Trojan Man

Right, I won't say it never happens. USC has a home and home scheduled with Ole Miss in 2025/26. But there are more buyers than sellers just by virtue of there being more second/third tier schools than top tier schools willing to play home and homes with the second/third tier schools. If you want to get deeper into it not all the second and third tier schools should have the same expectations. Cal and UCF will have a much easier time getting home and homes with top tier opponents than Kansas State because they're in two of the most lucrative recruiting states in the country, unlike KSU. tldr complaining about Baylor and Kansas State and TCU not filling their noncon with Georgia and Clemson and Ohio State every year is just ignorance of the business side of college football

Kansas State's game against Stanford was the return game of a home and home after playing at Stanford in 2016. For TV purposes that was a KSU/Big 12 home game last year, not a neutral site game, they just decided to move it to Jerryworld. They're playing Missouri this year and next and you missed a home and home they had with Mississippi State in 2018/19. Those are pretty comparable P5 opponents for KSU and the best matchups you can expect a middle of the road program to schedule. The Notre Dames and Floridas of the world are not too eager to schedule home and homes with the Kansas States and Baylors of the world. It's reasonable to expect every team in your conference to pull their weight by scheduling 1 P5 noncon game per year. It's not reasonable to expect your second and third tier teams to schedule home and homes with other P5's top tier teams. It wasn't a roll of the dice that caused USC to schedule a home and home with Texas instead of TCU in 2017/18. For the most part, top tier teams want to schedule other top tier teams.

Absolutely. Stopping play to review for a targeting that wasn't flagged is complete bullshit. If it was up to me the booth would only be allowed to stop the game for reviews on scoring plays, change of possession plays or the automatic reviews of targeting flags. That encompasses the biggest plays most likely to determine the outcome of the game. Give each head coach two challenge flags for all other plays and if they win both they're allowed to keep challenging until they lose a challenge. They keep fucking with the rulebook to make games shorter and fit in more commercials when fixing replay is the easiest way to shorten games while also improving the on-field product.

If I can't use sports to fill my need for irrational, tribalistic hatred what's the fucking point? If that's the case Colorado and the rest of the Pac 12 can't be too upset when the programs that care more about football than they do decide to leave. It's not a good fit for them or for us.

The last time I liked USC's head coach he went undefeated in Palo Alto. Subpar coaching has been USC's biggest problem by far lately. It's not unreasonable to expect the issues caused by that, such as scoring 3 points at Stanford, to alleviate after replacing Helton with Riley. It's a night and day difference in how those two run the program, which translates to a night and day difference in results on the field. Oregon State is the team Stanford was 5 years ago, that's the opponent that concerns me the most after Notre Dame and Utah. They're still spending more time in class this week than any of Stanford's players. The two programs compete for a lot of the same recruits. I won't pretend USC doesn't admit some guys that would have no chance at getting into Stanford and points certain players towards gut majors, but each team has a few players the other really wanted which implies either USC has some smart players too or Stanford is also willing to ease up a bit on admissions for the right talent. As much as I'd love some upsets to disrupt the seemingly inevitable Alabama/Georgia title game I just don't see it happening this weekend. Those two are on another level right now.

It's bad for their attendance and atmosphere, but it gives them an advantage that annoys the hell out of me. Lately every time USC and Stanford play it's in week 2 or 3, before Stanford starts class, so while our guys have to play school and do homework and take tests while preparing to play Stanford their guys spend the entire week focusing solely on football. I just checked to verify and not counting CCGs the last time USC and Stanford played past week 3 was in 2013, when Coach O led USC to a big upset over top 5 Stanford. USC's defense is supposed to be a liability this year so I don't see why "3 pick sixes" is bad. It's obviously not sustainable, but USC had 4 interceptions against Rice after getting 4 interceptions all of 2021 so if nothing else that's a clear improvement when it comes to havoc. Anyways, I'd throw out USC's recent record in Palo Alto. That's even less relevant than the outcome against Rice. Saturday will be the first time since the 2000s Stanford doesn't have a decisive coaching advantage in this matchup. USC also won't have questionable QB play like our last couple losses up there. In 2016 the loss at Stanford was Max Browne's final start at QB (Darnold took over the following week). In 2018 it was JT Daniels' first road start as a true freshman. It's a safe assumption Lincoln Riley and Caleb Williams will produce more than the combined 13 points those two QBs did at Stanford under Helton.

