USC Traveler

I thought about your post as I was watching aggy expose Mizzou today. So many of the "game day atmosphere" shots during an aggy game revolve around military stuff- "cadets" with shaved heads, guys wearing WWI-era army outfits and carrying swords, the cannon getting fired, etc. It gives a completely distorted view of reality. They make it seem like a dominant part of student life. The networks portray it as if the place is only a few steps below West Point and Annapolis, but based on your numbers, I wonder where they rank vs any big state school ROTC program. Crazy that so much of the ags' identity seems to be tied up in something that has nothing to do with the vast majority of the student body. Fake Army, indeed. I don't know why it bugged me, but it did. Maybe because my grandfather graduated from Annapolis and then was in WW2 from the beginning to the end- literally. He was at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked, and he was on the Missouri in Tokyo Bay for the surrender ceremony. Anyway- fuck aggy.

Al- I quoted you to see what you thought, but also wanted to hear from other B12ers like @'stache and @oSuJeff97 I was looking at the schedule for CFB for the last weekend of the regular season, and the B12 schedule looks like it was put together by someone who has no understanding of which schools have rivalries and history with each other. Outside of Farmageddon and the Territorial Cup, none of it made sense. Utah at UCF ? TCU at UC ? UH at BYU ? Tech-WVU ? WTF ? I was expecting to see the Holy War, TCU-Baylor, etc. Looks like the B12 made a conscious decision to spread the rivalry games out earlier in the season. Are you guys happy with that ? I realize The Game, USC-ND, UT vs aggy, Iron Bowl, etc are all going to soak up a ton of oxygen that weekend, but for me, there's something special about rivalry weekend. Utah vs UCF or the Holy War on rivalry weekend- seems like an easy choice.

This is what I was saying about 10-20 pages ago, which is why I thought the PAC was clueless when they only offered Memphis, Tulane, UTSA and USF. They should have added enough schools in the West to give them a stable base, then offer Memphis and Tulane along with 3 or 4 schools in TX to create a Central division. It never made any sense from a Memphis or Tulane pov to come with only UTSA and USF- too much travel for every game besides Memphis vs Tulane games. Going in with UTSA, TX St and UNT (with CSU in the division to make it 6 teams) would be a much better proposition for Memphis and Tulane, 9 game schedule, with two road game vs the other division every year, so they'd only go to Boise, Pullman, Corvallis, etc, once every 3 years. Much easier travel for all their sports, and with the size of the media deal, limiting travel costs will matter. // I still think it would be smart to lock up Tx St and get to 8, then go after the other schools as a group.

Apparently, neither does the PAC. Dellenger said on one of the Yahoo CFB podcasts last week that the PAC was talking to Hawaii, but didn't make an offer, and then Hawaii signed on to stay in the MWC. The program is in shambles now, but some of that is temporary, and Hawaii would bring a lot of positives. They could do a lot worse for team # 8. Plan A (AAC schools), Plan B (UNLV and/or AFA) and Plan C (Hawaii) have all failed to materialize. Maybe Hawaii has an escape clause in the MWC deal if they get an offer as a full member of another conference. Otherwise, the PAC is on to Plan D. Could the below be Plan D ? Sac St would make for easy travel, and give the conference a presence in a 3rd part of CA.

I was originally thinking of the setup you're describing, but then thought they would have to start the season too early to do an 8 team G6 playoff that would end prior to the beginning of the big playoff. Wasn't factoring in that their desire for exposure would trump all else. If the kill fee was equal to the payout the G6 gets for participating in the 12 team playoff, which was probably not clarified well in the op, and there was decent tv money on top of it for the G6 playoff games (way better entertainment than bowl games), I was thinking schools would prefer to be the National Champion of the G6 level and have their season end as a champion, instead of getting crushed like a tomato can vs the #5 seed (which will frequently be the 3rd best team in the nation). I just don't see any Boise over OU type games in the playoff, given how strong the #5 seed is going to be every year. That team will be very focused for a playoff game, as opposed to some teams in the past that may have been sleepwalking through a bowl game. The # 5 team is always going to be very, very good. With the consolidation in the BIG/SEC, there won't be any more years where, say, a mediocre OU wins the B12 because the rest of the conference was down, then gets beat by a team like Boise. With NIL and the portal, the gulf between the #2/3 team in the BIG/SEC to the top G6 team will be measured in light years. I'm fine having the best G6 team in the big playoff. It gives everyone a shot, and we'll never have to hear any dumb debates about whether the G6 champ could have beaten the P4 champ. But if I'm running one of those G6 schools, I'd much rather have the season end on a high note being crowned the undisputed champion of the G6. If the title game was played during the week between the semis and championship game of the 12 team playoff, that would still give the two G6 programs a lot of exposure, but it would be overwhelmingly positive exposure, as opposed to getting slightly more exposure (#5 vs #12 will be the lowest rated playoff game in most years), but having the exposure be mixed, at best, as the team will almost always look like it doesn't belong on the same field as the # 5 seed. Ending the season getting embarrassed doesn't seem like anywhere near as good of exposure as raising a trophy and saying "We're the champs!!!"

