[Goose]

As for the "sanctity of tradition," it's total B.S. College sports has been going through evolutions that break "traditions" for decades. Anyone heard of the Southwest Conference? Or maybe the Pac-8 and Big-8? How about the SEC before a football playoff? Might I interest you in the Big 10 when it had 10 members?  How about the Big East as a Football power? Utah has gone from the WAC, to MWC, to Pac-12, to now maybe the Big XII in what, 30 years? Colorado has been in the Big 8, Big XII, and Pac-12, and looks to be moving to Big XII again. Even San Jose State was in something called the California Coast Conference, before the Big West, WAC, and current MWC affiliation.

OF, your initial analysis is correct if taken literally. The key word is "evolutions". Change in the past was indeed constant but was relatively slow. This allowed the "traditions" to stretch and morph at a rate that didn't break them. The problem in recent years isn't that there is change, but rather 1) the changes are more disruptive and 2) the rate of major change being so fast that traditions cannot accommodate it. The changes today are much more "radical" in that the geographic footprint is no longer constraining. The step from the PAC-8 to the PAC-10 was not a revolution. Ditto the PAC-10 to the PAC-12, although it was more so. The two Arizona schools were geographically close to other PAC-10 schools and lots of students from the PAC-12 footprint attended them. They were "familiar" to most people who followed west-coast football. Accepting them broke nothing because "uneven" scheduling kept the rivalry games intact. Colorado to the PAC-12 not as much, and it is a much more distant school. Many didn't like the move. Utah's journey over a 30 year period among conferences that, until the step to the PAC-12, were basically the same geographic footprint and were mostly differences without a distinction. It also took 30 years.

Now it is true that some groupings of schools have been together longer than others, but the reality is everyone operates in a market that determines how they are valued and how they want to compete. In a capitalist economy, the small fish get eaten by the bigger fish. I just don't get all the "it's so special and the money is ruining it" angst.  The money has been "ruining it" for my entire lifetime. Absent regulations the public wants in place to keep status quo, college sports alignments will always be fluid until the market has settled. To me, the market has for sure decided Washington State and Oregon State do not matter. That's a tough pill for those institutions, but it's just life in a market economy.



The only thing I feel confident about in terms of how things shake out is the Pac being dead after 2023. Never imagined it would be the first to go, but when you consider all the factors, it probably was always going to the be first of the Power 5 to die. The ACC will be next, IMO.

What you miss is that while the market has always been a factor in grouping of schools it was historically not the overwhelming factor. Making "big" money on football just wasn't a necessity or even expected. The market has also changed radically in the last 30 years and even more so in the last 50 years. The market can't "settle" under the current model because the parameters of that market change so fast that long-term strategies simply won't work. Everybody is reacting to what they see as "the trend". FOX and ESPN are the "big players" right now. In 5 years, will that still be so? How sure are we?

[Goose]

As for the "sanctity of tradition," it's total B.S. College sports has been going through evolutions that break "traditions" for decades. Anyone heard of the Southwest Conference? Or maybe the Pac-8 and Big-8? How about the SEC before a football playoff? Might I interest you in the Big 10 when it had 10 members?  How about the Big East as a Football power? Utah has gone from the WAC, to MWC, to Pac-12, to now maybe the Big XII in what, 30 years? Colorado has been in the Big 8, Big XII, and Pac-12, and looks to be moving to Big XII again. Even San Jose State was in something called the California Coast Conference, before the Big West, WAC, and current MWC affiliation.

OF, your initial analysis is correct if taken literally. The key word is "evolutions". Change in the past was indeed constant but was relatively slow. This allowed the "traditions" to stretch and morph at a rate that didn't break them. The problem in recent years isn't that there is change, but rather 1) the changes are more disruptive and 2) the rate of major change being so fast that traditions cannot accommodate it. The changes today are much more "radical" in that the geographic footprint is no longer constraining. The step from the PAC-8 to the PAC-10 was not a revolution. Ditto the PAC-10 to the PAC-12, although it was more so. The two Arizona schools were geographically close to other PAC-10 schools and lots of students from the PAC-12 footprint attended them. They were "familiar" to most people who followed west-coast football. Accepting them broke nothing because "uneven" scheduling kept the rivalry games intact. Colorado to the PAC-12 not as much, and it is a much more distant school. Many didn't like the move. Utah's journey over a 30 year period among conferences that, until the step to the PAC-12, were basically the same geographic footprint and were mostly differences without a distinction. It also took 30 years.

Now it is true that some groupings of schools have been together longer than others, but the reality is everyone operates in a market that determines how they are valued and how they want to compete. In a capitalist economy, the small fish get eaten by the bigger fish. I just don't get all the "it's so special and the money is ruining it" angst.  The money has been "ruining it" for my entire lifetime. Absent regulations the public wants in place to keep status quo, college sports alignments will always be fluid until the market has settled. To me, the market has for sure decided Washington State and Oregon State do not matter. That's a tough pill for those institutions, but it's just life in a market economy.



The only thing I feel confident about in terms of how things shake out is the Pac being dead after 2023. Never imagined it would be the first to go, but when you consider all the factors, it probably was always going to the be first of the Power 5 to die. The ACC will be next, IMO.

What you miss is that while the market has always been a factor in grouping of schools it was historically not the overwhelming factor. Making "big" money on football just wasn't a necessity or even expected. The market has also changed radically in the last 30 years and even more so in the last 50 years. The market can't "settle" under the current model because the parameters of that market change so fast that long-term strategies simply won't work. Everybody is reacting to what they see as "the trend". FOX and ESPN are the "big players" right now. In 5 years, will that still be so? How sure are we?