Trojan Man

The problem with 3 divisions is the huge potential for drama with CCG berths/tiebreakers. If the Big 12 gets that large I think they will do what the B1G did and give every team an appropriate number of permanent rivals between 0-3. That allows the league to set up schedules in a way that minimizes the chance of tiebreaker problems while cycling through all potential opponents within a reasonable time. It also gives the schools and the fans the games they care about the most every year. If the Big 12 adds this many Pac 12 teams it's important the league integrates them with the rest of the conference instead of cloistering them off in their own division. That would slow down integration and encourage factions to form.

It definitely is. The many similarities between USC's relationship with the Pac 12 and Texas' with the Big 12 are something I've touched on in this thread and a few others. That shared experience is one reason I decided to start posting here. What's in it for the Big 12 is Oregon and Washington are the highest profile football programs they could plausibly land. The post-Texas/Oklahoma Big 12's weakness is it lacks big name football programs. Oregon and Washington would be a major boost in that department. Also, I talked about how there is value to be gained for Pac 12 teams going East. That equation still works in reverse. There is value for the Big 12 to gain by going West to pick up Pacific windows and audiences, and those two schools are by far the biggest fanbases and most valuable schools available to the west of the Big 12's current footprint. I don't think there would be as much bullshit from Oregon and Washington in the Big 12 as there was in the Pac 12. A lot of their antics were related to equal revenue sharing and maximizing their games/exposure in California. Neither would be an issue in the Big 12. They also wouldn't have an 800 pound gorilla to constantly be at odds with like they were with USC. There might be some initial snootiness from some of their fans about joining the truck stop conference, but I think they would get over it as they are exposed to gameday atmospheres and fanbase enthusiasm that are more like theirs than the general apathy throughout the Pac 12. And for the record, I don't think Oregon and Washington will join the Big 12. It is a realistic possibility but I would not put money on it happening. I think the most likely outcome with the Pac 12 in this round of realignment is the Pac 12 loses Colorado to the Big 12, then Arizona pulls the trigger. The Pac 12 backfills with San Diego State and either Colorado State or SMU. Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, Arizona State and Utah all believe they have a shot at getting into the B1G by the end of the decade so they don't mind just biding their time together. Next most likely outcome is Colorado decides to stay because they have the same "We'll get in the B1G eventually so we can deal with a few more years in the Pac 12" mindset those other schools have and Arizona doesn't have the balls to leave by themselves so the Pac 12 manages to cobble together a media deal that's just good enough to keep the 10 schools together for another 5-6 years. I'd put the "4C + Oregon and Washington to Big 12" Pac 12 death scenario at a distant third behind these first two because I'm skeptical ASU and Utah will come around on joining the Big 12 at this time, and that's what would kill any remaining credibility the Pac 12 still has.

