Mark me down as "thrilled" that UCLA is leaving the second rate Pac 10-12 for greener pastures and real big boy football. The Pac will NEVER be what the B1G or SEC are and seem to have terrible leadership no matter who they hire as commissioner.
I don’t know where your loyalties lie, but hypothetically if you were a Duck or Husky fan and Big 10 took them in next round of expansion would you wish them the same miserable fate?
Why would UO or UW go to Big 10 now if the TV deal is decent? Their path to a championship is doable staying in Pac 12 now that 12 teams make the playoff.
He seems like a snake in the grass. Bald face lied to PAC 12 commish while smiling and shaking his hand and talking about solidarity. Came in made alot of money, not giving a shit about who he hurt and traditions he destroyed and then left in the night. Carrie definitely earned her money, that dude sucks.
I would hardly call Warren's stint with the Big 10 "tenure". More like a ripoff. He sees change as an opportunity. That would be an opportunity for him to cash in. Poaching teams from another conference does nothing for college football except destroy tradition and rivalries. Tv money? Coverage is now so screwed up and costly for consumers that it will eventually lead to less total viewership. IMHO.
If she's married to Chuck, who is a legend at the UofA, I worked there for almost three years in the Athletic Department, then her allegiance to the 'Cats comes after the money.
I'm a capitalist, but even I wouldn't have done to the Pac-12 what she did.
I love Chuck, but it's got to be awfully uncomfortable at some level to have your wife be part of the knee-capping of the Pac-12. Especially for Arizona, we only got in because of Arizona State back in '78. And Chuck is a huge part of the lore of Arizona football.
We traveled to the future Monday evening at Sofi. NFL-like team smoking cigars on the field. It really sucked. People born before 1985 or so will mourn the loss of this once great sport. Those born after will know no better. They just want to know who is Number 1.
He completely screwed up the season of COVID. Adding SC and UCLA is bottom line nice as is the no-brainer media deal that a high school grad could have negotiated with FOX taking the lead, but I have to believe that many the senior administrators at B1G schools were not happy with how Warren lied to both the Pac-12 and ACC Commissioners
Especially, with him lying to ACC Commish Jim Phillips who had a long run at Northwestern and was supposedly the 2nd choice when Warren was hired. (And could easily flip from the ACC to the B1G as the new B1G commish.)
Bully for the lady PR expert. But her involvement did not stop the flak Warren took over COVID and other issues. He ran the conference in name only; Ohio State AD Gene Smith is the power behind the B1G throne.
I'm hoping GK pulls a terrific media deal rabbit out of his hat and adds SDS, Fresno, UNLV, SMU, UTSA and Tulane while changing to a formula of not everyone gets an equal piece of the media pie.
Stand pat at 10 teams and we can kiss the Pacific Conference good-bye.
Jon…I believe you are probably right when you say, “Stand pat at 10 teams and we can kiss the Pacific Conference good-bye.” But think about this. There are two strategies that the PAC could employ. Adding the teams you suggest, in the short term, would dilute the conference quality. It would however serve to preserve its existence but at a lower standing. If somehow the PAC could entice some of the Big 12 programs like BYU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston and Oklahoma State….that would be a 16-team conference with greater football bona fides. Imagine the Pacific Division: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, California, Arizona State, Arizona. Southwest Division: BYU, Utah, Colorado, Texas Tech, Baylor, Houston, TCU, Oklahoma State. It would not be as strong as the B10/SEC but it would be a damn formidable conference. Rather than just secure existence the new PAC conference could more legitimately say they deserve to be in the conversation with B10/SEC. I know it is infinitely harder to get six teams from another Power 5 conference than it would be to get teams from Group of 5 conference to “step up.” But stranger things have probably happened. What say you?
Good points all and I like the 'current' B-12 suggested add ons.
My reasoning on the 6.
SDS, no brainer with the market size and the need for a team in SoCal. Aztecs also have a new, although small by B1G standards, stadium.