Great minds think alike my friend.🤘 That would be a fun format and put a nice spotlight on those programs.

Even better, get their small slice of revenue from the big boy playoff in return for not having a team in the big playoff, sort of like a kill fee in return for not suing over access. Then run an 8 team G6 playoff around the edges of the big playoff- start a week earlier, play their championship during the week between the semifinals and the title game for the big playoff. Play the semis on Tuesday and Wednesday nights if needed to make it work. Every G6 conference champ plus two at large. Would be a fun format, with teams that are reasonably evenly matched.

Yeah- I’ve been to a few 1AA/FCS playoff games, and they were great. I’ve never really understood why so many programs have wanted to move up. What JMU has been doing is amazing, but I feel like they’re the first FCS program to quickly prosper in FBS. If I went to a former FCS powerhouse like GA Southern, I’d be bummed about trading those playoff games for a crappy bowl game. Hopefully the G6 does set up their own playoff sooner rather than later. I’d much rather watch similarly-matched teams playing each other than seeing a sacrificial lamb get destroyed by the # 2 team in the SEC or BIG every year. Even if they feel like they have to stay in the big playoff for the money, they could start their season a week or two earlier than the big boys to allow an actual G6 playoff to determine the team that gets to play in the big playoff.

😂 It’s so true. There were lots of maps, lots of theories, and more lists of pods than I care to remember. As a group, there was a general consensus that we were definitely heading towards some sort of consolidation. There were definitely more than a few UT and OU to the SEC and even a few Best of the PAC to the BIG posts, but I’m pretty positive no one had Texas State to the PAC. Fresno St to the PAC would be a close second for truly shocking.

Ah, got it. Well USC's admin has also been clueless for most of the last 15 years. That's part of why Commissar Scott and Co were able to stay in power for so long. USC didn't fight tooth and nail to make the PAC16 happen, and let Scott, Wazzu, Cal, etc kill the deal over LHN even though unequal revenue had been in place in the PAC for years. They also never tried to push Scott out. They self-sanctioned with Haden and Swann as ADs, and Clown Helton as HC. And they were so petrified of the NCAA boogeyman hiding under the bed that USC is now 3 years behind schools like UT on NIL. So yeah, no surprise that they thought they could win an open and shut case.

That’s even more stupid than I thought. That’s laughable.

If you’re referring to me, you’ve got the wrong poster. I never thought the PAC schools that were leaving had any chance of maintaining control. They lost their voting rights as soon as they announced they were leaving. As for the PAC being clueless, we can agree to disagree, but I saw it up close for multiple decades, through multiple commissioners and Presidents of the various universities. And they were clueless. The objective evidence is that despite there being more money available in tv deals than ever before the conference no longer exists in its former form, and is only a shell of itself, due to a long, dreadful series of mistakes, starting with Stanford vetoing Texas joining, the PAC 16 falling apart over LHN, the PACNet, all the way up to Klownkoff rejecting the ESPN offer last year. Nothing about this botched attempt to turn the PAC into the top G6 conference looks any different than previous decades of ineptitude. Do you think the PAC has played their hand well ?

Agreed. The idea was good, but the problem is that they didn't do enough to motivate the AAC schools to leave, probably because they didn't look at it from the AAC schools' POV. They're also focused on keeping membership numbers low for better revenue, and maybe also living in a fantasyland that Cal and Stanford will eventually come back. I posted last week that if I'm running Memphis or Tulane, I'm not going to the PAC unless there are enough schools in an Eastern division to limit travel to the West Coast to once per year. PAC would have been smart to take the top 8 from the MWC to dissolve it, then offer Memphis, Tulane, USF, UTSA and six more AAC/Sunbelt schools to kneecap the AAC and create a G6 "superconference" that would almost always get the G6 playoff bid. Even though it would be 20 schools, the AAC and MWC both have a lot of games broadcast on ESPN, FS1 and CBSsn, so the money would be there. But all of this assumes that the people running the PAC, Wazzu, and OSU know what they're doing. As we know- they don't.

This would have been the move if the newPAC was run by smart people. Wazzu and OSU could have kept the money and invested in their programs. The only thing that may save them is if the MWC is run by even dumber people, and they haven't changed their bylaws to remove voting power from a member as soon as they announce they're leaving. If that's the case, PAC could still take three more schools and dissolve the MWC.