I would be shocked if USC and UCLA push to add Oregon and Washington in the near future. There are a lot of hurt feelings and bad blood on both sides of the LA/PNW relationship. Oregon and Washington were largely responsible for the equal revenue sharing policies that drove USC and UCLA out of the conference. They also forced the California schools to be in separate divisions so they could play more games in California, then framed it like guaranteeing all the California schools would still play each other yearly was a fair tradeoff for equal revenue sharing. Meanwhile the PNW schools never had to give anything up to keep playing all of their local rivals annually. They constantly took and never gave. All of the sacrifices for the conference were expected to come from LA and to a lesser extent the Bay Area. I also hope nobody at USC has forgotten an Oregon athletic department employee cast one of the deciding votes on the ridiculous Bush sanctions. They stabbed USC in the back so they could climb atop USC's corpse. Why bring that traitorous behavior to a new conference? I wouldn't mind Washington getting into the B1G eventually but Oregon can go fuck themselves. In addition to all the drama it's better strategy to box out your biggest West Coast recruiting competition for seats at the winner's table, and not just for USC and UCLA. One reason the B1G invited USC and UCLA was to improve their recruiting. The other 14 schools can hammer Oregon and Washington on conference affiliation while they establish pipelines in California. As for inviting Notre Dame and Stanford that would be a pretty quick yes vote from every B1G school. Stanford guarantees all 3 CA schools get to play 1 conference road game instate every year, which is far more beneficial from a travel standpoint than going to Seattle and Eugene. With 3 Californian teams in an 18 team B1G the math still works out that none of the other 15 teams besides Notre Dame would ever have to go to California more than once a season, and considering their desire to play a more national schedule I don't think the Irish would complain about years they had to play at UCLA in addition to playing at USC or Stanford. Personally, I'd be thrilled to have Notre Dame/Stanford/UCLA as permanent rivals then rotate the rest of the conference schedule. If the Big 12 expanded to that point those cross country trips would only have to be made once every 4 years, which isn't going to kill anyone. Just like USC and UCLA are only playing at Rutgers and Maryland once every 4 years and vice versa, the same would be true for Oregon/Washington and UCF/WVU. This expanded footprint is also beneficial to the former Pac 12 teams. One of the biggest problems for the Pac 12 is not having enough exposure to the Central and Eastern time zones, which have more people and a higher proportion of CFB fans. Moving to the Big 12 solves that. It also means fewer games with the dreaded 10:30 PM ET kickoff. They would still get some late kickoffs at home or on the road vs former Pac 12 teams, but when they play at Central and Eastern teams they will kickoff at a time Central and Eastern audiences are still awake. There is also more media value in being in a conference that has teams in all 4 time zones vs a conference that only has teams in the 2 least desirable time zones. As for the ability of Big 12 teams to compete with Oregon and Washington, I don't think they would struggle too much. They've been able to hang with Oklahoma and Texas. Oregon and Washington are watered down versions of that. That's why I laugh at Colorado fans already assuming Deion will have them rolling to Big 12 titles and CFP bids. CU won't touch the kind of classes UT and OU can put together, I don't think the Buffs will intimidate anyone in the Big 12.

I think if the Big 12 can land the 4C that almost forces Oregon and Washington to ask if they can tag along too. The Pac 6 would be a tremendously shitty conference. No matter which G5 teams you add it basically becomes Oregon and Washington running a train on a bunch of nobodies. That's not worth much to media partners or the CFP committee. Even if those two bully the rest of that zombie conference into a big enough split of uneven revenue sharing to get themselves on par with the Big 12's payout their reputation with recruits and brand value will take a beating playing in a glorified MWC. Why go through all that bullshit when the Big 12 is available? Big 12 + Oregon, Washington and 2 or all 4 of the 4C would be a legit conference that gets an at large CFP bid or two every year and a top 4 seed every year. Zombie Pac 6 would never sniff an at large bid and even a top 4 seed is unlikely. From the Big 12's perspective I get they don't want to deal with members who have wandering eyes after all the realignment drama they have been through, but Oregon and Washington raise the profile of their conference in a way no other team they can land would and probably gets the Big 12 a raise on their media contract. Even if it is a short marriage before the B1G comes calling years I think the Big 12 will be better for it, plus all parties would be going into this marriage knowing it's likely to be short. The Big 12 wouldn't be blindsided like they were in past rounds of realignment so maybe both sides can negotiate a palatable exit strategy ahead of time that pays off the remaining Big 12 teams without bankrupting Oregon and Washington. There's a good chance the B1G isn't looking at the Pacific Northwest until after things with the ACC play out in about 13 years, which is a long enough time to make Big 12 invitations to Oregon and Washington worthwhile.

Larry Scott was behind the Pac 12 trying to get into Asia and it accomplished nothing. This is the kind of thing that sounds great on paper but goes nowhere in practice. The Pac 12 should not pursue his failed ideas. As for Hawaii their new stadium won't be built for years. They're having trouble with funding and everything there moves on Hawaiian time. They are aiming for a 2027 completion date but I'd be surprised if they built it before the end of this decade. Even if it was somehow built on time you can't have a league member hosting games on a practice field for a few years. They're in the same category as South Florida: schools that picked a very bad time to neglect football and facilities because they probably cost themselves a callup to the big leagues. I've heard a pretty interesting theory on why Colorado recruited better in the Big 12 than they have in the Pac 12, and it's not just because they were complete dogshit their entire time in the Pac 12 while they had some success in the Big 12. When Colorado was battling Big 12 schools for a recruit from Big 12 territory Boulder was a much more unique place than most Big 12 towns. They were the only mountain town in a conference of plains schools which would stick out during visits, especially for recruits who have never spent much time in the mountains. In the Pac 12 Boulder isn't even the only mountain town (there's Salt Lake City if you want to live in the mountains and play for a competent football program), plus there are mountains nearby most of the other schools in the conference so there goes the uniqueness. If you're recruiting a kid from California he's much more likely to have spent time in the mountains and not be as impressed by that like a kid from Iowa might be.