Fresno. OK Market size and a team that just won the Mountain West and trucked WSU in its bowl game. A 'Bay Area' team with fans who give a whip.
UNLV. A decent size and growing market. NFL stadium and new state of the art practice facilities. Excellent location for conference HQ. Need Barry Odom or someone to realize the CFB potential. Great CBB history (excluding how the NCAA treated the program.) Already play CFB and CBB champ games there and host a bowl game.
SMU. Huge market, although there is plenty of competition within the market, newer stadium. NIL incented alums with NIL $.
UTSA - Won the CUSA title and is moving up to the AAC. A very big city with no real pro competition.
[Bring in Texas and perhaps save the functionally insolvent Network?]
Tulane. Just won the AAC. New Orleans is a decent sized market. Plant the flag in SEC country. Prime recruiting area for Coach Prime.
QUADS - OR, OR ST, UW, WSU
CAL, SDS, FRESNO, STANFORD
AZ, ASU, UNLV, UTAH
CU, SMU, UTSA, TULANE.
Revenue. Negotiate different shares for different teams based on $ invested in CFB + CBB, bottom line performance in CFB and CBB, eyeballs on CFB and CBB games, attendance, etc.
No need to continue with an even revenue share. Precedent for this with the B1G bringing in Rutgers and Nebraska for a lesser share.
Isn’t it fun to play commissioner? If only! My one thought about your 6 additional schools. Tulane is an interesting choice but how about Rice? It is an excellent academic institution with a once excellent football past and a 47k stadium. With that addition along with UTSA and SMU, you would have 3 Texas schools that would cover the 3 biggest markets in Texas.
I think Kevin Warren is leaving while the leaving is good, and I wasn't surprised at all. I think UCLA and USC will both learn that there's not enough money to overcome geography; their athletes will grow to really dislike it, too, and it will affect their recruiting. Like many jobs that people take because the money is good--the yoke of the job often makes them realize that the money just isn't worth it for some things. The travel is going to be the killer, and the Big10 commissioner would have to deal with the problems, too--because they're going to regret it. I look for both schools' to turn over the decisionmakers, and the replacements to undo their move.
His legacy will eventually be the flawed expansion of the Big10 to the west. And--I could not believe that the Bears' press release included the word "integrity" in describing Warren. That word is inappropriate.
Jan 12, 2023·edited Jan 12, 2023Liked by John Canzano
John, edit alert. The paragraph that starts with "His words?" The last sentence, then or than? Also, the last sentence in the second to last paragraph appears to be missing a few words. Just trying to be helpful but let me know if you would rather I wasn't. I'm ok with that. I can be a little OCD and at the same time miss stuff like that in my own writing. Keep up the good work!
I believe you need to change the line "Cecil worked with the commissioner in front of last June’s announcement that UCLA and USC were joining the Pac-12" to the Big 10.
You guys missed the other editing error : Warren left the college football world richer, but worse off, THAN he found it. (in place of the current then)
John…this is a tribute to the esteem in which you are held. Consider this…on many platforms if an author makes mistakes the readers frequently correct with sarcasm. Not once have I seen that. Everyone knows you are a terrific sports writer working his butt off to get us material and if you make some typos its because you’re prolific and typos may occur. This group willingly will be your supportive editors.
Appreciate this. The odd thing is... I caught both errors before publishing, or so I thought. I was surprised to see them again. Thank you ALL for the edits.
From the knucklehead dinosaur: a) love the inside stuff, go John go! b) read all the comments, everyone is an English 101 teacher now? c) with regards to the story and situation, the more appropriate appraisal remains: "it's Chinatown, Jake." (for those too young to have a clue, get the old movie "Chinatown" and watch it. The quote is the last line of a movie which has a plot line like college football. The line was spoken by Jake Gittes' (Jack Nicholson) partner, and was the last line of the movie which defined it all. You are welcome, Charlie
A big attraction to college football has always been that it was counterpoint to the big-money glitz of the NFL. Those days are over and I'm just waiting for the next realignment, when the SEC joins the NFC and the AFC in the NFL. They might as well.
