USC Traveler

I think this is probably for the mid-tier teams in the West and all of the lower-tier teams in the BIG. With divisions ending and USC/UCLA coming into the conference in 2024, life is about to get a lot harder for Purdue, Iowa, MN, etc, so they're trying to get as many easy OOC wins as possible. Really sucks if you have season tickets. With USC always having ND OOC, I don't have any sympathy for top programs avoiding at least one OOC marquee game. But maybe some of the bigger programs are thinking about going all G5/FCS after seeing UM go to the playoffs two years in a row with a laughable OOC. Will be interesting to see how OSU and PSU schedule. UM may keep the cupcakes rolling.

On 247, the idea is that a five star should be a first round pick, so there are 32 each year- one for each first round pick. We all know that's not how it works in reality, but that's how 247 sets up their rankings. If you add up all the picks in Bullet's post, it comes out to 32. SEC-20, BIG (with USC/UCLA)-6, ACC-4, WAC10-2. Looks to me like it was from this year's class, as USC had 3 five stars.

WA is nowhere near CA or FL when it comes to recruiting, and OR is barren, but both PNW schools will take CA recruits from BIG programs if they're in the conference. They'll also be better than more than 1/2 of the BIG teams on the field, so more Ls for the mid-lower tier. And if they brought monetary value, they'd already be in. Those "attributes" are nothing like what the LA schools brought, so exactly which BIG schools are voting to add the PNW schools ?

They're anti-revenue dilution. Thamel, Auerbach and others have said that UM, OSU, PSU aren't voting to add PNW schools because they'd dilute revenue. Feldman and the LATimes both reported when USC and UCLA joined that USC lobbied to keep other West Coast schools out. From what UCLA people have told me, they also lobbied to keep the PNW schools out. Given the connections between USC and Stanford (only private schools in PAC, and USC has played them more times than any other school), and the fact that ND likes playing Stanford every year, they'd obviously be the exception. They actually would help with travel for the LA schools, and It would make end of year scheduling easy for the BIG with all of USC, ND, Stanford and UCLA in the conference. I've heard from a couple of people who would know that Stanford was originally slotted to come with USC to the BIG until Fox said they wanted UCLA instead to lock up the LA market and shut the PAC out of LA.

This guy must be really bored to be constantly posting stuff like this to interact with twitter randos. He seems to have the same conversations with BIG admin people every week. 😂 I have no doubt that the BIG will stay at 16 until ND joins or ACC teams become available, but that belief has nothing to do with this guy's tweets. He seems like he just wants to stir things up every week to engage with people on twitter.

That's a big part of it, but that's on top of the biggest factor- the PNW schools would reduce revenue for existing members. (Even if they come in a reduced share, they will eventually get full shares.) If ND or FSU wanted to join, it would take about 30 seconds to vote them in because of the value both deliver. ND is a blue blood ratings driver, while FSU is a strong second-tier tv draw in a huge population area for BTN that is fast-growing and full of elite recruits. Every school in the BIG would jump to add them for the revenue increases and secondary benefits. The PNW schools offer neither elite ratings nor top tier secondary benefits, so they're not worth adding for any BIG school, but especially for the mid-lower tier BIG schools that will get shoved further down the exposure food chain for the reasons you point out. That's why I keep asking the same question for people who think the BIG will add the PNW schools: which existing BIG programs are voting for them ?

That's definitely true. They've been saying that for the 10 months. I've also heard that some ASU coaches have told at least one recruit they'll be playing in the B12.

Word at the time was the Butler was out on Embiid and Simmons. Felt like they didn't put in the work and didn't have a championship mentality.

This is the scenario where it would make sense to add SDSU. They'd add more late night games for the B12's inventory, they've held their own in football vs the PAC over the last 5 years or so, and their hoops program would be in the top tier in the PAC, so they would be a good #16 for the B12 if no other Pac schools jump. The problem is, if any of the 4 corners jump, SDSU will be the PAC's first call to backfill, and SDSU wants to be aligned with Cal for academic and political purposes. So unless there is a max exodus from the PAC, I still think SDSU ends up in the PAC.

Agreed. I don't think either is getting into the BIG. I was just amazed at the gymnastics Wilner was doing to spin that as a positive for those schools.

Wilner literally says at the end: He's not talking about competing. He's talking about gaining entry. He also started off with the following, which I didn't originally post, as I was trying to keep it brief. He's focused on the playoffs because he's a cheerleader for the PAC, and he knows that UW/UO aren't getting into the BIG. Wilner literally says UW/UO would be better off not joining the BIG now so that they can win playoff games to build their brand for the inevitable P2 consolidation. That's delusional- if they had invites, the best way to join the P2 is to join when invited. Then you're in. Full stop. The argument that waiting is better is just cheerleading for the WAC10, which is what Wilner has spent the last 10 months doing.

Wilner has really lost it. This is comedy gold. Wilner thinks the best way for UW/UO to get into the P2 is to pass on any P2 invitation they receive now, in order to have playoff success to build up their resume to enable them to....................join the P2 in the 2030's. 😂😂😂

What's clear about it ? The reporters who are the most connected to the BIG have been saying the exact opposite.

