Trojan Man

The alternative is you don't partner with a major network to carry and promote your conference network, which is what the Pac 12 did (spoiler: it was a catastrophic failure).

I'm sure there are Nebraska fans who wish they still played Oklahoma every year (they got screwed on that one while still in the Big 12) and Missouri fans who wish they played Kansas yearly and Colorado fans who wish they played Nebraska every year. I'm also sure the vast majority of them wouldn't trade financial security and a future in the B1G or the SEC for sentimental reasons. I don't see too much concern from Oregon and Washington fans about leaving behind century-old series' against Oregon State and Washington State and Cal and Stanford when they discuss what conference they hope to end up in. It's easy to write off B1G/SEC membership as only being good for money, but that's because we're used to a world where the other conferences are still somewhat close to their revenue. That idea will change after a few years of B1G/SEC schools lapping ACC, Big 12 and Pac 12 schools in revenue while also getting most of the prime time windows. Over a decade, conference affiliation will lead to a difference of between a quarter billion to a half billion between B1G/SEC schools and ACC/Big 12/Pac 12 schools. It would be nice if everyone could have enough resources to be nationally relevant while also maintaining regional schedules and some schools are lucky enough to have both. For those who aren't every single one is choosing the former.

I'm not buying that any school that ended up in the B1G or the SEC made a mistake with realignment. Conferences exist to provide their members with money, exposure and compelling schedules. Those two conferences are clearly the best by those metrics. If continuing to play rivals and more regional schedules outweighed those benefits schools would stay put. Had Maryland, Missouri and Rutgers remained in their old conferences there is a very good chance they would not get invited today and remain stuck on the outside looking in. You could argue Colorado screwed up but they always wanted to be in a conference with a Californian presence, the Big 12 team they liked playing the most left for the B1G and they could still end up back in the Big 12. I'd argue the opposite. 2012 A&M would not have done as well in the Big 12 as they did in the SEC. They and Missouri tore shit up their first few years in their new conference because SEC teams were still largely using ball control dinosaur offenses, so the two new guys using offenses that played fast and tried to score every drive and started QBs who could throw the ball more than 10 yards instead of playing not to lose shook things up. Manziel was an amazing college QB, but he wasn't replacing some walk on scrub. A&M's final Big 12 QB was a top 10 pick who is still starting in the NFL (Tannehill) and they went 7-6 with him in 2011. If 2012 A&M kept playing teams that knew what to expect from them and faced similar offenses every week their season would have played out differently than it did shock and awwing a bunch of SEC defenses that (back then) were built to stop between the tackles handoffs and might face 1 good QB all season.

President Folt hired Bohn and she has made some other extraordinary academic hires, so I have faith she'll make a strong hire for Bohn's replacement. The most important priorities for a new AD are someone who won't get into a stupid dick-waving ego clash with Riley, someone who doesn't feel they have to make their own signature coaching hires to leave their mark and someone who isn't a dinosaur on NIL. I'd also add "no former USC football players" but fortunately I think USC is past that idiocy. The hardest work of hiring a good football coach and joining a better conference have already been done so the next AD just needs to keep his head down and not fuck anything up.

I don't think it's just posturing. If the goal is leaving the ACC before the GOR expires, whether it's through litigation or voting to dissolve the ACC or paying a buyout, they have to say exactly what they just said. Much like the administration has to publicly support the head coach until the minute they fire him they also have to publicly support the conference until the minute they leave. If FSU went around saying "Fuck the ACC we want to leave this shithole yesterday" they wouldn't be allowed to vote on dissolving the conference. Also, these are professionals. They know how to say a lot of words without saying what they really mean because professionals generally don't burn bridges. Even after all their exits were made official there hasn't been a single negative word about the Big 12/Pac 12 out of the administrations at Texas, Oklahoma, USC or UCLA.

