USC Traveler

You and I are thinking very much along the same lines. Swarbrick referenced the fact that they were starting to talk to NBC last summer after the USC/UCLA move was announced. Nothing has been announced on a new deal, and Swarbrick is going to retire next year. Some ND folks that I know feel like he has been slowly laying the groundwork to go to the BIG over the last year by consistently emphasizing the fact that they don't get the same type of tv money as the BIG/SEC. Maybe they announce a move to the BIG next summer as part of Swarbirck leaving ? Who better to tell donors, alums and fans that the tv money is just not there to stay independent than Swarbrick and the new AD- the former head of NBC sports ? // I'm not a believer in coincidence, so the idea that ND, Miami and ASU all became AAU at the same time caught my eye, especially with Swarbrick leaving and an NBC exec taking over. I can't see the BIG taking Cal, but I can see ASU down the line if the BIG goes to 22 or 24. It seems like they won't do anything until ND decides what they're doing, with an ND + Stanford combo seeming the most likely and realistic in the short run. The real question for me is when do things start happening with the ACC ? I've been thinking it would be another 10-12 years, but there have been a fair number of people like Herbie, McElroy, Finebaum (all ESPN employees btw) saying watch out for 2024 or 2025 for the ACC. Maybe people are thinking that if ND leaves, the existing ACC schools can use that to get out of the GOR because the composition and value of the conference are no longer what they signed on for ?

I'd bet a decent chunk of money that when ND eventually comes in, Stanford will be coming in with them. I don't think 11 games is nuts. If the BIG goes to 24, 11 or even 12 games would make a lot of sense. ND, Miami, FSU, UNC, UVA, MD. ND-USC protected rivalry. ND will want to play the ACC schools every year for recruiting. OSU, PSU, RU, IU, PU, IL. OSU-UM and PSU-Miami protected, the latter for tv purposes and schedule balance for the top teams UM, MSU, NW, WI, MN, IA. OSU-UM, IL-NW and NU-IA protected. USC, UCLA, Stanford, ASU, CU and NU. USC-ND and NU-IA protected. Stanford and ASU help USC/UCLA with travel. Bay Area, PHX and Denver are big tv markets with lots of BIG alums. NU-CU rivalry renewal. Every team gets a protected rival from another division. Play your five divisional opponents, protected rival and two teams from each of the other divisions and you're at 12 games.

Only for the WAC10 After Dark games. They want to keep their primetime lineup of Hogan's Heroes, Andy Griffith Show, the Johnny Cash Show and Gunsmoke, as those shows draw better ratings than 90% of WAC10 games.

You said a lot without answering my question, so I'll ask again- exactly which BIG schools will find it in their best interest to add UO ? And if the Zeros are that valuable, why didn't the BIG do it over the last 12 months ?

ND is the only slam-dunk based on ratings alone, but when you factor everything else in, I think FSU, Miami, UNC, UVA are slamdunks also. Everything else consists of tv markets, recruiting of athletes and regular students, BIG alums in the area (for fundraising off games), and academic status. FL, VA, and NC are states the BIG is going to prioritize because the BIG schools have a fundamental problem- they are all located in states that are either losing population or growing very slowly. Being able to recruit students from the Southeast is huge for the BIG long-term. FSU is on the way to becoming AAU, and close enough that the BIG would take them in a heartbeat. // Clemson is an interesting case. They recently put out a huge strategic plan to upgrade academics to become AAU. Along with FSU, they bring the best tv ratings outside of anyone not named ND who isn't in the BIG/SEC in 2024, so they would bring real value. Culturally, they're an SEC school, but there's no guarantee UGA, UF, Bama would want them in the conference, just like FSU. There's a good chance Clemson and FSU can't get the votes to join the SEC, as they'd be much tougher to recruit against in the SEC. Why would Kirby or Saban want to legitimize them as competitors by bringing them into the SEC ? If Clemson can't get the SEC invite, I could see the BIG adding them as part of a bigger package of ACC schools, with "academic progress" towards becoming AAU deemed good enough for membership, especially if they're coming in with UVA, UNC and Miami.