Cal should just own who they are and make that their logo. Would boost attendance and they would instantly get a lot more support from admin and faculty. Would certainly add an extra layer of spice to games at Clemson, FSU, and SMU. It actually looks pretty badass as a helmet logo.

For all the OGs in this thread, today is the day it's all going down, and you know why. . . . . . It's Tuesday! The Dude, Mhver and all the rest of the frauds will finally be able to say they were right about something (15 years later).

The people running Wazzu, OSU and the carcass of the PAC are part of the same group that kept Larry Scott in power, who pushed through equal revenue distribution to subsidize their programs to create parity in football, and wanted to emphasize Olympic sports for the identity of the conference. Not shocking that these same idiots (newPAC is run by a PAC lifer) don't think strategically, don't know how to close a deal, and in general, make horrendously bad decisions. I'm so glad to never be in a conference with these clowns again. Your suggested path would have been much better. Invest in facilities and NIL to create G6 powerhouse programs that make the playoff regularly, which would then spur more fan donations to NIL and help build their brands up over time.

Yeah- I thought your op was talking about the bigger picture for the BIG. From an FSU fan perspective, it would be stupid for them to join by themselves, but that seems unlikely. FOX/BIG would certainly want to pair them with Miami or Clemson, and given everything we've heard over the years about the BIG wanting UNC and UVA, adding a four school ACC block seems like the most likely eventual outcome (could be another 10 years). Assuming they would play the other ex-ACC schools every year, other than an occasional trip to the West Coast, there's not much difference between flying to BC, Syracuse or Pitt vs Chicago, Detroit or Columbus.

Agree 100% with you on your first sentence. I love the new SEC. I've always watched a lot of SEC games. Adding UT and OU (along with the 12 team playoff arriving) has already created so many better games than under the divisional structure. Hopefully we see a 9 game schedule soon. For USC, finances were obviously the biggest driver in the BIG move, but we'd been unhappy with the way the PAC was run for 20+ years, so being in a conference that cares about football and is run by intelligent people is a light-years difference from the PAC under Commissar Scott and Klownkoff. And like the UT Shaggy/Surly posters prior to the SEC move, we wanted to play against programs we view as peers on a regular basis. It's counterintuitive for a lot of people, but we've had enough Rose Bowls (and some great regular season matchups) vs OSU, UM and even PSU that there is a lot of familiarity and respect there. Even with the next tier down, we've had some fun Orange Bowls, Holiday Bowls, etc vs IA, WI, NU, etc. So playing these teams feels natural and makes sense, maybe somewhat similar to how older UT fans feel about getting Arky back on the schedule. We didn't play OSU and UM as often as UT played Arky, but we had some Rose Bowls that were truly epic and decided the national championship, similar to the UT-Arky "Game of the Century". Maybe it's because our main rival is in South Bend, so people are used to traveling there, but no SC person that I know is unhappy about traveling to the Midwest for away games. Quite the opposite- they're fired up to go to most of the stadiums in the BIG. People are even looking forward to RU and MD, since they're easy, non-stop flights with a weekend in NY or DC. That's much better than a weekend in Corvallis or Pullman for a game against a lower tier team. PS- there are a ton of BIG grads in LA, which also adds to familiarity/rivalries. I know lots of UCLA and Stanford grads, but I know as many or more BIG grads who live in the LA area as I do alums of former PAC schools not named USC, UCLA or Stanford. Lots of OSU, UM and NW alums especially.

Agreed on fanbases reacting to reality in a super league. We'll probably get a good preview of it with OU fans this year. I think the number that ensures mass unhappiness is less than 40 teams, though. If the BIG goes to 24 and SEC to 20, or something similar to my post above, that's 44 total. Still lots of bottom feeders and mid-tier programs there: NW, Purdue, UVA, UCLA, MN, MD, IU, IA, Vandy, MSU, NCSt, SCar, UK, Mizzou, VT, aggy That's a lot of wins for bluebloods in most years, and probably not much different than it it now. Seems more likely in the short-medium term. Your point about the coaches and ADs is a good one.

