danjsport wrote:

GWAA- college sports were dead long before the NCAA went to a Championship game. It's just that now everybody is being open about it and we're seeing what happens with that. Ben Simmons didn't go to LSU just because. Reggie Bush didn't go to USC just because. Louisville? The Fab 5? You think Carmelo didn't get a bag to go to Cuse?

Under-the-table money has been around since Knute Rockne, but before every now-and-then there would be room for a non-traditional to get its grubby hands on a star (Jason Kidd at Cal, for example) and occasionally a school does things right and is very competitive (UCLA under Wooden or Tara VanDerveer at Stanford). But now, the tier structure is cemented, driven by football money and NCAA complicity and about all the major teams will have in common with the universities they are supposed to represent will be bookstore merchandise and colour schemes. The Reggie Bush thing should have gotten U$C the "death penalty", Baylor´s men´s hoops should have been disbanded, UNLV and Lousiville should have been kicked out of all collegiate sports. But there was too much money involved to do something like take the high road or displaying any moral conviction. Today, the NCAA reaps what it has sown, choking on its own 24 carat vomit. 

College sports are a total mess. Nashville's Sports headline today was "Vandy lost heavy in transfer portal". Vandy baseball had 15 players enter the transfer portal this offseason.  But since they are in the SEC they can reload. Still, why even recruit if players won't stay.? Make players pay for the coaching instructions they get?  This present situation is just too unstable.   

GWRising wrote:

This is the beginning of the end for schools like GW ... the end being big-time basketball. Soon most of the power 5 will break away from the NCAA and leave the rest to pick up the pieces with an inferior tournaments and bowls. JK predicted this long ago. The only question that will remain for GW is whether athletic scholarships are still worth it to play in an inferior product. Could see a Hartford move in the future - why spend so much money for something that most will no longer support? Money ruins most everything and it's about to ruin college sports as we knew it and came to love it. But don't worry a few hundred football and basketball student athletes will be smiling all the way to the bank while most student athletes lose scholarship opportunities and sports. Sad really.

I think it's a problem for all A-10 schools except maybe Dayton & VCU that have national brands. I posted this in the thread Barry made in the General Discussion section. I think scheduling is going to get harder and harder.  We just have to accept that we probably aren't going to get UVA, Seton Hall, Georgia, etc. coming to the Smith Center anymore.

Once the super leagues are formed, what incentive is there for the big boys to schedule any games against the A10's of the world?  Just play teams from the NEC, 1-2 MTEs amongst themselves, and then their conference schedules. I think it makes it almost impossible for the A10 to get 4+ teams in the tournament.

: https://vote.pollcode.com/39288541

Not sure if I've done this correctly, so use the poll feature above if I have, or answer on this thread if I haven't:

The Big East is talking expansion again and while Gonzaga is on their radar, so are several A10 schools.  Which A10 men's basketball program can the conference least afford to lose?

A) Dayton
B) St. Louis
C) VCU
D) Other





 

If the Conference wants to be better balanced it needs to go South. They are set in the Midwest. They have nothing south of DC. VCU would be their logical first choice in my view.

Last edited by Alum1 (10/25/2022 12:46 pm)

The A-10 can least afford to lose Dayton because it's the most affluent alumni base and larger metro area market (I'm assuming). They have alumni all over the country. They win a lot. The A-10 would take a big step down without Dayton. Hopefully the Flyers have no aspirations to play 1-A football.

Oregon and Washington likely aren't going to the Big Ten more like MWC. The big dogs are gone in terms of revenues and TV market - USC and UCLA. Oregon has Nike money but that's about it as far as attraction to the Big 10. If they were interested, they would have grabbed them before.

The term "drip, drip, drip" is no longer applicable...

https://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/article/oregon-washington-big-ten-pac-12-18279356.php

Not really happy about the SEC expanding also. UT has traditional games that may be impacted. 
The Texas teams, Oklahoma, Missouri? Too many teams. Greed. Ugh!

GW Alum Abroad wrote:

GWRising wrote:

Oregon and Washington likely aren't going to the Big Ten more like MWC. The big dogs are gone in terms of revenues and TV market - USC and UCLA. Oregon has Nike money but that's about it as far as attraction to the Big 10. If they were interested, they would have grabbed them before.

You were saying?
 

 
Yup got that one wrong and so did a lot of others. Apparently when USC and UCLA were admitted, the Big 10 pledged to not take the other two for a period of time but then either reneged on that pledge or got the consent of USC and UCLA from the Presidents (more likely). That according to someone fairly high up in one of those first two schools athletic departments. USC/UCLA apparently threw Oregon/Washington a lifeline because without the B10 they were both headed to becoming second tier athletics programs. Ironically, I think it had more to do with travel expenses for non football sports and recruiting. USC and UCLA probably realized they needed some games in the traditional areas.

Last edited by GWRising (8/07/2023 10:02 am)