Good analogy my friend. The combination of arrogance, entitlement and an unrealistic view of what you bring to the table is a deadly combo- whether in the NFL or CFB.

Did not realize that they had moved hockey to the BIG. Very interesting.

I agree. I think they're making the wrong move to not go B12. PAC is already a second-tier conference. But they are apparently focused on the easiest path to the playoffs because of Knight's age. Word is that they want to get as many bites at the apple while he's alive.

Bullet- you're one of the sharpest minds in the realignment world. Don't you find it odd that McMurphy and Dodds (the only reporters who have pushed the PNW to the BIG idea) had zero intel when the BIG added Corn, RU, MD, USC and UCLA, but a month after the LA schools joined, they had weekly updates on UW and UO's talks with the BIG ? I've thought from the beginning they've been used as pawns by the B12/networks to destabilize the Four Corners by constantly reminding them that UW/UO are dying to join the BIG. It's also possible that some info has come from Eugene, as they want their recruits to believe they're joining the BIG very soon. Meanwhile, the people who are the most tied into the BIG (Auerbach, Rittenberg, Thamel) have all said the same 3 things for the last 10 months, and Auerbach just reiterated some of it last week: 1. OSU, UM, PSU, MSU, WI are not taking pay cuts and don't want to add trips to the PNW to their schedules. 2. The lower-mid tier BIG schools (IU, PU, IL, Rutgers, etc) don't want to take additional Ls while also taking less money, and they don't want their games shifted onto streaming because there are too many conference games for their broadcast partners to handle. 3. ND has an open invitation, and there are ACC schools that the BIG covets, but there is no support for PNW expansion. Add to that the fact that Thamel and the LAT reported that USC lobbied from day 1 against letting in other West Coast schools. I've heard that UCLA has been a strong "No" also. The LA schools obviously don't run the BIG, but they just interviewed and voted on the new commissioner, so they definitely have a voice. Finally, we've seen BIG West schools ADs and coaches talk about getting players out of CA. Why would they want to add West coast competitors ? I'll ask the question I've asked before itt- exactly which 12 schools in the BIG are going to vote to add the PNW schools before they see what they can accomplish raiding the ACC ? The PNW schools aren't going SEC. If the BIG strikes out with the ACC, they can always add schools at that time if they feel like the need. But that's 10-12 years away. Zeros have a small tv market and no recruiting grounds, but are dirty recruiters and very aggressive in NIL. All downside/no upside for existing BIG schools- especially mid-tier and lower tiers programs like IA, MN, PU.

Exactly. The wins any additional BIG or SEC teams need to get to the playoff are mostly going to come vs the other teams in the conference. And a 3 loss team having a strong enough resume to get in (needing lots of losses across CFB) is going to be threading a very small needle. That's going to be a rare event.

If any of the regulars from this thread or the old shaggy thread were running UW, I'd feel the same way, but the PAC Presidents are the same people who hired Tennis Larry, said No Thanks to the PAC16 b/c of LHN, rejected OU/OSU, extended Tennis Larry's contract, ignored USC's AD when he said "All options are on the table for conference affiliation", and hired Klownkoff. Making horrifically bad decisions is their trademark.

But they're building a playoff-worthy record by beating other BIG teams. I guess they could go 9-3 with losses to OSU, UM and USC and get in, but that would be threading the needle pretty well I think.

But it's been widely reported by Thamel, Auerbach, etc that Warren wanted to add the PNW schools, but that there was no support for it amongst the member schools in the BIG. If Warren was blocking expansion, I could see it, but it's the other way around. That was one of the reasons he left. I guess it's theoretically possible to gain an extra CFB Playoff slot without cannibalizing one of your other slots, but the wins a PNW team would need to make the playoff as a BIG member would have to come from somewhere, and they wouldn't only be playing Rutgers, Purdue and MD. At some point, the math kicks in and you get more top teams taking losses because they can't avoid each other beyond a certain point.

You and I are thinking alike here- if you or I was running one of the PNW schools, we'd absolutely go B12, for the reasons you detailed. I have my doubts that the people who are actually running those schools think like we do, though. I hope they do go B12. It would make the B12 that much more fun.

I think if either one had an invite, they would have joined already, no matter what the share was, just to get in the door. There doesn't seem to be support in the BIG for adding them- even at a reduced share, as they eventually become full shares. And those playoff appearances would come at the expense of existing BIG teams. Getting pushed down a peg in the BIG pecking order by adding USC is worth it for the mid-tier and lower tier BIG schools because of the increased tv money, recruiting exposure and alum engagement in SoCal. UO brings none of those positives, only the negative.

That caught my eye as well. These admin types fumble fairly frequently when trying to talk about sports, but that seemed unusually awkward. Maybe he's afraid to open the subject up for discussion at all because he knows full well that they've been talking to intermediaries. Was the "We're going to get a bigger deal than the B12" setting the stage to give themselves an excuse to leave ? He definitely gave them an out as far as not leaving "before they see the new deal".

I've been thinking about this also. With everything so chaotic and the PAC in such a bad place, it feels like there are a number of ways this could play out.