I've mentioned in various places that, when it's all said and done, what's going to be left is a National Super Conference of between 30-40 universities akin to the NFL. So, essentially you're going to have Minor League Football but with university tags. Those 30-40 universities, and they'll probably be located in all the major TV markets around the nation, will get all of the money, all of the media attention, and all of the recruits. But the question still remains, who will watch the regular season? It's not like fans of Auburn are going to all of a sudden watch Alabama or fans of Oregon State are going to root for Oregon. I only watch college football because I feel an attraction to the universities I went to. If neither of my teams is playing, I only watch games that have some sort of relation to my teams. Other than that, I have no interest except for the playoffs.
You can polish a you-know what all you want. When you're done, it's still a you-know-what.
I firmly believe the SoCal schools will regret their decisions, especially UCLA, which is Horace Stoneham's Giants to O'Malley's Dodgers in this scenario.
No, because O'Malley owned the LA Angels and Wrigley Field and had territorial rights to SoCal. Stoneham was going to Minneapolis, where the Giants owned the Millers.
We have become a culture where it's all about the money. Product, people and integrity are handmaidens to the money. There's good change and bad change. But what has happened to college sports (football) is bad change. Most of the kids are not capable of commanding a mega-NIL deal. They get lost in the carousel of coaches and players. And most colleges can't compete with the wealthiest schools. While it's great to see some high school prospects touting their GPA, are they really going to college for an education or as a steppingstone to the big money?
There has to be a way to change all of this so it's fair to the kids, the schools and to the sport. But it doesn't seem like there's any real effort to do more than nibble around the edges. Money stands in the way.
To make the necessary changes you refer to Larry would require a governing body with rules, regulations, standards etc. Included in that body, you would need a strong commissioner who would act in the best interest of the sport. That is the antithesis of what big money wants. It will get its way for some years until the excesses get too egregious to ignore. Then some guardrails will be enacted, probably to little, too late. I personally see a “super” division of maybe 40 schools who play by the rules of this new super division. I think one of the first things they must do is increase the number of scholarship players from 85 to 95, as playing a 15-17 game schedule will take a severe toll on 18-22 year old bodies. Currently there are 69 Power 5 teams. With 40 going into the super division the other 29 would probably join the Group of 5 FBS schools. That would give you approximately 40 schools in super division, 95 in Group of 5 with the existing 85 scholarship limit. These teams would have their own playoff rules. While I loathe the direction of college football, it will be interesting to see how they reorganize the sport.
What I think we can agree on is that the absolute minimum will done to change things, making sure the "bigs" continue to get the best players and top dollar for the show. The losers, if course, will continue to be the rest of the schools and athletes.
Mark me down in the "loathe" column. I'll never forgive UCLA and USC. I hope they are miserable in the Big Ten and its blows up in their face.
I suspect it ends with money... and nothing else.
Well, we are a currency-based civilization. Money is what we use to get things and do things.
That's why I wouldn't make a good agent for Warren. It's a tough business and I respect anyone who remains in the sports field. It just wasn't for me.
It's 5 below zero and snowing in Ann Arbor: I hope the UCLA women's volleyball team refuses to board the plane.
Volleyball plays in the fall. They won't have that problem.
Women's basketball, OTOH ...
I feel you brother.
Mark me down as "thrilled" that UCLA is leaving the second rate Pac 10-12 for greener pastures and real big boy football. The Pac will NEVER be what the B1G or SEC are and seem to have terrible leadership no matter who they hire as commissioner.
YAWN. Hurry up and get off my lawn.
Final PO Committee ranking; 6 Pac-12 teams/ 3 B1G teams.
