Trojan Man

If you go to 10 conference games 3/7/7 in an 18 team conference works out to playing everyone twice every 4 years, just like 3/6/6 with 9 conference games in a 16 team conference. It also fixes the problem of half your league having 5 conference home games while the other half only has 4 with 9 conference games. Considering TV money is what's driving everything these days and networks will pay up for more conference games this might happen. Expanded CFP also alleviates the need for cupcake games for teams with CFP ambitions, though I'd imagine the teams just trying to win 6 games and make the OptOut.com Bowl wouldn't be too thrilled with it. You have to use VHS tapes to see what their football peaks look like. North Carolina's last conference title was in 1980, Virginia's was in 1989 (shared in 1995). Virginia still hasn't won 10+ games in a year beginning with 2. North Carolina has only done it once, going 11-3 in 2015. Their losses were to South Carolina and Clemson and Baylor so they were just beating up on garbage ACC teams that year. Utah has been pretty consistently good since hiring Urban Meyer 20 years ago. Football doesn't even make the top 5 for reasons UNC and UVA are getting B1G/SEC consideration. They're the perfect schedule filler schools, which are still valuable in their own way. They bring good recruiting territory, good academics, good markets and great basketball but they'll never seriously threaten anyone in football. Compare that to schedule filler schools in other conference like Oregon State/Washington State or Illinois/Rutgers or Mississippi State/South Carolina and they offer much more.

The Pac 12 Network failed because the conference tried to go it alone so they could keep all the spoils, as partnering with Fox (Big Ten Network) or ESPN (SEC Network) would have required sharing revenue with them. IIRC there was a pretty lucrative conference network partnership offer from ESPN so it wasn't an issue of no interest. That was the biggest reason the P12N struggled with both distribution and rates - they didn't have a behemoth like Fox or ESPN strongarming cable companies. Without that kind of backing not enough cable companies wanted to add the P12N and those that did lowballed the Pac 12 and added the P12N to their sports package addons, so only the die hards went out of their way to access it. I have Youtube TV. The ACC Network, The BTN and The SEC Network are all part of their base offering while the P12N isn't available at all. I think this was a successful strategy if the Pac 16 came to fruition. Adding Texas and Oklahoma would have increased the footprint and viewership numbers enough to make the P12N viable. In hindsight it's easy to say trying to establish a conference network without Fox or ESPN was a bad idea because it didn't work, but if it did work a conference network owned entirely by the conference would have earned big bucks. I'm not sure what percentage of the ACC/SEC Networks are owned by ESPN but I think the B1G only owns about a third of the BTN. The Pac 12 is getting screwed hard by timing. Media companies, tech companies and sports networks are all hurting right now. None of them are in drunken sailor spending mode where they bid against themselves like we've seen so often with past sports media deals. Combine that belt tightening with everyone knowing there aren't a lot of bidders for the Pac 12 and their most valuable properties calling the B1G for an invitation daily and that's why they have a hard ceiling on their media value.

I was drunk when I placed my best CFB bet last year, put down $100 on a 4 leg parlay of late Pac 12 and MWC games. I don't think Utah is a lock for the B1G but they have a chance if the conference goes to 22-24 teams and I wouldn't be opposed to them joining at that point. First and foremost they're the AAU flagship school of one of the fastest growing states in the country. Utah already produces a decent amount of football talent, give it another 10-20 years and their population growth will result in even more of it. Considering the SEC has Florida, Georgia and Texas in their footprint I think it's important the B1G takes recruiting potential into account when expanding if they want to win more championships. Obviously Utah isn't on the FL/GA/TX level when it comes to recruiting but every little bit helps. They have a passionate fanbase, they support football and the last few years have elevated the national profile of their football team. The biggest potential pitfall is what will happen after the Kyle Whittingham era. They've been fortunate to keep him as long as they have, but he's 63 so he'll probably retire in the next 5ish years. If they fuck up his replacement hire that could crater their program at the worst possible time and make them a much less attractive option.

