Trojan Man

The choice isn't "Arizona or Texas," although Baylor has a commitment from a top 10 Arizona recruit. It's "melt or don't melt." Oregon has commitments or CBs from 4 of Arizona's top 10 recruits and I'm sure they talk about how nice it is to spend time outdoors in the spring and summer and early fall when they get visits from AZ and TX recruits. It's not something every recruit will care about, but it's not something that will miss the mark 100% of the time either.

Arizona produces a fair amount of talent. In the class of 2023 per 247 they have a 5* (the #1 TE), 7 4*s (3 are in the top 247) and 14 top 1000 players. But only one of them, the #12 recruit in the state, is committed to or crystal balled to an instate school. If Arizona starts winning more games I expect they'll do better with instate recruiting. They have a staff that recruits relentlessly and some NIL backing. Their 2022 class ranked 25th in the country and 3rd in the Pac 12, amazing given their standards and recent record. They are establishing pipelines with some quality high schools in California and they beat USC for a local (CA) WR we really wanted. The flipside is doing your summer training and fall camp two a days and early season practice in Satan's asshole, which probably explains some of their difficulty when it comes to keeping local talent home. I can see kids who put up with that for 4 years in high school saying "Fuck this shit, I'm going to college somewhere you can't fry eggs on your car's dashboard half the year" during their recruiting process.

I said it not that long ago, but ASU has been referred to as a sleeping giant for so long maybe we should call them comatose by now. I can count on one hand the number of times in my life (my age begins with 3) they've had a relevant team, and that is a very generous definition of relevant because barring one special season they make the Sun Bowl or the Holiday Bowl in their best years. I just looked it up and dating back to 1990 they have won 10 games 3 times (2007, 2013, 2014) and they won 11 games once, when they blew their shot at a national championship in 1996. That was also their only conference title in this timespan. They typically win 6-9 games with a high amount of 4-5 win clunkers. Maybe the Pac 12 wouldn't be on life support if its middle class programs like Arizona State ever accomplished anything.

A few things -Larry Scott being a dumbass is the biggest reason (he spent so much time on stupid shit like trying to grow fanbases in Asian countries with basketball games there and he also wasted a lot of money on fancy Pac 12 offices in San Francisco), though had the Pac 16 gone through in 2010 there's your first super conference and it would be on par with what the Big 10 and SEC generate in terms of media deals and ratings and big games, Scott would be hailed as a savior for pulling that off -The P12 Network was a huge failure, Scott insisted on going it alone which meant it never had the Fox/ESPN backing the BTN and SEC Network had so it couldn't get much carriage, but again had the Pac 16 come to fruition maybe the P16 Network is able to get the carriage it needs to be viable with a central timezone presence and a couple more bluebloods in the fold, keeping 100% ownership instead of partnering with a media giant becomes a stroke of genius in that timeline -Most of the leaders in this conference, both ADs and university presidents, just don't "get it"; you can see the ivory tower sentiment where they ask questions anyone posting in this thread knows the answer to in the Youtube link in my last post, they gobbled up Scott's push for parity which is a big reason this conference doesn't produce many elite teams (if it was up to Scott and the Pac 12 university presidents every team would go 6-6 every year), they care too much about women's/non-revenue sports and not enough about football, that's noble in theory but in reality it gets your conference lapped in media money and eventually kills your conference -Ultimately way too many Pac 12 programs are content to just show up and collect their media deal check rather than put in the effort and money to field a competitive team, of the left behind schools I'd say Oregon and Utah are the only ones really committed to winning at a high level, the rest feel like they view winning as a cool thing if it happens but they don't particularly care if it doesn't happen, I've heard Arizona State referred to as a sleeping giant my entire life but I'm still waiting to see what they look like when they're awake so maybe it's time we refer to them as comatose instead of sleeping