The top 4 will be the 4 highest ranked conference champions, which removes most of the subjectivity. The champions of the Big 10 and SEC will always finish top 4, so that means the other 4 conference champions are fighting over the last 2 top 4 seeds. I imagine most years it will be fairly obvious who among the ACC/Big 12/Pac 12/G5 champs most deserves a top 4 seed.

Every team outside of the Big 10/SEC should feel that way. Six champion autobids is the best case scenario playoff format for them. They'll be able to legitimately sell playoff access to recruits and coaches and their fans. It's a good move for the health of the sport because it won't feel like the Big 10 and the SEC are playing in a totally different league than everyone else, which means the left out fanbases will still have a reason to keep watching and believing their team can maybe have a dream season. At that point they're shifting their blame for falling short of dream seasons on their team instead of the system. If your team doesn't make the playoff and you blame your school for making shitty hires or not prioritizing winning or whatever that can be fixed and you'll keep watching. If you blame the system having it out for you and fucking you over you're more likely to just throw your hands up and walk away because it feels like nothing can be done to overcome it. My one complaint is they plan on only playing first round games at campus and the rest at bowls. Every game but the title game should be a home game for the higher seeded team. I suspect this will change after a few years when the teams that always get a top 4 seed start bitching about how they never get to host a playoff home game like the lower seeds.

Denver's metro is almost 3 million, nearly 10x the Eugene metro. Colorado being a complete joke in football and generally apathetic towards sports is the biggest mark against them. If their athletic department was committed to success and they were a 7-9 win team most years I think they'd get serious Big 10 consideration. They check all the other boxes, but their administration just doesn't give a fuck about winning. A huge problem the Pac 12 had was too many teams were happy to do the bare minimum to collect their media check and Colorado was one of the worst offenders. The Big 10 already has plenty of 2-4 win teams with a ceiling of 6 wins, they don't need more.

There are plenty of reasons I prefer Stanford in the Big 10 over Oregon. Only one of those reasons is because of personal dislike towards Oregon. Also, USC still loses the occasional recruit to Stanford. Not as many as to Oregon, but usually every cycle there is a player or two USC really wants that goes to Stanford. The prestige of a Stanford degree is impossible to beat among recruits whose #1 priority is their education. Blue chip recruits who are serious about their education do exist. This isn't a recent Harbaugh/Shaw phenomenon, either. I remember it happening in the Carroll days while USC was on top of the world and Stanford was one of the worst teams in a BCS conference. -Stanford is an easy road trip for USC/UCLA. Oregon is an easier road trip from LA than the Big 10 teams are, but it's not an easy road trip (I'm talking solely about distance, not quality of the opponent). LA to Eugene is the exact same distance in the air as Austin to Ames but I've never heard anybody claim Iowa State is an easy road trip for Texas. Three California teams in the Big 10 means they all get 1 CA road game per year, which will help significantly with travel. That also helps cut down travel for all other sports. -There are more USC/UCLA fans in the Bay Area than Eugene. I'm guessing here, but it seems like a safe assumption that every Big 10 school also has more fans in the Bay Area than Eugene. That directly translates to more booster club events and parties and alumni engagement centered around football weekends when your team comes to visit. It's also not hard for visiting fans to get tickets to a Stanford game. -Stanford's academics are second to none in FBS football. Every Big 10 president will get hard/wet over being in the same conference as Stanford. -Northern California isn't as talent-rich as Southern California, but it still produces far more recruits than Oregon. -I've given enough non-hater reasons that I can now end with my personal dislike reason. An Oregon employee helped decide one football player taking benefits to leave for the NFL from an agent with zero affiliation to USC was worth 30 scholarships and a two year bowl ban, an egregious punishment the likes of which hasn't been handed down since then for worse violations at other schools. They happily fucked over a team in their own conference to help themselves by creating a power vacuum, which also fucked over the entire Pac 12. It turns out when you burn down the nicest house in your neighborhood while all the neighbors watch and cheer for the arsonists everyone else's property values go down, not up. Why should USC want to take that kind of bullshit to a new conference? You can blame USC for taking a long time to get their own affairs in order after the sanctions ended, but part of our wandering in the wilderness was due to the lingering effects of the sanctions. A big reason that fucking clown Helton got the job and kept it as long as he did is because of sanction PTSD among the administration. When you share a conference with schools that would gladly use the NCAA to kneecap you for their own benefit it's understandable to be overly cautious. Oregon can act pious and righteous over it, but they have no ground to stand on. Chip Kelly was hit with a show cause for funneling money to recruits during his time at Oregon while the NCAA had absolutely nothing on Pete Carroll despite investigating USC for 5 years with an agenda to cripple the football program.