It's a little ridiculous to laugh off the value of Nebraska and UCLA then hype up the potential of a rehabbed Arizona or Colorado. They are all the CFB equivalent of run down homes waiting to be flipped, except Nebraska and UCLA are in the nicest neighborhoods with deep-pocketed investors attempting to flip them while Arizona and Colorado are on the outskirt part of town that may or may not boom in 10-20 years and their flips are carried out by weekend warriors using YouTube guides. If all of those programs went on a decade-long run of consistently playing at a CFP-level with a few years as legit title contenders Nebraska then UCLA would have much higher ratings and value than Arizona and Colorado, and not just because of conference affiliation. Nebraska will always have some of the best fan support in all of CFB, which translates to NIL nowadays. UCLA is in a great recruiting territory and will soon be one of only two P2 schools west of Texas. With some success they should be able to build and maintain it easier than Arizona or Colorado would. We don't know if any of these programs will ever be rehabbed, but you're writing off the two with the most upside as negative value while trying to sell everyone on the two with less upside and longer odds to pull off a flip. Personally, I wouldn't have any interest in Colorado to the B1G even if they did rehab. Their football team has been flaming dogshit almost every year beginning with a 2 and their AD was apathetic to it. They do nothing in basketball. They don't bring much in recruiting and they don't have a rabid fanbase. They wouldn't help USC/UCLA with travel. If you're going to be in the air that long from LA you might as well fly the extra 45 minutes or so until you get to Lincoln. They were perfectly content to do the bare minimum required to get that sweet conference revenue sharing check. They only started to give a fuck about onfield performance when the gravy train they were living off departed for the B1G, which isn't something I'd like to reenact after Prime Time gets poached by the SEC and they hire another Dorrell. Arizona would be alright as a "last flight out of Saigon" invitation to put a bow on B1G realignment. They have elite basketball, AZ recruiting is better than CO recruiting and they actually do help LA schools with travel, unlike other schools that call themselves LA travel partners.

UCLA learned from past realignment mishaps. They shot the arrow first then painted the target around where it landed instead of painting a target first and asking politicians for permission to shoot the arrow. The UC system and Gavin Newsom still interfered and got some alimony for Cal but ultimately they were powerless to stop UCLA leaving for the B1G after it was in motion. If UCLA asked for permission instead of forgiveness they might be stuck while Stanford takes their place in the B1G. Also, Cal isn't the only UC school that desperately needs money. Covid really did a number on UCLA's finances. They need the B1G pay day just as badly. Getting that huge check for 1/2 UC schools is better than 0/2.

That has to be a real point of contention in Pac 12 media deal negotiations. Every school that isn't Oregon or Washington should be insisting on a guaranteed minimum amount of linear appearances per team per season to make sure the Ducks/Huskies don't get every single linear window while everyone else is 100% streaming. The 4C schools have the leverage to push for this because the Big 12 will have more than one linear window per week plus the Big 12's windows won't be dominated by a couple teams like the Pac 12's could be. Notre Dame doesn't get a vote on stuff like this because they're only partial members, though the ACC collapsing would make it easier for them to join the B1G. IIRC they would still owe a lot of money to the ACC if they join any other conference before the GOR expires.

I think it's unnecessary West Coast travel B1G teams are trying to cut down on, not all noncon opponents with a pulse. They really struggle heading west, another reason I don't think Oregon and Washington will be seriously considered for B1G membership until after the ACC is raided. Michigan's 2022 and 2023 noncon schedules are garbage because they backed out of a home and home with UCLA. Ohio State canceled a 2024-25 home and home with Washington. The 2024 game was scheduled for Seattle, which leads me to believe the Buckeyes received advance warning they're getting a conference road game in LA in 2024. I doubt those two will cancel their other big time noncon games. One, it's a bigger deal to play Texas than Washington or UCLA. Ohio State/Michigan vs Texas could break 10M viewers like Alabama/Texas did. Buckeyes/Wolverines vs Washington or UCLA would still be a good draw but not that good. Two, playing in Texas is easier travel than Washington and UCLA for Ohio State/Michigan and time zones won't be an issue. Three, the expanded playoff means a noncon quality loss isn't that big of a deal. If Michigan loses to Texas, drops a random conference game and wins the B1G they're still getting a top 4 bye seed. If that same scenario plays out but they lose the CCG they're getting an at large bid. If they lose two conference games to go 9-3 and miss the CCG they still might sneak in depending on their wins and losses and how things play out elsewhere. I suspect part of the recent scheduling dust up in the B1G is due to uncertainty over what the next few years of conference schedules will look like. I know the B1G publicly released their conference schedules in chunks of 5 or 6 years after they grew to 12 and then 14 teams because I remember being jealous of them for knowing that far out who they'd play and when they would play them while the Pac 12 didn't create schedules with more than a season's notice. I think once they work out permanent opponents and rotations they'll do the same for the remainder of the decade, which will let everyone know which years they'll only have 4 conference home games and when they need to work around West Coast road games. That will make noncon scheduling easier.