BTW, how to close the bowl game out against an unranked team.
I don’t know where your loyalties lie, but hypothetically if you were a Duck or Husky fan and Big 10 took them in next round of expansion would you wish them the same miserable fate?
Why would UO or UW go to Big 10 now if the TV deal is decent? Their path to a championship is doable staying in Pac 12 now that 12 teams make the playoff.
He seems like a snake in the grass. Bald face lied to PAC 12 commish while smiling and shaking his hand and talking about solidarity. Came in made alot of money, not giving a shit about who he hurt and traditions he destroyed and then left in the night. Carrie definitely earned her money, that dude sucks.
I would hardly call Warren's stint with the Big 10 "tenure". More like a ripoff. He sees change as an opportunity. That would be an opportunity for him to cash in. Poaching teams from another conference does nothing for college football except destroy tradition and rivalries. Tv money? Coverage is now so screwed up and costly for consumers that it will eventually lead to less total viewership. IMHO.
As much as I blame and loathe Warren, FOX was an equal 'bad guy' in the theft of the LA schools.
UCLA got an invite so ESPN could not get a foothold in LA.
Total viewership? Worst viewership numbers ever for the Rose Bowl and the CFB Champ game.
If she's married to Chuck, who is a legend at the UofA, I worked there for almost three years in the Athletic Department, then her allegiance to the 'Cats comes after the money.
I'm a capitalist, but even I wouldn't have done to the Pac-12 what she did.
I love Chuck, but it's got to be awfully uncomfortable at some level to have your wife be part of the knee-capping of the Pac-12. Especially for Arizona, we only got in because of Arizona State back in '78. And Chuck is a huge part of the lore of Arizona football.
Bear Down.
It's not "show friends." It's show *business*. ~Bob Sugar
Truth.
Has to be rough for Chuck.
But her 'paycheck' spends, no?
How do the Carries of the sports world get to where they are?
I weep for the future
GO DAWGS
We traveled to the future Monday evening at Sofi. NFL-like team smoking cigars on the field. It really sucked. People born before 1985 or so will mourn the loss of this once great sport. Those born after will know no better. They just want to know who is Number 1.
Produce massive results
Am I mistaken, or was it suggested he be on the “short list” to replace Larry Scott? Hmm. Looks like we all got jobbed. Maybe.
Hopefully George has her cell number.
LOL; 'no handshake deals.'
IMO this guy was 'gracefully' forced out.
He completely screwed up the season of COVID. Adding SC and UCLA is bottom line nice as is the no-brainer media deal that a high school grad could have negotiated with FOX taking the lead, but I have to believe that many the senior administrators at B1G schools were not happy with how Warren lied to both the Pac-12 and ACC Commissioners
Especially, with him lying to ACC Commish Jim Phillips who had a long run at Northwestern and was supposedly the 2nd choice when Warren was hired. (And could easily flip from the ACC to the B1G as the new B1G commish.)
Bully for the lady PR expert. But her involvement did not stop the flak Warren took over COVID and other issues. He ran the conference in name only; Ohio State AD Gene Smith is the power behind the B1G throne.
I'm hoping GK pulls a terrific media deal rabbit out of his hat and adds SDS, Fresno, UNLV, SMU, UTSA and Tulane while changing to a formula of not everyone gets an equal piece of the media pie.
Stand pat at 10 teams and we can kiss the Pacific Conference good-bye.
Jon…I believe you are probably right when you say, “Stand pat at 10 teams and we can kiss the Pacific Conference good-bye.” But think about this. There are two strategies that the PAC could employ. Adding the teams you suggest, in the short term, would dilute the conference quality. It would however serve to preserve its existence but at a lower standing. If somehow the PAC could entice some of the Big 12 programs like BYU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston and Oklahoma State….that would be a 16-team conference with greater football bona fides. Imagine the Pacific Division: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, California, Arizona State, Arizona. Southwest Division: BYU, Utah, Colorado, Texas Tech, Baylor, Houston, TCU, Oklahoma State. It would not be as strong as the B10/SEC but it would be a damn formidable conference. Rather than just secure existence the new PAC conference could more legitimately say they deserve to be in the conversation with B10/SEC. I know it is infinitely harder to get six teams from another Power 5 conference than it would be to get teams from Group of 5 conference to “step up.” But stranger things have probably happened. What say you?