These people (the UC regents) are a bunch of fucking clowns. They're so out of touch, they have no understanding of college athletics and how the money in it works. You can tell they're all political appointees who got where they are by donating money to the correct candidates and causes, not because they are qualified experts. These are some of the idiots who thought Larry Scott was doing a great job and kept giving him raises and extensions while he burned the Pac 12 to the ground. I can't wait for USC to be in a conference where the leaders understand and acknowledge the importance of football and prioritize it accordingly instead of pretending anyone gives a fuck about non-revenue sports outside of the Olympics. Here's the nearly two hour UC regents meeting Mandel was tweeting about all day. At the 1:04 mark they propose changing the authority to make decisions on conference affiliation from the campus level to the regent level. It's unclear if this is strictly a policy going forward with remaining schools or if they intend to retroactively apply it to UCLA to try to force them to stay in the Pac, which would set up a huge legal battle. You can see why UCLA had to take these people by surprise with the move to the Big 10 instead of giving them more time and preparation to push back. I think the most likely outcome is UCLA still goes to the Big 10, but they're forced to give a percentage of their Big 10 paycheck to Cal as reparations. If I'm UCLA I start lobbying for Cal to get a Big 10 invitation to make all these hurt feelings disappear, though selfishly from a USC fan perspective I'm just fine with the Big 10 owning LA and USC preserving the crosstown rivalry while the UC regents kneecap UCLA's budget and make it harder for them to keep up in the CFB arms race.

Cal, Washington, Oregon and Oregon State are the 1915 founding members of the PCC, which eventually became the Pac 8/10/12. Washington State and Stanford joined a couple years later. That is the only reason Oregon State and Washington State are affiliated with Cal and Stanford today, they're grandfathered in from a long gone era when the criteria for conference membership looked much different than it does today. It's also the only reason they're in a power conference even though their profiles scream midmajor. If they were in the MWC or the WAC they would have been turned down for Pac membership every single time because of mediocre academics and also because they offer nothing in terms of market, ratings, recruiting, athletic success etc. They're extremely lucky they were able to ride the gravy train for this long. As for the Arizona schools they're only in the Pac because USC threw its weight around to get them in. Cal and Stanford were pulling their usual academic snobbery and refusing to vote for them (Pac invitations have always required unanimous approval). USC threatened to leave and go independent if the Pac 8 didn't expand to the Pac 10, which forced the Bay Area schools to get over themselves and approve Arizona and Arizona State.

I don't think there's any urgency from Fox, the Big 10 or the schools themselves to get USC and UCLA to the Big 10 earlier. You need to keep in mind USC and UCLA aren't tied to the Pac 12 as long as Texas and Oklahoma are to the Big 12. The LA schools are only in the Pac 12 through the summer of 2024, meaning fall of 2024 is the first season in the Big 10. One more academic year, then we're gone with zero fees or penalties or buyouts. I have no idea what the buyout would look like, but I'm guessing the people who are supposed to know that kind of thing have done the math and determined it makes the most sense to stay in the Pac 12 one more year and leave freely when the GOR expires. Frankly, from a football perspective, I'm fine with it. I'm happy with another year of Riley rebuilding the program and restoring our reputation in the Pac 12. Year 3 is when you can expect big things from new hires at rebuilds and 2024 will be year 3 for Riley, so it all lines up nicely. Also, in 2024 USC and LSU play in Las Vegas week 1 so we'll see which program made the better hire last fall and how much validity there is to the Sooner conspiracy theory that Riley is scared of the SEC. I'm also not sure how eager the Big 10 is to add more Western schools. If they wanted more Pac teams they would already have received invitations. If you want Oregon and Washington why wait to invite them until after they negotiate a new TV deal and sign a new GOR with somebody else? Stanford is the only one I can see getting an invitation in the near future and that's only if Notre Dame insists on dragging them along. I think the Big 10 is going with either 16 or 18 teams for the next decade or so, along with the SEC staying at 16 during the same time. They're both waiting for the ACC's GOR to expire or get overturned in court or reach a point where the buyout isn't financially devastating for the schools that leave for their next feeding frenzy.

Every offseason there are some dumbfucks on USC boards that ask if this will finally be the year USC breaks out alternates. They post their Photoshop mockups of blackout uniforms, alternate logos, wildly different designs etc and go on tangents about how it needs to be done for recruiting purposes. It warms my heart that about 90% of users tell them to fuck off and go watch Oregon if they need to play Barbie doll dress up with football players. What little tradition and history that still exists in CFB needs to be preserved.

