(09-23-2022 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I have dismissed the idea of UCLA remaining in the PAC via BOR fiat, but the issue seems to be lingering longer than I thought, so while I still fully expect UCLA to join the B1G on schedule, why not play what if? So my take:

Stanford .... I think it something like 55/45 that they join the B1G. It will be a close call though, because a PAC with UCLA is IMO a lot more appealing to them.

Turning down the B1G would still mean turning down massive money, so I think Stanford goes, but Stanford has plenty of money, and as a private may not be as constrained in how they use compared to public schools. If any school this side of the Ivy League, Notre Dame or Texas can afford to turn down $50m a year, it's Stanford.

What do you think?

On the subject of UCLA, I think they jumped before thinking. They had to be aware of the blowback that would follow this move. I think they will be allowed to move to the Big Ten but I think there will be some form of payment to Cal and the UC Board of Regents will revise policies that allow a school to make this kind of decision on their own in the future. The Board is well aware of the annual media payment in the Big Ten, but the student athletic travel is a significant concern. This is not like Oklahoma and Texas going to the SEC.

Stanford would have a problem sending their Olympic sports to the midwest and east coast. I don't think they would go. I think UCLA will also figure out that the travel is too much for Olympic sports and their student athletes. But they need to experience it first. I think they are not going to make as much money as they think they will with this move to the Big Ten, but they need to experience it for it to be proven.

I was at the first three games and the Bruins averaged 30,000 per game in attendance. I don't know if it was the cupcake schedule or discontent from the fans over the move or the fact that school had not started yet and students were not in attendance. I just have anecdotal evidence in conversations with Bruin alumni and some of them are going to withold their annual contributions to the Wooden Athletic Fund. They play UW next Friday Night at the Rose Bowl and the following Saturday play Utah at the Rose Bowl. That should give a better indication of UCLA fan support.

(09-23-2022 06:14 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I have dismissed the idea of UCLA remaining in the PAC via BOR fiat, but the issue seems to be lingering longer than I thought, so while I still fully expect UCLA to join the B1G on schedule, why not play what if? So my take:

Stanford .... I think it something like 55/45 that they join the B1G. It will be a close call though, because a PAC with UCLA is IMO a lot more appealing to them.

Turning down the B1G would still mean turning down massive money, so I think Stanford goes, but Stanford has plenty of money, and as a private may not be as constrained in how they use compared to public schools. If any school this side of the Ivy League, Notre Dame or Texas can afford to turn down $50m a year, it's Stanford.

What do you think?

On the subject of UCLA, I think they jumped before thinking. They had to be aware of the blowback that would follow this move. I think they will be allowed to move to the Big Ten but I think there will be some form of payment to Cal and the UC Board of Regents will revise policies that allow a school to make this kind of decision on their own in the future. The Board is well aware of the annual media payment in the Big Ten, but the student athletic travel is a significant concern. This is not like Oklahoma and Texas going to the SEC.

Stanford would have a problem sending their Olympic sports to the midwest and east coast. I don't think they would go. I think UCLA will also figure out that the travel is too much for Olympic sports and their student athletes. But they need to experience it first. I think they are not going to make as much money as they think they will with this move to the Big Ten, but they need to experience it for it to be proven.

I was at the first three games and the Bruins averaged 30,000 per game in attendance. I don't know if it was the cupcake schedule or discontent from the fans over the move or the fact that school had not started yet and students were not in attendance. I just have anecdotal evidence in conversations with Bruin alumni and some of them are going to withold their annual contributions to the Wooden Athletic Fund. They play UW next Friday Night at the Rose Bowl and the following Saturday play Utah at the Rose Bowl. That should give a better indication of UCLA fan support.

I don't see how they justify any payment to Cal. I think its nothing but hot air. They may change future policy. That's about it.

(09-23-2022 01:32 PM)Poster Wrote:  USC is clearly the most valuable team in the PAC. I'm not sure if UCLA is the PAC's second most valuable team, but they certainly are better for travel costs in non-revenue sports, since teams can visit USC and UCLA with just one flight.