It's a PR campaign to let donors know they need a lot of help and to start angling for a potential bailout from the state government. Also there might be some state law that requires them to disclose this information but until now nobody has ever cared enough to pay attention to Washington State financial news. Best case plausible scenario for the Cougs is the Pac 12 stays together until 2030 or so making at least 25M/year, then Washington gets invited to the B1G and they are forced to pay alimony to Washington State like UCLA and Cal. That would provide enough time and money to aggressively pay down their debt, rein in spending using realistic projections instead of pie in the sky nonsense and make a smooth transition to the MWC. If the Pac 12 collapses in the next few weeks Washington State is incredibly fucked.

The new playoff format increases the likelihood of games like this. 5-8 seeds hosting 9-12 seeds will lead to some neat trips that CFB fans aren't used to seeing and they will be fun to attend or watch on TV. Since the B1G and the SEC will get the most at large berths that means B1G vs SEC first round games are very likely. And it's just a matter of time until the 1-4 seeds also get to host their first CFP game too. After a few years of the top 4 seeds correctly pointing out how fucking stupid it is that lower seeds are rewarded with homefield advantage to start their playoff run while higher seeds have to go to some boring neutral site NFL stadium to start their playoff run it will be changed.

That would be fun, but USC already has LSU and Notre Dame on the schedule in 2024. USC also has a 2025-26 home and home with Ole Miss, but going forward I think USC's noncon spots will be mostly cupcake home games with the occasional neutral site game close to LA (the LSU game is in Las Vegas). With 4-5 trips a year to the Central and Eastern time zones to play B1G games + Notre Dame USC should be minimizing travel in the noncon schedule. Right, from the beauty pageant aspect of things wins and losses vs SEC teams are viewed differently than they are vs Big 12 or Pac 12 teams. In their last two bowl games Texas Tech spanked both of the Mississippi schools yet I guarantee next year Alabama and LSU will get more love for beating those teams than any Big 12 team will get for beating Tech. The SEC is always great at the very top but their middle class gets way too much credit from voters and the committee.

I had never heard of them before either, but to be fair Baylor plays Utah the week before they play Long Island.

There are a lot of similarities between USC going from the Pac 12 to the B1G and Texas going from the Big 12 to the SEC. One that I think both teams will seriously benefit from is no longer being the only 800 pound gorilla in the room (USC) or 1 of 2 800 pound gorillas in the room (Texas and Oklahoma). Coaches and teams in the B1G/SEC aren't going to spend a grossly disproportionate amount of time prepping for USC/Texas and treating it as their Super Bowl like schools in the Pac 12/Big 12 do. People talk a lot of shit when USC/Texas lose to teams like Oregon State, Arizona State, Iowa State, Texas Tech etc but it's a different kind of tough to get through a schedule where every conference opponent treats you like their biggest game of the year while you really don't care much about most of them. Every B1G/SEC schedule will have multiple opponents on USC's/Texas' level which makes it harder for the underdogs to laser focus on you. Here are Baylor's games before and after Texas this fall: Long Island, Texas, at UCF. They can dedicate the entire previous week to extra Texas prep and still have that game over by halftime. If they have a hangover the following week against UCF that's still a winnable game. Even if blowing their load vs Texas costs them the UCF game I'm sure Baylor's fans, players and coaches would accept your offer if you guaranteed them a win over Texas followed by a loss to UCF. This Super Bowl shit isn't feasible in the SEC or the B1G and that's a major reason why those conferences have fewer upsets. If Mississippi State has a stretch of Alabama/Texas/LSU and they treat their game against Texas the way Baylor does they will get their ass handed to them the week before and after playing Texas. Even if it's a more manageable stretch of Arkansas/Texas/South Carolina there will still be other juggernauts on Mississippi State's schedule eventually and the Davids can only get up for so many David vs Goliath types of games a year, so being in a conference with more Goliaths means you're less likely to catch David on his giant killer day. There's also the fact teams in the B1G/SEC have less history with USC/Texas and thus less motivation to circle the calendar and play with their hair on fire that week, though this is more pronounced for USC since Texas is a better regional fit in the SEC than USC is in the B1G and Texas has more rivals in their new conference. In any case, USC will benefit from no longer playing against teams that live on California recruiting and I'm sure there will be a similar benefit for Texas playing fewer games against teams built on Texas recruiting. Every fucking conference game I have to hear the announcers talk about how so and so on the other team is a local boy who grew up a USC fan but USC never offered because he was a low 3* recruit and now he comes into the game with a massive chip on his shoulder. I'm sure there are similar narratives for Texas' Big 12 games. Put about 50 more of those chips on the shoulder for every Big 12/Pac 12 game played by Texas/USC and it starts to explain why these teams that shouldn't be able to compete on paper give Texas/USC a lot of trouble.

