Not disagreeing with you, but you mention “short term” and “long term” and I think TIME is an interesting and less thought about aspect in all of this.
The idea of short term versus long term always seems to be discussed or viewed, in general terms, as short term is negative and long term is positive. Not saying you’re doing that here, but it’s interesting.
In this case I think it’s interesting to define “short” and “long” and what makes them so. So how do we define them? You can’t just arbitrarily use a number like 2, 3, or 4 years to define “short” without having some meaning or implications attached. “Long” term is probably easier in that it is defined as anything after “short” term (sorry midterm).
So for me I would define “short” as all time from now until the next rounds of conference realignment shuffle begins and ends. Once the dust settles “long” term begins and is probably going to be that way for awhile.
Now assign a value to both terms… not only is the short term more valuable, it arguably holds ALL the value, because in the long term if you’re not in an AQ conference you’re basically in the minor leagues and none of it really matters anymore.
UNLV has given themselves a MUCH better chance at achieving AQ status by way of this deal than they would have had even if the PAC/MW merger had created the best G5 conference.
If a merger had happened or were to happen where do you think UNLV would sit in the pecking order of the conference? Where in the pecking order of expansion targets?
At best we’d be 4th or 5th in our own conference without the resources that many above us have to strengthen their position.
No, the conference isn’t pretty and isn’t gonna get prettier, and while the PAC may look better on paper right now, what are THEY gonna look like after the next wave of realignment?
All in.
www.espn.com
