Skyhawk
All American
Posts: 4,778
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 589
I Root For: Big10
Location:
|
RE: If UCLA ends up staying in the PAC ... what happens?
(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.
|
|