Had a niece who played a "minor" sport and travel, especially mid-week, can be problematic. Hope the Pac10 members tell USC/UCLA to stick it if they propose a hybrid conference solely for minor sports because they tire of traveling east. You sow what your wrought. Maybe the Mt. West will take their minor sports teams, or maybe UCLA will eventually want out of Big Ten.
I can understand your anger and disappointment. But that response wouldn't 'hurt' the USC/UCLA administrators. It would just hurt the student athletes and coaches. As long as the money rolls in, nobody, PAC-B1G-NCAA, cares if those kids hitchhike their way to their events. As long as they show up and provide content.
“We have good options”. Hear me out (this coming from a young Oregon State fan): The PAC-12 and ACC combine to form the PAC (Pacific-Atlantic Conference) and pick off the Big-12 school and spread them between two “divisions”. The west has the current PAC-12 schools plus Kansas, K-State, Baylor, OK State, Texas Tech, BYU, Houston, and TCU. The East division is the ACC schools plus the remaining Big-12 schools. Then each “division” has 18 schools, with north and south sub-divisions, plus Notre Dame can do their own scheduling thing in a special central division… That would give each team (except Notre Dame) a set 8-game lineup each year plus 4 games to play teams not in their set sub-division. Let’s just do away with out-of-conference scheduling. I’m all for the banding together and forming an NFL-esque league with a 8-team secluded postseason.
why? why "poach" some big 12 teams that have small media market shares? that makes no sense. It actually dilutes the shares...splitting a finite amount of money with more schools. The ACC has about 8-10 large media markets. from Orlando to New York and points in between...the BIG 12..has 2 or 3. The Pac 12 without LA has 5 or 6
Because those Big 12 teams had much more viewership than the Pac 10 last year. Iowa State, Baylor and OK State were above every remaining Pac 10 school in viewership last year except Oregon. The rest including the new additions are similar or above. The Big 12 projected value is about double the projected value of the remaining Pac 10, after TX/OU leave and BYU/UCF/UC/UH teams join, and USC/UCLA leave. Pac 10 projected $20-25M after 2024, Big 12 projected $40-45M per team, after 2025.
So how are those teams more valuable? If no one out there wants to watch them, during their time zone times, and no one in the rest of the country does either. Its not about market areas, that is old, its about viewership, with cable cutting. No one is going to or watching Pac games. No one on the west coast cares, and no Big 12 teams are going to leave for there. The Pacs only chance is to go somewhere else, Wherever that ends up. And everyone knows they all have one foot out the door, so the stability is gone.
I like your PAC idea. 36 team 3rd superconfernce (Power 5) would have a lot of relevant brands and a huge population coverage. The divisions would allow it to be regional and cost effective. Play 11 conference games, 8 against division, 1 against 3 other sub-divisions. 1 out of conference game would be fun to see how you measure up against other conferences. Mini playoff with sub-divisions>followed by divisions to determine conference champion. Conference champion gets auto-bid to the National playoff. National Playoff could be 12-team, 4 auto-bids to 3 superconfernces from power 5, 1 to the Group of 5, 8 at large bids! Buckle em up! Sounds fun to me!
With 36 teams you could have a couple more teams get poached and it wouldn’t be catastrophic. It would be easy to add a couple more teams or settle at around 32 teams. The 2 divisions and 4 subdivisions allows for a lot of flexibility with how much you operate as a conference vs division and subdivision. The divisions or subdivisions could have sub-commissioners to deal relevant issues/markets in that region? The western part of the country would be owned by the PAC and we’d make ESPN or whomever pay a lot for PAC after dark games. ;) (rumor has it ESPN needs inventory and especially later games). Equal revenue shares per team would be preferable but it could be different for each division or subdivision if required to make it work. The conference network could be just one channel with 24/7 programming or you could offer 4 regional networks that has the conference programming and a some regional programming. The more I think about it the more I like it. The crossover games (3 per year) could be challenges between the divisions and subdivisions. Lastly, regarding the conference mini-playoff at seasons end I mentioned above, hold the game at the higher ranked teams campus and highlight the campus, and special game day atmosphere offered by our Universities. I personally would do the same for the conference championship game as the games would always sell out and it’s more money for fans and schools. Vegas would be an alternative option for the conference Championship game.
