USC Traveler

How about the Pacific Atlantic Conference ? They could even abbreviate it to make it sound cool!

Is that the same "momentum" that was "trending" for the PAC staying together the same day that UW, UO, UA, ASU and Utah all left the conference ? 😂 Wilner's sources: Klownkoff, Cal admin, Stanford admin The same sources that told him for 12 months that the PAC had a great tv deal lined up that was going to be better than the B12 and that the conference was going to stay together.🤣

The three sources cited in the article are Klownkoff, Klownkoff's law school buddy who worked on the media deal, and Clownzano. I'm surprised the LAT remembered to take Klownkoff's email header off this piece before they published it. I'm not surprised at a shit article in the LAT, though. The LAT is trash, and has been for years.

Thanks for the responses gentlemen. Forgot to add @Uncle Nate- would also be interested in your take on whether you'd watch a "super league". Based on the 66% decline in viewership that would result from this small sample size of responses, that lines up with the idea that the networks/BIG/SEC would be setting themselves up to fail if they try to set up a breakaway league with its own playoff, or a BIG-SEC only playoff. It would be a huge mistake. We'll have to keep living with polls and committees, but at least if they keep 4-5 auto-bids (depending on the ACC's status over time), every team in the top 4-5 conferences will have a direct path to the playoffs based off on-field results, and the beauty pageant aspect will only apply to at-large teams. I'd like to see them keep something similar to the current playoff structure from 2026 onwards, but start the season earlier, do the early rounds on campus, then play the semis on NYD in the Rose and Sugar. That would preserve some great CFB traditions even as the sport changes dramatically. It would also keep CFB from having to compete with the NFL playoffs into January.

@Al_4_ISU, @'stache, @oSuJeff97 @LTbear- would you guys watch the top 16 league in the first scenario ? Or only watch the 17-70 league ? Does 17-70 feel inclusive because all similarly-resourced current "P5" teams would be in it, with only the top 16 being in a different league, whereas a 41-70 league would feel like relegation because 24 schools with similar to worse profiles than ISU, OSU, etc got in the top league simply because of historic ties ? Would you rather compete in a 12 team playoff where B12 teams will usually get 2 slots, but will rarely get the benefit of the doubt from the committee and be unlikely to win it all ? Or better to compete on an equal footing financially in the 17-70 league and have a very good chance to win it all ? I've been thinking that the best way for the networks to retain viewership in the long run is to keep something similar to the current playoff structure, so that B12 fans and others will still be invested in games in the BIG and SEC, as the outcome of those games will affect at-large bids. And then everyone would obviously watch the playoffs. But the one thing I've always disliked about CFB is the reliance on polls and rankings to determine a champ instead of direct, on-field results. Al's post about the top 16 league has me wondering if the networks would get the best of both worlds with a top 16/20/24 league and a 17/21/25-80 league. The 16/20/24 league would play an NFL type of schedule and playoff. The 17-80 league would look like CFB used to, with regional divisions, but with a playoff featuring the top two teams from each division. No more polls, committees, rankings, etc. There's a lot to like there. I'd watch both leagues. Curious what other people think.

Yeah- it's all about maximizing the number of top tier matchups for Fox, CBS and NBC. Each one has the first pick sometimes. I don't know how many times each one has the first pick, but there are definitely weekends where CBS and NBC get it. If you look at the schedule this year, there are definitely some duds in there. Adding the former PAC schools next year helps a lot. BIG will have OSU, UM, USC, PSU on the top tier, with a strong second tier (for tv ratings) of UW, UO, UCLA, Wisc, IA, NU, MSU. That's a lot of good games. Spread out between the three networks, they'll plug most, if not all, of the holes in this year's schedule. // If they stay at 9 games and do a 1-8-8 rotation, based off what they already have, then 2024would look something like this: UM-OSU, USC-UCLA, PSU-MSU, UW-UO, IA-NU, UM-UW, UM-USC, OSU-UO, OSU- UCLA, USC-PSU, PSU-UW, USC-UW, UCLA-UO UM- Wisc, OSU-IA, USC- IA, PSU- Wisc, UO-Wisc, UW-IA, OSU-NU, UM-MSU, UCLA- NU, UCLA-MSU, etc, etc Throw in games like OSU-MD, UM-RU that will still do solid numbers b/c of OSU and UM, and that's a lot of games doing good/solid ratings. If they go to 10 games and a 3-7-7, then it's that many more good games every year. // The other factor is that existing BIG schools don't want to play night games at home in November because of weather issues. Adding UW and UO doubles the amount of schools that will happily host games in the Prime time window (Eastern/Central time). I love 4-5pm Pacific time starts. My favorite game time. Big games and Primetime exposure in most of the country. I'm hoping the need to supply good games for all three tv partners means there won't be a lot of USC "BIG After Dark" games.

