Recently, a local mailbag column sparked a broad conversation about scheduling, competitive balance and the changing landscape of college sports. The discussion ranged from whether former Pac-12 institutions should try to schedule one another more often, to how tournament selection processes and roster construction in the transfer era are reshaping decisions in both basketball and football. A short video clip from an Arizona coach offering advice to a struggling placekicker was a reminder that these larger structural debates play out through everyday coaching and personnel choices.
In men’s basketball, the incentives line up more clearly in favor of legacy regional matchups. With the NCAA moving to a longer regular season and multi-team events at neutral sites becoming common, teams will have more nonconference dates to fill. The NCAA Tournament selection process also rewards quality opponents and accounts for opponent strength and game location, which encourages programs to schedule strong regional rivals when possible. That structure makes it sensible — and often beneficial for the sport — for former conference mates to keep meeting on the court.
Football is a different animal. Nonconference scheduling is negotiated years in advance and hinges on an opaque playoff selection culture that appears to emphasize fewest losses above all else. Because a single additional loss can be treated harshly by the selection committee, many programs avoid stacking multiple A-level nonconference opponents on the schedule. Even when a team would like to arrange a meaningful home-and-home with a regional rival, long-term calendar commitments and risk-averse behavior often prevent those series from happening.
The transfer portal and NIL money have reshaped roster-building in both sports, producing a dynamic where big spending does not guarantee success. Teams that assemble high-priced groups sometimes underperform when the pieces don’t fit. Conversely, programs that quickly evaluate transfers for fit and culture — and that integrate newcomers effectively into a defined system — can overperform relative to payroll. How schools deploy NIL and whether “dead money” becomes more common will be one of the trends to watch in the coming years.
Academic eligibility and graduation monitoring remain part of the equation, despite anxieties about the free-transfer era. Transfers must be academically eligible, and metrics such as Academic Progress Rates and Graduation Success Rates will provide more clarity in the near future. Over the long term, cross-checking these academic measures with on-field performance will help determine whether roster churn hurts or helps student-athlete outcomes. Coaches who prioritize character and culture tend to produce better results both athletically and academically.
Conference realignment continues to be messy. Most of the legacy Pac-12 programs are locked into grant-of-rights contracts that stretch into the next decade, so a wholesale return to the old regional model is unlikely soon. That said, Olympic sports and basketball could gravitate back toward regional competition if football evolves into a separate, nationalized enterprise. Schools are positioning for multiple scenarios, and future moves will hinge on exit fees, political pressure, and how profitable a possible football super league might be.
On the practical side, unfamiliar opponents — such as Texas State for western programs entering a new conference — won’t necessarily gain a huge advantage, because film, scouting and the presence of experienced staff mitigate surprise. Mid-major programs with stable coaching and good resources, like Santa Clara in recent seasons, have reasonable opportunities to retain contributors and compete. For media distribution, conferences are likely to use their own production arms to stream Olympic sports and non-network content, though many operational details are still being worked out as the next season approaches.
