Slight pushback type question, JC. After UO and UT were poached by the SEC, and UCLA and USC by BIG10, it appears there is, in fact, a frenzy to create, and for schools to join, "superconferences" for the huge media rights money deals. Losing USC and UCLA, two of the top three schools in total Natties (with Stanford at the top, these three schools each have over 100 team Natties, more than double the #4 school Ok State, who has 52, 34 in wrestling), along with population base of LA, the prestige of the two, and combined with the negative of viewership back East of late games in the Pac TZ, is it possible that the Pres Council simply agreed to "speak positive and together" to get the best media deal available, which they surely hope can be somewhat comparable to the BIG10 and SEC, in order to keep other national brands from jumping? With Nike money, and the national brand they are already developing, as well as the new playoff structure, it may be unlikely that the UO would bolt. But the fact that USC and UCLA did bolt before a new media deal could be negotiated which could reduce the comparative gap with the BIG10 and SEC, may signal that presumption is not accurate. If the PAC cannot keep UO, UW, and/or Stanford in the fold, or if the reported interest in the Four Corner schools by the BIG12 is reciprocated in order for either of those school groups to follow the money like USC and UCLA, the PAC will lose a significant negotiating power. Did USC and UCLA advise the PAC that they were pursuing/being courted by the BIG10 in advance, or was that fact a complete surprise to the PAC until/when the deal was done? If it was sprung on the PAC when done, that could be a template for the other schools. I believe you are reporting what you are being told, but I wonder if the PAC sources are being completely transparent.
And there you have it. Canzano has officially gone beast mode. Solid, sourced, and succinct. This should douse more than a few fires!
All I can do is ask questions and get answers.
Slight pushback type question, JC. After UO and UT were poached by the SEC, and UCLA and USC by BIG10, it appears there is, in fact, a frenzy to create, and for schools to join, "superconferences" for the huge media rights money deals. Losing USC and UCLA, two of the top three schools in total Natties (with Stanford at the top, these three schools each have over 100 team Natties, more than double the #4 school Ok State, who has 52, 34 in wrestling), along with population base of LA, the prestige of the two, and combined with the negative of viewership back East of late games in the Pac TZ, is it possible that the Pres Council simply agreed to "speak positive and together" to get the best media deal available, which they surely hope can be somewhat comparable to the BIG10 and SEC, in order to keep other national brands from jumping? With Nike money, and the national brand they are already developing, as well as the new playoff structure, it may be unlikely that the UO would bolt. But the fact that USC and UCLA did bolt before a new media deal could be negotiated which could reduce the comparative gap with the BIG10 and SEC, may signal that presumption is not accurate. If the PAC cannot keep UO, UW, and/or Stanford in the fold, or if the reported interest in the Four Corner schools by the BIG12 is reciprocated in order for either of those school groups to follow the money like USC and UCLA, the PAC will lose a significant negotiating power. Did USC and UCLA advise the PAC that they were pursuing/being courted by the BIG10 in advance, or was that fact a complete surprise to the PAC until/when the deal was done? If it was sprung on the PAC when done, that could be a template for the other schools. I believe you are reporting what you are being told, but I wonder if the PAC sources are being completely transparent.