What do you think about FSU and Clemson to the SEC ? Seems like Sankey would want them as a defensive play, but would UF, UGA, Bama, AU, etc vote to add them ? It's the reverse of the aggy-UT situation. SEC already has UF. FSU isn't bringing UT-level benefits. Would SEC schools rather recruit against Clemson and FSU as BIG members ? "Mr five star FL HS player, do you really want to play in MN, IN and Iowa instead of the South ?"

I think this is part of it, and the other part is they're looking at spiraling costs for sports rights at the same time they're seeing cable subs dropping rapidly. That's brutal for ESPN going forward. Things are fine for now, but soaring costs and cratering revenue is a deadly combo. When they go DTC, they're going to have to charge a high rate per month to make up for the lost revenue from cable. ESPN is looking at much lower profitability going forward from their traditional businesses, which is why they're going to bring in a strategic partner and move heavily into gambling, for the reasons you detailed above.

Hardcore CFB fans know the deal with Miami, but "The U", "Catholics vs Convicts", etc still resonates in the minds of casual fans watching tv. Ultimately, it's about brand recognition, tv ratings and 1m viewer games. From 2015-21 (excluding 2020), schools that had most regular-season games over 1m viewers not involving 2024 Big/SEC teams or ND: 1. Clemson- 34 games 2. FSU- 31 games 3. Miami- 22 games For reference, BIG just added: UW- 28 games UO- 26 games Other schools: Utah and OK St- 19 games, Stanford and UL- 18, UNC- 16, VT, Baylor, CU- 15, TCU- 14, BYU- 12, UVA- 9 There's not that many schools that are worth adding beyond ND, FSU and Clemson, but, depending on how you factor in UNC, Miami is probably the fourth or fifth most valuable tv property left on the board. Despite the fact that they've been down for years, they were so dominant during their run, and got so much media attention during that time and in later years, that they still attract viewers. For Fox and the BIG, specifically, I think they have real value: If Fox/BIG can add both FSU and Miami, it gives them a presence in FL, even though neither school is UF. Miami vs FSU, Clemson and any existing BIG power would seem to be games that Fox can market, and having two entry points for BIG teams to play in FL would seem like something existing BIG teams would want for recruiting. It would also be one more domino to help topple the ACC and get ND into the BIG, which would have huge value. If Fox/BIG could add FSU, Clemson, Miami and UNC, that would be 22. Give ND a choice for their partner to get to 24 and call it a wrap. If the SEC takes FSU and Clemson, Miami becomes even more valuable for Fox/BIG to give them a foothold in FL.

I agree for the most part, but they called the BIG having renewed talks with UW and UO on July 28th- 5 days before Wetzel's story broke on 8-2. The premise was that Fox didn't want to lose UW/UO to the B12, so they were going to step up the $ to make those schools non-dilutive. They mentioned an OSU insider, which makes me think it came from an OSU board, just like the "USC coaching search updates" they were tweeting two years ago were coming off my 247 board. Still, I'll give credit where credit is due on the UW/UO call, even if it was regurgitated from an OSU board, as whatever OSU insider they were parroting turned out to be right.

That is hilarious- truly brings the lulz. But it's also a 90 second encapsulation of what realignment is all about. There was only one school where someone knew the correct name of the team: The Longhorns There were three logos where the school was correctly identified, but not the name of the team: Oklahoma, Arky and TCU. But TCU is spelled out in the logo, so only a PAC12 President, Klownkoff or Clownzano could have screwed that up. That's it. These super-casuals recognized UT, plus OU and Arky (partially), while getting every other school wrong. "Kentucky Toucans"🤣 // This isn't a shot at the B12 programs. It's going to be a really fun conference,and is solidly positioned to be the clear #3 conference post-ACC breakup. But UT, OU, USC, and the established BIG and SEC schools are recognizable to even the most casual observers. That's who the networks are looking at to boost ratings higher on more games throughout the year. (Ok, maybe not that particular group of people.😂) Going to be interesting to see the ratings in 2024 for the BIG and SEC games with the new teams involved.

From a mod on the Clemson 247 board: This is what I got: - We are gone. The decision has been made. We are leaving the ACC. - The GOR will not keep us in the ACC. - We have not been offered a spot by the B1G or the SEC as of yet. - The B1G has not decided to expand South...yet. - The SEC has not decided to expand further...yet. - We appear to prefer a move to the B1G (as of now). At least the majority within Clemson do. - If The B1G does extend a formal offer, the SEC would have to move very fast on an offer or we will move to the B1G. - We are looking at this as there is greater upside to a move to the B1G; and greater downside to a move to the SEC. - We also feel that our move to the SEC would have less positive impact on the SEC than the negative impact if they lose us to the B1G. That's it for now. I can tell you this is from very high places. So to sum up: We are definitely moving; the GOR will not stop us; the B1G holds the cards: we prefer the B1G (as of now); but the SEC is not out of the equation; no offers have been extended. https://247sports.com/college/clemson/board/22/Contents/calstanford-213945457/?page=1