USC has been living off their blueblood football reputation and their LA market location. The actual performance has been underwhelming for the past 13 years.
https://fightingirishwire.usatoday.com/l...wisconsin/

Washington, UCLA and Stanford all have more players on NFL rosters than USC. Oregon is one of 9 schools to play for a national championship since 2010 and they have done it twice. USC has not played in a national championship game since 2005. If you had watched USC football last season, when they went 4-8, you would not think they are the most valuable, especially after blowout losses at home to Stanford, Utah, Oregon State, and UCLA. USC has the highest ceiling of any football school in the Pac-12 and when they are hitting on all cylinders they are a top 5 program. But they have not been near the ceiling in a while.

Well, it really won’t matter because in about six years or so Ohio State football is gonna get a fat paycheck from Bezos with Herbstreit calling the games, like he’s always wanted to do. Oh, this will be for home and away games btw. ESPN has previewed this with their “home team” or whatever cast of the natty. Streaming is more similar to radio than cable television.

What’s Kevin Warren gonna do? Sit there and like it.

That’s the future of college football contracts ladies and germs.

(09-23-2022 06:14 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I have dismissed the idea of UCLA remaining in the PAC via BOR fiat, but the issue seems to be lingering longer than I thought, so while I still fully expect UCLA to join the B1G on schedule, why not play what if? So my take:

Stanford .... I think it something like 55/45 that they join the B1G. It will be a close call though, because a PAC with UCLA is IMO a lot more appealing to them.

Turning down the B1G would still mean turning down massive money, so I think Stanford goes, but Stanford has plenty of money, and as a private may not be as constrained in how they use compared to public schools. If any school this side of the Ivy League, Notre Dame or Texas can afford to turn down $50m a year, it's Stanford.

What do you think?

On the subject of UCLA, I think they jumped before thinking. They had to be aware of the blowback that would follow this move. I think they will be allowed to move to the Big Ten but I think there will be some form of payment to Cal and the UC Board of Regents will revise policies that allow a school to make this kind of decision on their own in the future. The Board is well aware of the annual media payment in the Big Ten, but the student athletic travel is a significant concern. This is not like Oklahoma and Texas going to the SEC.

Stanford would have a problem sending their Olympic sports to the midwest and east coast. I don't think they would go. I think UCLA will also figure out that the travel is too much for Olympic sports and their student athletes. But they need to experience it first. I think they are not going to make as much money as they think they will with this move to the Big Ten, but they need to experience it for it to be proven.

I was at the first three games and the Bruins averaged 30,000 per game in attendance. I don't know if it was the cupcake schedule or discontent from the fans over the move or the fact that school had not started yet and students were not in attendance. I just have anecdotal evidence in conversations with Bruin alumni and some of them are going to withold their annual contributions to the Wooden Athletic Fund. They play UW next Friday Night at the Rose Bowl and the following Saturday play Utah at the Rose Bowl. That should give a better indication of UCLA fan support.

Thanks for this perspective.

It doesn't surprise me at all that some UCLA alumni and supporters are unhappy with this move. I believe that if I was a UCLA supporter, I would be unhappy about it.

IMO, literally everything about this move is worse than the current situation in the PAC, save for the size of the media check that will be forthcoming. UCLA is not Little Sisters of the Poor, so IMO it doesn't need to throw out everything else to chase money.

(09-23-2022 05:57 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 04:02 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 12:09 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I have dismissed the idea of UCLA remaining in the PAC via BOR fiat, but the issue seems to be lingering longer than I thought, so while I still fully expect UCLA to join the B1G on schedule, why not play what if? So my take:

1) USC .... they likely do not change course, go to the B1G.

2) PAC .... the PAC is IMO likely "saved" from losing members to the nB12. With UCLA back, even if Stanford or Oregon or Washington leaves to replace them in the B1G, the PAC deal is likely considerably higher than it will be without them.