I think the conference-wide pro day is a great idea that other conferences, including the B1G and the SEC, should copy. That kind of event would have scouts from every NFL team present, which would be beneficial for prospects on teams that don't produce a lot of talent. NFL scouting departments might blow off Purdue's or Kentucky's pro day if it's scheduled for the same day as pro days at more talent-rich programs and their only prospects are 6th-7th rounders and UDFAs. But if they do a pro day alongside Ohio State's and Alabama's prospects they will be seen by every team and have more visibility. That also gives scouts a chance to see how prospects perform outside of their comfort zone. They can see how QBs and WRs react to new teammates like they will in the NFL instead of throwing to/running routes for the same guys they have been playing with for years. Those 4 new teams are what positioned the Big 12 to take out the Pac 12. If they were still sitting at 8 members for 2024 they wouldn't have the media contract they ended up signing, they would be fighting the Pac 12 for BYU and Houston and the Big 12 might get poached by the Pac 12.

I don't think this is how the eastern B1G schools will look at it. USC and UCLA will combine to host 8 eastern B1G teams per year (one gets 4 conference home games, one gets 5, one of those games will be USC vs UCLA). That means 6 B1G schools won't have to head out west, nearly as many as will head west, so you're almost as likely to benefit from this set up as you are to be hurt by it. If you get USC or UCLA as a permanent game you're going west 3/4 years, if you don't you're going west 2/4 years. As long as the 4 schools that end up getting USC/UCLA as a permanent opponent (subtracting a slot since the LA schools will be assigned each other) aren't too butthurt about making an extra West Coast trip every presidential administration this won't cause any rifts. I suspect one or two of those slots will go to eager volunteers who want to play more games in LA for recruiting purposes, particularly Nebraska. From a competitive standpoint in a tight conference race it's just as likely all teams involved went to the West Coast or none went to the West Coast as it is some did and some didn't. If USC or UCLA are involved in the race the B1G teams won't have any room to complain about their one long trip vs USC's/UCLA's travel itinerary. You also have to look at the benefits of traveling West from their perspective. Going to LA provides major benefits when it comes to recruiting and exposure. It gives your fans a trip to watch their team play in historic bucket list stadiums in sunny 65 degree weather late in the season while the rest of the B1G's footprint is frozen over. Every school has some kind of LA alumni organization to help plan events and do fundraisers. Your trip to LA is a major reason the B1G will be the richest conference in CFB. Those are enough pros to deal with one long plane flight every couple years. Now look at how those pros stack up when going to Oregon or Washington. They're all inferior to varying degrees compared to what you get from going to LA. Recruiting pipelines don't exist in Oregon. Washington offers some decent recruiting but it's worse than what you get from LA. Market exposure is similar, Eugene/Portland are totally outclassed by LA while Seattle is good but not LA good. November games in the PNW give you freezing rain and fog so thick you can't see your hand in front of your face, not exactly the nice weekend getaway that LA provides for your fans late in the season. They have cool stadiums but again, not on the same level as the Coliseum and the Rose Bowl. Any alumni groups B1G schools have in Oregon and Washington won't be as big and active as they are in LA. Most importantly, the money they would add to the conference is much less than what USC and UCLA added. What exactly is the point of adding the West Coast's Great Value brands when you already landed Coke and Pepsi?

It's a major problem for the ACC and the Pac 12, not so much for the Big 12. Ironically, getting picked apart and left for dead multiple times before the ACC and the Pac 12 were ever touched ended up helping the Big 12 quite a bit. The Big 12 was able to go through their existential crises while there was still enough money and TV windows for 5 power conferences. The ACC and the Pac 12 are going through it while the sport is whittling down to 2, maybe 2.5, power conferences. What you said about no one feeling secure or happy only applies if your conference relies on schools that are P2 flight risks or has middling members deluded enough to think they'll get a P2 golden ticket eventually. Combine them with the schools that know they are never getting a P2 invite and you have three competing factions with very different agendas and goals in the ACC and the Pac 12. Meanwhile, the Big 12 already worked through the drama of the stages of grief and made it to acceptance. ACC and Pac 12 schools are all fluctuating between the first 4 stages of grief. Big 12 schools are aware they are all stuck on the same boat so they might as well row in the same direction and work together. I wonder if anyone would believe you if you traveled back in time to 2011 and called in to a sports talk station claiming that in a little more than a decade the Big 12 would lose Texas and Oklahoma yet be positioned to poach from the Pac 12 and the ACC to become the #3 conference.