PAC-36: If this conference were formed it should increase the interest in each team as I would be much more interested in the “ACC” division than I would be now since they’d be conference members. This should help drive up the tv money. If there was a desire to have a 16 team conference to measure up to the B1G and SEC, the conference could stay at 36 but implement a “promotion/relegation” program with the biggest brands and winningest programs in the tier 1 16 team and the tier 2 housing the other 20 (or 16) teams. The tier 1 16 would make more money and would be propped up but the other 20 would still get a good share. This could be whatever is negotiated. Maybe the tier 1 gets $2 for every $1 tier 2 gets? Depends on how close you want the tier 1 to approximate B1G or SEC payouts. The beginning 16 would be the biggest brands and current best football teams. Then each year the team(s) that finish last go down to tier 2 and the team(s) finishing 1st in tier 2 rise up the next season and it goes on. It allows for the best teams to be in the tier 1 and those struggling go to tier 2. It also provides interest in not being last and being relegated as those end of year games would mean more. There still would be plenary of games between tier 1 and 2 but also more games within each tier. This would drive up the revenue with better/bigger/branded games in tier 1 16.
PAC-36: The promoted 16 (regionally diversified) could be something like:
Miami
FSU
Clemson
NC
NC St
VT
ND (or Cincinnati if ND isn’t part of league)
Pittsburg
Baylor
OK St
Iowa St
BYU
Oregon
WA
Utah
Stanford (or ASU?)
This 16 team (tier) would compare well the B1G/SEC as those leagues would have some bottom feeders (Vanderbilt, Illinois, Purdue, etc.) that couldn’t hang with this group. This PAC-36 would be awesome and you could do a lot of fun games with the relegation/promotion and even allow the champion from tier 2 to compete at the end in the mini conference playoff.
PAC-36: If tier 1 made double tier 2 the money expected may look something like this: If we assume the avg team TV worth (for payout) is $50M per yr (B1G teams will get $100M) then tier 1 would get $70M & tier 2 would get $35M. But with all the benefits, great games, and interest the new conference would create, the value could easily rise to $60M or more per team and the resulting payout would be approximately $84M & $42M. Of course the formula for how much each tier gets could be adjusted up or down. Very flexible and exciting!
when I first heard about this that is exactly what I said...the travel costs for non revenue sports will be a killer. Remember...USC hasn't exactly been the USC of old in any sport. Adding huge travel costs while remaining in your losing ways will not endear this move to donors or fans. Good Luck with that USC...UCLA does not operate heavily in the black as it is...the NON revenue sports won't help their bottom line going forward.
It's not just the costs for the schools. Think of the expense and hassle for the athletes' families who want to see their kids compete, especially parents of kids in the non-revenue sports. The University's costs come out of the $71 mil per annum.
Just a thought. Football and basketball are the money makers for most schools. Why not let football and maybe basketball be in a separate conference from the other sports? In other words form a super conference for football and maybe the same one for basketball or it could even be a different super conference for basketball. Invite top tier teams from the ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 to join. I know the ACC is locked in till 2036 in a media deal so that might not work for them. I would think ESPN and Fox would be interested in the football super conference, and most likely the basketball super conference. The other sports at a school could be in a conference that is more geographically located and suitable for travel. Football games usually are just once a week. Basketball is twice a week and usually in the last few days of the week. For example Notre Dame is in the ACC for all Sports except football and hockey.
There have been some excellent thoughts presented in the comments and I really do enjoy them. I am an Oregon duck fan living just outside Eugene Oregon. I look forward to hearing your views on this idea.
Sometimes your responses are like being a "fly on the wall in the room." I like your insider views. So much has been said and written, but EVERY insider, after stating their views, agree after about 15 minutes, that they just don't know how this is going to shake out... W/o the LA schools the league has lost some glitz and glamor for sure. I don't think the league can stand on its own with the remaining 10. So, be PROACTIVE and go BIG: hook up with the Big 12 and then form an alliance with the ACC and play that league championship game in LV in December. One more thing, if the Big 10 had wanted OR and WA, wouldn't the offer have come by now?