3) The B1G .... They will want to fill the hole, and with a team that doesn't hurt their new TV deal. IMO, that means Stanford, then Oregon, then Washington, in that order of preference. So what do those schools do?

Stanford .... I think it something like 55/45 that they join the B1G. It will be a close call though, because a PAC with UCLA is IMO a lot more appealing to them.

Turning down the B1G would still mean turning down massive money, so I think Stanford goes, but Stanford has plenty of money, and as a private may not be as constrained in how they use compared to public schools. If any school this side of the Ivy League, Notre Dame or Texas can afford to turn down $50m a year, it's Stanford.

Oregon or Washington - IMO, if Stanford somehow decides to remain in the PAC, one of these two is picked up by the B1G, and either one will go, 90% chance in my view.

Wild card .... Maybe the B1G decides it doesn't need a west coast partner for USC, and instead looks at the nB12, for Kansas? Not likely, but not out of the realm of possibility either. Kansas would of course trip over themselves heading for the nB12 exit.

What do you think?

Well, maybe nothing.

The B10 could just decide not to make a decision on anyone right now, since usc doesn't leave til 2024.

But I think Stanford is the obvious choice. Not part od the Cal system - so avoids that current mess. But is a travel partner for usc.

I used to like the idea of Arizona state, but with their current NCAA investigations, I think they're on hold at least for awhile.

The B10 could stop there, but I think they'll also take Colorado while the opportunity is there - before agreements are signed.

Doing it this way, leaves the PAC with OR, WA, San Francisco area, LA area, arizona and utah. And the PAC can backfill with forum favourite SDSU. to get back to 10. And that's enough different markets - and still includes the LA market - that they should get a decent media deal.

The Big goes to 18 by adding Stanford as UCLA's replacement, and then boosting their western flank by adding CO and Kansas. Which should be a boon to Nebraska too.

This also stops the SEC from adding those two schools - pretty much the SEC's main options, until ACC schools become available. Which helps nudge the SEC east, instead of west.

Big10 adds:
USC
Stanford
Colorado
Kansas

Big10 - 18
Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern

Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, USC, Stanford.

Yeah, who wouldn't want Colorado and Kansas when UO and UW are ripe for the picking?

Taking Washington will kill the PAC. And we are starting to hear/read info suggesting that there are some, at least, in the B10 who might like to avoid that.

So if the PAC is to survive, then the B10 really can only take one or two more that aren't named WA or OR.

So taking USC, Stanford, Colorado, and Kansas, covers the bases, without killing the PAC.

I can see some in the B1G not wanting to kill the Pac, but in your scenario they would just take USC, or perhaps USC/Stanford. I wouldn't say that they'll never consider Colorado or KU, but they won't do it today.

(09-23-2022 06:14 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I have dismissed the idea of UCLA remaining in the PAC via BOR fiat, but the issue seems to be lingering longer than I thought, so while I still fully expect UCLA to join the B1G on schedule, why not play what if? So my take:

Stanford .... I think it something like 55/45 that they join the B1G. It will be a close call though, because a PAC with UCLA is IMO a lot more appealing to them.

Turning down the B1G would still mean turning down massive money, so I think Stanford goes, but Stanford has plenty of money, and as a private may not be as constrained in how they use compared to public schools. If any school this side of the Ivy League, Notre Dame or Texas can afford to turn down $50m a year, it's Stanford.

What do you think?

On the subject of UCLA, I think they jumped before thinking. They had to be aware of the blowback that would follow this move. I think they will be allowed to move to the Big Ten but I think there will be some form of payment to Cal and the UC Board of Regents will revise policies that allow a school to make this kind of decision on their own in the future. The Board is well aware of the annual media payment in the Big Ten, but the student athletic travel is a significant concern. This is not like Oklahoma and Texas going to the SEC.