There's some revisionist history in here. Riley was Stoops' OC for a couple years before he took over. OU went from 8-5 the year before hiring Riley as OC to 11-2 in the two years he was OC. He played a major part in having a strong program to run. If you want to discredit what Riley did because of what he inherited from Stoops the same thing applies to anything Venables accomplishes in the next couple years, but somehow I doubt all the asshurt Sooner fans now claiming Bob Stoops was personally responsible for every achievement over the last 5 years will give any credit to their former coach if Oklahoma does well this fall. Before Riley coached them, Tech didn't think Mayfield was worth a scholarship and everybody thought Murray's future was in MLB instead of the NFL. Neither of those guys were considered locks for winning the Heisman and going first overall in the draft pre-Riley. Same with Jalen Hurts. If he stayed at Alabama he goes pro in something other than sports rather than becoming a starter in the NFL. Rattler was a bust, but those 3 plus Caleb Williams are all the real deal. 80% hit rate on QBs will get the job done. As for recruiting, I was only bringing up defense because that's what we're discussing. Unsurprisingly, offensive recruiting is going better. For 2023 USC has commitments from the #2 QB (per 247), the #1 WR, a very high 4* WR who could be bumped up to 5* and a couple 4* RBs. USC is the favorite to land the #1 TE. Riley also brought in a borderline 5* RB and a high 4* WR in his transitional class last year. This is all without throwing wads of cash around as USC just started its collective (sanction PTSD has caused USC to be overly cautious on NIL), another reason for optimism. I expect USC's 2023 recruiting class to finish in the 8-12 range. Currently it's 13th, but like I've said there are numerous elite targets still out there USC is favored to land. 9-10 wins this season and Riley is flipping some blue chips this fall. 2024 onward, once the collective is fully functional and relationships are established with recruits/HS coaches and other programs can no longer negatively recruit using Helton's reign of failure and USC is 1 of 2 programs west of the Rockies in a super conference, I expect top 5 yearly. Sark is an amazing recruiter, but he won't win anything of note with the classes he signs. The good news is if you nail the next hire you can expect instant success because the cupboard will be fully stocked. If we replaced Sark with an average coach instead of the most clueless dipshit in college football USC makes at least 1 CFP appearance in 2016-17. Thanks to Sark those teams were loaded with NFLers on both sides of the ball, but shitty coaching and a dash of Pac 12 schedulers fucking us over prevented any CFP berths.

I know all about him. He was at Washington State for a few years and I watch a lot of Big 12 football. The one thing that has me optimistic about that side of the ball is defensive recruiting. I don't know what OU's defensive recruiting looked like when Grinch was there, but it's off to a strong start at USC and USC has a higher recruiting ceiling than OU. Last year coming off a 4-8 season in a transitional class with a staff hired a couple weeks before Early Signing Day they held on to a 5* CB and a high 4* S. In the transfer portal they landed a 2021 freshman AA LB from Arizona State and another LB who was a freshman AA at Alabama in 2019 before injuries derailed his career. As for 2023 recruiting USC has won recent commitments over Ohio State and Texas for high 4 star front 7 players and is in a pretty good spot with a couple 5* DEs, a high 4* DT and a few more mid 4* defenders. I'm confident USC will clean up in the transfer portal on both sides of the ball under Riley. Once the games start, when the stink of the Helton era begins to fade and USC's staff has proof of concept they can point to at their current job when recruiting, I expect recruiting to pick up even more. At minimum the cupboard will be restocked for whoever replaces Grinch.

Speaking from firsthand experience, I'll take Riley over Sark 100/100 times. You don't go 55-10 with 4 conference championships and 3 playoff appearances and 2 Heisman winners in your first 5 years as a head coach by accident. For comparison, Saban didn't win his first conference title in a major conference until year 8. The one complaint I have is I am not a big fan of Grinch's philosophy and scheme. I would have preferred a different DC hire. I don't think Grinch is terrible and I'm not starting "Fire Grinch" threads anywhere, but he is slightly above average at best. USC can and should do better.

"We didn't vote for it so we're exempt from it" is a pretty flawed argument. USC and UCLA consistently voted against equal revenue shares (the only Pac schools to do so) but they still had to participate in equal revenue sharing because the rest of the conference unanimously voted for it. As for playing those 4 teams specifically, I recall recent home and homes between Oklahoma/Houston and Texas/BYU so it's not like they brought in FCS or CUSA nobodies that your teams would never dream of scheduling for anything besides a cupcake game.

I'll call my shot now. Notre Dame and Stanford jointly announce they have accepted Big 10 invitations the week of their game this season.

I've always thought USC and Texas had a lot in common, both the good and the bad. I wish the Pac 16 happened back in 2010. A 3rd super conference would be healthier for the sport and playing Texas regularly would be very fun. The 2017 Texas game was the best post-Carroll atmosphere the Coliseum has had, or maybe tied with the upset win over top 5 Stanford in 2013 under Coach O.

Gross. Stanford is the only other Pac team I hope gets into the Big 10, and they're only worth it if they seal the deal to land Notre Dame. 3 California schools means they all get 1 easy travel road game per year, plus the LA sphere of influence doesn't quite extend to the Bay Area so having a team up there helps with recruiting. Stanford is merely apathetic towards football as opposed to Cal being outright hostile towards football and Stanford is private meaning no California politics baggage so they get the nod. I wouldn't mind Utah getting in eventually, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it if they don't. The rest can rot. That would be such a letdown if the Big 10 goes on a Pac invitation spree. We're finally in a conference full of teams that prioritize football and plays primetime games when the country isn't asleep and never has SOS issues, only to be told "Here's your new Big 10 schedule: UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington and maybe you'll play Ohio State or Michigan once every 4 years and also every game against your old Pac 12 foes is at 10 PM ET to fill the late night slots." We left the Pac 12 to leave that bullshit behind, not re-brand it with the Big 10's logo. Fuck the Pacific Northwest schools, and Oregon in particular. For decades the PNW schools led the choir for equal revenue sharing as the only fair choice when they were the beneficiaries and USC and UCLA were pulling the cart, but as soon as the LA Clydesdales left the barn and it's their turn to prop up all the Pac's deadweight they do a 180 and demand unequal revenue shares and LARP as if they're bluebloods. Two-faced pieces of shit. Earlier in this thread somebody said Oregon is the anti-aggy and they're absolutely right, that program offers fuck all to their conference. They're parasites. They bring nothing for recruiting, they don't have any major markets, they've never won a national title. There are no benefits to being associated with Oregon, all they do is take. Kneecapping their recruiting by keeping them on the outside looking in would be very beneficial for USC, UCLA, Ohio State and any Big 10 team planning on making California recruiting inroads. The only fun thing about inviting additional Pac teams would be lording our full share to their partial shares over them as proof their world view was dead wrong for all the years they insisted they were just as important and valuable as USC and UCLA.

I thought both schools plus the fair preferred having that game early. Have the schools or ESPN said what time it will kickoff after you join the SEC?

I was banned from commenting on The Athletic a few months ago because I called an OU fan a fucking dumbass for insisting Muschamp 2.0 would be an improvement over Riley. The jilted ex-girlfriends have been flooding the comments sections of every USC article on that site ever since they lost Riley and I finally got fed up with it. Anyways, I Googled "college football message board where I can call OU fans fucking dumbasses without getting banned" and it led me here.