Their best case scenario is the Pac survives with at least its current 10 members for one more TV contract. Both athletic departments (especially Washington State) have a lot of debt which was structured under the assumption they'd continue pulling in Pac 12 checks indefinitely, so you can imagine the sleepless nights for their athletic directors when imagining what they'll do if they have to put together a budget on a MWC media deal. If they can continue earning in the neighborhood of 30ish million, a realistic goal for the Pac 10 if they keep equal revenue shares, they can spend the rest of the 2020s aggressively paying down that debt and planning for their eventual MWC membership. If the Pac dies in 2024 both schools will have to beg their state governments for a bailout unless a wealthy donor steps in to save the day, but those are not fanbases known for wealthy donors.

Right, I forgot about the Fox/Big 12 part of the TV deal. That throws a wrench into it, Fox won't just let Texas/Oklahoma walk away for nothing. In 2023 Texas plays Alabama while Oklahoma has games with Georgia in 2023 and Tennessee in 2024. Those could be canceled in exchange for Texas and Oklahoma playing Fox-owned road games against Big 12 teams, but that would probably piss off Alabama and Tennessee because they're getting screwed out of home games after already playing the road half of the home and home. They would also be on short notice to find a replacement opponent. Maybe they'd accept a one off home game against Big 12 teams as replacements for those canceled games. I'd watch Baylor/Alabama and Kansas State/Tennessee and Oklahoma State/Georgia. My two cents is if Fox/the Big 10 really wanted more Pac 12 teams at this time they'd already be invited. If they were wanted right now Fox/the Big 10 wouldn't risk them signing a restrictive GOR elsewhere. Plus, if you're going to bring them in it's better to announce sooner than later just to help them out. Any Pac 12 teams receiving a Big 10 golden ticket would immediately see an uptick in recruiting and donations and they could start planning for future facilities built with Big 10 money, allowing them to be stronger when they join the conference. As you mentioned, Stanford is the only Pac 12 team I can see getting a Big 10 invite in the near future and that's dependent on Notre Dame deciding to give up independence. I expect the Big 10 to go with either 16 or 18 teams for the duration of the next TV contract, then explore adding from the Washington/Oregon/Utah/Cal/Arizona/Colorado pool when it's time to negotiate the next contract. Of course, this could all be rendered moot if ACC teams find a way to escape the GOR in the next few years. If that happens it moves up the endgame timeline and all bets are off. The Big 10 can't slow play ACC teams like they can with Pac 12 teams because there will be serious competition with the SEC for the ACC's crown jewels.