The adrenaline must be flowing in Uncle Phil's veins right about now...
Call me a contrarian, or maybe my being a UCLA grad is enough, but I think the Trojans and Bruins made the right call.
I don’t worry at all about a drop off in recruiting. If I were a remaining PAC school, I’d be concerned. I think (finally) UCLA will be able to compete against Oregon for recruits due to the better conference. I think kids (football and basketball) will be attracted to playing in packed stadiums and arenas. (Sorry to say but there aren’t places on the West Coast that have incredible football atmosphere.)
And given that bb is played indoors, I don’t think the cold weather of the Upper Midwest will discourage recruits. Playing against better competitors will help recruiting. (I bet Mick Cronin is thrilled.)
I would be interested in the back story of the shift to the B1G. How did rivals like USC and UCLA, with 2 relatively new ADs, trust one another to secretly discuss and pursue a new conference? Did UCLA’s Jarmond’s B1G history at Michigan State and Ohio State factor into it?
Dear John, a couple things. Wilner and you are watch dogs. That’s good. Before this debacle, Wilner spent months, even years, writing about Pac-12 financing yet couldn’t rake out what was coming. Still, there were telling clues. The NCAA men’s tournament rolled around. Teams like Indiana scraped in. The Hoosiers basically got a home game against a tough small-market Wyoming. The Texas A&M coach, meanwhile, went ballistic. He wanted to say more. Instead, he cried at the microphone. My point: Secret deals are made in oak-paneled piano bars in NYC and Chicago, sans IPhones. Reporters are out of the loop. It’s all about TV cash. Therefore, the finger should be pointed at ESPN, which promotes big schools. I am in Italy but, through messages written before the BB bracket was revealed, warned my friends that journalists are not digging deep enough. Darth Vader has to be confronted. The Networks are the Wizard of Oz. Get at corporate greed and find a way to penetrate the dark “oak-paneled” side. The clues have been there. Gonzaga, formerly the speck, doesn’t have to worry now. It has become a brand. But ask the Wyoming’s of the world. They worry. Therefore, ask ESPN the hard questions, please. Take them to task and find disgruntled former VP’s who haven’t signed non-disclosure agreements. Dig, dig, dig.
(1) There are serious negatives associated with selling out to an equity firm. (If it is such a great idea, then why is no one else doing it?!!) Nonetheless, USC and UCLA are no longer constraints so the Pac-10 can now move forward with the plan if everyone else genuinely thinks it is a good idea.
(2) No university is obligated to stay in the Pac-12 against their wishes. USC and UCLA are free to do whatever they choose to do regardless of their reason(s) and the fact that they did not choose to solicit the opinions of the other ten universities prior to making their decision.
(3) If the travel demands of the Big Ten are so awful, then why does every remaining Pac-12 team desire admittance to the Big Ten?!!
Do you actually have a clue what you are talking about?.?
The Pac12 network is solely owned by the league. The SEC and Big 10 networks are not owned by either conference. The SEC network is operated by ESPN for instance.
I'm a UCLA alum, but SC and UCLA were not forthright in informing the league of their displeasure and dropped the hammer with no warning. That is an ethical problem.
If the 1B story is accurate and UCLA and SC torpedoed the deal to not be obligated in honoring a contract, but then hurting the other teams now, that is also ethically a problem.
You do realize WSU , OSU and Cal are now in big trouble.
It is NOT "ethically a problem" if one "torpedoes" a deal in order to not be obligated to honor it. That is absolutely ridiculous . . .for obvious reasons.
I feel sorry for WSU, OSU, Cal but no reasonable person could expect USC and UCLA to forego an extra $50M per year in order to ensure that the WSU, OSU, and Cal athletic programs can continue competing in P5 athletics.
Even Wilner from the Mercury news a few weeks wrote in his DEFCON 1 mailbag article that the chances of UCLA and SC bolting were low. What a laugh.. Then last week he provides the " scoop" that surprised everyone. I call the underhanded misleading head fake a serious lack of ethics. Didn't even allow the Pac12 to even counter at least. Yeah they can do whatever they want, but for institutions of higher learning to pull crap like that..... seems totally lacking in moral character.