Like I said, I won't complain if the only late games are the cupcake noncon games and one or two of the underwhelming conference games. Games against the Rutgers/Indiana type opponents will be duds no matter what time they're played. The early season MWC warmup games are the one time a late kickoff is ideal because it feels like a heat wave always hits LA that time of year and makes going to the games unbearable, yet those usually end up kicking off in the middle of the day. Part of the appeal of joining the B1G is that the best conference games won't be buried in the late night slot. It's not just games involving Cal and Colorado and Washington State that are played late. Last year Utah/Oregon, Washington/UCLA, USC/Oregon State and Oregon State/Washington were all in the Pac 12 After Dark slot. Beating Washington was arguably UCLA's best win of the season but nobody saw it since it was not only late but also on a Friday night. That Oregon State game was by far USC's best defensive performance of the year and an impressive come from behind road win in a place where USC has historically struggled but since it was late and on the Pac 12 Network it's like it never happened. In the B1G games against Utah/Oregon/Washington tier teams, or games against programs like Oregon State that overachieve by winning 10 games and finish the year ranked #17, will have much better exposure. Home games are only half of the equation. As it is now, the only B1G conference road game USC/UCLA will play that can be scheduled for the late slot is each other. Every trip east will be played in normal hours, regardless of caliber of opponent. Adding more Western teams means more late night windows are available and those windows will be disproportionately filled by USC/UCLA because the LA schools will have to play them every year and because the Eastern teams will bitch about late kickoffs even more than I do. Of course, the flip side of that coin is the potential for noon ET/9 AM PT kickoffs but I think the worrying about that is overblown. USC practices at 7 AM so the players will be ready to play. Football fans out West still watch NFL games in the 1 PM ET/10 AM PT window so the concept of morning football isn't new to anyone on the West Coast. I know further expansion West is inevitable for the B1G but I'd like to at least get through the next media contract before adding any more of them. Hopefully by then everything is streaming. That means kickoff times won't matter since there is no limit to streaming windows like there is for TV windows. Games can be scheduled for times that are most beneficial for the schools and their fanbases instead of TV. When games are on ESPN+ ESPN allows the home team to choose the kickoff time.

Definitely a big part of it, but get the fuck over yourselves. It wouldn't be the first time BYU and Utah were conference mates. Heated rivalries are a big part of what makes this sport special. Embrace it. I wouldn't be surprised if the Pac 12 sticks together with something in the 25-30M range running through 2030 or so, but I think it would be a prideful mistake for the schools with options to agree to this. Realignment rewards the bold and punishes the timid. If the Four Corner schools go to the Big 12 now they are taking control of their fate. If they wait for the inevitable collapse of the Pac 12 (whenever Oregon and Washington get B1G invitations) they could be competing with ACC schools for a limited number of Big 12 invitations and then they're truly fucked. Those late kickoffs are shit for exposure outside of the Pac 12's footprint because east of the Rockies only drunks and gamblers and CFB junkies are still watching that late. CFP expansion and conference champion autobids will eliminate a lot of the downside of late kickoffs by diminishing the importance of beauty pageant rankings but they still aren't ideal. 2015 Stanford kicking off 7 of their 12 regular season games at 10 PM ET or later while Alabama was playing in the afternoon or primetime every week had a lot to do with Henry winning the Heisman that year while McCaffrey was the runner up. It's a major reason why USC and UCLA should be opposed to further Western B1G expansion at this point. Both schools will probably still have to host some 10:30 PM ET games against teams like Illinois and Rutgers, but when the upper and middle tier B1G teams come to town those games won't be relegated to the dreaded late night kickoff. Playing the ho hum conference games late at night is much more palatable than playing big games late at night. If Oregon and Washington join the games against them are 10:30 PM ET kickoff candidates, which would replace 3:30 or 7 ET games against Wisconsin and Penn State.

It would be funny to see all the Pac 12 schools that screeched about travel costs and the cruelty of making student athletes suffer through longer travel and the environmental impact of cross country flights and how dumb it will be for USC and UCLA to go to Rutgers and Maryland for conference games go play conference games at Wake Forest and Syracuse because they don't want to be associated with the much closer, icky flyover schools. This ACC/Pac merger idea sounds like pure hopium from schools and fanbases that still haven't accepted their only realistic options are either remaining in a MWC/Pac hybrid or joining the Big 12. I don't see the ACC opening its GOR to a challenge from Clemson and FSU by expanding. I also don't see Oregon and Washington signing the ACC's GOR that goes to 2036 when both schools are convinced they'll get B1G invites by 2030 at the latest. I browsed a few Pac 12 247 boards the other day and there is some serious delusion among certain fanbases. Arizona and Arizona State fans seem pretty rational about where their school stands in the sport's hierarchy and what options are available to them but Colorado and Utah fans (especially Utah fans) are detached from reality. Colorado fans think simply hiring a flashy coach who still hasn't coached a single down at the FBS level is enough to erase the last 20 years of complete dogshit football and their general apathy towards sports. In their minds they're already racking up CFP bids in either the watered down Pac 12 or the Big 12 and they are a lock for a B1G invitation in the next decade or so. Utah fans have forgotten they were a MWC afterthought a little over a decade ago and have the same belief as Colorado fans that it's just a matter of time until the B1G decides they must bring them onboard. Judging by the way they look down at the Big 12 they have taken very well to the Pac 12's coastal elitism, like Utah isn't also a flyover state with an alarming number of "Last Gas Station For 174 Miles" road signs. Interesting how none of this massive value these fanbases believe they offer is apparent during their current media negotiations but they'll somehow be able to add value to the richest conference in college athletics in the near future.