So tell me exactly which BIG schools will find it in their best interest to add UO ? And if they're that valuable, why didn't the BIG do it over the last 12 months ? It's not just about tv- it's about whether adding a school makes things better for the existing members. There's more to it than just money. (Side note- UO's tv numbers have been boosted by their scheduling of teams like UGA, OSU, LSU, Tenn, etc, which I credit them for doing.) // If the Zeros brought ND-level viewership, then we wouldn't behaving this debate, but they don't. So they are evaluated on lots of different criteria. ND, FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, UVA are all more valuable to the BIG than UO for various reasons. TV value matters, but it's not determinative. If it was, Boise would have been in the PAC long ago. The Presidents have priorities/agendas that go far beyond tv value. That's why BYU never got in the PAC, even though they would have been a strong addition. UO has a lot of negatives working against them. If UW was in VA, they'd be a lock, but they're in the PNW, which will hold them back. And as far as schools that help USC and UCLA with travel, that would be Stanford and ASU, which are both in huge tv markets with a ton of BIG alums.

This is a conversation that took place at all the mid-lower tier BIG schools. Why would they want to have their games moved lower down the pecking order and shoved onto streaming to bring in a team that's revenue dilutive, has a small tv market, and has very few BIG alums, as well as the lack of recruiting grounds, etc that you mentioned above ? For the big dogs in the conference, they're not worried about having their games pushed onto streaming, but all of the other points apply. It's the other end of the spectrum to bringing in ND, which also has very few local recruits, but ND is already a threat in recruiting and brings tv value that is orders of magnitude higher than what the Eugene Community College Zeros bring. I literally can't think of one BIG school that would have voted to bring in the Zeros. And unless the BIG strikes out completely on ACC schools, which I can't see happening, I don't think UO is ever getting in. Too many other options that bring more to the table.

Agree 100%. It would be a good tool to help bring those schools in, and allow the B12 to kill off the WAC10 as a relevant conference, with no real downside for the B12, as very few of those schools will actually end up in the BIG. They'll end up as long-term members of the B12, even if they are currently delusional about their BIG prospects..

I hate the Eugene Community College Zeros and their methhead, human-trashcan fans, but adding the PNW schools along with the 4C would give the B12 the 4th window, which does have value. Between the 6 PAC additions and BYU, you could program a full season of late night games (14 weeks), with each school hosting two and being the away team in two. That would give the B12 that much more money, but the existing B12 schools (except BYU) wouldn't have to play any late night games. More importantly, adding those 6 schools would be a death blow to the PAC as a relevant conference (even if the name lives on with MWC schools). The B12 would solidify itself as as the sole survivor and clear #3 conference once the ACC gets picked apart. I don't think UO is ever getting into the BIG, and for UW, they probably aren't either, but if they do, it won't be until 10-15 years from now. Just as CU and UA are dominos that could eventually lead to UU, ASU and the PNW schools, adding those 6 could be the domino that ensures Pitt, UL, etc come to the B12 when the ACC gets picked apart, instead of creating some bi-coastal zombie conference with the WACPAC. UW, Utah and Zeros vs top existing B12 teams would also help with the quality of games for the next tv package. And the PNW schools wouldn't have much influence in the B12, given how many members there are on the Plains and back East.

Your instinct is correct, sir. Feldman and the LATimes have both reported that USC and UCLA don't want the PNW schools added. I don’t think there is any legit smoke around PNW schools going to the BIG. BIG has added NE, RU, MD, USC and UCLA over 10-12 years, with no smoke in mainstream media circles. The BIG moved in complete silence each time. But as soon as they added USC and UCLA, all of a sudden the BIG has leaks everywhere ? Why would that have happened in a matter of weeks and months? I don’t buy that the BIG went from completely leakproof to frequent and regular leaks overnight, so I've thought from the beginning that the “smoke” is disinformation coming from other sources. ESPN, Fox and B12 are the biggest beneficiaries of these leaks, because in combination with ESPN and Fox lowballing/no-balling the PAC, the leaks help keep the Four Corners schools nervous about the PNW schools leaving. If CU and UA jump, the B12 has a good chance at getting the other 4C, UW and UO. Another party that benefits from keeping this narrative going is Eugene Community College. Their coaches have been telling recruits for the last 11 months that they’re going to the BIG. They're doing whatever it takes to stay afloat in recruiting. Some of this "smoke" is coming from Eugene. // I keep going back to three things: 1. The BIG’s main target is ND, as it should be. No one else comes close to bringing the value ND would bring, and no one else makes sense to bring in before ND- unless that would directly lead to ND going BIG. The BIG has historically never been in a hurry on expansion. They will take their time, with their efforts focused on ND. ND doesn’t have any relationships with the PNW schools, so taking them doesn’t help get ND. BIG will want to keep all options open to take as many ACC teams as they can. Depending on how things play out vs the SEC, being able to bring in some combo of UNC, UVA, FSU and Miami, along with ND and a partner of ND’s choice, may be enough to get the ACC schools to move as a block when the GOR is closer to expiring. Thamel, Rittenberg and Auerbach have all reported multiple times that after ND, the schools the BIG wants are in the ACC. 2. Thamel, Rittenberg and Auerbach have also reported that the existing power programs in the BIG (OSU, UM, PSU) don't want the revenue dilution that would come with adding PNW schools, while the lower and mid-tier BIG programs don't want to see their games shoved onto streaming if more teams are added, in addition to not wanting revenue reduced. So which schools in the BIG are voting to add the PNW schools ? And why are they doing so ? If the BIG completely strikes out on ACC schools 10 years or so from now, then the equation could look a lot different, but the BIG doesn't need to do anything with the PNW schools until after they see what happens with the ACC. There's no urgency for the BIG- the SEC won't be adding PNW schools. 3. The BIG could have added the PNW schools at any time in the last 11 months. Why haven't they added them ? Occam's Razor would point to the fact that if the BIG wanted the PNW schools, they’d already be in.