Perhaps they knew that the Pac12 would have to allocate to them twice as much revenue as every other team was receiving to even be in the ballpark of competing with the Big Ten allocation . . . and understood that scenario was neither reasonable nor desirable?
You referred to selling a piece of the conference. The piece was media, not the conference itself, LOL. The pac 12 owns their own tier 2 rights, the pac 12 network. Tier 1 is Fox and ESPN. You mentioned no one else does it, well it is because the other P5s dont.
Of course, selling equity in the conference means the Tier 1 media contract. What other value could any conference have that could possibly be worth $1B?!! (It remains to be seen if the Pac-12 Network has any value at all. It is not unfathomable that it could simply stop operating.)
Yes! Glad to hear it. Hope they stay unified. From my perspective this keeps me, and I am guessing a lot of other fans in the game. Do something rash and stupid and many of us walk, being completely disenchanted with all the bull shit.
SC and UCLA will live to regret this decision for many reasons, but one of the main one's may be how it affects their non-football/basketball sports.
Any word on the future of the CFB playoffs governing body? I wonder whether the non-SEC, non-B1G members will be able to retain any power and how they'll exercise that. Just in terms of membership they currently dominate. Certainly the media will weigh in heavily against them.
Had a niece who played a "minor" sport and travel, especially mid-week, can be problematic. Hope the Pac10 members tell USC/UCLA to stick it if they propose a hybrid conference solely for minor sports because they tire of traveling east. You sow what your wrought. Maybe the Mt. West will take their minor sports teams, or maybe UCLA will eventually want out of Big Ten.
I can understand your anger and disappointment. But that response wouldn't 'hurt' the USC/UCLA administrators. It would just hurt the student athletes and coaches. As long as the money rolls in, nobody, PAC-B1G-NCAA, cares if those kids hitchhike their way to their events. As long as they show up and provide content.
Oregon AD: "The Pac10 is galvanized!"
Oregon AD secretary: "Uh, excuse me sir, but the Big 10 is on the phone--they've changed their mind and wants to talk to you about joining."
Oregon AD: "Uh, I meant 'Compromised'! Gotta run...later."
“We have good options”. Hear me out (this coming from a young Oregon State fan): The PAC-12 and ACC combine to form the PAC (Pacific-Atlantic Conference) and pick off the Big-12 school and spread them between two “divisions”. The west has the current PAC-12 schools plus Kansas, K-State, Baylor, OK State, Texas Tech, BYU, Houston, and TCU. The East division is the ACC schools plus the remaining Big-12 schools. Then each “division” has 18 schools, with north and south sub-divisions, plus Notre Dame can do their own scheduling thing in a special central division… That would give each team (except Notre Dame) a set 8-game lineup each year plus 4 games to play teams not in their set sub-division. Let’s just do away with out-of-conference scheduling. I’m all for the banding together and forming an NFL-esque league with a 8-team secluded postseason.
why? why "poach" some big 12 teams that have small media market shares? that makes no sense. It actually dilutes the shares...splitting a finite amount of money with more schools. The ACC has about 8-10 large media markets. from Orlando to New York and points in between...the BIG 12..has 2 or 3. The Pac 12 without LA has 5 or 6
Because those Big 12 teams had much more viewership than the Pac 10 last year. Iowa State, Baylor and OK State were above every remaining Pac 10 school in viewership last year except Oregon. The rest including the new additions are similar or above. The Big 12 projected value is about double the projected value of the remaining Pac 10, after TX/OU leave and BYU/UCF/UC/UH teams join, and USC/UCLA leave. Pac 10 projected $20-25M after 2024, Big 12 projected $40-45M per team, after 2025.
Avg most watched teams in '21
10 Oregon
22 Oklahoma St
27 Iowa state
28 Cincinnati
30 Baylor
37 Utah
38 Washington
40 West Virginia
41 TCU
42 BYU
45 Tech
46 Stanford
47 Arizona st
50 KState
55 Kansas
59 Washington st
63 UCF
64 Colorado
67 Arizona
69 Oregon st
74 Houston
76 Cal
That's because of the time difference. Nobody's watching Pac-12 after dark.