Oregon State and Washington State have always been midmajor caliber schools. They were just lucky enough to get in on the ground floor with bigger schools over a century ago when the PCC formed but their gravy train is about to reach its final stop. The only thing either of them offer is sporadic football success. They have small fanbases, small stadiums, no recruiting territory, mediocre academics, no success in other sports outside of a nice little run for Beaver baseball and they're both the little brother schools in their states. Corvallis isn't too remote but Pullman is the most isolated, middle of nowhere P5 school and it's not even close. If those two schools had always been in the WAC or the MWC they wouldn't get consideration for Pac 12 membership now even with the conference teetering on the brink of collapse. Boise State still isn't getting any Pac 12 consideration and they're a more attractive school than both Oregon State and Washington State. Geography and academics will always give Cal and Stanford a certain appeal, but I can't see them ever seriously competing in the NIL/portal era. Combine that with the apathy of their administrations and fanbases and you're looking at perpetual 0-4 win dumpster programs that nobody cares about in CFB's brave new world. Four Corner schools are roughly equivalent to remaining Big 12 teams (though all but Utah are in a precarious place with football right now) while Oregon and Washington are the two most valuable left behind programs in either the Pac 12 or the Big 12, but their open pursuit of a B1G invitation can't be good for Pac 12 media negotiations. Even if they all stay together this conference is 40% dead weight from a football perspective. You can probably bump that up to 50% because at least one of the Arizona schools or Colorado will continue to be terrible. Personally I think Arizona is turning a corner while ASU and Colorado are still TBD.

Oregon is a good TV draw. But they weren't valuable enough to help the Pac 12 keep pace with the B1G/SEC, they aren't valuable enough to increase the size of everyone's slice of the B1G pie and they bring nothing to their conference when it comes to recruiting, academic prestige and major markets. If they were in the B1G they'd be fighting Wisconsin/Michigan State/Iowa/Nebraska if they ever get good again for 5th place in terms of ratings appeal and they would water down the frequency of the best games. Playing enough quality opponents that voters/the committee/the CFB public will respect was a major problem in the Pac 12, which gave Oregon more value there since they were one of the few Pac 12 teams outsiders watched. But that won't be a problem in the B1G, which takes away a lot of the appeal for adding Oregon. USC vs Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State would all do better ratings than USC vs Oregon. I have no interest in drawing fewer games vs the B1G bluebloods just to play fucking Oregon every year. USC playing B1G bluebloods is a mutually beneficial event. USC playing Oregon is a parasitic event where all the benefits of that game flow to Oregon while USC gets nothing out of it. That kind of one way relationship is a major reason USC left the Pac 12. Any new Western additions to the B1G also add the threat of more 10:30 PM Eastern kickoffs, something else USC and UCLA wanted to minimize when changing conferences. Home games against Maryland or Indiana type teams might still kick off at 10:30 PM ET, but the home games against upper and middle tier B1G teams will never be that late. If Oregon joins I can already see networks putting Ohio State/Penn State in prime time leading into USC/Oregon in B1G after dark. Fuck that shit. If the Pac 12 dies it doesn't mean the universities in it will no longer exist. Some of their teams would join the Big 12 and keep playing late night games. Others would be in the MWC or some kind of Pac/MWC hybrid and play late night games there. The Arizona schools aren't allowed to play day games at home early in the season because of the heat so you can count on them to keep playing late night games no matter what.