The BIG would be stupid to pass on FSU for a number of reasons. 1. BIG doesn't have as many programs at the top who have the potential to be legit championship contenders as the SEC. Adding FSU and Miami would help. 2. Adding FSU and Miami makes the media package more valuable, as it gives you more top tier matchups in your inventory. 3. BIG has wanted UNC and UVA for a long time. Adding those two plus the FL schools would eliminate the ACC as a viable conference for ND's other sports. 4. If the ACC collapses, adding ND becomes much more realistic. Adding ND, FSU and Miami to your tv inventory would be a massive win. 5. BIG is already a coast to coast conference, but have no presence in FL, the 3rd most populous state, and top state for recruiting. 6. Easier travel, esp for non-rev sports. If they added the above 5 schools, they'd be at 23. Bringing in Stanford as #24 would allow BIG to set up 4 divisions of 6 that would create regionality within a national conference. ND would want to be with the former ACC schools (including MD), which would create a nice division. The original BIG members plus PSU and Rutgers divide into two divisions pretty easily. Nebraska would be the only school to have a travel increase, as they'd be in a division with the former PAC schools, but the access to CA for recruiting would make it well worth it, and NU's best non-rev sport (volleyball) is more important out west than it is in the midwest. And LAX-Lincoln is about the same as LAX-Seattle (around 3 hours). You wouldn't need divisions in football, but if they wanted to use them, they'd just make games like USC-ND and NE-IA protected rivals. Most media people are assuming we end up with a "super league" of top programs, but as folks like Huckleberry have correctly pointed out in this thread, fans of bluebloods aren't going to be excited about going 7-5 on a regular basis. The BIG going to 24, and the SEC going to 20 with VT and NCSt (or similar scenarios with some of the schools flipped around) seems much more likely to me in the medium term, and maybe even in the long run.

I switched the order of those two sentences in your post because I think the first scenario leads to the second. The other conferences get priced out over time, and we end up with an AFL-NFL setup between the BIG and SEC. At least in the medium term, there's too much history and brand value for each entity separately, and neither commissioner nor conference execs will be incentivized to give up their jobs in a full merger. But they'll make a fortune splitting the rights to a championship game you're describing, and they'll agree on rules that govern everything: player payments, recruiting, etc, including a joint CBA with the players. It would also make sense for them to do a "BIG/SEC shootout" where each team plays one team from the other conference in a home and home over two years. UT-OSU, USC-Bama, UM-UGA, all the way down to Vandy-UCLA. Spread the games over the first three weeks of the season so that you have a tier 1, 2 and 3 game each weekend between the conferences. Rotate the matchups within each tier every two years. ESPN and FOX would happily pay for those games. Would be fun to get some UT-USC home and homes in that format.

100%. Same situation out West. The entertainment value of my season tickets jumped exponentially with USC moving to the BIG. We essentially traded games against CU, ASU, UA and Cal, for home games vs PSU, Wiscy, Neb and a road game @ UM this week. Still have ND, UCLA and one of UW/UO each year, just like UT still has OU, and now gets little brother and Arky back on the schedule every year. Sure, there's Vandy and MSU/ MN and MD on our respective schedules, but that's a small price to pay for the massive upgrade in quality games. Best of all worlds for anyone who wants to see top-tier games, and not just those involving your program. I always watch RRS, but can't wait to also see UT play UGA, Arky and aggy. And all of this topped off by a 12 team playoff ? LFG!!!

It seems like their top targets are Tulane and Memphis, along with some combination of UTSA, UNT, with Rice and Texas St possibilities. That makes sense in terms of trying to get all of the top G6 programs into one conference. If they can do it, they'll get the G6 playoff bid in most years. It also makes sense to expand into TX. If I'm Memphis and Tulane, I'm not joining the newPAC without enough TX and/or SE schools to form a division. Too much travel for Memphis and Tulane if they are the only additions. So I'm thinking the newPAC wants to maintain flexibility in terms of bringing in new members so they can do what they need to do to lock up their top targets before adding a program like UNLV. The other factor is the NV legislature wants to keep UNLV and UN-Reno in the same conference. Everyone in this thread knows how that's going to work out in the long run, so the PAC is smart to wait on inviting them until there is only one slot left. At that point, it becomes much easier for UNLV to leave by themselves. It seems like their top targets are Tulane and Memphis, along with some combination of UTSA, UNT, with Rice and Texas St possibilities. That makes sense in terms of trying to get all of the top G6 programs into one conference. If they can do it, they'll get the G6 playoff bid in most years. It also makes sense to expand into TX. If I'm Memphis and Tulane, I'm not joining the newPAC without enough TX and/or SE schools to form a division. Too much travel for Memphis and Tulane if they are the only additions. So I'm thinking the newPAC wants to maintain flexibility in terms of bringing in new members so they can do what they need to do to lock up their top targets before adding a program like UNLV. The other factor is the NV legislature wants to keep UNLV and UN-Reno in the same conference. Everyone in this thread knows how that's going to work out in the long run, so the PAC is smart to wait on inviting them until there is only one slot left. At that point, it becomes much easier for UNLV to leave by themselves.

They're relevant when your tv deal is worth less than $10m per school.