This isn’t a big question in terms of money, but it is a big question in terms of the well-being and care of athletes who did not sign up for a specific set of circumstances.
Imagine you’re a swimmer or water polo player or gymnast at a school that has moved to the Big Ten or Big 12. You’re not part of a revenue sport. You very possibly went to a Pac-12 school because the Pac-12 — as weak as it has been in football over the past several years — is world-class in the Olympic sports. When USC and UCLA went to the Big Ten, questions emerged about the logic and wisdom of having non-revenue-sport athletes fly long distances, but those questions were more isolated because only two West Coast schools were part of the equation.
Now it’s different.
Oregon and Washington have joined USC and UCLA in moving to the Big Ten. Meanwhile, Arizona and Arizona State have joined Utah and Colorado in moving to the Big 12.
A lot of Olympic-sport athletes went to schools in the Northwest, the Bay Area, Los Angeles, and Arizona to compete in Pac-12 environments and get a Pac-12 culture of competition for Olympic sports.
Some of these athletes are speaking up, which invites a very important discussion about whether the Big Ten, Big 12, and Pac-12 need to work together to keep Olympic-sport athletes at home in the West.
Reaction on social media has been fierce and contentious. This is a discussion worth exploring further: