Trojan Man

This is true with respect to the B1G potentially adding Oregon and Washington since those two would be above at least 10 B1G schools on the football totem pole as soon as they joined, but I don't think it would be a barrier to adding ACC teams. Nobody is worried about competing against the football programs at North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, Georgia Tech and Miami. Those are a bunch of schedule filler teams and Miami is the only one with potential to rise above that. Florida State is the one significant ACC football brand that could end up in the B1G. They're still a longshot and if they join it would be alongside enough beatable teams that it wouldn't upset the ratio of wheat to chaff. Just like the have nots don't want too many haves around keeping them perpetually down the haves also don't want to be in a conference where it feels like they don't have enough peers and they are burdened by a bunch of have nots who are just there to cash checks.

I think Washington gets in at some point and Oregon might get in, but neither one will happen until after the ACC is picked apart. That plus Notre Dame are more important priorities in the B1G's eyes than the PNW schools. Also remember there were zero leaks or rumors about USC and UCLA going to the B1G before it happened. They run a tight ship, so be skeptical of anyone claiming there are rumors about Oregon and Washington imminently joining the B1G. In this case smoke is more likely coming from a smoke machine ran by the Ducks and Huskies than a fire. Year 4 is still better than anything short of a really good draw in the Pac 12, which USC is getting in 2023 (Stanford, Arizona, Utah, Washington, UCLA). All of those hypothetical B1G schedules are much more attractive than the trash conference home schedule USC had for 2022 (Arizona State, Washington State, Cal, Colorado on a Friday night). As long as it's spaced out so 3/4 years have Ohio State, Michigan or Penn State at the Coliseum I can live with one year being a little down. There's a good chance at least one of Fickell or Rhule gets his team playing at a level where Nebraska or Wisconsin becomes a big time game so that would also help out. And those are just the home games. To keep it simple, assume in this example the road games are mirrored with years 1-2 and years 3-4 to get an idea of the full conference schedule. There has been some discussion about adding Oregon and Washington for improved competition, but even that only helps Oregon/Washington without bringing any benefit to existing B1G teams. This conference slate plus Notre Dame will be more than enough for CFP-worthy credentials. Fewer games against Ohio State and Michigan and Penn State to make room for annual games with Oregon and Washington is counter-productive from the SOS standpoint. Playing in the Pac 12 was a constant struggle to play enough games against teams voters took seriously and people outside of the conference's footprint watched. That will no longer be the case in the B1G and I'd like to keep it that way.

Unless Amazon is willing to overpay enough to significantly increase everyone else's slice of the pie, something I don't see happening given the valuations of Oregon and Washington along with the current economic climate, what incentive is there for current B1G schools to support this? I can't see any of them agreeing to more West Coast trips/late night games and streaming for the exact same money they already have locked up with fewer West Coast road trips/late night games and no streaming. Midwestern and Eastern teams perform poorly when they travel West, which is why they're being so adamant about their football teams not playing at USC and UCLA in the same season. They'll deal with it once every other year for games in LA but games in Seattle and especially Eugene aren't as appealing. USC and UCLA certainly would not go for this idea. Games against Oregon and Washington are not considered must haves by USC or UCLA so from that perspective they won't see value in preserving either series. What's in it for the LA schools to accept more late night games (something they're trying to minimize) and supercharge two of their stiffest local recruiting competitors when they could have a conference prestige trump card to hammer them with on the recruiting trail? It's already paying dividends. UCLA flipped a 5* 2023 QB from Oregon right before Signing Day and he said playing in the B1G was part of the reason for his flip. Why should USC agree to have its home games on Amazon when most of USC's conference home games will be a lock for a Fox/CBS/NBC window under the deal they already signed? This idea sounds like Oregon/Washington hopium working through the bargaining stage of grief because all the benefits flow to them and none to the B1G.

It was fun playing Cal in the Tedford years. I just don't see them returning to that level for a number of institutional reasons. Cal has nobody but themselves to blame if they are left out. They have a lot going for them but they also bring a lot of baggage. There are consequences to being apathetic towards athletics. One of them is that schools and conferences which care about athletics won't want you to join them. It will feel odd the first time I see Cal playing in some crappy Pac/MWC hybrid, but being in a conference run by people who know what they are doing and competing against schools that give a fuck about more than just Olympic sports will help me get over it pretty quickly.

Cal and Stanford will both suck going forward because neither one will play the NIL game. Of the two I think Stanford has a better chance at having decent seasons in the future because they can attract a certain type of recruit who is a quality football player and whose #1 priority is their education. Stanford is second to none for education prestige at the P5 level. Those kinds of recruits aren't sold on the dream of NFL money so a good coach could keep getting them even with subpar NIL money because over a lifetime the value of a Stanford degree will more than make up for the NIL opportunities available to most players. It's just a matter of convincing 17 y/os to be mature enough to prioritize delayed gratification over money in their pocket right now, but if they're serious about education that's doable. Even during the Carroll era USC still lost a couple recruits each class the staff really wanted to Stanford and they were horrible back then. Competitiveness aside, both schools (especially Cal) bring too much boardroom drama so I won't weep if they aren't reunited with USC in the B1G. I'm happy this is the last year I have to care how Cal's ivory tower bullshit affects USC. Cal and Stanford are the ringleaders of the mindset that the conference is a country club for administrators and professors to circle jerk about academic rankings instead of a business alliance that maximizes athletic dollars and exposure, which killed the Pac 12. If the Bay Area schools are invited to the B1G it needs to be as non-voting members because they have proven the way they vote is suicidal to their conference. Also, you're right about Cal having a bigger fanbase than Stanford but it's still not that big. Both of them are elitist schools that get a large chunk of their students from out of state or internationally so that puts a limit on the size of their fanbase and how much appeal they have to the local peasants who like football. From an athletics standpoint the Pac 12 would have been much healthier if Cal, as a school, was more like Fresno State or San Diego State.

I think it depends on the conference. In good conferences the regular season title is more important. Some teams that have their March Madness seed locked up don't play with the same intensity in the conference tournament as they did in the regular season. The Big 12 playing a perfectly balanced H&H schedule while they were 10 teams also added more emphasis to the regular season title. In one bid conferences the tournament champion matters more. Outside of California the weather around the Pac 12 sucks. I look forward to never playing another 105 degree game in Arizona or high altitude game in Colorado and Utah or fog game with a visibility of 3 yards in Oregon or freezing rain game in Washington. The last two probably aren't nevers but it will be nice getting a reprieve from crappy PNW weather while it lasts.

The NCAA has a rule that all new head coaches can get rid of any player they want for the first 12 months they are on the job. The deal is the coach can kick them off the team for any reason but the school must keep them on scholarship as long as they keep up their grades. These players can also enter the portal if they want to keep playing elsewhere and then the old school is no longer on the hook. I know it's something Riley did with a good amount of players, some of whom entered the portal and some of whom decided to just call it a career while they finished their degree at USC, though I'm not sure how much Sanders did it. It's more likely the players Sanders would have cut using this method wouldn't be wanted anywhere else since he inherited a rock bottom roster and so they'd be more likely to remain at Colorado on their full ride. That could be a significant sunk cost for an athletic department that is struggling financially, has an uncertain future and is paying buyouts for the staff they just fired.

Remember when this happened to Ohio State the week before their CCG, then third string QB Cardale Jones stomped Wisconsin and Alabama and Oregon to win the title?

I think Oklahoma is getting a pass on this because the Big 12 splitting into North and South already somewhat distanced them from every Big 8 team besides Oklahoma State, then Colorado and Missouri and Nebraska all left the conference. Also it's not on the same level as Texas/A&M or Texas/Arkansas but OU will be reunited with Missouri in the SEC. Do you think the original Big 12 would have been more harmonious if instead of divisions they gave everyone 3 permanent opponents and rotated the rest of the conference games? OU could have played Texas, Nebraska and OK State every year. Texas could have played OU, A&M and Tech every year. Nebraska could have played OU, Colorado and I'm not sure who else for #3, Kansas State or Missouri probably. The networks would have got the big games they wanted annually and the top dogs would have kept the games they wanted the most. Breaking up Nebraska and Oklahoma's rivalry feels like it left a bad taste in both of their mouths from day 1, which is not a good way to start a new conference. Maybe Corn is a little less butthurt and a little more willing to work with everyone else if they kept playing the Sooners every year.

Different school but very similar motivations for joining a new conference. Unless the powerhouses decide to make their own conference and cut out all the have nots there will always be conference games that are clunkers from the powerhouses' perspective, and that's OK. You need a punching bag for the Homecoming game and some breathers in between the top 10 opponents. The problem is the Big 12/Pac 12 couldn't give Texas/USC enough prime conference games. Joining the B1G will finally give USC conference games against peers. For USC there is no possible Pac 12 game that is equivalent to playing Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State. Even the next tier of B1G opponents like Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa and Nebraska are all on par with games against Oregon, Washington and Utah. The Pac 12 even fucked up the distribution of the few big conference games it has. USC and UCLA each play 1 Oregon team and 1 Washington team per year. The problem is that for 2 years 1 LA school would get both of the little brother PNW schools while the other would get both of the PNW schools that people actually watch instead of splitting them up. That led to underwhelming schedules in the years you draw Oregon State and Washington State, like USC did last year. I don't think the B1G will load all the teams you want to play into 2 years of schedules while giving you garbage for the other 2 years. Anyways, I'll gladly give up clunker conference games that have history in exchange for conference games against bluebloods as well as clunker games against teams like Maryland and Rutgers and Indiana. In fact, I think dropping the clunker opponents with history will be beneficial because that history is the clunker teams circling the USC game the day the schedule comes out and fielding a roster full of kids who all have massive chips on their shoulder because USC didn't offer and playing with their hair on fire against USC only to have a hangover and lose to 4-8 Arizona the next week. For example, if you bring up the Oregon State/USC series everybody remembers Jacquizz Rodgers playing the game of his life to spoil an undefeated season for USC in 2008. But nobody remembers that USC is 64-12-4 all time against Oregon State because nobody gives a fuck when USC beats them, even when the Beavers are good like in 2022. I don't mind saying farewell to history that only gets remembered when USC loses in exchange for the chance to make history that will be remembered when USC wins against other bluebloods.

The long term play by ESPN was to offer Texas the LHN to keep them in the Big 12 long enough to eventually move them into the SEC and prevent the formation of a third super conference. ESPN also overpaid the Big 12 after they shrunk to 10 teams to help keep Texas and Oklahoma in the conference until it was time for the SEC to invite them. The short term strategy by the Pac 10 schools (not all of them of course but enough) was the bickering over T3 rights that sank the Pac 16. The Pac 12's have nots were being penny wise and pound foolish when they were hung up over T3 rights, and I'm guessing ESPN knew they'd get that reaction when they offered the LHN.

Right, I'm well aware of how the rest of the Pac 12 constantly screwing USC has played a part in the conference's downfall. But USC still has some ownership in how it played out. USC had terrible leadership at that time. If Folt and Bohn were in charge when the Pac 16 was coming to fruition I think they would have thrown USC's weight around and dictated to the nutswinger Pac 10 schools that they need to shut up, get over themselves and enjoy cashing the checks that will be generated by USC, Texas and Oklahoma. Instead of using its leverage as the Pac 12's only blueblood USC's spineless leaders allowed the spiteful little chucklefucks in Berkeley and Corvallis to get too big for their britches and make shortsighted decisions that ultimately killed the conference.

For the halftime shows they can do paternity tests with Maury featuring the players and coaches from the teams in the game.

Right, I'll forever regret the sport's powers west of the Mississippi couldn't make it work with each other and instead joined up with Midwest/Southeast-centric conferences. Of course I prefer B1G membership over Pac 12 membership but a USC/Texas/Oklahoma conference would have been ideal. Networks used long term strategies to bait athletic departments with short term strategies into doing their bidding and I don't think that's good for the sport. Got it, though BYU would be right there with any Pac 12 team after Oregon and Washington. If BYU was still on the table I wonder if the Pac 12 presidents would get over themselves and invite them or stick to their guns as the conference dies. The B1G's deal was delayed because they were busy jacking up the price and securing prime windows with multiple networks, the Pac 12's deal is delayed because nobody wants to give them more than a few McDonalds coupons and an over the pants handjob for their media rights. But other than that one little detail it's tomato/tohmato.

If Texas and Oklahoma stayed in the Big 12 they'd get Oregon and Washington. They would have their pick of anyone else left in the Pac 12 plus the teams that they did add to get to 16 teams, though BYU is the only one from that group that would get serious consideration. Hell, the Big 12 instead of the B1G might have landed USC and UCLA in that scenario. USC, UCLA, Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon and Washington all in the same conference would get as much TV money as the B1G and the SEC. For all the talk about the ratings of B1G and SEC teams they're not the ones that set the viewership record. It was USC and Texas that played in the most watched CFB game of all time. This is why ESPN and Fox manipulated events to get all their favorite horses into only 2 barns instead of 3 so they could minimize the amount of schedule filler teams they have to pay big bucks in order to get the teams they really want.

Washington State's numbers are boosted by the Leach years (RIP). Whether he was at Tech or Washington State or Mississippi State his team's games were always a good choice if you were looking for something to watch before or after your team's game, plus he eventually had WSU playing at a pretty high level. In 2017-18 (Washington State's two best Leach years) 6 of their 18 conference games were on the Pac 12 Network while all 12 of the rest were on ESPN or Fox. Leach was getting their games against Cal and Colorado and Stanford picked up by the big networks instead of relegated to T3. For comparison over the last two years Washington State played 9 of their 18 conference games on the Pac 12 Network. Of their other 9 conference games 4 were on FS1 or ESPNU and all 5 that ended up on ESPN or Fox were vs Oregon, Washington and USC. The Pac 12 Network doesn't release ratings, which also helps boost average ratings for teams playing on there often. A team will have high average ratings if most of their data points are ESPN/FOX games against powerhouses while the Pac 12 Network clunkers with probably 200-300K viewers aren't included. Washington State's 2010s ratings are fool's gold and the networks know it. With San Diego State you're betting a promotion to a better conference is a shot in the arm that elevates their program, much like what happened with TCU and Utah. I think it could work, whether it's in the Big 12 or if the Pac 12 somehow survives. With Washington State you know what you're in for. They aren't getting a shot in the arm going from Pac 12 to Big 12 the way MWC teams did going to the Big 12/Pac 12. Every once in awhile they're good at football but most of the time they're mediocre, they have a tiny stadium (33K) that only fills up for their biggest games, they do nothing in any other sports, they're in the middle of nowhere, their academics are nothing special and there aren't a whole lot of recruits or alumni bases in rural eastern Washington. Their only real value is the ability to host late night games, which SDSU also offers. Even if SDSU becomes a football punching bag you're still getting a desirable location for both recruiting and alumni engagement plus a quality basketball program.

It's an "Oregon and Washington are getting any dipshit with a CFB blog to write articles about how USC and UCLA will be too isolated without further expansion to help manufacture B1G invitations for themselves" situation. The only ones who have complained about travel so far are current B1G teams saying they don't want to go to the West Coast more than once a year, which is yet another hurdle for any Pac 12 teams praying for a B1G life raft (none of them increase the size of everyone's slice of the B1G pie, middle tier B1G teams don't want Oregon/Washington games pushing more of their games onto BTN or streaming, B1G would rather save its powder for picking off ACC teams). I really don't think travel will be that much of an issue. Traveling in the Pac 12 is already a pain in the ass so this is nothing new. It's not much longer to go to the B1G West schools from LA than it is to go to the Washington schools or Colorado. In fact, the new part is that the B1G is committed to helping USC/UCLA with their travel burden as opposed to the Pac 12 going out of its way to make the most obnoxious schedules possible, which screwed USC pretty good in 2016-17 and might screw USC again this fall. The conference can schedule USC and UCLA football for back to back games against their farthest opponents each season where the team stays out east in between games to cut down on travel. Do it around fall break or other campus holidays to reduce the academic complaints. As for other teams coming to LA they can get their bye the week after playing out West so any lingering fatigue doesn't carry over into their next game. The winter sports can knock out a huge chunk of their conference road slate during Christmas break to minimize travel time and missed classes. The B1G plays 20 conference basketball games. Assuming USC and UCLA will always play each other twice in basketball that's 9 remaining road games. In the 3 week Christmas break USC and UCLA could play 6 or 7 conference road games in one long trip with the B1G making sure each team's farthest road games are included in this stretch. Play at Penn State, at Rutgers and at Maryland in the same week and you shaved a lot of time off your itinerary. I'm willing to revisit the travel issue after seeing it in action for a few years but I'd like to at least try it with 16 teams first before throwing up my hands and saying "This is too hard." If I can spitball ideas like this while I'm bullshitting around in my free time I'm sure the people being paid to address the travel issue can handle it.