Well then, lets hope Fox decides CFB is more profitable than MLB when their MLB contract expires in 2028 and they can stop committing their September and October Saturday afternoons and evenings to baseball. I don't think early road games will be a problem. 9 AM kickoff didn't bother Oregon when they won at Ohio State last season. Just practice early all week to acclimate. The proliferation of remote education means they might start leaving a day earlier for road games which would also help. One interesting idea I saw thrown around to alleviate the travel burden was USC and UCLA pitching in for a shared athletic facility in Big 10 territory, somewhere like Chicago or Indianapolis. They could put in practice fields and meeting rooms and weight rooms for all their sports teams, classrooms for remote classes, cafeterias, rehab facilities, dorms, hire local tutors to help with the class workload. Then the football team could head out on Monday and prepare at that facility all week before a road game, which would be very helpful if snow or extreme cold are expected. Maybe piggyback it with a second straight conference road game so that's one fewer cross country trip. The basketball teams and baseball teams could stay there for a couple weeks and knock out a huge chunk of their conference road schedule with minimal travel and so on. I saw this brainstormed on another message board so I doubt it will ever happen, but those huge Big 10 paychecks have to be spent on something. This would provide tangible athletic benefits while making travel easier and you can only have so many barbershops and water slides and diamond-encrusted toilets in your locker room. Plus, a savvy coaching staff can turn it into a recruiting pitch. If you end up playing for a West Coast NFL team they aren't going to let you dodge early road games or shitty weather so noon ET November games at Minnesota and Michigan State will prepare you for 1 PM ET road games at Buffalo and New England.

Don't screw Western teams with 9 AM local kickoffs at home, don't screw Eastern teams with 10 PM local kickoffs at home. Give those kickoffs to the teams that won't have their attendance and atmosphere killed by it. Seems pretty simple and fair to me.

14/16 Big 10 teams can host noon ET kickoffs without giving their fanbase a middle finger. That's more than enough inventory to fill that timeslot. Nobody would tell those same 14 teams they have to kickoff at 10 PM local time so they can fill that late night timeslot, thus it's reasonable to expect the 2 schools that would be greatly inconvenienced by hosting noon ET kickoffs won't get them and the 2 schools that aren't inconvenienced by hosting 10 PM ET kickoffs will be the only schools getting those. Notice I'm using the word "host" instead of "play." I don't have a problem with road games being at noon ET/9 AM PT, like when David Shaw coined the term "body clock" to excuse his last great team laying an egg at Northwestern a few years ago. It's not even a request for special treatment. Special treatment would be "no noon ET games period regardless of location." Asking not to host 9 AM PT kickoffs is no different than Penn State or Wisconsin asking not to host 10 PM ET kickoffs, which is so asinine it's something they don't even have to request because nobody would ask them to do it. When you bring the second largest market in the country and elite recruiting territory and hundreds of millions of dollars to your new neighborhood you get to request they don't put you on the lot with the burned out house full of homeless people in between the crack house and the whore house. As for going up head to head against SEC games, who cares. The highest rated CFB game of all time was a certain title game in Pasadena I'm sure everyone here remembers very well and it didn't feature SEC patches on anyone's jersey. When USC is on a roll it's a bigger show than the Cletus Conference.

I hope the huge conference games hosted by USC and UCLA (trips from Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State) will be scheduled for November. Since baseball will be over by then that lets Fox broadcast them in a window that isn't a "fuck you" to anyone attending the game. From a ratings perspective that would be better too. 10-0 #2 Ohio State at 9-1 #5 USC kicking off at 5 PM PT (8 PM ET) in November would get more hype and attention than a week 3 game at 9 AM PT (noon ET) when they're both 2-0 after playing a couple G5 scrimmages. 9 AM local kickoff will kill any semblance of a fun atmosphere inside the stadium. Before 2020 that wouldn't seem like a big deal, but now we all know how important the stadium atmosphere is to the quality of a game's broadcast and how much it detracts from the game when it's absent. It's also likely with the massive sums they're reporting CBS and NBC are paying they will have a week or two each year where they get first pick of games. Another possibility is scheduling a second huge game the week USC/UCLA hosts a team like Ohio State, Michigan or Penn State. I think Fox could live with Ohio State/Penn State at noon while CBS or NBC gets Michigan/USC. In any case, I'm confident this is something USC's leadership discussed with the Big 10 and Fox when they applied to the conference. For the first time in my life USC's leaders are putting USC's interests first and throwing some weight around instead of letting the Oregons and Washington States and Arizonas of the world pick USC's pockets and call it parity and stability. Part of that would include not playing the biggest home game of the season at a time that is outright hostile to your boosters and donors and STHs.