That board is responsible for negotiating the media deal and its membership is a microcosm of the conference's questionable management decisions. The other two members of that board are Stanford and Washington. You have one school that doesn't give a damn about revenue sports, one school that is openly begging for a B1G invitation and one school that is spitting distance from MWC membership. To be fair I don't know how qualified the individuals from each school are at the task of negotiating a media deal so maybe they're the best the Pac 12 has available, but it's terrible optics and PR to have the fate of the conference in the hands of that trio given each of their realignment situations. It also ties into something else I've ranted about before: Bay Area and PNW schools have way too much influence in the direction of the Pac 12, and their influence usually leads to poor outcomes. It's one of many things that drove USC and UCLA out of the conference and maybe it will drive some Four Corner schools away next.

2024 Iowa, Michigan, Penn State is the only combination that looks to have better than one in a billion odds. I'll make sure to quote myself when Indiana, Nebraska, Northwestern and Penn State all go 9-0 in 2025. Let me get this straight, Riley is afraid to compete in the B1G but not afraid to take on the AFC West or the NFC East? It's easier to beat Patrick Mahomes or Jalen Hurts twice than whatever 20 year olds are starting at QB for Michigan and Penn State in 2024? He'd rather get one first rounder a year in the NFL instead of landing multiple first rounders every Signing Day at USC?

I understand, I wasn't thrilled with Riley bringing Grinch to USC. He has a huge blind spot for his DC. It's his biggest weakness as a head coach. Despite that I see a realistic path to improvement and Grinch's defenses did improve every year at OU, even if they were never amazing. With how prolific USC's offense will be next year the defense doesn't have to be on par with Georgia. It just can't give up 60 second scoring drives immediately following a USC TD and let double digit underdogs hang around all game. Even if Grinch improves the defense enough to make the CFP this fall I still want him gone after that because USC is losing Caleb Williams in 2024. The next QB will not be able to smooth over defensive problems as well as Williams does so even if Grinch improves as much as I want him to next year I don't think it's sustainable going forward. As for S&C USC's players look bigger and stronger now than they did when Riley was hired. If OU replaced Wylie with a better S&C coach you couldn't tell while watching them go 6-7 last year, fielding a defense that was worse than USC's in PPG and YPG. You don't have to re-enact Junction Boys to get a football team in good shape.

My plausible dream scenario for Grinch is he improves the defense to the 50s overall range, which should be enough to make the playoff with Riley's offense, and some AD decides to make him their head coach. With the portal and recruiting reinforcements I think that's a doable goal. USC gets a CFP appearance with a QB capable of carrying a team to the title, the defense shows enough improvement to start tamping down the "USC doesn't play defense" narrative and Riley has to hire a new DC without the bad press of firing a DC. SEC went with 8 conference games/1 rival, which means you and OU are each other's rival.