Thanks, I thought Leach and Beard were just fired with cause over off field problems (which was a joke in Leach's case) but that makes the ACC drama a lot more interesting if it was with a mechanic schools could use to void their GOR. However, if the GOR is struck down too soon you have to wonder if the networks will have the desire or even the money to start paying 4-8 ACC teams B1G/SEC rates since they're all economically struggling right now. I think they'd like to have a few years seeing how their 16 team conferences financially perform before deciding to hand out more golden tickets. It's one thing to get Maryland and Rutgers on half shares for their first few years but I don't see Florida State and Clemson going for that.

Could public schools make this same argument to tear up a shitty coaching contract they regret?

"We're being irreparably harmed by a stupid, extremely long contract we signed of our own free will so it should be nullified" Damn, if only my Angels realized they could have used this on Pujols...

Right, I saw your math post. It was sound but I think you underestimated how much the B1G and SEC will dominate at large bid discussion. Of course there will always be some year to year variance but the B1G and SEC are getting 3 bids (1 champ + 2 at large) most years with 4 bid years more common than 2 bid years. That will leave the ACC, Big 12 and Pac 12 fighting over the last 2 at large bids. The 14 team versions of the B1G and the SEC have already had years where they individually get half the bids in a 4 bid playoff, so getting 25-33% of the bids in a 12 team playoff after they expand to 16 teams isn't out of reach. The biggest brands outside the P2 have to go on runs to keep the B1G and SEC from owning the at large conversation. Teams like Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington and Utah could put a serious dent in the at large pool if some of them can sustain prosperity. 10-2 Notre Dame and 10-2 Oregon might get at large bids over 10-2 Auburn and 10-2 Wisconsin. 10-2 Arizona State and 10-2 Pitt are probably not beating 10-2 Auburn and 10-2 Wisconsin for at large bids. When it comes to realignment I don't know if the university presidents see it this way. The commissioners certainly do. You're spot on with the B1G and Big 12 strategies. It seems so obvious that those Pac 12 schools should join the Big 12, but there is a lot of academic snobbery and coastal arrogance they'll have to swallow to join the Big 12. The two friends part could cause issues as well because Arizona and Colorado may not be the friends they prefer to bring. Abandoning Oregon State and Washington State for the B1G is one thing, but it might be harder to pull that off politically for a move to the Big 12. If they insist on bringing their little brothers to the Big 12 that should be a non-starter for the Big 12 unless Oregon and Washington either sign a rock solid longterm GOR or there is a clause stating Beav/Coug membership can be revoked if Oregon and Washington leave the conference. Getting stuck with Oregon State and Washington State in exchange for 5-10 years of having Oregon and Washington would be a terrible outcome for the Big 12. Goes to show the importance of winning your conference, which I like despite costing my team big time in this scenario. USC's CCG loss drops them from a bye week to a trip to Alabama in the first round. Kansas State isn't in without winning the Big 12 and Utah probably isn't in without winning the Pac 12. I hope they provide some flexibility to alter seeds by 1 spot to avoid first round rematches, like Penn State/Ohio State. Swap seeds for either Penn State and Tulane or Ohio State and TCU. Also it's really dumb the top 4 seeds don't get a home game while 5-8 get a home game. I expect that to change when the teams that always get a top 4 seed point out how shitty it is to punish them for being too good.