Stanford would have a problem sending their Olympic sports to the midwest and east coast. I don't think they would go. I think UCLA will also figure out that the travel is too much for Olympic sports and their student athletes. But they need to experience it first. I think they are not going to make as much money as they think they will with this move to the Big Ten, but they need to experience it for it to be proven.

I was at the first three games and the Bruins averaged 30,000 per game in attendance. I don't know if it was the cupcake schedule or discontent from the fans over the move or the fact that school had not started yet and students were not in attendance. I just have anecdotal evidence in conversations with Bruin alumni and some of them are going to withold their annual contributions to the Wooden Athletic Fund. They play UW next Friday Night at the Rose Bowl and the following Saturday play Utah at the Rose Bowl. That should give a better indication of UCLA fan support.

How could they not know what they're making? The B1G signed their new rights deal soon after UCSLA made the jump. $75m/ year average from 2024 to 2030, roughly double what they would have made in the Pac. Assuming they basically double their travel budget from $8.1m to $15.6m, a far more reasonable guess than Kliavkoff's worst case, self serving projection, that's still an extra $30m per YEAR, plus enormously greater Conference stability by joining the B1G. If UCLA had let USC go alone and waited to see how things would be, they could have ended up like UW or UO, on the outside, begging and hoping for an invite that might never come. Or, possibly worse in their eyes, they'd be stuck choosing between an SEC invite and potentially decades of uncertainty, hoping and waiting for a B1G invite that might never come.

I just don't see how an impartial 3rd party can conclude that this move won't be hugely beneficial to UCLA financially.

(09-23-2022 09:01 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 05:57 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 04:02 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 12:09 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I have dismissed the idea of UCLA remaining in the PAC via BOR fiat, but the issue seems to be lingering longer than I thought, so while I still fully expect UCLA to join the B1G on schedule, why not play what if? So my take:

1) USC .... they likely do not change course, go to the B1G.

2) PAC .... the PAC is IMO likely "saved" from losing members to the nB12. With UCLA back, even if Stanford or Oregon or Washington leaves to replace them in the B1G, the PAC deal is likely considerably higher than it will be without them.

3) The B1G .... They will want to fill the hole, and with a team that doesn't hurt their new TV deal. IMO, that means Stanford, then Oregon, then Washington, in that order of preference. So what do those schools do?

Stanford .... I think it something like 55/45 that they join the B1G. It will be a close call though, because a PAC with UCLA is IMO a lot more appealing to them.

Turning down the B1G would still mean turning down massive money, so I think Stanford goes, but Stanford has plenty of money, and as a private may not be as constrained in how they use compared to public schools. If any school this side of the Ivy League, Notre Dame or Texas can afford to turn down $50m a year, it's Stanford.

Oregon or Washington - IMO, if Stanford somehow decides to remain in the PAC, one of these two is picked up by the B1G, and either one will go, 90% chance in my view.

Wild card .... Maybe the B1G decides it doesn't need a west coast partner for USC, and instead looks at the nB12, for Kansas? Not likely, but not out of the realm of possibility either. Kansas would of course trip over themselves heading for the nB12 exit.

What do you think?

Well, maybe nothing.

The B10 could just decide not to make a decision on anyone right now, since usc doesn't leave til 2024.

But I think Stanford is the obvious choice. Not part od the Cal system - so avoids that current mess. But is a travel partner for usc.

I used to like the idea of Arizona state, but with their current NCAA investigations, I think they're on hold at least for awhile.

The B10 could stop there, but I think they'll also take Colorado while the opportunity is there - before agreements are signed.

Doing it this way, leaves the PAC with OR, WA, San Francisco area, LA area, arizona and utah. And the PAC can backfill with forum favourite SDSU. to get back to 10. And that's enough different markets - and still includes the LA market - that they should get a decent media deal.

The Big goes to 18 by adding Stanford as UCLA's replacement, and then boosting their western flank by adding CO and Kansas. Which should be a boon to Nebraska too.

