That's correct, and I agree. I would say that it is diluted beyond P5 status anymore.
Who decides why conferences or programs are P5 in the first place? It's an arbitrary term. The Big12 expanded to offer four G5 programs. But there are no benchmarks to meet other than an invite. And now schools like Smut are simply buying their way in, which taints the quality even more.
Looking at the ITA rankings as of today (they only show rankings for the top 75):
#37 SMU #38 Memphis Tied at #61: Charlotte and UTSA
We have played two conference foes thus far this spring, losing to FAU 1-4 and USF 3-4
Upcoming matches with confernce foes UTSA (March 2 at UNT), Wichita State, Rice, Charlotte, Tulane, Tulsa, Temple
It will be interesting to see if we can pull out some wins to avoid playing one of the very top seeds in the first round of the conference tournament at SMU in mid-April. Going to be tough with such a young team this year, but you never know!
Sure but at which point do you run into the Theseus Paradox. When you lose your storied programs and down to 2 teams, how much does history the brand even matter at that point. You’re “PAC” in name but no one will see you that way. That’s the argument ESPN, Fox, Apple, etc are making right now.
PAC brand > MWC brand.
MWC schools see an easy road to a P5 conference with a merger. However, PAC2 currently wants only the best names in the MWC, not all. MWC leadership is trying to push an all or none merger. Eventually the better programs like Boise, SDSU, etc will split away to the PAC anyway, if there is a reasonable media package being proposed.