So how are those teams more valuable? If no one out there wants to watch them, during their time zone times, and no one in the rest of the country does either. Its not about market areas, that is old, its about viewership, with cable cutting. No one is going to or watching Pac games. No one on the west coast cares, and no Big 12 teams are going to leave for there. The Pacs only chance is to go somewhere else, Wherever that ends up. And everyone knows they all have one foot out the door, so the stability is gone.
Because it sounds fun from a fan’s perspective ;)
I like your PAC idea. 36 team 3rd superconfernce (Power 5) would have a lot of relevant brands and a huge population coverage. The divisions would allow it to be regional and cost effective. Play 11 conference games, 8 against division, 1 against 3 other sub-divisions. 1 out of conference game would be fun to see how you measure up against other conferences. Mini playoff with sub-divisions>followed by divisions to determine conference champion. Conference champion gets auto-bid to the National playoff. National Playoff could be 12-team, 4 auto-bids to 3 superconfernces from power 5, 1 to the Group of 5, 8 at large bids! Buckle em up! Sounds fun to me!
With 36 teams you could have a couple more teams get poached and it wouldn’t be catastrophic. It would be easy to add a couple more teams or settle at around 32 teams. The 2 divisions and 4 subdivisions allows for a lot of flexibility with how much you operate as a conference vs division and subdivision. The divisions or subdivisions could have sub-commissioners to deal relevant issues/markets in that region? The western part of the country would be owned by the PAC and we’d make ESPN or whomever pay a lot for PAC after dark games. ;) (rumor has it ESPN needs inventory and especially later games). Equal revenue shares per team would be preferable but it could be different for each division or subdivision if required to make it work. The conference network could be just one channel with 24/7 programming or you could offer 4 regional networks that has the conference programming and a some regional programming. The more I think about it the more I like it. The crossover games (3 per year) could be challenges between the divisions and subdivisions. Lastly, regarding the conference mini-playoff at seasons end I mentioned above, hold the game at the higher ranked teams campus and highlight the campus, and special game day atmosphere offered by our Universities. I personally would do the same for the conference championship game as the games would always sell out and it’s more money for fans and schools. Vegas would be an alternative option for the conference Championship game.
PAC-36: If this conference were formed it should increase the interest in each team as I would be much more interested in the “ACC” division than I would be now since they’d be conference members. This should help drive up the tv money. If there was a desire to have a 16 team conference to measure up to the B1G and SEC, the conference could stay at 36 but implement a “promotion/relegation” program with the biggest brands and winningest programs in the tier 1 16 team and the tier 2 housing the other 20 (or 16) teams. The tier 1 16 would make more money and would be propped up but the other 20 would still get a good share. This could be whatever is negotiated. Maybe the tier 1 gets $2 for every $1 tier 2 gets? Depends on how close you want the tier 1 to approximate B1G or SEC payouts. The beginning 16 would be the biggest brands and current best football teams. Then each year the team(s) that finish last go down to tier 2 and the team(s) finishing 1st in tier 2 rise up the next season and it goes on. It allows for the best teams to be in the tier 1 and those struggling go to tier 2. It also provides interest in not being last and being relegated as those end of year games would mean more. There still would be plenary of games between tier 1 and 2 but also more games within each tier. This would drive up the revenue with better/bigger/branded games in tier 1 16.
PAC-36: The promoted 16 (regionally diversified) could be something like:
Miami
FSU
Clemson
NC
NC St
VT
ND (or Cincinnati if ND isn’t part of league)
Pittsburg
Baylor
OK St
Iowa St
BYU
Oregon
WA
Utah
Stanford (or ASU?)
This 16 team (tier) would compare well the B1G/SEC as those leagues would have some bottom feeders (Vanderbilt, Illinois, Purdue, etc.) that couldn’t hang with this group. This PAC-36 would be awesome and you could do a lot of fun games with the relegation/promotion and even allow the champion from tier 2 to compete at the end in the mini conference playoff.
PAC-36: If tier 1 made double tier 2 the money expected may look something like this: If we assume the avg team TV worth (for payout) is $50M per yr (B1G teams will get $100M) then tier 1 would get $70M & tier 2 would get $35M. But with all the benefits, great games, and interest the new conference would create, the value could easily rise to $60M or more per team and the resulting payout would be approximately $84M & $42M. Of course the formula for how much each tier gets could be adjusted up or down. Very flexible and exciting!