This also stops the SEC from adding those two schools - pretty much the SEC's main options, until ACC schools become available. Which helps nudge the SEC east, instead of west.

Big10 adds:
USC
Stanford
Colorado
Kansas

Big10 - 18
Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern

Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, USC, Stanford.

Yeah, who wouldn't want Colorado and Kansas when UO and UW are ripe for the picking?

Taking Washington will kill the PAC. And we are starting to hear/read info suggesting that there are some, at least, in the B10 who might like to avoid that.

So if the PAC is to survive, then the B10 really can only take one or two more that aren't named WA or OR.

So taking USC, Stanford, Colorado, and Kansas, covers the bases, without killing the PAC.

I can see some in the B1G not wanting to kill the Pac, but in your scenario they would just take USC, or perhaps USC/Stanford. I wouldn't say that they'll never consider Colorado or KU, but they won't do it today.

I want to agree with you.

Just stopping at 16 isn't a bad idea.

But right now, the ability to invite PAC schools seems such a "guilty opportunity", it's hard not to see them take at least 1 more beyond the initial 2.

And if Colorado is in the cards in the future, I think we'd agree they have a much better chance to leave the PAC now, under these financial circumstances. If even a little negotiated exit-related money is involved, I don't know if they would get (or be able to act on) an invite later.

So for Colorado, it's likely now, or if not, probably next to never.

(09-23-2022 10:44 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 09:01 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 05:57 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 04:02 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 12:09 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Well, maybe nothing.

The B10 could just decide not to make a decision on anyone right now, since usc doesn't leave til 2024.

But I think Stanford is the obvious choice. Not part od the Cal system - so avoids that current mess. But is a travel partner for usc.

I used to like the idea of Arizona state, but with their current NCAA investigations, I think they're on hold at least for awhile.

The B10 could stop there, but I think they'll also take Colorado while the opportunity is there - before agreements are signed.

Doing it this way, leaves the PAC with OR, WA, San Francisco area, LA area, arizona and utah. And the PAC can backfill with forum favourite SDSU. to get back to 10. And that's enough different markets - and still includes the LA market - that they should get a decent media deal.

The Big goes to 18 by adding Stanford as UCLA's replacement, and then boosting their western flank by adding CO and Kansas. Which should be a boon to Nebraska too.

This also stops the SEC from adding those two schools - pretty much the SEC's main options, until ACC schools become available. Which helps nudge the SEC east, instead of west.

Big10 adds:
USC
Stanford
Colorado
Kansas

Big10 - 18
Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern

Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, USC, Stanford.

Yeah, who wouldn't want Colorado and Kansas when UO and UW are ripe for the picking?

Taking Washington will kill the PAC. And we are starting to hear/read info suggesting that there are some, at least, in the B10 who might like to avoid that.

So if the PAC is to survive, then the B10 really can only take one or two more that aren't named WA or OR.

So taking USC, Stanford, Colorado, and Kansas, covers the bases, without killing the PAC.

I can see some in the B1G not wanting to kill the Pac, but in your scenario they would just take USC, or perhaps USC/Stanford. I wouldn't say that they'll never consider Colorado or KU, but they won't do it today.

I want to agree with you.

Just stopping at 16 isn't a bad idea.

But right now, the ability to invite PAC schools seems such a "guilty opportunity", it's hard not to see them take at least 1 more beyond the initial 2.

And if Colorado is in the cards in the future, I think we'd agree they have a much better chance to leave the PAC now, under these financial circumstances. If even a little negotiated exit-related money is involved, I don't know if they would get (or be able to act on) an invite later.

So for Colorado, it's likely now, or if not, probably next to never.