Seems to me like the cleanest way to give everyone something they want in finalizing the divorce between Texas/Oklahoma and the Big 12 is for ESPN to overpay for the Big 12's next TV contract, effectively paying their buyout for them. Getting UT/OU to the SEC earlier seems like it would more than offset paying the Big 12 a little more than they're worth. -The Big 12 gets a good contract -UT/OU go to the SEC in 2023 instead of 2025 -ESPN gets a 1 year super conference head start on Fox/the Big 10 as opposed to Fox/the Big 10 getting a 1 year head start if UT/OU stay in the Big 12 until 2025 -ESPN owns 3 conferences, plus if they want more late night coverage without paying for the Pac 12 the Big 12 can likely poach whoever they want from the Pac 12 with their shiny new above-market contract The only potential problem is CBS' contract with the SEC running through 2023. They'd have to come to some kind of deal, like ESPN buying out CBS a year early or trading their 2023 Big 10 rights for CBS' 2023 SEC rights. I'm not sure what the magic number would be to get the Big 12 to agree with this so I'll leave that to those more knowledgeable about the Big 12's media value.

It's got nothing to do with being afraid of Oregon. After Notre Dame recently added a FCS team to a future schedule USC is the only school left to have never played a FCS team. USC still routinely schedules games against other top P5 teams in addition to the annual game with Notre Dame + 9 conference games, unlike certain teams and conferences that absolutely refuse to play more than 9 games per year against P5 competition, so take that high school shit somewhere else. My opposition to Oregon getting into the Big 10 is based on a lifetime of experience being in the same conference with them and not seeing all these magical benefits that keep getting brought up in their favor. Phil Knight and the Nike connection is a big myth. I've never heard any fans or employees of Pac 12 schools talk about how Nike pays them more or treats them better because they regularly play against Nike's baby. Oregon isn't an elite academic institution so no points there. And I'll bring up media value again. Oregon benefits from USC's media value, which is why they were one of the ringleaders for equal revenue sharing (of course, the assholes immediately dropped their decades-long history of supporting equal revenue shares and demanded unequal revenue sharing after the LA schools dipped out and it was their turn to be on the losing end of equal revenue sharing). Oregon needs exposure in LA to recruit, USC could care less if they never play another game in the state of Oregon after leaving the Pac 12. You can claim that doesn't matter, but I'll point out Oregon's own actions to prove it does. They wouldn't be desperately trying to reunite with USC and UCLA in the Big 10 and exploring the stopgap of San Diego State joining the Pac in the meantime if they didn't think this was important. When the Pac 12's divisions were established the California schools were split up because Oregon and the rest of the PNW schools demanded more games in California for recruiting purposes, then they made us act like it was a gift from them to keep playing our regional rivals yearly while the PNW schools got that for free since they were all in the North. If Oregon doesn't get into the Big 10 I guarantee they would still schedule home and homes with USC or UCLA if offered. Oregon reaps massive financial and recruiting benefits from being associated with USC. What does USC get in return from Oregon? They fucking hate us (and not just for being good/when we're good), they use their employees to sanction us so they can prop themselves up (Bush's benefits from an agent to leave USC were peanuts compared to what recruits legally get now from boosters to go to schools btw) and they generally act like a bunch of disrespectful shitheads towards USC. Yeah, Oregon fields a quality football team most of the time. But the value of that is diminished going forward. They don't win titles so no conference-wide prestige from that. Unlike the Pac 12 where it's a constant battle to fill your schedule with teams that get a little respect from voters, once in the Big 10 USC won't need help with strength of schedule or quality wins or opponents people outside the West Coast care about. I hope that explains why I'm not too eager for this relationship to continue and why the LA schools aren't exactly tripping over themselves to help Oregon. It's always been a totally one-sided relationship and the one side getting all the benefits can't even be a little thankful for it. All that being said, Oregon probably does get in the Big 10 eventually. But hopefully we can go through at least one full TV contract with Oregon panicking about their future while every 5* and high 4* goes to the Big 10 or SEC and watching Rutgers earn 3x more media revenue than them.

I agree for the most part. If it was up to me the Big 10 would expand to 20 in 2024 with Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington and Utah then wait for the ACC's GOR to either expire or get overturned in court. That's far enough in the future it's impossible to accurately predict who/what the networks will prioritize or how much the next wave of contracts will be worth, but I don't think it would be out of the question for the Big 10 to land both Florida State and Miami. I imagine they'll want to stick together and if the SEC doesn't offer them that possibility the Big 10 definitely would. It will be interesting to see how willing the SEC is to add more teams in their backyard just to keep the Big 10 out, as well as how the Big 10's national strategy vs the SEC's regional strategy plays out in terms of competitiveness and ratings and recruiting and media money. I can see strengths and weaknesses for each approach. It's very fun to ponder if you're into game theory.

USC's attempt to save the Pac was the Pac 16, which was my preferred outcome for the super conference era. Ideally there would have been a super conference composed entirely of teams west of the Mississippi to serve as a counter balance to the center of the sport's universe continually shifting towards the Southeast and the Midwest. A conference with USC/Texas/OU at the top and a middle class of Oregon/Washington/UCLA/Stanford/Oklahoma State/Tech would have received a huge media contract on par with what the Big 10 and SEC earn, plus the geography breaks down in such a way you could give each team the 3 yearly matchups that preserve every regional rivalry, but it wasn't meant to be. USC was worth 30% of the Pac 12's media value despite the last decade of mediocrity, they're the last team to point at for not doing enough to save this conference. Also, why save a conference where you account for almost a third of the revenue while only being paid 8.3%? I wouldn't stay at a sales job where I generated 30% of the company's revenue but was paid the exact same as the slapdicks contributing 2% because said slapdicks consistently outvoted me to make everyone's salary equal all while management insisted the slapdicks were just as important and valuable to the company's success as me. In the Big 10 USC won't be the only horse pulling the cart, which makes equal revenue sharing with the teams riding in the cart much more palatable. My comparison of Oregon to Illinois was more flattering for Oregon than Illinois. The only way Oregon increases the Big 10's value is if they replaced a team like Illinois because Oregon is worth more than them so that would increase the per team share. Oregon is not worth enough to increase everyone else's 80M slice of the pie while also paying for their own slice as team #17. Adding more teams also means fewer matchups between the teams. Is getting more Oregon/Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State games worth getting fewer games between USC/Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State? TV executives were having wet dreams about the latter games when the Big 10's next TV contract was negotiated, not the former. The map Zinhead posted drives home the point I'm trying to make with recruiting and why Oregon is a bad idea. The Big 10 desperately needs more recruiting territory. It's the lifeblood of the sport. The SEC has Texas, Georgia and Florida plus the rest of the Southeast punches above its weight in producing recruits so recruiting territory isn't as critical of a consideration for SEC expansion as it is for the Big 10. Texas and the Southeast are also all growing in population while most Big 10 states are falling or stagnant. That's another reason I'm OK with Utah getting into the Big 10, they already produce some talent every cycle and with their rapid population growth I can see them becoming a better recruiting state in 10-20 years. If you invite Oregon you add nothing in terms of recruiting territory but you're giving that program a huge shot in the arm to make life harder for your teams on the recruiting trail.

Oregon would increase the Big 10's value if they were replacing a clunker like Illinois, but that's not happening. As a standalone? They do not increase everyone's $80M slice of the pie. Neither do any other Pac leftovers. This whole thing is about making as much money as possible. If you don't grow the pie why should you get an invitation to the party? Again, if Oregon (or any other Pac leftover) was valued that highly by the networks it would have been reflected in previous Pac contracts and it would be reflected in current Pac TV negotiations. Half-shares for the first contract are a possible workaround, but then you're gambling on Oregon bringing enough value to be worth a full share for the next contract. If they go through a decade in the wilderness in the 2020s like 2010s USC and Texas they aren't worth anywhere near that much and they don't have the clear path back to contention USC and Texas do. Stanford is the only Pac leftover with a realistic shot at joining the Big 10 in the near future and that's almost entirely because Notre Dame would insist on it plus the Irish would bring enough revenue to cover Stanford and then some. Unlike Oregon, Stanford at least brings a market and recruiting territory (USC's/UCLA's sphere of influence doesn't expand to the Bay Area) and the most elite academics in major college football so there are some perks to having them around.