I think the most tactical, fairest way to break it down while still making big bucks for the networks breaks down like this: Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, cupcake (Minnesota or Northwestern most likely) Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, cupcake (maybe Illinois, they play for a trophy) Penn State: Ohio State, USC, cupcake (probably Maryland) USC: UCLA, Penn State, cupcake (Nebraska or Northwestern) This guarantees 5 annual major games for the networks evenly split at 2 apiece among the top 4 B1G teams (Ohio State/Michigan, Michigan/Michigan State, Ohio State/Penn State, Penn State/USC, USC/UCLA) without overloading any one team's locked in games. Matchups like Ohio State/USC and Michigan/Penn State would still happen 2 out of every 4 years, giving networks more than just 5 of those prime games they want. Michigan getting Ohio State, Michigan State and USC yearly would be just as much overkill as Ohio State drawing Michigan, Penn State and USC. If the goal is to maximize your playoff berths and thus playoff revenue you don't want all your best teams knocking each other out of contention every year. There's a reason entire presidential terms can pass without a single regular season game between Alabama and Georgia. Padding the schedules a bit for the bluebloods helps the networks too. 11-0 Michigan vs 11-0 Ohio State draws higher ratings than 8-3 Michigan vs 9-2 Ohio State. My problem isn't really with Washington. It's mostly Oregon, Oregon State and Washington State. I detest sharing a conference with those 3. But all the PNW schools formed their own little clique to run the Pac 12 for their benefit, often at the expense of USC and UCLA, and Washington was part of that clique. It rubbed me the wrong way that the California schools were split up in division alignments to appease the PNW schools by giving them more access to CA for recruiting, then they acted like it was a gift from the conference to guarantee USC/UCLA could keep playing Cal/Stanford yearly. That arrangement was what the LA schools received in return for equal revenue sharing, which is a pretty lopsided tradeoff. Meanwhile the PNW schools didn't have to give anything up for that extra CA access or to keep annually playing their regional foes since those 4 teams were always in the same division. This is the same reason the Pac 12 hamstrings itself with 9 conference games. 9 games made sense for the round robin in the Pac 10 days, but it stayed at 9 games after expanding to 12 teams to benefit the PNW schools with more CA games. The Pac 12 had to eat more losses, get worse rankings and lower its chances at a CFP bid to help the PNW schools. This recurring theme of going out of the way to help everyone else in the conference, usually the PNW schools, while the Pac 12 never did a fucking thing to help the LA schools and continually took LA for granted got old. Besides UCLA the Huskies were the only Pac 12 team I was ever excited to play, the rest of the Pac 12 membership is underwhelming. Washington is the only remaining Pac 12 program I'll miss playing and the only one that is at least in the ballpark with USC in terms of combined academic and football prestige. There are benefits for USC being in the same conference as UW, unlike Nike University and Oregon State and Washington State who are all leeches from USC's perspective. Despite wanting some time apart while USC integrates into its new home I do hope UW gets into the B1G eventually. I wouldn't mind if Stanford or Utah received B1G invitations at some point in the future, but I won't lose sleep if they don't either. I don't want anything to do with any other Pac 12 schools after 2023, including Oregon.

Most people think joining the B1G will doom UCLA to a 6 win ceiling but I think UCLA has massive growth potential. Their main problems have been shitty leadership and lack of funds limiting their coaching hire options. They solved the first problem by replacing their previous terrible AD with a guy who was assistant AD at Ohio State for nearly a decade then AD at Boston College for a few years. It was a similar problem USC had with hiring an unqualified alum athlete to run the department and like USC UCLA went outside the family for the replacement. B1G membership will solve their money problem. Being 1 of only 2 teams west of the Rockies with super conference membership should give them a serious recruiting boost. It already helped them flip a 5* QB from Oregon in the 2023 cycle. There is no reason UCLA shouldn't have at least Wisconsin-level success.

I don't think the administration would have done it for academic and coastal elitism reasons, but as I've said before I would have much preferred USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington to the original Big 12 over joining the B1G. If I found a genie in a bottle that's the realignment I'd wish for. Even those 4 to the Big 12 as it existed 5 years ago would have still been good with me. Then add BYU and Utah to get to 16 and watch the B1G and SEC scramble to find 15th and 16th teams worth a damn with the ACC still off the table and the Big 12 stabilized. Super conferences are super because of the teams at the top and a conference featuring Oklahoma/Texas/USC would have printed just as much money as Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State or Alabama/Georgia/LSU. If OU, UT and USC could all get their shit together at the same time like in the 2000s their conference would give the SEC a run for their prestige money. If that happens the Pac needs to have its power status revoked and the number of CFP autobids has to shrink to 5. Keeping it at 6 in that scenario means giving two midmajor conferences autobids. Oregon State would be positioned well to become the dominant midmajor team and get the 5th autobid more often than not if they can keep their head coach. He's turning Oregon State into a really solid program and he played QB there so he might be the rare individual who views it as a destination job. Gross, I hope to get through at least one media contract at 16 teams before expanding again. I want to play all the B1G teams a few times first, plus I want Oregon and Washington out in the cold for a cycle so they can get it through their heads they aren't USC's equals like they told themselves they were in the Pac 12. Hopefully that will humble them a bit for when they do get invited to the party.