Possibly, however USC played a major part in the Pac 12 eventually playing in 2020. The conference's drastic approach towards Covid largely came from Cal and Stanford, like most of the shitty ideas to emerge from the Pac 12. I think there would be less deference towards those two problem children if there were more members in the conference that prioritized successful athletics over bragging about being affiliated with the Bay Area schools. USC and the former Big 12 schools telling Cal and Stanford to go fuck themselves when they suggested canceling the 2020 season would have led to a fuller season than the joke season the Pac 12 ended up playing. Having more Big 12 teams in the conference also would have chipped away at the conference's pecking order in the decade leading up to the pandemic as well. Cal, Stanford and Washington have always had more say than they deserve in the direction of the Pac 12 and most of that time their decisions have been detrimental to the conference. There would have been some erosion of that hierarchy with Pac 16 expansion and that would provide benefits beyond a better handling of the pandemic. Maybe the conference puts more emphasis on football and basketball and less on irrelevant sports nobody outside of the Pacific time zone knows exists if Texas, Oklahoma and A&M are throwing their weight around. But navigating all of this cultural and political bullshit is why my dream conference was USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington to the original Big 12 instead of the Pac 16. The Pac 12's nutswinger schools are malignant tumors, the Big 12's nutswinger schools are more like mosquito bites.

The problem with that is the bar to grow the B1G/SEC pie enough to make everyone richer is a lot higher than it is in the Big 12. We're already seeing both super conferences run into financial hurdles, with the B1G needing to iron out some TV details to make NBC whole and the SEC unable to get a raise from ESPN in exchange for a 9th conference game. Schools like Washington and Oregon and Florida State and Clemson would struggle to make the super conferences wealthier. Arizona, Kansas and UConn have little to no chance, even if the March Madness media deal gets a hefty raise and the tournament payout structure is changed to favor the bigger conferences. Those basketball powers still need a home and it looks like adopting as many of them as possible is Yormark's plan, which I think is a good strategy for them. It's the kind of unconventional plan necessary when the conventional plan (maximize football dollars) is already owned by stronger competitors.

The Cardinals play in a dome with a retractable roof. Arizona and ASU play outside. Here is where the Sun Devils play.

All Arizona and Arizona State home games in September have to be at night, so get used to it if those two join the Big 12. Check their schedules and you'll see all their other September home games are also night games. It would be dangerous for fans to kickoff during the day early in the season. I remember going to USC's game at ASU in 2005 and it was on October 1st, which meant it didn't get September night kickoff protection. Fucking TV scheduled it for the middle of the day and it felt like sitting inside an oven. You could have fried eggs on the bleachers. The stadium ran out of ice and bottled water around halftime and I saw a few fans that had to be taken away in an ambulance, presumably for heat strokes. Some of the older folks I went with had to leave early because it was a life or death situation for them.

I just looked at the first 3 weeks of the B1G schedule and most of their P5 noncon games are on the road, especially in week 2 (Nebraska at Colorado, Wisconsin at Washington State, Iowa at Iowa State, Illinois at Kansas, Purdue at Virginia Tech). The schools should collaborate a little more in the future to avoid early weeks where everybody is either on the road or playing a cupcake. NBC is getting the conference's best game in Week 1. Week 3 has Washington at Michigan State but I'm guessing somebody else got that game. But in Week 4 NBC will have one of the most watched games of the season in Ohio State at Notre Dame.

The best Big 12 games won't match the best ACC games, but ACC games not involving their top brands are terrible. I think the last time I watched an ACC conference game that didn't involve at least one of Clemson, Florida State, Miami or Notre Dame was when Louisville had Lamar Jackson, and I spend 12+ hours parked in front of multiple TVs on fall Saturdays. From a neutral viewer's perspective, what Big 12 teams have going for them is they are usually pretty well-coached and running fun schemes with good QBs. It also helps that most of their games are sold out or close to it with lively crowds. I didn't think that was a big deal before 2020 but after a year of empty and 25% capacity stadiums this is important to the TV experience. Most ACC teams aren't very well coached, they use boring playbooks and they might as well be playing on a rec field. I'd watch Clemson/Notre Dame or Florida State/NC State or Miami/Virginia Tech before I'd watch most of the new Big 12 games. But I'd watch any Big 12 game before I'd watch games like Wake Forest/Pitt or Syracuse/Duke or Virginia/Boston College. Baylor/West Virginia and Kansas State/Texas Tech and Oklahoma State/Iowa State are all way more fun to watch than ACC games that don't have their top teams.