Well, yeah, from CU's perspective, there's no time like the present. But from the B1G's perspective, they've already made it abundantly clear that they don't want to add anybody who moves the needle in the wrong direction like CU does. Perhaps that won't be the case in the future, but for now it appears to be a deal breaker.

edit: and as far as potential roadblocks to CU joining the B1G in the future, we've already seen OU/texas announce 4 years before the end of a GoR that they were leaving the Big12, what's to stop CU from announcing in, say, 2037, that they're leaving the pac effective in 2042? And they're highly unlikely to ever be a "must get" for either of the P2, so if circumstances were to prevent them from joining in the far future when they have an invite, the B1G (or SEC) could just move to the next school on the list.

(09-23-2022 09:10 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 06:14 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I have dismissed the idea of UCLA remaining in the PAC via BOR fiat, but the issue seems to be lingering longer than I thought, so while I still fully expect UCLA to join the B1G on schedule, why not play what if? So my take:

Stanford .... I think it something like 55/45 that they join the B1G. It will be a close call though, because a PAC with UCLA is IMO a lot more appealing to them.

Turning down the B1G would still mean turning down massive money, so I think Stanford goes, but Stanford has plenty of money, and as a private may not be as constrained in how they use compared to public schools. If any school this side of the Ivy League, Notre Dame or Texas can afford to turn down $50m a year, it's Stanford.

What do you think?

On the subject of UCLA, I think they jumped before thinking. They had to be aware of the blowback that would follow this move. I think they will be allowed to move to the Big Ten but I think there will be some form of payment to Cal and the UC Board of Regents will revise policies that allow a school to make this kind of decision on their own in the future. The Board is well aware of the annual media payment in the Big Ten, but the student athletic travel is a significant concern. This is not like Oklahoma and Texas going to the SEC.

Stanford would have a problem sending their Olympic sports to the midwest and east coast. I don't think they would go. I think UCLA will also figure out that the travel is too much for Olympic sports and their student athletes. But they need to experience it first. I think they are not going to make as much money as they think they will with this move to the Big Ten, but they need to experience it for it to be proven.

I was at the first three games and the Bruins averaged 30,000 per game in attendance. I don't know if it was the cupcake schedule or discontent from the fans over the move or the fact that school had not started yet and students were not in attendance. I just have anecdotal evidence in conversations with Bruin alumni and some of them are going to withold their annual contributions to the Wooden Athletic Fund. They play UW next Friday Night at the Rose Bowl and the following Saturday play Utah at the Rose Bowl. That should give a better indication of UCLA fan support.

How could they not know what they're making? The B1G signed their new rights deal soon after UCSLA made the jump. $75m/ year average from 2024 to 2030, roughly double what they would have made in the Pac. Assuming they basically double their travel budget from $8.1m to $15.6m, a far more reasonable guess than Kliavkoff's worst case, self serving projection, that's still an extra $30m per YEAR, plus enormously greater Conference stability by joining the B1G. If UCLA had let USC go alone and waited to see how things would be, they could have ended up like UW or UO, on the outside, begging and hoping for an invite that might never come. Or, possibly worse in their eyes, they'd be stuck choosing between an SEC invite and potentially decades of uncertainty, hoping and waiting for a B1G invite that might never come.

I just don't see how an impartial 3rd party can conclude that this move won't be hugely beneficial to UCLA financially.

The Pac-12 was projected to get about $50 million per school with USC and UCLA. The Big Ten is projected with UCLA and USC to get almost $80 million per school on their media deal. The travel is projected to almost triple to $23 million, a $15 million increase. UCLA will need to take more charter flights in the future. Until recently, they have been flying primarily commercial, which was being used against them in recruiting. They are going to be taking a lot more charter flights in the future.

UCLA will need to spend more on coaching and administrative salaries in the Big Ten. Over the past decade, UCLA has started to spend more on football and basketball, but they still need to increase spending in these areas. One complaint I have consistently heard over the years from the alumni is that the athletic department treats every sport the same. That is slowly changing. They will make more money in the Big Ten, but not nearly as much as they thought.

If UCLA gets block? What if USC decides to stay as well? You know west coast people do not want their schools be associated with conferences outside of their region. It costs to much to travel these days.