This argument gets even dumber when you realize it relies on the faulty assumption both conferences will only get 1 CFP bid. He's right about the Pac, but the 16 team B1G will send 3 teams to the playoff most years while an 18 team B1G (adding Oregon and Washington) would get 4 most years. 1/10 = 10%, 3/16 = 18.75%, 4/16 = 25%, 3/18 = 16.67%, 4/18 = 22.2%. B1G teams will be able to survive a loss or two and still make the CFP. Pac teams are fucked if they don't win the conference. It would take something like Oregon and Washington going undefeated except when they play each other plus each of them winning big noncon games for the Pac to get an at large bid. Then there's the recruiting angle. If you're in the B1G you can sell multiple prime time games a year against CFP contenders full of future NFLers. If you're in the Pac you can sell weeknight and 10:30 PM ET games against Washington State and Cal teams full of guys who will go pro in something other than sports. I'd have a little more respect for Wilner if he just said he wants teams to stay in the Pac to keep his job relevant because there is no other angle that makes sense. Edit: disregard, didn't read newer replies

That's fucking gross. Leaving those cocksuckers behind was one of the best parts of joining the B1G. Guess I'll cope by telling myself they will be properly trained and held accountable in the B1G, two foreign concepts in the Pac 12 officiating handbook.

Right, I get most fans don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of coaches and returning starters and year over year trends throughout the entire sport. Bullshitting around is one thing, but once you start betting money it's prudent to do at least some research on the teams involved with your bet. When I take that approach with my sports gambling I do a lot better than when I just roll with gut feelings and bravado and drunken impulses. Of the 4 games I described as most winnable for Colorado Washington State is definitely the best opponent on that list. I didn't break it down because I was already getting into essay territory with my post, but I do think they're a cut or two above the other three teams I grouped alongside them. I'm just not sold on them being good enough to bump them out of the winnable tier. In order of most to least likely wins among the Buffs' winnable games I'd go Colorado State, Stanford, ASU and WSU. One thing Colorado has going for them in that matchup is the Cougs are a pass-first team, which plays to the Buff's defensive strength and away from their weakness, and their QB isn't a threat to run. Any QB who needs to pass it 35+ times per game and has an off day against Colorado next year will be in trouble. Wazzou is an extremely volatile program, which is another reason I included them in the winnable category. They might beat Colorado by 4 TDs, they might choke away a 4 TD lead in the second half then lose in OT, they might mount a 4 TD comeback in the second half, they might get blown out. You never know what the hell to expect from them, especially at home.

It's a lot harder to dig yourself into a massive roster hole today like Weis and others did at Kansas. Portal, Covid bonus year increasing the number of veteran players looking for a home, no more initial counter limits. None of these were possible when Kansas' coaches were loading up on juco players. Getting 85 good players is still a challenge, but getting 85 FBS-level players no longer requires years of balanced recruiting and meticulous roster management. Where do you see 6 guaranteed wins on that schedule? At Oregon, USC and at Utah would be "biggest upset of the season" territory if Colorado pulls those off so we're down to 9 games. TCU, at UCLA and Oregon State would be pretty notable upsets. 6 games left. Nebraska and Arizona are in mild upset territory. It might sound weird to have Arizona in that category but they have a good QB, their recruiting has been trending up the last couple years and their coach knows what he is doing. They are on the upswing. Colorado has 4 games that wouldn't be upsets if they won (Colorado State, at Arizona State, Stanford, at Washington State), but it wouldn't be shocking if they blow some of those games since most teams don't go undefeated in winnable games. Then there are some factors working against them I talked about earlier, like the brutal start to the season taking the wind out of their sails early on and teams taking Colorado seriously for the first time since they joined the Pac 12 instead of treating that week as a semi-bye week. Sanders has a path to recruit enough talent to build contenders in either the Pac 12 or the Big 12, depending on how the TV contract situation plays out, but 2023 will be rough. He's going from a situation where he out-talented everybody he played at the FCS level to a job where he will be out-talented most games this fall. That will be a learning curve. It took time for more successful FCS coaches than Sanders to figure things out at the FBS level. After dominating at North Dakota State Craig Bohl has never won more than 8 games in his 9 years at Wyoming, though 8 wins for them is still pretty good. Chris Klieman won 4 FCS titles in 5 years as Bohl's successor. He needed 4 years to win 10 games and a conference title at Kansas State.

