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?

If it happens the Big needs to go HAM on the Pac. Grab,Washington, Oregon, and Stanford. Send a good basket of fruit to the UC board of regents.

(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.

(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?

Hell freezes over.

If the BOR is successful in blocking UCLA from going to the B1G they would be incredibly foolish. But believing that they are foolish isn't much of a stretch. The B1G was committed to bringing the Bruins in will a full revenue share. I wouldn't rule out using their media contract, which assumed UCLA was in, as an excuse to add all three of Stanford, UW and Oregon at less than full shares to replace the Bruins and reduce USC's isolation. Avoiding the headache of California politics is a real plus.

That would still leave the PAC at 8 members, and I like the suggestion someone else made of adding SDSU for all sports plus Hawaii-FB/Gonzaga-OS to bring them to 10 members for all sports.

(09-23-2022 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What happens next?

(09-23-2022 12:04 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  If it happens the Big needs to go HAM on the Pac. Grab,Washington, Oregon, and Stanford. Send a good basket of fruit to the UC board of regents.

^^This^^

(09-23-2022 12:15 PM)ken d Wrote:  If the BOR is successful in blocking UCLA from going to the B1G they would be incredibly foolish. But believing that they are foolish isn't much of a stretch. The B1G was committed to bringing the Bruins in will a full revenue share. I wouldn't rule out using their media contract, which assumed UCLA was in, as an excuse to add all three of Stanford, UW and Oregon at less than full shares to replace the Bruins and reduce USC's isolation. Avoiding the headache of California politics is a real plus.

That would still leave the PAC at 8 members, and I like the suggestion someone else made of adding SDSU for all sports plus Hawaii-FB/Gonzaga-OS to bring them to 10 members for all sports.

This Pac would be: UCLA, Cal, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Oregon State, Washington State, San Diego State, Hawaii (FB)/Gonzaga (non-FB)

This is a valid plan. UW and UO would go to the B1G in a heartbeat, even at a reduced share. Sure, UCLA wants into the B1G in order to pay their massive athletic debt. But, the UC regents: 1) want to look out for Cal as well, and 2) may not want to compete at the highest possible level of college football by allowing UCLA and/or Cal to move to the B1G. The culture regarding football in California today is....different, especially among decisionmakers at state universities. I can see where a lower-paying western conference would sound attractive to a regent as opposed to flying teams to the Midwest in order to generate revenue and publicity.

This leftover Pac would be a serviceable western conference. By adding Gonzaga as a non-FB member, they would be strong in basketball, where UCLA is a blueblood. Cal and UCLA would have to reject previous in-state political rivalries in order to add SDSU, a member of the Cal State system. It wouldn't be able to command a media deal on the level of the B1G or SEC. But it would be superior to what the Pac minus the LA schools stand to be in line for.

Ultimately, I think this is a bunch of bluster. Both Kliavkoff and Newsom/political allies have to sound like they're doing something. But I think UCLA is headed east with USC.

AP Sportswriter Ralph D. Russo answers your question:

https://twitter.com/ralphDrussoAP/status...eQzNUrAAAA

https://twitter.com/ralphDrussoAP/status...HZytUrAAAA

(09-23-2022 12:26 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 12:04 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  If it happens the Big needs to go HAM on the Pac. Grab,Washington, Oregon, and Stanford. Send a good basket of fruit to the UC board of regents.

^^This^^

Why? Those schools aren’t nearly as valuable as USC and UCLA. That is why they’re still in the Pac 12. If they were really a good get, they wouldn’t be 3-5th choice.

(09-23-2022 12:04 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  If it happens the Big needs to go HAM on the Pac. Grab,Washington, Oregon, and Stanford. Send a good basket of fruit to the UC board of regents.

The hope and plan all along in this obstruction effort.
They just have a useful idiot in PAC HQ

(09-23-2022 12:04 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  If it happens the Big needs to go HAM on the Pac. Grab,Washington, Oregon, and Stanford. Send a good basket of fruit to the UC board of regents.

It would be funny if the B1G did that. I wouldn't expect ir, but that would be a kick in the Cali butt, lol.

(09-23-2022 12:33 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  AP Sportswriter Ralph D. Russo answers your question:

https://twitter.com/ralphDrussoAP/status...eQzNUrAAAA

https://twitter.com/ralphDrussoAP/status...HZytUrAAAA

Good finds. One of those tweets makes the useful point that the PAC commish trying to block the move could spur the B1G to accept the three other schools being talked about by some in this thread. I hadn't thought of that.

UC Regents would be cutting their noses off to spite their face when UCLA ends up in the Big 12.

(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?

UC Regents aren’t trying to save the PAC (saving the PAC is Kliavkoff’s job). At best, UC Regents who intervene may be trying to help UC-Berkeley get into the B1G. Regents will claim victory when UCLA provides assurances that it will advocate for their fellow UC program (or if the B1G unexpectedly expands to 20 programs and takes Berkeley). Either way, Kliavkoff’s interests don’t match were the UC Regents may be going.

In the unlikely scenario that UCLA stays in the PAC, Stanford gets an invite to the B1G.

The Big Ten would then be highly motivated to destroy the PAC, by inviting Washington, Oregon, California and Stanford; with no salvageable outcome for the PAC, UCLA would have a financial responsibility to the system to join the Big Ten, otherwise the athletic department would flounder under either MWC (or an MWC-look-alike under the PAC banner).

Ironically, this could be the deciding factor to force the Big Ten to add more PAC teams.

(09-23-2022 01:14 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The Big Ten would then be highly motivated to destroy the PAC, by inviting Washington, Oregon, California and Stanford; with no salvageable outcome for the PAC, UCLA would have a financial responsibility to the system to join the Big Ten, otherwise the athletic department would flounder under either MWC (or an MWC-look-alike under the PAC banner).

Ironically, this could be the deciding factor to force the Big Ten to add more PAC teams.

yeah, but if ucla cannot join, i doubt the b1g would touch Cal

I am 99% sure that UCLA would not be blocked but if they were, I would fully expect the B10 to target Stanford and two others -likely Washington/Oregon or Arizona/Arizona State to join Southern Cal.

It should be noted that if UCLA were to be successfully blocked or be forced to subsidize Cal Berkley then a defense would be demonstrated for those at Washington State and Oregon State... and they may not want to fight that fight. \

With that said, I say the B10 would invite AZ, ASU and Stanford. Stanford would turn down the opportunity (choosing to stay with Berkley and UCLA), leaving the B10 stand pat at 18 by adding… Kansas.

This is where it gets interesting: at this point, the PAC is down to 7 teams. I think they would then add SDSU, UNLV, Colorado State, SMU and Rice for all sports. They may even add San Jose State and Fresno State. Maybe even Navy and Air Force join for FB only.

Obviously I am just spitballing.

All indications are that the Big Ten commish prefers Oregon or Washington to Stanford. I guess it's possible (albeit unlikely) that the Big Ten presidents might prefer Stanford for academic reasons and invite them as UCLA's replacement.

I will be very surprised if whoever was invited as UCLA's replacement turns down the invite.

(09-23-2022 12:34 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 12:26 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 12:04 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  If it happens the Big needs to go HAM on the Pac. Grab,Washington, Oregon, and Stanford. Send a good basket of fruit to the UC board of regents.

^^This^^

Why? Those schools aren’t nearly as valuable as USC and UCLA. That is why they’re still in the Pac 12. If they were really a good get, they wouldn’t be 3-5th choice.

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.