Whichever Big 12 teams happen to be contending will have good ratings. The Big 12 won't have any one team that dominates year after year like Oklahoma did but they have enough teams capable of putting together a top 10 year that they'll always have a couple of them on the upswing. I think that unpredictability and churn will be compelling for neutral fans tired of watching the same teams own other conferences, plus it will be a major draw for gamblers. Also, the expanded CFP will be a boost to every conference's ratings because there will be more CFP races to watch and they won't all be in the B1G or the SEC. For example,. last year TCU had some high ratings and it wasn't just when they played Texas and Oklahoma. They pulled 4.34M vs Iowa State, 4.35M vs Baylor, 2.5M vs Tech and 2.14M vs Oklahoma State. The Big 12 CCG between TCU and Kansas State had 9.41M viewers, which wasn't that far behind the B1G (10.7M) and SEC (10.89M) CCGs. It was 4 million more than the Pac 12 CCG, which had CFP stakes for USC, and 6 million more than the ACC CCG (Clemson/North Carolina). The AAC CCG, between Tulane and soon to be Big 12 member UCF, went head to head with the SEC CCG and still had 2.7M viewers.

I don't have a problem with playing some snoozer conference games. Not every Saturday has to be the Game of the Century of the Decade of the Year of the Week. Getting a breather against Northwestern in between games against Michigan and Wisconsin will be important. The problem is the Pac 12 has way too many Northwestern-type games and not enough Michigan/Wisconsin-type games. That's why I'd rather play shitty B1G teams instead of shitty Pac 12 teams. The shitty B1G teams are bundled with good B1G teams, the shitty Pac 12 teams are bundled with more shitty Pac 12 teams. Also, this isn't a strictly on-field issue. Peer programs tend to vote in similar ways and share similar priorities. In the Pac 12 that meant USC and sometimes UCLA getting fucked over in votes by the Davids who got too big for their britches and mistakenly thought the LA schools were trapped with them forever. The B1G's Davids are kept in line by Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State. Also, for the umpteenth time, my dream conference would have been original Big 12 plus USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington. Swap Baylor for BYU if you want your religious school to be less rapey and available to host late night kickoffs. Joining the B1G is making the best out of the hand that was dealt, not the Western super conference I would have constructed if I was running the casino.

It's fun to think about what a perfect CFB world looks like, but even your version of it would still have a lot of the same problems that led to super conference realignment. Basing revenue on ratings sounds good on paper but it's heavily dependent on who you play and what time you play them and what channel you're on. The biggest ratings drivers are mostly clustered in the same divisions (Rust Belt, South, South Plains), which will create a feedback loop where they always get the best windows because they always have the highest ratings. USC/Oregon at 10:30 PM ET and Penn State/Virginia Tech at noon will get lapped in ratings by Texas/LSU at 3:30 and Notre Dame/Michigan at 7. That would lead to a revenue gap where teams like USC and Penn State and Florida State and Clemson hate not having enough divisional peers to help them drive up ratings and try to realign with similar programs. Why should USC and Penn State take financial and recruiting hits to play bullshit games with San Diego State and Boston College while Ohio State and Alabama rake in the money and the recruits since they have more big time foes in their divisions? Yes, you're absolutely right there will be B1G games that bore me. Going to the Notre Dame game is enough Indiana for me so I doubt I'll be making road trips against the Hoosiers and the Boilermakers. The part you're not getting is there are already lots of Pac 12 games that bore me. USC's conference home schedule last year was a fucking joke. Arizona State, Washington State, Cal and Colorado on a Friday night. In the B1G USC will get 6 games against Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State every 4 years plus games against Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa and Nebraska. Nothing the Pac 12 offers can match that. I'll miss playing Washington, but they were only on USC's schedule half the time anyways. Cal was fun in the 2000s when they had Tedford and Stanford was fun too during the Harbaugh and Shaw eras, but I don't see either of them competing in the NIL transfer portal era so I'm not weeping over leaving them. As for the rest of the Pac 12 it wouldn't bother me a bit if USC never played any of them again after 2023. It probably won't happen the way I laid it out, but that's the beauty of conference realignment. It provides near infinite wild scenarios that are just plausible enough you can entertain the possibility. In any case, it appears Washington State's administration is acknowledging this potential outcome.