When they're discussing possible Pac/Big 10 realignment moves in the realignment thread maybe they do. I'm guessing the enthusiasm for Texas moving to the SEC would be watered down quite a bit among Texas fans if the SEC also added Baylor, TCU, Kansas and Iowa State so you have to keep playing them and play fewer games against Alabama, Georgia, Florida, LSU etc. That's what bringing all the Pac leftovers to the Big 10 would feel like from USC's and UCLA's perspective. And this sentiment isn't solely among sports fans. Administrators and leadership at most of the Pac schools don't get along with each other. It was never a "Sing Kumbaya around the campfire and all cheer for one another" conference like the SEC, it's a bucket of crabs. From a decision-making perspective, if the leftover Pac teams were valuable enough to grow the Big 10's massive TV revenue the Pac 12's media value wouldn't have been getting lapped by the Big 10 and the SEC in the first place. Here's the rewrite: Pac teams bad Big 10 teams good, leave the Pac teams in the Pac.

I'll say it again, but it would be a huge disappointment to leave behind the boat anchor of the Pac 12's "Non-revenue sports are equal to football and parity is more important than championships and we're going to play our biggest games late at night when everybody is asleep or drunk off their ass" athletic departments for a conference that plays its biggest games when people are actually paying attention and prioritizes football as #1 instead of pretending soccer and women's equestrian are just as valuable as football only to be told "Here's your new Big 10 schedule: you play UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon and Washington all at 10 PM ET every year and maybe you can play prime time games against Ohio State or Michigan or Penn State or Wisconsin once every 4 years." What was the fucking point of leaving the Pac 12 in the first place if it's just going to be rebranded as the Big 10? Washington and Stanford can come, that's enough to alleviate travel problems and lock down the West Coast and uphold the academic circle jerking and not feel like we're just merging the Pac 12 with the Big 10. Utah would be an acceptable replacement if Stanford decides they want to go the Ivy League route or the state of Washington attaches Washington State to the Huskies. Fuck the rest of the Pac 12, they're reductive deadweight. If they weren't the Pac 10 wouldn't be circling the drain right now. I want nothing more to do with the clowns in Berkeley after 2023. USC no longer having to give a shit what Cal thinks about anything is one of the best parts of joining the Big 10. If Cal doesn't give a fuck about their own football program I don't see why anyone else should be concerned about their fate. That's such a garbage athletic department to rub elbows with, I'm thrilled to leave them and their hostility towards sports behind. Oregon can go fuck themselves. Leaving them to rot in the Wac 10 is nice payback for one of their athletic department employees participating in the absurd sanctions handed down to USC and using that to prop themselves up. Leaving out Oregon isn't purely a spiteful move, either. Every Big 10 team should be opposed to it. Oregon is never signing another top shelf California recruit if they don't get into the Big 10 (that's how they make their living), which would be beneficial for USC and UCLA and every Big 10 team hoping to recruit California better now that the LA schools are in the conference. If you bring Oregon you just make your own recruiting harder while gaining nothing new because Oregon produces next to no FBS talent. They don't bring enough revenue to offset the problems they'd cause in recruiting with a good coach, they don't win national championships to bring the prestige that comes with rings and they're a stepping stone program that is one bad hire away from 5-7 win irrelevancy. If there were any upsides to being in the same conference with Oregon I would have noticed them at some point.

Homefield advantage for the higher seeds in the playoff is how you prevent this. Nobody is resting starters when another loss is the difference between a first round game of hosting UCF vs traveling to Penn State. Moving playoff games other than the title game to campus is the silver lining of college football becoming more and more all about the money. Why continue giving bowls a cut of the revenue when you can keep it all and also make things easier on your fans by not requiring them to travel every round? On campus games are so much more fun both in person and on TV than some sterile NFL stadium that is a thousand miles away from each team.