1-4 are slam dunks. UNC and UVA could probably each get away with bringing along a little brother school if they want to/if state politicians demand it because the B1G and SEC will both be fighting for those schools, which gives the schools some leverage. Add VT and either NC State or Duke, that gets you to 6. Miami is an interesting case. They might get into the B1G or the SEC, but if not the Big 12 would definitely invite them. Louisville and Pitt would have homes waiting for them in the Big 12. Duke or NC State, whichever one doesn't get invited onto UNC's lifeboat, would probably also get a Big 12 invite. It all comes down to convincing a few middle tier ACC schools they'll be better off in the Big 12 than with the status quo because that's the group to get you over 8 to dissolve the ACC. You could make a compelling financial argument. The Big 12 is already going to out-earn the ACC and they'll go to market again before the ACC's contract is up, which will widen the gap even more. But their administrations and fanbases would be going through the same identity crisis the Pac 12's currently are, where they think they're too good for the flyover conference of lowly ag schools and they'd rather hold out hope for the B1G/SEC miracle or keep the ACC together in a way that earns close to Big 12 money. Ultimately I think that would be too big of a hurdle to overcome for institutions that are inherently adverse to major changes and taking risks. But the threat of it happening still might be enough to convince the ACC schools that would be up Shit Creek if the ACC dissolves to give a little to the power programs, like more favorable postseason money distribution, to keep the peace.

There is one way for Clemson and FSU to get more money in a way that might be palatable to enough ACC members to get it approved. It involves the way postseason money (CFP bids, bowl bids, March Madness units) is distributed. I don't know the exact breakdown for the ACC but if they're anything like the conferences I know more about, and they probably are, a small amount goes to the school that earned the postseason berth while most of that money goes to the conference and is redistributed among all members. If the ACC changed it to winner takes all of the postseason bid money that could satisfy Clemson and FSU. CFP berths are about to get a lot more valuable when the next CFP media contract goes through in a few years. With 12 bids this proposal would get support from the next tier of schools who could realistically see themselves getting an at large berth even if Clemson or FSU wins the ACC autobid. Apply the same idea to March Madness and you'll get the basketball schools on board. They could also argue this is the fair way to do things. Why should the nutswinger schools that can't be fucked to field good football or basketball teams get to leech even more off the successful teams than they already do just from being in the same conference? If they don't like it they can get better and then they too can benefit from this setup. As for why the ACC schools should try to appease two schools that are obviously gone ASAP, it's a hedge against them fighting the GOR or getting enough schools to simultaneously accept B1G/Big 12/SEC bids to dissolve the ACC. If they pull that off the nutswinger schools are fucked a lot sooner than 2034.

Oregon already recruits Texas despite being in a conference with no Texas presence. They signed 6 TX players (all 4* recruits) in their 2023 class, including a QB they flipped from Baylor right before Signing Day. Their average 2023 TX recruit was rated higher than the average CA recruit they signed in the same class. Their California and Texas pipelines aren't going anywhere regardless of conference affiliation. Knight is in his 80s and won't live forever, but I'm sure he is leaving behind a sizable gift for Oregon athletics. Oregon's biggest non-Knight advantage is they are very popular with recruits thanks to being a hot, flashy brand for the last 15 years. Kids think they're cool and that wins them a lot of recruiting battles. I think they'd have an easier time maintaining and building upon that brand playing in more time zones and in better windows and on network TV more often in the Big 12 than they would playing on Tubi or the After Dark ESPN window in the Pac 12.

I think Oregon cares less about the money than any other remaining Pac 12 school. More is always nice for anyone but if they need money all they have to do is call their sugar daddy and he'll send a blank check. Oregon won't be cutting sports or hiring no name coaches or flying on Spirit to road games if they end up with a crap TV contract. For them the next media contract is all about guaranteeing a spot in the B1G after it's over, which means continuing to build their brand by maximizing exposure and playing as many high profile games as possible and going on some deep playoff runs. Everything that is rumored for the Pac 12's next deal is a terrible outcome for Oregon from that perspective. Streaming means only Pac 12 fans will watch those games and they won't be shown in bars or restaurants outside of Pac 12 cities. Oregon would get more ESPN appearances than any other Pac 12 program but all their ESPN games will be at 10:30 ET which is shit for exposure. The more I think about it, the smarter it seems for Oregon to leave for the Big 12. They'll get much better TV windows and timeslots for their games. They'll draw viewers from both the Pac 12's footprint and the Big 12's footprint instead of just the Pac 12. All the Pac 12 teams worth a damn would follow them so culturally they won't be the odd man out or geographically isolated or leaving behind the biggest game they play against Washington. The new Pac 12 will be a one bid league in the CFP so if Oregon loses to Washington or Utah they're probably fucked on a playoff run and the accompanying exposure for that season. The new Big 12 will get an at large bid most years and if they raid 4-6 Pac 12 teams a second at large bid is likely (adding more good teams plus trimming down auto bids from 6 to 5 if the Pac 12 dies or merges with the MWC). That not only gives Oregon more chances at a playoff bid but more of their competition will also be going to the CFP, which translates into more attention and hype and exposure for the following year. Basketball would be a huge upgrade in the Big 12 and that can't hurt for a program that's usually pretty respectable. Oregon has less West Coast elitism and academic snobbery than most of the Pac 12 so they might be able to get over themselves enough to take the plunge. It comes down to whether their decision makers think the advantages I described outweigh the potential of dominating the Pac 12. If Oregon thinks they can get the Pac 12's autobid more often than not and then win at least a game or two in every CFP appearance that could overcome the poor regular season exposure. But that carries a huge amount of risk. Every program is one bad hire away from the wilderness. If Oregon has a downturn while all their games are buried on Amazon or the After Dark window and the only people watching are die hard Pac 12 fans and they aren't making any CFP appearances to compensate for that they're out of sight and out of mind, totally forgotten in the CFB landscape. That is apocalyptic for their B1G aspirations. If they struggle in the Big 12 at least they're still on TV and playing some games at a reasonable hour and drawing in viewers east of the Rockies.

Small for any other P5 conference, but it fits in with the Pac 12. SMU's stadium is the same size as Washington State's stadium and only a few thousand smaller than what Oregon State's stadium will have when they are done with renovations. Around 32K attendance is what everyone besides Oregon, Washington and Utah will average if the Pac 12 survives. A sellout of 32K is more fun to watch both in person and on TV than 32K in a 50-60K stadium. Agreed, the B1G's athletic value would go up if you replaced Illinois/Northwestern or Indiana/Purdue with Oregon/Washington. But that won't happen. It would harm academic relations between schools. USC and UCLA telling Cal and Stanford "We're leaving to make more sports money in the B1G but I hope we can keep collaborating together on nerd stuff" is a much different message than the B1G saying "We're kicking you out to make more sports money but I hope we can keep collaborating together on the nerd stuff" to Illinois and Northwestern. If something like this comes to pass it will be the formation of Prestige Worldwide because the big brands deciding to leave isn't as offensive to the not haves as telling them to fuck off and find a new home because you found better sportsball programs to take their place. I think it will be very hard for ACC/Big 12/Pac 12 teams to schedule games with B1G/SEC teams going forward. The ACC/SEC rivalry games will continue, and I wouldn't be surprised if the LA schools scheduled the Bay Area schools every once in awhile, but for the most part the B1G/SEC schools know they will make more money playing each other than they will playing other conferences. For example USC's first 3 years in the B1G will feature a game in Las Vegas vs LSU and a home and home with Ole Miss (plus Notre Dame as always) while UCLA is playing a return game at LSU in 2024, then playing home and homes with Georgia and Auburn the next 4 years. Clemson, Miami and Florida State have enough clout plus favorable geography to get B1G/SEC games. Oregon and Washington will probably have to do 1 off neutral site games in the other team's backyard or 2 for 1s to land some B1G/SEC games. The PNW schools would have better luck scheduling SEC schools since they don't have the West Coast conference game excuse.

That goes to show how important it is for QBs to be in the right situation, even great QBs. Mahomes landed in an ideal place in the NFL. His head coach is an offensive genius plus Reid is the only head coach he has had in the NFL, he has always had elite playmakers catching his passes, he doesn't have to constantly run for his life behind a patchwork OL, Kansas City's owners aren't cheapskates or attention whores or greaseballs, he was allowed to ease into the starting job because he wasn't expected to bail out a franchise that had been poorly run since he was in elementary school on day 1 of his rookie year. If some dumpster team like the Jets or the Browns, who both passed on him, drafted Mahomes they might have permanently fucked him up. I can envision some dinosaur coach who gets hard watching highlight reels from the 80s trying to coach the creativity and unconventional passes out of Mahomes if he ended up on a bad team. I really hope a franchise that isn't a fucking joke ends up with the #1 pick in 2024 so Caleb Williams is put in a good position to succeed.

Ohio State just canceled a home and home they had scheduled with Washington for 2024-25 because they don't want to make more than one West Coast trip per year and I doubt they're the only B1G team with that philosophy. I realize the math for how often teams will play any given foe is different at 20-24 teams than it is for 16 teams, but that sentiment will be an obstacle to future Western B1G expansion. You'd have to guarantee all the teams in the Midwest and East they wouldn't play more than one West Coast road game per season. Even then, with their West Coast swings they'd all likely prefer playing in LA over the PNW for recruiting and because there are more B1G alumni in LA so that's another hurdle for adding Oregon and Washington. Add that to USC/UCLA not wanting to invite Oregon/Washington into LA every year or add more games with 10:30 PM ET black hole potential and it will take a lot of network money to make everyone vote yes on PNW expansion. Yes, their only conference game with one another was in Athens in 2019. It's the most effective way the SEC games the system. Teams still get credit with the public and the voters and recruits for being in the same conference as the good teams in the other division even though they only play any given cross-division foe who isn't their permanent rival once or twice a decade. 3+6 would actually force Alabama and Georgia to play in the regular season every once in awhile. In the decade since the SEC expanded to 14 teams they have only played two regular season games against each other. Under 3+6 they would play twice every four years. In that same time they have played 3 CCGs and 2 title games. Interesting to note none of those postseason games occurred in the years they played in the regular season. http://www.winsipedia.com/games/georgia/vs/texas-am http://www.winsipedia.com/games/alabama/vs/georgia