All of this. 100%

"Tonight on the CW!!! PAC10 Asshole Sniffing After Dark!!! Right after the Gilmore Girls marathon." That actually might do better ratings than PAC football in the Bay Area, Portland and Seattle. Wilner doing play by play and Canzano with the analysis. The real reason why Berkley, UO and UW never wanted to add BYU or B12 schools is because none of them sponsored Asshole Sniffing. That's what the PAC meant by "cultural fit". // That sounds ridiculous , but does it sound any more ridiculous than the endless search for a media deal and SDSU's sending a letter saying they were withdrawing and then saying that's not what they meant ? 😂

I hope you're right, as I think top 4 champs getting byes would help keep CCGs meaningful, as TK was pointing out. I just don't think the other conferences will be able to stop it if the BIG/SEC make a push for a "Top 12" format with no autobids.

I do think the playoff will eventually go to 16, but that may not happen for a while, as you make compelling points for staying at 12 for the next contract. As for the format, the BIG/SEC will probably put 3 teams each into the playoff most years under the current structure, and they're going to want more. In an ideal world, I like your top 4 champs get autobids idea because, as you pointed out, it would add stakes to the CCGs. But the BIG/SEC will want a "four highest-ranked teams get byes" format to enable as many total playoff entrants as possible, and to create opportunities to get multiple BIG/SEC teams 1st round byes. We've seen multiple SEC and BIG teams in the four team playoff, why wouldn't they want to replicate that ? The SEC got its way with the four team format having no champs, and with the SEC and BIG having so much more power today, I can't see any of the other conferences being able to stop it.

The '24 and '25 playoff formats are locked in, as you posted above. Top 6 champs and top 6 at large. There's no guarantee in there for any conference, but we know in reality that it will be BIG, SEC, ACC, B12 champs and then two more. If the PAC stays intact they'll get one of them, but if they devolve into a G5, it essentially creates 2 G5 auto-bids. I think that will all go out the window starting in 2026. It will be an entirely new contract, and the BIG and SEC will push for a 12 or 16 team version of what we have now, with no auto-bid for winning your conference. The revenue split will also be different and favor the BIG/SEC. They will want to maximize the teams they get in every year and the amount of money they make every year. Everyone else will go along because otherwise they'll be left out.

It's not a "protected rivalry", but it feels like they're giving USC-PSU a two year test drive to see what might come out of it. Same with USC- Wiscy. It makes sense. With UM-OSU locked, USC-PSU matches up the other two teams that have the ability to recruit at an elite level, so it helps with competitive balance, and will make the tv partners happy. TV will get UM-OSU, USC-PSU and either UM-USC + OSU-PSU or USC-OSU +UM-PSU. Plus USC-UCLA, UM-MSU, PSU-MSU, and, in even years, USC-ND. That's a great lineup before even getting into games against Wiscy, Iowa, NU, etc.

Yeah- that's why I'm looking for either massive success or abject failure from Grinch this year. I want him to either prove me wrong or fail badly enough that Riley has no choice but to fire him and bring in an elite DC. Hopefully the new DC will be able to influence some of the other aspects of the program. If Wylie is a big of a problem as folks in Norman say he is (I haven't been able to judge yet either way), it will show that first season in the BIG. But I haven't been able to get a good read on S&C issues when Grinch is playing a scheme that leaves huge gaps to run through on every play because he's dropping his best DL 10 yards off the LOS. Or when he lines up 3 DL and 5 DBs on 3rd and goal from the 2 against a Utah team with a physical running QB in Rising. Or when he plays Zero Coverage up 10 points with less than 2 minutes left in the game and gives up a quick TD. I could go on and on from just one season, so I can only imagine your list of Grinch's incompetence, Camel.😂 Side note- How do you think the soft S&C program helps in recruiting ? I would think it would hurt recruiting.