Should I pick up some consulting contract work and pass off ChatGPT's answers as my own to the client? I first had this idea in a "haha wouldn't that be a funny episode for a sitcom" sort of way but now I'm starting to seriously consider it. AI will replace all of our jobs at some point anyways so I might as well use AI to do my job for me before the jig is up.

Pretty good weather in LA most of the time makes an indoor practice facility unnecessary. Land being at a premium on and around campus means vanity projects like that don't get built. The last few months California has been hit by storm after storm so this much rain is unusual, though it's a blessing considering most of the state has been suffering droughts for years. I'm not certain but I think the indoor facility he is referring to is the McKay Center, which is not an indoor practice facility. It's where the football offices, meeting rooms, weight room, tutoring center, training room etc are located. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a straight line long enough to do 40s in there. It's not a huge palace like some schools have for their athletic buildings due to space limitations and you need closer to 60-70 yards to run 40s since the players don't come to a complete stop at 40 yards.

That change would happen with or without the B1G expanding. The Pac 12 already eliminated divisions last year and the ACC is eliminating divisions this year. The B1G and the SEC are waiting until they get to 16 teams to abolish divisions but they would be doing it now if they were staying at 14 teams. CFP expansion necessitates the removal of divisions. No divisions means more equal schedules for everyone instead of the teams in the good division going through a meatgrinder and knocking each other out of at large bid consideration while the teams in the weak division might only play one ranked conference opponent all year. It also eliminates the possibility of an unranked team that is the fifth best team in its conference stealing a CFP bid because they pulled off a fluke upset in the CCG. Then there is the financial angle. Two good teams in the CCG will sell more tickets and get higher ratings than one good team blasting a sacrificial lamb. Iowa and Nebraska may not like it but they won't get much sympathy over losing their welfare CCG bid from the East teams that currently have to conquer the Buckeye/Nittany Lion/Wolverine hydra to make the CCG.

That feeling is just sour grapes and butthurt from the left behind Pac 12 schools. Every single one of them wishes they could make the same "mistake" USC and UCLA are making in joining the B1G and take the same trips to the Midwest. Funny how other Pac 12 fans will say joining a distant conference is a terrible mistake and a travesty for the LA schools out of one side of their mouth, then talk about their school's chances of getting a B1G invitation out of the other side of their mouth. As for the actual impact traveling that much will have it's not like USC and UCLA are leaving a compact, easy to travel conference. Colorado, Utah and the PNW schools (especially Washington State) aren't exactly quick bus rides from LA. Might as well fly an extra hour and replace those road games in front of 30K against scrubs like Colorado and Washington State that are buried with weeknight, Pac 12 Network, FS1, 10:30 PM ET etc kickoffs with primetime Fox/CBS/NBC road games in front of 70K+ against Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa. Traveling a lot is already a fact of life for all Pac 12 athletes so a little more travel won't be the apocalypse some are hoping to see. It's also important to consider the B1G is run by competent professionals instead of a bunch of assclowns like the Pac 12, so they will probably do things to help the LA schools with travel like giving USC a road game with Indiana or Purdue the week before/after playing at Notre Dame or back to back road games with Penn State and Maryland to minimize the number of cross country flights. The flip side of all this travel is that half of USC's/UCLA's B1G games will be at home. B1G teams do worse heading west than Pac 12 teams do heading east, and the B1G teams know it (see Ohio State canceling their Washington series). Some of these B1G teams that build their roster to grind out low scoring slugfests in shitty weather will get boatraced when they come to the Coliseum to play in sunny 70 degree weather against an offense averaging 40+ PPG.