Yeah, there's no benefit to USC and UCLA to support Oregon and Washington getting into the B1G. Anyone pushing the travel partner line needs to look at a map. Just because they're also in the Pacific timezone does not mean they are quick, easy trips. LA to Seattle is 960 miles as the crow flies, LA to Eugene is 773 miles. For perspective Clemson to Boston is 827 miles but nobody will say Boston College is a convenient travel partner for Clemson when the ACC gets picked apart. The Bay Area schools and the Arizona schools are the only convenient travel schools for the LA schools but other than maybe Stanford none of them are ever getting into the B1G so USC and UCLA just need to deal with the travel. And that's just the flimsy upside. The downside for USC/UCLA of Oregon/Washington joining the B1G is supercharging two of your biggest local recruiting foes when you have an opportunity to leave them in the dust, playing more late games after finally escaping from that window and bailing out a couple schools who were the ringleaders for Pac 12 policies that harmed the LA schools. I still think Oregon and Washington will get in eventually after the B1G secures the ACC teams they really want, but the next decade or so will be shitty for them stuck on the outside looking in. It's better than the current way of doing things, where A&M and Georgia have only played once since A&M joined the conference a decade ago. I will like being in a bigger conference with a more varied schedule and as long as the conferences get the permanent opponents right I expect most fans will feel the same way. UCLA is a given for one of USC's permanent opponents. For the other two I'm hoping for some combination of Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin or Minnesota. Penn State would be a fun permanent game, it seems like a longshot but networks are driving this bus. They might insist on annually matching USC with one of the East juggernauts. Ohio State and Michigan have more games that make sense to protect than Penn State does so USC/Penn State could be the made for TV rivalry. I didn't need yearly games against Arizona and Colorado. At least in the B1G that caliber of team will rotate on and off the schedule every couple years to keep things fresh instead of permanently being a game I don't give a fuck about.

You're not wrong, but I don't feel bad about it. The job of USC's president is to put USC's best interests first, not the rest of the Pac 12. Not a single president in the rest of the Pac 12 ever looked out for USC's priorities, so USC gave them the same courtesy. The Pac 12 repeatedly did stupid shit like giving USC 12 straight games without a bye (2017), giving USC two straight road games to start conference play with the second game on short rest while the second opponent played a FCS cupcake the previous week (2016 and 2017 - USC lost both of the short rest games), putting the California schools in different divisions to help the PNW schools with their constant whining for more games in CA, giving USC weeknight home games and pretending Pullman and Tucson were just as valuable to the Pac 12 as LA. You don't see the B1G or the SEC abuse their bellcows like that. I've seen plenty of teeth gnashing from Texas fans about how drawn out their exit from the Big 12 has been. Because of USC nixing any Big 12 poaching that means the divorce for USC and UCLA is a lot shorter and less dramatic than it was for Texas and Oklahoma. Securing the B1G invitation was far more important than helping out 10 institutions that were always happy to fuck over USC and pick USC's pockets if it would help them in any way. This has been a dead conference since the failure to land Texas/Oklahoma and expand to 16 back in 2010, it just didn't know it yet. That was the terminal illness. USC and UCLA leaving was just pulling the plug on the braindead patient. I'm happier with the Big 12 primed to become the #3 conference instead of the Pac 12 because I like watching the Big 12 more than the Pac 12 in both football and basketball, and it's not just Texas or Oklahoma I watch in the Big 12. Lets play this one out. Suppose USC and UCLA tell the Pac 12 "We're going to the B1G in 2024, deal with expansion on your own" when Kliavkoff wanted to poach the Big 12 after the UT/OU to the SEC news broke. Do you think any Big 12 schools would have been eager to leave their mostly regional conference with longtime rivals aftter getting its top schools poached for another conference getting its top schools poached, where they would be geographic outliers and wouldn't have as many of their longtime rivals? Any Big 12 school joining the Pac 12 would also have to deal with Pac 12 fans and administrators looking down on them like they're a bunch of short bus passengers unworthy of being in the presence of such prestigious Pac 12 institutions. The advantage still goes to the Big 12 here because geography is on their side. They have much better poaching options available. Given a choice between Big 12 and Pac 12 I think Cincinnati, Houston and UCF would all choose the Big 12 over the Pac 12. BYU is the only wild card but I'm inclined to say they still go Big 12 after all the times the Pac 12 told them to fuck off in the past, plus it wouldn't surprise me if Pac 12 schools chose to die on the "no religious schools" hill.