Posts from a couple of guys on my USC board who've worked with Klownkoff: https://247sports.com/college/usc/board/102339/Contents/george-kliavkoff-213788082/?page=2

They had other options back in the '20s, apparently. Any idea why they built it in Strawberry Canyon, even though they knew it was on a fault line ? I always figured they built it without realizing it was on the fault, but according to wiki: Was space on campus that tight even back then ? // I remember the AD (Sandy Barbour) talking about how they were going to finance the retrofit through a PSL type structure. When you looked at the details, there was very little money upfront, at a time when Cal had been backsliding after a resurgence in the early 2000s. The idea that the PSLs would pay for everything seemed like magical thinking at the time. It reminded me of the "no money down" sub-prime mortgages that were a big factor in cratering the economy a year or two prior. I couldn't believe they got the financing approved. All to rebuild on an active fault. It would have made sense if it was UT or Bama or LSU. But Cal ? The numbers never seemed to add up. I guess the Regents figured they'd pass it on to the taxpayer in a worst case scenario. It's sad to see where things are now compared to pictures of the Big Game from the '20's, with the stadium completely packed, or even sellout crowds when Beast Mode and Rogers were there less than 20 years ago. That feels like a lifetime ago.

I'll "highly consider" swimming in the shit in Slumdog Millionaire if you give me a million dollars. Once you give me that money, I'll decide not to, but will thank you for the money and let you know I "highly considered" it. Altough for a billion dollars, I actually would swim through that shit for a minute.

From the article: NOW you're going to roll up your sleeves and get to work ? A year after USC and UCLA left ? After a year of not getting any concrete media deal ? On the day UW, UO, and the others leave, NOW you're going to get to work ? 🤣🤣🤣 Sounds like he had no idea this was coming. Anyone in this thread could have told him where this was going. He fits perfectly in the PAC- completely clueless. We all knew he was one of Clownzano's sources, but he really believed all the rainbows and unicorns BS Klownkoff was spouting. Amazing. // Wazzu's AD back in 2010 was Bill Moos, who, along with their President at the time (pre-Schulz), led the charge for equal revenue sharing in the PAC, including Tier 3. Champagne Larry was also pushing for it, as he wanted to get paid to run a media network (which was the justification for him making more money than Slive or Delaney), so he needed all Tier 3 content pooled into the PACNet to justify his salary. That's why they killed the PAC16 deal over LHN . WSU, Cal, and Larry Scott were the tip of the spear. Talk about penny-wise, pound foolish/ unintended consequences. Champagne Larry will go down in infamy, but he's laughing from a beach somewhere. Hope Wazzu and Cal enjoyed their 12 years of subsidies. Cal is fucked, and Wazzu is going where they always belonged- the MWC. They've been the lowest-resourced P5 for years (even below Wake). They'll actually have the nicest facilities (along with the Beavs) in the MWC. They'll both have a better shot at the playoffs in the MWC than they would if the PAC had stayed together. They won't win any playoff games, but getting in will give their fans something to cheer for.

The BIG had a fundamental problem- not enough programs that can win a national title in any given year vs what the SEC has. Every program cycles up and down, but the SEC has enough top programs that the conference is always in the hunt. Up till now, it was Bama, UGA, LSU, UF, Auburn. At least one of those programs is always a legit title threat and it's usually 2 or even 3. Next year, UT and OU are joining, so the SEC-BIG imbalance gets even worse. That's seven programs capable of winning a national title. BIG has OSU, but they were the only real title threat for a long time. They've won 2 titles in 20 years. But OSU can't do it alone. UM just woke up from a 20 year slumber, so that helps, but PSU doesn't seem to be producing any legit title teams. // I don't think the BIG had any choice but to go after any program that has a legit shot (even if it's a longshot) to win a National Title. When USC isn't self-sanctioning with idiotic AD and HC hires, USC is legitimately capable of winning it all, with 2 titles in the last 20 years. UO has played in two title games in the last 15 years, and UW has made the playoff. Does it match the SEC at the top ? No. But it's a lot better lineup than before, as there are now at least a handful of programs capable of winning it all, even if for some of them it would be a once-in-a-blue-moon type of thing. If the BIG could actually add FSU and Clemson, that would be a huge help. There was a ton of existing deadweight that the BIG can't do anything about, so that is what it is, but at least now the ratio of quality vs quantity is a lot better than it was before.