Those lucky conference schedules the West teams relied on will be a thing of the past after the B1G drops divisions in 2024. The other 12 teams will play 2-3 out of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and USC yearly and those 4 will play 2 of the other 3 most years. They will all play 2 of the other 3 every year if Penn State/USC happens yearly. Ohio State/Michigan will be protected. Penn State/USC as another permanent game matches up the B1G's other top dogs annually and keeps SOS pretty even among all 4 of them season to season. Years 1-2 you'd have Ohio State/Penn State and USC/Michigan, then years 3-4 you rotate it to Ohio State/USC and Michigan/Penn State. They all play the same number of games against each other so nobody feels like they're getting screwed, especially if the conference sets it up so all of them get 1 home and 1 away. The networks are happy they get 4 guaranteed games per year between the bellcows and the participants in the B1G CCG earned it instead of getting a welfare bid after going 8-4. Also, the B1G was unusually top heavy last year. That won't always be the case. More often than not teams like Michigan State, Iowa and Wisconsin will form a quality second tier with ascents to the top tier every once in awhile. Nebraska and UCLA could reach that level too. I'd also look for teams to ask their boosters to start redirecting money to NIL after the new media deal checks start rolling in so they can sign better players. In the 12 team playoff I expect the B1G and SEC to each get 2 at large bids most years. Maybe once every 3-4 years one of them will get a third at large bid and once every 5 years one of those leagues will cannibalize itself enough to only get 1 at large bid. Of the other conferences I think the Big 12 will get an at large bid most years. If the Pac 12 loses anyone to the Big 12 they're never getting an at large bid. If they keep all their remaining members it's possible in years Oregon, Washington and Utah are all doing well but it would be rare due to the crabs in a bucket nature of Pac 12 conference play. The ACC will get an at large bid once every few years though it would help a lot if both Clemson and Florida State were good at the same time, Miami got their shit together and somebody else like Pitt or North Carolina could be consistently good. Pull that off and I think they'd get an at large most years.

Nebraska fired a bad coach and replaced him with a better coach, same as Colorado. Rhule doesn't have a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory like Frost did. Nebraska's roster situation also wasn't as dire as Colorado's, especially along the LOS. I'm not saying Colorado has no hope in that game but a Buff win over Corn is an upset. I think Colorado should beat Colorado State, but there are enough reasons for me to not carve that outcome into stone just yet. Colorado will be better. However, they're not in a 7 on 7 league. A few playmakers at QB and WR and DB won't carry the team all by themselves. There will be games where your offensive line gets dominated and your skill players can't get anything going. There will also be games where your DBs get bored because the other team just runs the ball for 5-10 yards every play the entire game. Fixing a bad OL and DL takes more than one offseason because God only made so many men who are 300+ lbs, athletic enough to play competitive sports and mean/deranged enough to want to give and take beatings every week.

If Colorado's schedule was more evenly distributed instead of heavily frontloaded I think you'd be a lot more likely to reach 4-8. It's tough to recover from a 1-4 or 0-5 tailspin. Colorado has a brutal September. -at TCU -Nebraska -Colorado State -at Oregon -USC That would be a rough way to kick off the season for a top 25 team. For a program at rock bottom it's murderer's row. Colorado will start off with a lot of hype and excitement, but getting your ass handed to you for a month to open the season would end all of that in a hurry. TCU won't be as good or as lucky in 2023 as they were in 2022, but they're a ranked team. Coaching was a much bigger problem than talent for Nebraska lately and now they have a competent head coach. Colorado State is terrible too, but it's still a rivalry game that CSU will treat as their Super Bowl. It's sandwiched in between other big games so a letdown in your most winnable early game is possible (there's a reason SEC teams almost never play back to back big regular season games). Colorado not being run out of the stadium by halftime against Oregon or USC would be a moral victory. The schedule eases up after September, but there still isn't anybody the rest of the season Colorado should be favored to beat except maybe Stanford. It's in Boulder, those nerds have an unproven new coach and Shaw didn't leave much in the cupboard. Another factor to consider is that unlike past years your opponents will actually give a fuck about playing Colorado because of the Prime circus and the recruiting competition he is bringing. The Buffs aren't catching anyone sleepwalking into the game and treating it as a scrimmage like cellar teams usually benefit from a couple times a year. I'm predicting 2-3 wins for Colorado in 2023. The wins will come from some combination of Colorado State, Arizona State, Stanford and Washington State. Best chance for an upset of a ranked team is Oregon State. Colorado gets them at home and I'm not sold DJ Ugleleleley (sp) will be any better there than he was at Clemson. The Beavers don't out-talent opponents, they out-discipline and out-tough them, which means anyone who can match their discipline and toughness has a shot. Colorado can play a well-coached game, hope Oregon State's bust QB has a rough day against Colorado's secondary and we'll see what happens.