To be fair to Kliavkoff, he did want to poach Big 12 teams shortly after Texas and Oklahoma announced their SEC move. USC's president killed any expansion talk since she was secretly working on the B1G exit strategy. Expansion would have meant either a renegotiated media deal and new GOR, which wasn't an option for USC and UCLA since they were trying to leave, or announcing they were planning on leaving which would have been precarious because at that point it wasn't a done deal for one more year. That's another year for the politicians and the UC Regents to try to cockblock UCLA, another year for the anti-expansion crowd in the B1G to try to stop the whole thing and another year of a drawn out divorce.

I think it was from a recent article on The Athletic. The idea is since this would be Amazon's first dive into college sports they want to have some long term payout/security if they're going to invest in the marketing and infrastructure for it, hence the long GOR. Losing Oregon and Washington to the B1G after only 5 years would be terrible for Amazon. You have LSU as one of Florida's games but Florida is not one of LSU's games. Same thing with South Carolina/Florida.

Don't take anything SI says seriously, they're not even a shell of what they used to be. They're just a SEO machine capitalizing on people who remember when SI was a legitimate sports news/journalism outlet. Until a deal is signed any positive news coming out of the Pac 12 with regards to a media deal sounds like it comes from Baghdad Bob. There are several major conflicting problems facing the conference. -ESPN wants the Pac 12's top games but they are lowballing the conference and they're done bidding against themselves for sports media rights -Amazon wants their top games and a 10-15 year GOR -Adding SDSU and SMU would add value for Amazon and detract value for ESPN (more inventory/Prime subs for Amazon, but for ESPN it's a higher price tag for teams they already own and aren't worth Pac 12 money) If they go for ESPN they are getting exposure for their best games/brands but they'll still end up with a lot of games banished to ESPN+ and the 10:30 PM ET drunks and gamblers audience, plus it's still less money and less exposure than they would get for jumping to the Big 12. If they go Amazon they can probably get at least as much as the Big 12 but their exposure is fucked and they will have to sign a very long GOR, which Oregon and Washington have zero interest in doing since they are holding out hope for a B1G invite in the next round of realignment musical chairs. They can't pursue what seems like their ideal outcome of selling their best games to ESPN while selling the rest to Amazon because Amazon wants Oregon/Washington, not just Oregon State/Washington State, and because Amazon and ESPN have different perspectives on Pac 12 expansion.

Pods mean it's the same 3 teams for everyone in it while guaranteed rivals offers more flexibility. For example, from Texas' perspective there is no difference between being in a pod with Oklahoma/A&M/Arkansas and having those teams as their 3 guaranteed rivals. But for A&M being in that pod means they lose a guaranteed rival they want in LSU. If you put Alabama/Tennessee/Auburn/Vanderbilt in the same pod you wouldn't have any complaints from Alabama or Tennessee but Auburn and Georgia would be pissed about missing each other while Kentucky wants Tennessee as one of their 3 guaranteed games and Florida might too. 3 rivals seems like the best way to preserve the most important games and keep all the schools happy.

It's a reasonable assumption that somebody using the phrases "pass happy league that gives offenses every advantage" and "bubble wrapped QB" is making a "back in my day we walked uphill both ways to get to school" argument about how the sport was much more difficult back in the day. I'm pointing out that the changes to the sport making certain parts of the game easier for QBs also make other parts of the game harder. Again, how often were legendary QBs of the past in a situation where they had to score every time they had the ball in the second half to win the Super Bowl? A lot of Super Bowl lore is built around one clutch drive winning the game. Mahomes had to play an entire clutch second half to win. You're right, 5 years into a career means his story is far from over. However, Mahomes' age should be seen as a point in his favor rather than against. At this point in Mahomes' career he is outpacing everyone not named Tom Brady, and if Mahomes wins one more ring in the next decade that catches him up with Brady at the same points in their careers. It's football so the possibility of an injury that ends his career or turns him into a much less effective player always exists, but short of that worst case scenario I have a hard time seeing Mahomes not winning a few more rings. I don't think he'll get to 7 rings, but given what kind of player Mahomes is and how well his franchise is run 4-5 rings feels more likely than not.