Schools I would like to see added: SDS, Fresno (MW champ,) UNLV (much better and bigger market than Boise and Booby Petrino is the new OC!,) SMU (Dallas market is huge + Texans are nuts about football/ all additions need to be made with an eye on bailing out the functionally insolvent Pac Network,) UTSA (CUSA champ and San Ant…
Schools I would like to see added: SDS, Fresno (MW champ,) UNLV (much better and bigger market than Boise and Booby Petrino is the new OC!,) SMU (Dallas market is huge + Texans are nuts about football/ all additions need to be made with an eye on bailing out the functionally insolvent Pac Network,) UTSA (CUSA champ and San Antonio is a huge city with few pro sports,) Tulane (AAC champ, moves the conference into SEC territory and good academics.) Of course, if not already bound to the B12, Houston would be a terrific addition.
Stand pat? You will be falling behind.
First, I want to see if GK can execute a new media deal that exceeds the B12 deal? With kick offs before 10:30 PM on the east coast.
I still think a 'merger' of some kind with the B12 makes the most long term sense. Such a merger should have occured when OK/TX departed; but, SC Prez Carol Folt led the charge against expansion before stabbing the conference in the back.
I hope that none of the remaining Pac 10 schools will do a thing to help SC/UCLA with scheduling issues; especially, with games involving non-revenue sports.
Like I have said, the ADs determine the football schedules. Change the USC and UCLA schedules for next year so that every game is a road game. That feels about right. Neither school will have even 9 wins. They can leave the PAC with their tails between their legs. They are both an embarrassment to college football.
Someone suggested that the Pac 12 schools owe USC and UCLA something for the years of "subsidization". What an absurd statement. Sports are a group event. Games are meaningless without a worthy opponent. The pro sports figured this out years ago and have pooled all revenue and shared equally (and also put limits on trading and drafting to maintain competitive balance rather than the FBS player NIL bidding free-for-all). Pro sport Owners in large markets don't squawk. They understand they need good competition to sell tickets, media and apparel. Ultimately, USC and UCLA do not "own" the LA market. Their existence and the size of the LA market are a coincidence. There is no cause and effect. Otherwise, schools like the northwest schools or Nebraska (Lincoln) would not exist. Their existence as major universities by size is independent of the community size. This is where we get the term "college town". LA is no college town and there are plenty of colleges in SoCal that are not USC or UCLA. So lets ditch any notion that the Pac 12 schools owe a thing to USC or UCLA for the funds they have received from conference media contracts.
Seriously, the rest of the pac 10/12 has been subsidized by SC for YEARS w/no thought of perhaps giving a bit back or helping out when the Reggie Bush BS hit. Hundreds of millions of dollars and now your handout has been withdrawn and you pretend it's SC's fault. Ever know anyone to complain about "welfare queens" in your life. Take a good look in the mirror Brian.
Thanks Jon.
Schools I would like to see added: SDS, Fresno (MW champ,) UNLV (much better and bigger market than Boise and Booby Petrino is the new OC!,) SMU (Dallas market is huge + Texans are nuts about football/ all additions need to be made with an eye on bailing out the functionally insolvent Pac Network,) UTSA (CUSA champ and San Antonio is a huge city with few pro sports,) Tulane (AAC champ, moves the conference into SEC territory and good academics.) Of course, if not already bound to the B12, Houston would be a terrific addition.
Stand pat? You will be falling behind.
First, I want to see if GK can execute a new media deal that exceeds the B12 deal? With kick offs before 10:30 PM on the east coast.
I still think a 'merger' of some kind with the B12 makes the most long term sense. Such a merger should have occured when OK/TX departed; but, SC Prez Carol Folt led the charge against expansion before stabbing the conference in the back.
I hope that none of the remaining Pac 10 schools will do a thing to help SC/UCLA with scheduling issues; especially, with games involving non-revenue sports.
Good thoughts
Like I have said, the ADs determine the football schedules. Change the USC and UCLA schedules for next year so that every game is a road game. That feels about right. Neither school will have even 9 wins. They can leave the PAC with their tails between their legs. They are both an embarrassment to college football.
I love that. Except that it punishes the kids. Not their doing.
Someone suggested that the Pac 12 schools owe USC and UCLA something for the years of "subsidization". What an absurd statement. Sports are a group event. Games are meaningless without a worthy opponent. The pro sports figured this out years ago and have pooled all revenue and shared equally (and also put limits on trading and drafting to maintain competitive balance rather than the FBS player NIL bidding free-for-all). Pro sport Owners in large markets don't squawk. They understand they need good competition to sell tickets, media and apparel. Ultimately, USC and UCLA do not "own" the LA market. Their existence and the size of the LA market are a coincidence. There is no cause and effect. Otherwise, schools like the northwest schools or Nebraska (Lincoln) would not exist. Their existence as major universities by size is independent of the community size. This is where we get the term "college town". LA is no college town and there are plenty of colleges in SoCal that are not USC or UCLA. So lets ditch any notion that the Pac 12 schools owe a thing to USC or UCLA for the funds they have received from conference media contracts.
Seriously, the rest of the pac 10/12 has been subsidized by SC for YEARS w/no thought of perhaps giving a bit back or helping out when the Reggie Bush BS hit. Hundreds of millions of dollars and now your handout has been withdrawn and you pretend it's SC's fault. Ever know anyone to complain about "welfare queens" in your life. Take a good look in the mirror Brian.
USC has been a non factor in football for years. Did you see the ratings it got in LA? What are you talking about? Maybe I am confused?