In no particular order, here are the Pac 12's problems -Shitty leadership; the presidents, ADs and commissioners run the conference like a country club instead of a business -The Pac 12 footprint has a lot of people but many of them don't give a fuck about the schools or the sports; population growth in CA is mostly immigrants who prefer futbol over football or people from other states who already have a team while AZ gets the same immigrants as CA plus Californians and snowbird retirees, who also already have a team -Continuing on the "people don't give a fuck about the schools" tangent it really hurts Pac 12 athletics that the Bay Area universities are snobby schools that get students from all over the world instead of party school Big State U types that admit anyone with a pulse and get most of its student body from within a day's drive of campus because the latter type of school has a much bigger fanbase and stronger devotion to sports than snooty schools like Cal and Stanford; if Cal was a Fresno State type of school they would have a huge fanbase and sell out their stadium every week instead of being mostly disconnected from their local population -Lots of competition for entertainment budgets and attention from fans; most Pac 12 schools are competing with local pro sports franchises for fans and corporate dollars then there's other stuff like beaches, mountains and everything else going on in big cities -The Rose Bowl's value has been decreasing ever since the BCS came into existence and when the CFP expands it will go from being a B1G/Pac 12 property to just another quarterfinal site; the time to try to preserve the magic of the Rose Bowl was 30 years ago, that ship has sailed

I get laid after every date if you ignore the all the times I don't get laid.

This should be the biggest motivation for the Four Corner schools to abandon ship. If you wait until Oregon and Washington leave you're letting factors outside your control determine your fate. There's a non-zero chance an ACC collapse prior to their GOR expiration and the ensuing feeding frenzy by the B1G/SEC is what lands UO/UW an invitation to the B1G, which puts the 4C schools in a precarious situation. In that scenario they're competing with leftover ACC schools of comparable value to secure their seat at the third place table, whereas if they just rip off the band aid and do it now they are realigning on their terms instead of Oregon's/Washington's and guaranteeing they have a chair before the music stops playing. Once you get through the stages of grief over the death of the Pac 12 elitism, meekness and pride are the only reasons not to join the Big 12. Unfortunately for the 4C schools those are the first 3 attributes to come to mind when I think of Pac 12 leadership. I wouldn't be surprised if they do something stupid like agree to a media contract and GOR that only exists to give Oregon and Washington somewhere to pass the time until the B1G wants them. It would be especially dumb of Arizona to remain in the Pac 12. Imagine being a basketball school that willingly stays in what will be a 1 or 2 bid league streaming all its games at 11 PM ET when you could join the Big 12, where the conference schedule features recent national champions and more games against tournament teams than non-tournament teams and good national media exposure. They'd be choosing to become the next Gonzaga, which is pretty damning when you consider Gonzaga is trying to leave their shit conference for the Big 12.

Yormark already said he plans to separate Big 12 basketball into its own contract with the next media deal. Who knows what the landscape looks like at that point but I think it's possible for good basketball conferences to get more juice off basketball than they're currently squeezing. Restructuring March Madness and taking control of it away from the NCAA towards the schools would be the real basketball moneymaker. The tournament has always been the NCAA's biggest payday, which is why basketball bluebloods were untouchable for buying players pre-NIL and faking classes for their players. Postseason bans for Kansas and North Carolina hoops would have been far more harmful for the NCAA's bottom line than postseason bans for USC and Ohio State football were. I forget the exact timeline it can happen but that possibility is on the table when the current contract expires about a decade from now. I don't think the B1G and SEC could take over March Madness the way they're probably going to do with the CFP because there are too many winning basketball programs that won't get into those conferences and because Cinderellas are much more likely in basketball than in football. The issue is getting all 10 teams to sign the GOR, not just Utah. Oregon and Washington aren't committing to anything until they get an emphatic no from the B1G. Even if those two stay they might demand unequal media revenue sharing, which would cause some friction with the Four Corner schools because they have leverage thanks to Big 12 interest. Why take a haircut to prop up Oregon and Washington (worth noting they were both strong advocates for equal revenue sharing back when it wasn't their revenue that was being shared) while they continue planning an exit strategy that would leave you high and dry when you could get more money, better exposure and be treated like an equal in a conference with better leadership? There are a lot of competing agendas and egos to manage if the Pac 12 is to survive. Nothing the conference has done in recent memory inspires confidence they'll pull it off in a way that satisfies everyone.