I wish we could get to the endgame now too, but it won't happen until we're closer to the end of the ACC's GOR. That's the key to getting to a spot where this dumbass sport can finally have some real stability. It's in ESPN's best financial interests to keep the ACC together, the Big 10 doesn't want enough ACC teams to singlehandedly kill off the ACC and everyone else not chosen for the Big 10/SEC will go through a phase of denial and thinking they're too good for the Big 12 and holding out hope for a Big 10/SEC golden ticket like the leftover Pac teams are doing right now. ESPN's deal with the ACC is the biggest bargain in their portfolio. Why move a few of those teams to the SEC where they'll have to pay them several times more than what they get in the ACC? ESPN still gets enough big ACC games to keep the conference alive (ACC/SEC rivalry games, Notre Dame visits, Clemson/FSU/Miami have a lot of future noncon games with LSU, Georgia, Alabama, A&M, Auburn, Florida so the huge discount they get on the ACC side of those home and homes offsets what they're paying the SEC). Pray for some ACC teams to successfully challenge the GOR in court if you want this drama to end before the 2030s.

I have some apprehension about this. Super conferences will lead to more losses for programs that demand better because they play each other more often. Lets say Texas or Oklahoma plays the five straight games you just outlined to open SEC play and they go 1-4 or 2-3 in them. How much hype is left around their season? Do you feel better about that than if you opened Big 12 play 5-0 or 4-1? Will 7-4 OU playing 6-5 Arkansas in a forced rivalry during rivalry week be a bigger deal than Bedlam was last year between a pair of top 10, 10-1 teams? I watched every play of that Bedlam game but I wouldn't tune in for a snap of that hypothetical so-so OU/Arkansas game. The teams that win will kill it in ratings, but there will be far fewer fucks given about 7 win SEC OU than there have been about 10-12 win Big 12 OU. And football at the highest level isn't always awesome. 90% of the semifinal games have been complete shit. Dating back to the BCS more title games than not are terrible. I know the difference in money between Big 10/SEC and non-Big 10/SEC is forcing everyone who can to join the Big 10/SEC just to keep up but it's hard to convince myself consolidating every big time program into two conferences is healthy for the sport. There's a reason no pro league puts all their best teams/biggest draws into the same division or two.

Even beyond the financial aspect, promotion/relegation in college sports is an absurd idea because of the inherent roster churn and limited eligibility. When teams (especially G5 teams) massively overachieve and have the kind of historic year that could get them promoted one big reason you'll always see is because they have a very experienced roster full of 2-4 year starters that know their system/playbook like the back of their hand, have maxed out their physical development, have lots of chemistry playing together etc. They have massive turnover the following year because all those guys graduate. Cincinnati last year to this year is a prime example. They are losing a ton of talent from their playoff team. They won't totally fall off because they have a good staff and they have recruited well for their level of competition, but if their playoff run got them promoted to the Big 10 for this upcoming season they'd get their asses handed to them breaking in a bunch of new starters recruited to play in the American. Then they either get sent back to the American, or if they have some kind of adjustment grace period now they're selling "Come help us win 6 games and make some Tuesday night bowl in December" to recruits and trying to survive as a little fish in a big pond instead of the big fish in the little pond.

If I had to guess Notre Dame gets a full share no matter when they join and anyone else from the Pac gets a partial share for the duration of the contract that was just signed. If Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Washington etc were worth enough to increase the size of the Big 10's pie upon expansion to 18/20/22/24 teams the Pac wouldn't be getting dogshit TV offers and facing extinction. The only exception might be Stanford. If they're the final piece of the puzzle for the Big 10 to land its Irish white whale they could start at a full share too. I can't believe Maryland and Rutgers have the nerve to bitch about not being treated as favorably as USC and UCLA. Those are the two luckiest athletic departments in the country. They need to thank whatever deities they believe in they have a spot in a super conference. Their value falls by the day because cable subscriber numbers are only going down, and once we reach the final point of everyone streaming directly from the source their value is zero. Warren should tell them the only concession they'll get is a waiver of exit fees if they think they can do better elsewhere.

On the other hand, your defense would have had an easier night against LSU than they did against Stanford. Luck was 10x the QB of anyone who suited up for that year's sham title game and Stanford had a pretty nasty ground game that year too so they weren't one-dimensional.