Realignment, the topic that never sleeps. From the WAC (or should we say, the UAC?) to the Big Ten, the game of thrones is always shifting. Yes, you can scroll down and dive straight into the pitch document — the WAC’s proposal to the Summit League for what they dubbed a “strategic partnership.” But before you do, let me add some educational context.
Why?
Because this industry isn’t what most people think it is. In nearly 20 years of experience in athletics and higher education, I’ve seen firsthand how many misconceptions surround it. That’s why I write about it — because I’m in it. I’m not claiming to be an expert, but if nothing else, I hope you can take away something from what I share. And honestly, it’s a nice break from the consulting grind to dive into vacancies, break down contracts, or talk with some incredible athletic directors.
The Educational Realignment Lesson
Realignment has steered college athletics for over a century. In some years, realignment has dominated the headlines.
The biggest misconception about realignment today?
That market size and TV audiences still drive the bus or have the front seat. Truth is, the next wave of realignment — especially at the mid-major and FCS levels — will be about revenue sharing and aligning with like-minded institutions.
Much of the revenue-sharing conversations center on opting in or opting out — that’s the starting point. But eventually, it will become clearer which schools are more invested than others, and that transparency will drive the alignment that fuels the next wave of realignment.
PR Still Says It’s About Market Size
Remember the PR spins about the Chicago TV market (Northern Illinois) or the Austin TV market (Texas State)? Nice talking points, but no one believes the Big Ten was salivating over the 117th-ranked Eugene market — they wanted the Oregon brand.
Streaming has only amplified this reality. Fans can access games from anywhere; brand value and competitive success matter more than Nielsen households. Think of it less as “who gets the remote” and more as “who owns the channel.”
In terms of realignment with the WAC? It was about survival.
The WAC’s “Pitch Deck” – Threads of ASUN-UAC Partnership
The document below is more than six months old, but it’s telling.
I did not create this deck, but it was sent to me … twice.
The WAC — the conference that has rebranded itself more times than a moody teenager — was once again searching for stability. They’d floated similar conversations with the ASUN (obviously) and even the Southland. Typos and low-resolution graphics aside, there’s a story here — and a quick plug: yes, this is where consultants like me help polish these decks.
The WAC’s pitch deck to the Summit League:
The pitch was simple: stability as two entities. Why stretch across a massive footprint if you’re only getting one postseason bid? The WAC’s eventual merger with the ASUN under the United Athletic Conference (UAC) banner demonstrates that they were willing to be creative.
Shared conference offices. Shared leadership. Shared costs. Think of the 1990s when Major League Baseball’s American League and National League still operated as distinct entities — separate offices, separate leadership — but ultimately under the same MLB umbrella. That was the WAC’s vision: distinct conferences with crossover efficiencies.
As Matt Brown noted, “Mid-major conference offices are typically lean operations. If the UAC and ASUN shared a comms office, broadcast services, or even a CFO, it could save each league six figures a year… if not more.”
Oh, and don’t forget shared sponsorships. Bundled national partnerships that make any revenue geek’s mouth salivate.
The Summit League’s Perspective
Here’s the other side of the coin: The Summit League didn’t need this.
For all the creativity in the WAC’s proposal, the Summit had far more hurdles to clear. Ties to the Missouri Valley Football Conference made a football partnership messy. Geographically, it stretched them thin. And financially, the stability that the Summit had already made the WAC’s lifeline less attractive.
To put it bluntly: the WAC was in survival mode, while Summit was not. That’s a tough mismatch in any negotiation.
The Football Factor
Still, the football component was juicy. The pitch envisioned a Summit League football conference, which would have pulled North Dakota, North Dakota State, South Dakota, and South Dakota State out of the MVFC. You can imagine how those conversations could have gone.
But conceptually? It was strong. Add in Southern Utah, Abilene Christian, and Tarleton State — all playoff contenders — and suddenly you’ve got an FCS juggernaut to rival the Big Sky. Throw in the Dakota schools’ brands, and you’ve got a schedule that drives some eyeballs, butts in seats, and multiple bids.
Tarleton, though, was the wild card. Their FBS ambitions have never been a secret, making them a potential “rental” in the league for a few years before bolting up a level.
The Sacred AQ and the Other Pieces
Of course, nothing is simple. Automatic Qualifiers (AQs) are sacred ground. To make this work, Oral Roberts and potentially Denver (in other versions of this deck) would’ve needed to jump into the WAC as well.
Then there were the other moving parts: Cal Baptist and Utah Valley were part of this initial iteration, before ultimately landing in the Big West. That’s realignment in a nutshell — constant positioning, shifting allegiances, and schools playing musical chairs to find the right long-term fit.
In the end, the Texas-based WAC schools realized their best path forward probably didn’t include Southern Utah or Utah Tech. Conversations splintered. Defections followed. And what started as a grand Summit-WAC experiment turned into the UAC-ASUN alignment we see today.
Was It Seriously Considered?
Short answer: yes, but only to a point. Just like you’d at least look at a wild opportunity that lands on your desk, Summit League leadership read and discussed it. But the football ties to the MVFC and the geographic stretch were big hurdles. And again, the Summit League didn’t need this.
The Bigger Questions
When schools and conferences weigh these deals, it goes deeper than logos on a slide. I’ve helped build pitch decks myself — Hawai’i’s template for the Pac-12 and MWC was started on my laptop in the Newark Airport. The conversations always circle back to the same questions:
- Do we save money?
- What does travel look like?
- Do budgets line up?
- Do sports match up competitively?
- Are there airline or bus partnerships to make travel work?
- Is there even an airport nearby?
- What are we trying to accomplish? Does it make us better?
Then come the bigger revenue questions: can a media partner fuel this? Could an Amazon or CBS pony up to make it worthwhile, maybe even create a late-night basketball package like “Midnight Monday” to draw eyeballs?
And don’t forget alumni. Where do they live? Will road trips double as fundraising swings? Will anyone besides parents show up?
To wrap up, remember, this isn’t the Big Ten or SEC. This is mid-major realignment — where every dollar, every mile, and every pitch deck counts.