SUPPORT TRAIN LETS GO.
And a championship game in Vegas and Atlanta in alternate years.
I think you're right. The Pac-12 is galvanized right now and I expect it to stay that way for the foreseeable future.
For the defectors, the non-football sports (especially women's sports) effects will be very interesting. Recruiting might be a challenge.
when I first heard about this that is exactly what I said...the travel costs for non revenue sports will be a killer. Remember...USC hasn't exactly been the USC of old in any sport. Adding huge travel costs while remaining in your losing ways will not endear this move to donors or fans. Good Luck with that USC...UCLA does not operate heavily in the black as it is...the NON revenue sports won't help their bottom line going forward.
It's not just the costs for the schools. Think of the expense and hassle for the athletes' families who want to see their kids compete, especially parents of kids in the non-revenue sports. The University's costs come out of the $71 mil per annum.
Just a thought. Football and basketball are the money makers for most schools. Why not let football and maybe basketball be in a separate conference from the other sports? In other words form a super conference for football and maybe the same one for basketball or it could even be a different super conference for basketball. Invite top tier teams from the ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 to join. I know the ACC is locked in till 2036 in a media deal so that might not work for them. I would think ESPN and Fox would be interested in the football super conference, and most likely the basketball super conference. The other sports at a school could be in a conference that is more geographically located and suitable for travel. Football games usually are just once a week. Basketball is twice a week and usually in the last few days of the week. For example Notre Dame is in the ACC for all Sports except football and hockey.
There have been some excellent thoughts presented in the comments and I really do enjoy them. I am an Oregon duck fan living just outside Eugene Oregon. I look forward to hearing your views on this idea.
Oregon needs to buy time, which requires placating conference mates. Oregon will eventually leave the Pac10 behind.
Sometimes your responses are like being a "fly on the wall in the room." I like your insider views. So much has been said and written, but EVERY insider, after stating their views, agree after about 15 minutes, that they just don't know how this is going to shake out... W/o the LA schools the league has lost some glitz and glamor for sure. I don't think the league can stand on its own with the remaining 10. So, be PROACTIVE and go BIG: hook up with the Big 12 and then form an alliance with the ACC and play that league championship game in LV in December. One more thing, if the Big 10 had wanted OR and WA, wouldn't the offer have come by now?
The adrenaline must be flowing in Uncle Phil's veins right about now...
Call me a contrarian, or maybe my being a UCLA grad is enough, but I think the Trojans and Bruins made the right call.
I don’t worry at all about a drop off in recruiting. If I were a remaining PAC school, I’d be concerned. I think (finally) UCLA will be able to compete against Oregon for recruits due to the better conference. I think kids (football and basketball) will be attracted to playing in packed stadiums and arenas. (Sorry to say but there aren’t places on the West Coast that have incredible football atmosphere.)
And given that bb is played indoors, I don’t think the cold weather of the Upper Midwest will discourage recruits. Playing against better competitors will help recruiting. (I bet Mick Cronin is thrilled.)
I would be interested in the back story of the shift to the B1G. How did rivals like USC and UCLA, with 2 relatively new ADs, trust one another to secretly discuss and pursue a new conference? Did UCLA’s Jarmond’s B1G history at Michigan State and Ohio State factor into it?
PS, John: Colin Cowherd might be a good place to start. They fired him years back. He holds a grudge. He might shed light.
Dear John, a couple things. Wilner and you are watch dogs. That’s good. Before this debacle, Wilner spent months, even years, writing about Pac-12 financing yet couldn’t rake out what was coming. Still, there were telling clues. The NCAA men’s tournament rolled around. Teams like Indiana scraped in. The Hoosiers basically got a home game against a tough small-market Wyoming. The Texas A&M coach, meanwhile, went ballistic. He wanted to say more. Instead, he cried at the microphone. My point: Secret deals are made in oak-paneled piano bars in NYC and Chicago, sans IPhones. Reporters are out of the loop. It’s all about TV cash. Therefore, the finger should be pointed at ESPN, which promotes big schools. I am in Italy but, through messages written before the BB bracket was revealed, warned my friends that journalists are not digging deep enough. Darth Vader has to be confronted. The Networks are the Wizard of Oz. Get at corporate greed and find a way to penetrate the dark “oak-paneled” side. The clues have been there. Gonzaga, formerly the speck, doesn’t have to worry now. It has become a brand. But ask the Wyoming’s of the world. They worry. Therefore, ask ESPN the hard questions, please. Take them to task and find disgruntled former VP’s who haven’t signed non-disclosure agreements. Dig, dig, dig.