Agreed. It's only a matter of time before they're all playing 10 conference games. It's stupid if the BIG goes to 10 now, though with the SEC at 8. Seems like Franklin wanted to avoid OSU. OSU already has UM, so they don't want to be at a disadvantage with UM and PSU as their locked rivals. PSU got USC as one of its "two play" teams. Terrible terminology- it's the teams that play for four years straight, but which aren't permanent rivals. It helps their playoff chances to play every other year. Allows OSU to alternate PSU and USC, and allows PSU to alternate OSU and UM. // Having said all of that, I agree with you that rivalries are a big part of what makes CFB special. I'd rather see that game every year. If the BIG does go to 3-7-7 while the SEC is still at 8 games, my consolation is that it will preserve all rivalries and give us more great games to watch.

As always, I appreciate your thoughtful posts. I agree that MSU losing UM is the biggest obstacle by far to a 1-8-8. No question. That was in one of my first posts about this. How much juice does MSU have ? And how much does Fox want that game vs full rotation ? OSU-PSU got dropped, which was a much bigger game ratings-wise, although it doesn't have the history or in-state aspect of UM-MSU. Part of the OSU-PSU game becoming every other year is neither OSU nor PSU wanted it annually. They wanted some schedule relief. BIG had previously said they only made rivals permanent if both schools agreed. If UM (with a nudge from Fox) says they no longer want MSU, is MSU asked to make a sacrifice "for the good of the conference" ? Same for Iowa-MN and Iowa-WI ? Little Brown Jug is no longer played annually, despite the history, and there are a few others like that. // As for SC vs UW and UO. If all four former PAC schools play each other every year, that's less games where they're matched up vs OSU, UM and PSU. Isn't the biggest value for Fox to have more of the "Rose Bowl Rematches" and less "PAC Rematches" ? Obviously, 3-7-7 solves all of this, and Fox would love an extra conference game, but that would be idiotic with the SEC at 8. Will be fascinating to see how it plays out. And if FSU says they're leaving the SEC in the next week, all of this will go out the window anyway.🤣

I'm basing this off what the BIG COO said over the weekend about staying as close as possible to the principles behind the 3-6-6. So it comes down to which principles are more important- what tv wants (frequent rotation), getting teams into the playoffs, or the fact that Iowa wants 3 rivals (the only school in the BIG with 3). 10 games is bad for getting teams into the playoffs when the SEC is at 8. 2-7-7 is more complicated to schedule, but it could work- it depends on who the locked rivals are, and who misses the every other year rotation. Fox, CBS, NBC will want as many USC, UW, UO vs OSU, UM, PSU as possible, and tv is clearly driving the bus. It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out. Tv wants top games, but they also want those games to be between highly ranked teams. So you need some easier games along the way for the top programs. If Iowa is locked into games with NU, MN and WI, that's a couple of less easier games to go around (NU, MN, IA) and one less WI vs a big brand high-ratings game.

I think you're onto something there my friend. Cal faculty and admin seemed unhappy about the attention on the program. Stanford embraced and promoted "Nerd Football" when they were rolling with JH and the early Shaw years. Never saw that with Cal. As you said, they seemed embarrassed. Sucks for them.

I have two friends who went to UM and they'd both love to drop MSU to every other year. Their 247 board seems to feel the same way. MSU would pitch a fit, and Iowa will complain, but is that going to be enough to stop Fox from getting what they want ? The other thing is that BIG wants to maximize schools in the playoffs. 1-8-8 is the best way to do that. Tv will want USC, UW, UO playing OSU, UM, PSU as often as possible, but you also need games vs RU, PU, IU to keep the top teams from cannibalizing each other.

100%- Cal is fucked and they have no one to blame but themselves. Their admin has been actively hostile to football for at least 12-15 years, and they seem to be hostile to capitalism as well. They certainly don't understand it. They rebuilt a stadium directly on a fault line for $450m at the same time they were kneecapping their football program, sending attendance and tv ratings plummeting. They thought they could put a shit product on the field, suck on USC's teat for equal tv revenue till the end of time, and budgeted accordingly. They fought against adding UT and OU, and would never even consider adding other B12 schools and BYU due to coastal elitism and religious bigotry. The idea of programs getting paid what they're worth in a free market was inconceivable in Berkeley. Cal is the epitome of the arrogance, entitlement and elitism that doomed the PAC. I'm glad they're getting left behind. Fuck Cal.

Agreed. Can't see how the BIG doesn't go 1-8-8 or 3-7-7 going forward. 1-8-8 would be the cleanest and makes the most sense. Gives you the most balanced schedules, balanced travel (except West Coast schools, but that is what it is) and most opportunities for getting teams into the playoff. It would also just happen to give Fox and the tv partners what they want- frequent rotation for the most top tier matchups.

Agreed. That was my point- the BIG will say it's for reasons x,y,z, but it's really about Fox, CBS and NBC getting what they want- the frequent rotation of big games.