6 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
SCOTT SMITH's avatar

The ACC partnership is a good move--way better than a Big12 one, imo. But I still think Oregon will hitch its wagon to the Big10 if they open the doors, regardless of their share. PK will subsidize--he's a competitor.

Expand full comment
Believer's avatar

Agreed. Oregon is not going to be part of Big 10. Fox guy says its $30M value, UCLA/USC are getting at least $75M, so there you go. Each team takes a pay cut to let the Ducks in? Not gonna happen.

Expand full comment
Jeff McNamee's avatar

This is an awful idea. IтАЩm from the Twin Cities. The idea of adding a West Coast team to the Big Ten just sounds foreign as hell. ItтАЩd be an awful branding move for UO.

Expand full comment
Canill's avatar

You do know the BIG10 already accepted 2 west coast teams right?

Expand full comment
Jeff McNamee's avatar

Yes, and itтАЩs a total money grab (for both sides) that makes no sense from any other perspective - rivalries, travel schedules, recruitment, etc.

There isnтАЩt a league in the USA this geographically spread out and that includes the pros. The idea that itтАЩs somehow good that USC, Rutgers, and Wisconsin are somehow better together than USC with Stanford, Washington, or Cal is just dumbfounding to me.

Other than pure, top-line dollars - and the deal wonтАЩt look as good on *net* - this is a dumb move.

Expand full comment
SCOTT SMITH's avatar

I'll miss the tradition aspect, too, but USC will maintain their two biggest rivals: ND and UCLA. Money move, yes, the engine that now drives CFB. These kids are "semi-pros" now and we haven't even gotten into the full implications of treating athletes as employees, unions, etc. It's coming.

Expand full comment