


Yes, being in a bus-able league with rivals would rock. But none of the SBC members are complaining about travel or loss of class time.

I think this is a fairly significant point. Once your on a plane---differences in mileage become less significant. As for the other drivers of geographic cohesion---rivalries, fan familiarity, and traveling fans---once you exceed a few hundred miles or cross a state border---these factors quickly fall off in relevance. Once opponents are traveling 400-500 miles or more, the brand of the opponent means a great deal more than the distance traveled when it comes to the interest of local ticket buyers. The AAC has pretty much demonstrated that placing brand over geography creates the most value as a conference building technique. Will that same concept work on a nationwide scale? My sense is it probably would---but there would certainly be increased travel costs associated with such an expansion...so there is a risk. Thus far---nobody has been willing to take that risk.

(06-14-2021 02:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The AAC has pretty much demonstrated that placing brand over geography creates the most value as a conference building technique.

More precisely, the AAC's collection of schools has placed spending over geography. That's the distinguishing feature of the AAC compared to the other G conferences. The median AAC athletic budget is about $10 MM/year more than the median MWC budget, and more than $20 MM/year more than the median athletic budget in any of CUSA, MAC, or SBC.

(06-14-2021 04:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 02:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The AAC has pretty much demonstrated that placing brand over geography creates the most value as a conference building technique.

More precisely, the AAC's collection of schools has placed spending over geography. That's the distinguishing feature of the AAC compared to the other G conferences. The median AAC athletic budget is about $10 MM/year more than the median MWC budget, and more than $20 MM/year more than the median athletic budget in any of CUSA, MAC, or SBC.

Which is why the only expansion candidates are from the MWC. The gaps is too large over the SBC, MAC and C-USA schools.

(06-14-2021 02:10 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  Even with travel partners, it is impractical to fly women's volleyball teams thousands of miles to compete. The NCAA/conferences are going to have to make regional play permanent for the minor olympic sports. If they don't, many athletic departments will go bankrupt, and schools will be forced to downgrade. Plus it's better for the athletes to compete against opponents that they know and have been competing against all of their lives.

Hawaii has no choice but to send its Olympic teams thousands of miles east to compete and we make it work, but there are serious downsides to the situation and other western schools would be wise to avoid it.

High travel cost is just one of those downsides. The repeated long road trips to visit all of your conference opponents are far more are punishing on your athletes and coaches than the single long road trip each of your opponents is making just once a year to visit you. By the end of the season it’s not unusual for your teams to be run down and losing focus just when they should be peaking. Also traveling long distances east causes severe enough jet lag to materially impair the performance of your athletes, while the gentler jet lag your opponents experience traveling long distances west is much less debilitating.

These factors are why joining the Big West has been a godsend for Hawaii Olympic sports. While every road trip is still a five hour plane ride east, at least the flights are non-stops and go straight to the destination. Back in the WAC days it was a multi-hour marathon to get to places like Moscow, Las Cruces, Laramie, Tulsa and Ruston. Moreover the travel between the first and second road opponent on a typical trip is now by bus instead of plane. The wear and tear on our teams is far less than it used to be. Even so I wouldn’t recommend taking on similar geographic isolation to any western school with a choice.