It would basically expose Kilavkoff’s bulls**t about USC and UCLA having regrets over travel costs if he agreed to a conference scenario that required Washington to travel to Miami.
Meh, they'd be traveling to Miami once every 12 years for football, and once every 4 in basketball in any conceivable schedule. (Seriously, try coming up with a realistic conference schedule that has them traveling to Miami, or even Florida more frequently than once every 6-12 years).
Their football schedule would likely look something like:
WSU, UO, OSU, Cal, & Furd every year. Two or three of those would be road games.
Then, every other year, they'd have a road game against a Midwest/Mountain West opponent.
Every other year, a road game against a mid-atlantic to north-east opponent,
And, again, every other year, a road game against a mid-atlantic to south-east opponent.
(The last two could easily be coordinated so that they're traveling to the Eastern time zone once a year, and never twice a year).
Basically, your conference slate would have 4 home games every year and 4 away games. When you've got 3 of the nearby schools as away games, you have to travel to the SE for your 4th, and in the years you have 2 of the nearby schools, you have to travel to the mountain west/midwest for one game, and to the NE for the 4th. It's not really a big deal.
With 4 games to schedule wherever they want, whether it's at home or close by. It's simply not an unreasonable football travel schedule.
Non-revenue sports, with the exception of conference championship tournaments, there'd be no reason to expand travel in a meaningful way beyond what they already do.
Now, contrast to USC and UCLA, and their nearest conference game in *any* sport is in Lincoln.
www.macrumors.com
on Pac-12 and ACC. Not a matter of if but when imo.