Good points all and I like the 'current' B-12 suggested add ons.
My reasoning on the 6.
SDS, no brainer with the market size and the need for a team in SoCal. Aztecs also have a new, although small by B1G standards, stadium.
Fresno. OK Market size and a team that just won the Mountain West and trucked WSU in its bowl game. A 'Bay Area' team with fans who give a whip.
UNLV. A decent size and growing market. NFL stadium and new state of the art practice facilities. Excellent location for conference HQ. Need Barry Odom or someone to realize the CFB potential. Great CBB history (excluding how the NCAA treated the program.) Already play CFB and CBB champ games there and host a bowl game.
SMU. Huge market, although there is plenty of competition within the market, newer stadium. NIL incented alums with NIL $.
UTSA - Won the CUSA title and is moving up to the AAC. A very big city with no real pro competition.
[Bring in Texas and perhaps save the functionally insolvent Network?]
Tulane. Just won the AAC. New Orleans is a decent sized market. Plant the flag in SEC country. Prime recruiting area for Coach Prime.
QUADS - OR, OR ST, UW, WSU
CAL, SDS, FRESNO, STANFORD
AZ, ASU, UNLV, UTAH
CU, SMU, UTSA, TULANE.
Revenue. Negotiate different shares for different teams based on $ invested in CFB + CBB, bottom line performance in CFB and CBB, eyeballs on CFB and CBB games, attendance, etc.
No need to continue with an even revenue share. Precedent for this with the B1G bringing in Rutgers and Nebraska for a lesser share.
Thanks for the response.
Negotiate non-equal revenue shares. Precedent: The manner in which Rutgers and Nebraska joined the B1G.
Thanks for the excellent thoughts.
Isn’t it fun to play commissioner? If only! My one thought about your 6 additional schools. Tulane is an interesting choice but how about Rice? It is an excellent academic institution with a once excellent football past and a 47k stadium. With that addition along with UTSA and SMU, you would have 3 Texas schools that would cover the 3 biggest markets in Texas.
I think Kevin Warren is leaving while the leaving is good, and I wasn't surprised at all. I think UCLA and USC will both learn that there's not enough money to overcome geography; their athletes will grow to really dislike it, too, and it will affect their recruiting. Like many jobs that people take because the money is good--the yoke of the job often makes them realize that the money just isn't worth it for some things. The travel is going to be the killer, and the Big10 commissioner would have to deal with the problems, too--because they're going to regret it. I look for both schools' to turn over the decisionmakers, and the replacements to undo their move.
His legacy will eventually be the flawed expansion of the Big10 to the west. And--I could not believe that the Bears' press release included the word "integrity" in describing Warren. That word is inappropriate.
John, edit alert. The paragraph that starts with "His words?" The last sentence, then or than? Also, the last sentence in the second to last paragraph appears to be missing a few words. Just trying to be helpful but let me know if you would rather I wasn't. I'm ok with that. I can be a little OCD and at the same time miss stuff like that in my own writing. Keep up the good work!
Dan, pedant alert.
I believe you need to change the line "Cecil worked with the commissioner in front of last June’s announcement that UCLA and USC were joining the Pac-12" to the Big 10.
I spotted that also.
You guys missed the other editing error : Warren left the college football world richer, but worse off, THAN he found it. (in place of the current then)
Good catch. Fixed. Thank you both.
