08-10-2023, 05:55 PM
Great post, branner.
You are absolutely right that proximity is an important consideration in recruiting but a) I think dabigv13 is right that to the extent California has talent this will benefit USC and UCLA (major winners if Stanford drops a level, though equally big if not bigger winners would be any schools remaining in Power Four that can credibly claim to have one of the best football/academic combos, which Stanford would sadly/devastatingly be disqualified from) and b) as you note the proximity advantage will much more substantially benefit non-Stanford schools because Stanford by necessity/identity recruits nationally and because schools we would be trying to compete with for national relevance have much greater proximity to the truly rich talent beds.
Ultimately I think the biggest issue is that I disagree with you that a multitude of factors can outweigh the conference thing. The conferences really do stratify college football. If you look at the 247 Talent Composite, the most talented remaining Group of Five team in the nation is SMU at #55. SMU has a rich football tradition, rabid and deep pocketed donors, and proximity to much more competitive football talent than Stanford. They also have won 32 games in the last four years compared to 23 for in-state "rival" Texas Tech, yet Texas Tech is #45 in the talent composite. You can't overcome conference in recruiting. It's how all this gets sorted - Power Five (Four) > Group of Five > FCS > Division II/III/NAIA. The best players will always want to play on the best stages. Yes, players care about proximity, mom and dad watching them, culture, playing time, uniforms and locker rooms, personal relationships, and other things that aren't conferences, but those always have been and always will be used to differentiate within competitive levels. Good players don't go to Sacramento State when they could go to Fresno State, and they won't go to a Mountain West Stanford if they can go to Big 10 USC or UCLA. [However, Stanford would be in much, much better situation in this circumstance than any other Group of Five program in history due to the national brand and academics, which would mean that we could get good recruits as long as they de-prioritize football. But recruits who truly care about football and not just in a Renaissance Man/Stanford Man sense won't be coming.]
I respect your argument that you're trying to think dynamically how chaos could make things look different than they have in the past. I just have a really hard time believing players willingly going to a lower level than their talent opens doors is going to be one of those. It will happen in rare cases but I think it is extraordinarily unlikely Stanford, #23 in the most recent 247 Talent Composite, could ever have those levels of recruiting playing in a minor conference.
I also disagree with your pessimism about the Big 10. They are in great shape and will just get richer with the eventual implosion of the ACC that you and I both anticipate. And as the Big 10 gets bigger a) it will be less vulnerable to travel frictions than you anticipate because teams will by necessity play unbalanced schedules based on geographic convenience and historical rivalry and b) even if it proves untenable for one or more of the four Pac-12 refugees those schools are gravy for the Big 10 anyway and their happiness, or even retention in the conference, is not fundamental to whether the Big 10 survives. The SEC and Big 10 are entrenched with the marquee properties in college football that aren't going anywhere. I still think where we're heading eventually is consolidation into one or two (max three) super leagues. The only thing - and I literally mean the only thing - that has surprised me about all of the conference realignment machinations the last few years is how superbly the Big 12 has played the cards it's been dealt.
You are absolutely right that proximity is an important consideration in recruiting but a) I think dabigv13 is right that to the extent California has talent this will benefit USC and UCLA (major winners if Stanford drops a level, though equally big if not bigger winners would be any schools remaining in Power Four that can credibly claim to have one of the best football/academic combos, which Stanford would sadly/devastatingly be disqualified from) and b) as you note the proximity advantage will much more substantially benefit non-Stanford schools because Stanford by necessity/identity recruits nationally and because schools we would be trying to compete with for national relevance have much greater proximity to the truly rich talent beds.
Ultimately I think the biggest issue is that I disagree with you that a multitude of factors can outweigh the conference thing. The conferences really do stratify college football. If you look at the 247 Talent Composite, the most talented remaining Group of Five team in the nation is SMU at #55. SMU has a rich football tradition, rabid and deep pocketed donors, and proximity to much more competitive football talent than Stanford. They also have won 32 games in the last four years compared to 23 for in-state "rival" Texas Tech, yet Texas Tech is #45 in the talent composite. You can't overcome conference in recruiting. It's how all this gets sorted - Power Five (Four) > Group of Five > FCS > Division II/III/NAIA. The best players will always want to play on the best stages. Yes, players care about proximity, mom and dad watching them, culture, playing time, uniforms and locker rooms, personal relationships, and other things that aren't conferences, but those always have been and always will be used to differentiate within competitive levels. Good players don't go to Sacramento State when they could go to Fresno State, and they won't go to a Mountain West Stanford if they can go to Big 10 USC or UCLA. [However, Stanford would be in much, much better situation in this circumstance than any other Group of Five program in history due to the national brand and academics, which would mean that we could get good recruits as long as they de-prioritize football. But recruits who truly care about football and not just in a Renaissance Man/Stanford Man sense won't be coming.]
I respect your argument that you're trying to think dynamically how chaos could make things look different than they have in the past. I just have a really hard time believing players willingly going to a lower level than their talent opens doors is going to be one of those. It will happen in rare cases but I think it is extraordinarily unlikely Stanford, #23 in the most recent 247 Talent Composite, could ever have those levels of recruiting playing in a minor conference.
I also disagree with your pessimism about the Big 10. They are in great shape and will just get richer with the eventual implosion of the ACC that you and I both anticipate. And as the Big 10 gets bigger a) it will be less vulnerable to travel frictions than you anticipate because teams will by necessity play unbalanced schedules based on geographic convenience and historical rivalry and b) even if it proves untenable for one or more of the four Pac-12 refugees those schools are gravy for the Big 10 anyway and their happiness, or even retention in the conference, is not fundamental to whether the Big 10 survives. The SEC and Big 10 are entrenched with the marquee properties in college football that aren't going anywhere. I still think where we're heading eventually is consolidation into one or two (max three) super leagues. The only thing - and I literally mean the only thing - that has surprised me about all of the conference realignment machinations the last few years is how superbly the Big 12 has played the cards it's been dealt.