Going forward, at least for good B1G and SEC teams, I think there will be less focus on "We have to play at least X home games per year to make the financials work" and more emphasis on scheduling big games against peer programs. With the ungodly amounts their media contracts are reaching these teams can afford to make a tradeoff to improve the quality of their schedule at the expense of quantity. The entire sport, from the top to the bottom, is having a harder time every year selling season tickets and getting asses in seats. Replacing games against Eastern Who Gives A Fuck State with CFP contenders or at least teams people have heard of is an effective way to combat that. Some teams are already embracing this strategy. Here are games scheduled from 2024-2034 (starting at that date because it's when the B1G and SEC reach 16 teams). All home and home unless otherwise noted. Georgia: Georgia Tech every year, Clemson 5 times (2 H&H 1 neutral), UCLA, Louisville, Florida State, Ohio State, NC State. In 2030 they're playing Clemson and Ohio State. Georgia also had to cancel games in this timespan with Texas and Oklahoma due to realignment. Alabama: Wisconsin, Florida State, West Virginia, Ohio State, Oklahoma State, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, Arizona, Boston College, Minnesota, Virginia Tech. In 2025 they're playing at FSU and hosting Wisconsin. In 2026 they play at WVU and host FSU. In 2027 they host WVU and go to Ohio State. Considering Alabama refused to schedule H&Hs with P5 teams for almost all of Saban's tenure and more than 1 P5 team per year ever under Saban this is a pretty dramatic change in scheduling philosophy. I know Saban has bitched before about fans not showing up against cupcakes and leaving blowouts early. Some of these games will be canceled after the SEC moves to 9 conference games, but some of these years only have 2-3 noncon teams on the schedule so adding a 9th conference game won't bump anybody then.

I understand not every game in the B1G will be against Ohio State, Michigan or Penn State. That's fine. I'll gladly trade crap Pac 12 games for crap B1G games in exchange for huge B1G games that aren't possible in the Pac 12. Makes zero difference to me if USC's middling and bottom tier conference opponents are Arizona, Colorado and Washington State or Indiana, Rutgers and Minnesota. Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State are all bigger games than any Pac 12 opponent USC could ever play and most years in the B1G USC will host one of them while traveling to one of them. I can live with games against Maryland and Illinois in between the games I look forward to just like you can live with games against Mississippi State and Vanderbilt in between the games you look forward to against Alabama and LSU. There are years when USC gets zero Pac 12 home games I give a fuck about, like 2022. That won't ever happen in the B1G. You can't say "The B1G is desperate for Oregon" and "The B1G is looking for recruiting territory" in the same post. Those two points are at odds with each other. Oregon offers fuck all in terms of recruiting territory. You won't get a single pipeline from their backyard but they'll happily use P2 prestige and money to take players from your fertile recruiting territories. Washington is better from that perspective because Seattle produces some talent but nobody is looking at the state of Oregon when they are building their class. This is half the reason USC fans want nothing to do with Oregon joining the B1G. In a lifetime of Pac membership alongside Oregon they benefited massively from being affiliated with USC/LA while USC gets absolutely nothing from being affiliated with Oregon. They want yearly games in LA, USC and UCLA are happy to never play another game in Oregon after 2023. They don't bring academic prestige. They aren't a basketball powerhouse. They don't have a huge market, and like I already said they are a net negative in recruiting territory. There is nothing valuable about Oregon beyond the heaps of money Phil Knight and Nike have dumped into their football program, and that value relies on having good players. Why let them continue to recruit good players you also want when you could just cut them out and get those players yourself? It should be easy in the near future for B1G programs (not just USC and UCLA) to win recruiting battles against Oregon once the reality of the B1G being on a totally different level than Oregon's league sink in. One of Oregon's recruiting pitches in California was "Come here and play against the LA schools," which was pretty effective. They no longer have that pitch and now B1G teams do. All the benefits of this relationship flow one way and it's time to put a stop to that. If they ever once acknowledged how much they relied on USC and LA and showed a little gratitude I wouldn't feel so strongly about this, but for many years they fucked over USC and UCLA with policies to help themselves all while claiming everyone in the conference was an equal. Fuck 'em, Oregon can have fun seeing just how equal they are without being able to leech off LA anymore.