I think it's a realization they're going to be on the hook for more than 1/12th of the reimbursement for that 50M cable partner overpayment. USC and UCLA are trying to get out of it by saying it's a conference fuck up, not a USC/UCLA fuck up, and we won't be in the conference when you repay it so we're not pitching in. If that's successful, schools leaving for the Big 12 could make the same argument. 50/12 = 4.167M owed per team, which is painful for Washington State even in the best of times. It becomes a lot more painful with an uncertain future, especially if more teams get out of paying for the overpayment. 50/10 = 5M, 50/8 = 6.25M, 50/6 = 8.33M, 50/4 = 12.5M. It's really hard to kill off a conference and I thought the Pac 12 would survive by left behind teams absorbing midmajors because the Pac 12 brand is more valuable than the MWC brand, but it's possible the Pac 12 dies because of this. The left behind teams will have to decide if the Pac 12's brand value outweighs paying off that 50M. If not they might euthanize the Pac 12 and join the MWC or create a new conference with their favorite G5 teams.

Maybe hearing the perspective of a fan whose school is in a similar situation as Texas but has zero bad blood with the Big 12 (besides kneecapping Oklahoma's program, lol) will help remove some of the emotion from it. It's fun to have those kinds of bitter games when the hatred is mutual; it's not so fun when you view it as just another game while all of the bitterness and hatred comes from the other side. Texas will still have their mutual hatred games in the SEC with Oklahoma and A&M. USC will still play UCLA in the B1G, plus Notre Dame isn't leaving the schedule. I'm still getting my fix of the teams I love to hate after USC leaves the Pac 12. People like to joke about USC soon playing conference games against Rutgers and Maryland...but for USC fans it isn't that different from conference games against teams like Colorado and Washington State we already didn't give a fuck about. What I give a fuck about is finally being in a conference with peer programs instead of sticking out as the Goliath lightning rod for a conference full of Davids looking for somebody to hate and blame for all their problems and circle as their Super Bowl. Swapping games against Pac 12 teams I don't care about playing for games against B1G teams I won't care about playing is an acceptable tradeoff to get what I want. If the left behind Pac 12 teams are upset they're losing a bitter regional hatred game where 95% of the bitter hatred comes from their side, that's their problem. It's also a failure on their part to consider how the departing team's fans view realignment because like I said USC will continue playing the teams our fanbase actually does hate. Only one side of this equation is bemoaning the loss of regional hatred because only one side ever had those feelings in the first place. For example, USC has much bigger goals than winning dogfights in front of 30K people at Oregon State while a top 10 list of best ever Oregon State football moments would include multiple upsets over USC. In every single way except travel and questionable definitions of regional hatred it's more beneficial for USC to drop Oregon State and replace them with Ohio State. USC beats Ohio State? It's the story of the week, the entire country watched, it's a nice feather in the cap for recruiting. USC beats Oregon State? Nobody even noticed because it was a Pac 12 After Dark kickoff on the Pac 12 Network. USC loses to Ohio State? Quality loss, you only drop 3 spots in the rankings and your season isn't over. USC loses to Oregon State? The season is totally fucked, that loss is a scarlet letter and you plummet double digits in the rankings. It's also the story of the week so have fun seeing the highlights during pregame and halftime of any other game you watch. Ohio State comes to the Coliseum? Huge event, crowd will be over-capacity, if you can't attend reselling your tickets will pay for your season tickets. Oregon State comes to the Coliseum? Zzz, that's the kind of game they make you buy in a bundle if you want to also get tickets against Notre Dame or UCLA. Ohio State helps make more money for USC, Oregon State's athletic department lives on welfare checks taken out of USC's revenue. I'm not compelled to give up all those benefits of leaving the Pac 12 for the B1G because people who aren't USC fans don't like that USC will no longer play other West Coast teams.