John…this is a tribute to the esteem in which you are held. Consider this…on many platforms if an author makes mistakes the readers frequently correct with sarcasm. Not once have I seen that. Everyone knows you are a terrific sports writer working his butt off to get us material and if you make some typos its because you’re prolific and typos may occur. This group willingly will be your supportive editors.
Appreciate this. The odd thing is... I caught both errors before publishing, or so I thought. I was surprised to see them again. Thank you ALL for the edits.
👏
From the knucklehead dinosaur: a) love the inside stuff, go John go! b) read all the comments, everyone is an English 101 teacher now? c) with regards to the story and situation, the more appropriate appraisal remains: "it's Chinatown, Jake." (for those too young to have a clue, get the old movie "Chinatown" and watch it. The quote is the last line of a movie which has a plot line like college football. The line was spoken by Jake Gittes' (Jack Nicholson) partner, and was the last line of the movie which defined it all. You are welcome, Charlie
A big attraction to college football has always been that it was counterpoint to the big-money glitz of the NFL. Those days are over and I'm just waiting for the next realignment, when the SEC joins the NFC and the AFC in the NFL. They might as well.
I definitely believe a Super League is coming.
I've mentioned in various places that, when it's all said and done, what's going to be left is a National Super Conference of between 30-40 universities akin to the NFL. So, essentially you're going to have Minor League Football but with university tags. Those 30-40 universities, and they'll probably be located in all the major TV markets around the nation, will get all of the money, all of the media attention, and all of the recruits. But the question still remains, who will watch the regular season? It's not like fans of Auburn are going to all of a sudden watch Alabama or fans of Oregon State are going to root for Oregon. I only watch college football because I feel an attraction to the universities I went to. If neither of my teams is playing, I only watch games that have some sort of relation to my teams. Other than that, I have no interest except for the playoffs.
You can polish a you-know what all you want. When you're done, it's still a you-know-what.
I firmly believe the SoCal schools will regret their decisions, especially UCLA, which is Horace Stoneham's Giants to O'Malley's Dodgers in this scenario.
And Stoneham was the first to relocate and could have had LA!
No, because O'Malley owned the LA Angels and Wrigley Field and had territorial rights to SoCal. Stoneham was going to Minneapolis, where the Giants owned the Millers.
The Willie Taggart of commissioners right there. Let’s see if he lasts as long at the bears as Taggart did at FSU.
We have become a culture where it's all about the money. Product, people and integrity are handmaidens to the money. There's good change and bad change. But what has happened to college sports (football) is bad change. Most of the kids are not capable of commanding a mega-NIL deal. They get lost in the carousel of coaches and players. And most colleges can't compete with the wealthiest schools. While it's great to see some high school prospects touting their GPA, are they really going to college for an education or as a steppingstone to the big money?
There has to be a way to change all of this so it's fair to the kids, the schools and to the sport. But it doesn't seem like there's any real effort to do more than nibble around the edges. Money stands in the way.
To make the necessary changes you refer to Larry would require a governing body with rules, regulations, standards etc. Included in that body, you would need a strong commissioner who would act in the best interest of the sport. That is the antithesis of what big money wants. It will get its way for some years until the excesses get too egregious to ignore. Then some guardrails will be enacted, probably to little, too late. I personally see a “super” division of maybe 40 schools who play by the rules of this new super division. I think one of the first things they must do is increase the number of scholarship players from 85 to 95, as playing a 15-17 game schedule will take a severe toll on 18-22 year old bodies. Currently there are 69 Power 5 teams. With 40 going into the super division the other 29 would probably join the Group of 5 FBS schools. That would give you approximately 40 schools in super division, 95 in Group of 5 with the existing 85 scholarship limit. These teams would have their own playoff rules. While I loathe the direction of college football, it will be interesting to see how they reorganize the sport.
What I think we can agree on is that the absolute minimum will done to change things, making sure the "bigs" continue to get the best players and top dollar for the show. The losers, if course, will continue to be the rest of the schools and athletes.