(1) There are serious negatives associated with selling out to an equity firm. (If it is such a great idea, then why is no one else doing it?!!) Nonetheless, USC and UCLA are no longer constraints so the Pac-10 can now move forward with the plan if everyone else genuinely thinks it is a good idea.
(2) No university is obligated to stay in the Pac-12 against their wishes. USC and UCLA are free to do whatever they choose to do regardless of their reason(s) and the fact that they did not choose to solicit the opinions of the other ten universities prior to making their decision.
(3) If the travel demands of the Big Ten are so awful, then why does every remaining Pac-12 team desire admittance to the Big Ten?!!
Do you actually have a clue what you are talking about?.?
The Pac12 network is solely owned by the league. The SEC and Big 10 networks are not owned by either conference. The SEC network is operated by ESPN for instance.
I'm a UCLA alum, but SC and UCLA were not forthright in informing the league of their displeasure and dropped the hammer with no warning. That is an ethical problem.
If the 1B story is accurate and UCLA and SC torpedoed the deal to not be obligated in honoring a contract, but then hurting the other teams now, that is also ethically a problem.
You do realize WSU , OSU and Cal are now in big trouble.
It is NOT "ethically a problem" if one "torpedoes" a deal in order to not be obligated to honor it. That is absolutely ridiculous . . .for obvious reasons.
People would be wise not to do business with you.
I feel sorry for WSU, OSU, Cal but no reasonable person could expect USC and UCLA to forego an extra $50M per year in order to ensure that the WSU, OSU, and Cal athletic programs can continue competing in P5 athletics.
The article refers to selling equity in the conference -- not equity in the Pac12 network.
Even Wilner from the Mercury news a few weeks wrote in his DEFCON 1 mailbag article that the chances of UCLA and SC bolting were low. What a laugh.. Then last week he provides the " scoop" that surprised everyone. I call the underhanded misleading head fake a serious lack of ethics. Didn't even allow the Pac12 to even counter at least. Yeah they can do whatever they want, but for institutions of higher learning to pull crap like that..... seems totally lacking in moral character.
Perhaps they knew that the Pac12 would have to allocate to them twice as much revenue as every other team was receiving to even be in the ballpark of competing with the Big Ten allocation . . . and understood that scenario was neither reasonable nor desirable?
The Pac 12 conference is not a corporation in the sense you can own it. The equity ownership is in reference to a media deal owned by the conference.
You referred above to the Pac-12 network. The media contract is something entirely different from the Pac-12 network.
You referred to selling a piece of the conference. The piece was media, not the conference itself, LOL. The pac 12 owns their own tier 2 rights, the pac 12 network. Tier 1 is Fox and ESPN. You mentioned no one else does it, well it is because the other P5s dont.
Of course, selling equity in the conference means the Tier 1 media contract. What other value could any conference have that could possibly be worth $1B?!! (It remains to be seen if the Pac-12 Network has any value at all. It is not unfathomable that it could simply stop operating.)
Yes! Glad to hear it. Hope they stay unified. From my perspective this keeps me, and I am guessing a lot of other fans in the game. Do something rash and stupid and many of us walk, being completely disenchanted with all the bull shit.
SC and UCLA will live to regret this decision for many reasons, but one of the main one's may be how it affects their non-football/basketball sports.
Hey kids we gotta play basketball in Wisconsin, penn state and Michigan and it’s -10. Jet lag and strange hours should be fun for usc and ucla.
I still would like to see the big pac super conference.
Any word on the future of the CFB playoffs governing body? I wonder whether the non-SEC, non-B1G members will be able to retain any power and how they'll exercise that. Just in terms of membership they currently dominate. Certainly the media will weigh in heavily against them.