That makes sense. Show the nation that the Coliseum and Rose Bowl are BIG Ten country now. Re: the defense. The BIG move makes this a make or break year for Grinch. He either turns it around and shows out like he never has before (doubtful), or he fails again and gets canned, with hopefully Jim Leonhard getting hired. I have no belief in him, so I think the latter scenario is much more likely.

Welcome to the BIG!!! Add those games to ND at home and LSU in Vegas- #1 SOS in the nation by a mile. OSU, MSU and NU will be the following year I would imagine. Wiscy will be very good under Fickell- would have rather had Wiscy and NU flipped to make the SOS more balanced each year, but not going to complain. Might even mean we're getting Wiscy as an annual rival, which would be great. Leaks are that it will be "flex-protect", but I like the uniformity of everyone getting three annual games. Compare getting UM, Wiscy, and Iowa at home to last year's WACPAC home schedule for SC: ASU, Wazzu, Cal, CU. It's a different solar system!!! UT's home schedule should look similar once the SEC goes to 9 games. PS- I thought we'd be playing in Ann Arbor or Columbus also, but I guess those schools wanted to start getting more CA recruiting exposure immediately.

100% I'm sure Klownkoff is behind some of this also, as he's out of a job (or will have to take a massive paycut) once his contract expires if the PAC becomes MWC 2.0 He's made one huge mistake after another since he started in the job. Just like his predecessor.

I was also excited. It would have been great, and I was really bummed when it cratered, because I knew the PAC had no other options. We were even posting about what a colossal mistake that was on the Shaggy thread even as it was happening. I'm fine with where it all ended up though. I'm looking forward to watching UT and OU vs the SEC powers, aggy and arky. And I love that SC will be playing the BIG teams we've been competing against in the Rose Bowl since I was a little kid. I think it would have eventually played out this way anyway, as aggy would have left the PAC for the SEC at some point. Their inferiority complex/little brother syndrome was always going to compel them to get away from UT, and their "unique culture" was always going to draw them to the SEC. Looking forward to seeing you guys kick their asses on Thanksgiving night again. That was a great tradition.

It just means more.............................................................against Furman.

I take "vetting" in this context to mean a very preliminary evaluation- i.e., is a school worth taking a deeper dive into considering them for membership. My understanding is that that USC and UCLA didn't go through the vetting stage- the value was clear (Fox made it known), so they skipped that step. I would assume it was like that with UT and OU to the SEC. When a blueblood wants to join, they go straight into serious consideration/voting stage. That's probably why ND and FSU aren't on Jim's list. There's no need for a preliminary evaluation. You do a deep dive and vote. // The "vetting" seems sort of like the doorman at a club. You get waved through and you're in the club, but you're by no means in the VIP area. Even if the BIG goes to 24, not all of those schools are getting in. IIRC, BIG also kicked the tires on OU, KU, Vandy (and maybe Mizzou) at various points in time.

Even worse- they rejected partnering with both ESPN and Fox because Commissar Scott wanted to be the CEO of PACNet. He sold the PAC Presidents on the idea that they would be better off owning the network themselves and didn't need a partner for distribution. He then used the fact that he was running a "media company" to justify getting paid 2-3 times more than Delaney and Slive. When the PAC eventually dissolves/becomes a glorified G5, there will be a great 30 for 30 about Scott and the events that led to the demise: #1 Hiring Scott and not partnering with ESPN/Fox on the PACNet. #2 Forcing equal rev sharing on USC and UCLA, then passing on adding UT, OU, Tech, etc because of LHN/equal rev sharing. #3 Passing on adding OU and OSU because of academic snobbery/coastal elitism. #4 Ignoring USC's AD saying twice publicly that "All options are on the table" for conference affiliation. It's an incredible series of unforced errors. Good riddance to bad rubbish. The WACPAC won't be missed.

Good find. That got me curious to see if there were more details. This makes a lot more sense now. Essentially, it's about cashflow. I thought UT and OU were giving up all conference revenue to the B12 for '23-'24. Instead, they're giving up part of it this year and part in '24-'25. https://247sports.com/Article/Texas-Oklahoma-will-each-pay-50-million-in-forfeited-revenue-to-leave-Big-12-early-for-the-SEC-204509127/#:~:text=Texas and Oklahoma will go,to the situation told Horns247.