Realignment talk not going away

statsman · August 29, 2022

Yeah, Klatt said that the PAC needs to be happy with $32M per year, that they’re not getting more. The only way Oregon, Stanford, Cal and UW get to join the B10 is by taking a reduced share (and the B10 really doesn’t want to do that on more than a temporary basis).

Klatt talked a little about when the four B12 schools almost merged with the PAC a decade ago. He said that Larry Scott pretty much screwed that up, and everything since then. WRT the PAC network, he said that they acted like 100% of nothing was worth more than 49% of something.

So, what does the PAC do?

TKthunder2 · August 29, 2022

19 minutes ago, statsman said:

Yeah, Klatt said that the PAC needs to be happy with $32M per year, that they’re not getting more. The only way Oregon, Stanford, Cal and UW get to join the B10 is by taking a reduced share (and the B10 really doesn’t want to do that on more than a temporary basis).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-should-the-big-ten-expand-next-we-crunched-the-numbers/

538 lays out the options pretty well.

A: ND

B: UNC, Oregon, FSU, Washington

and C : Clemson, Utah, Miami, Stanford, Cal

Whether you agree or disagree with his analysis, we all can agree that ND while the best option will be the hardest to pull and with the ACC’s GOR it keeps UNC, FSU, Miami, Clemson, UVA, GT, etc off the table until next cycle so…

If the Big Ten wants to expand before their next contract the only options are PAC12 schools. Oregon/Washington are solid “B” options and the synergy of Cal/Stanford joining the B1G and giving them eternal academic scoreboard on everyone outside the Ivy League plus alleviating the political pressure from the UCLA fallout seems like it checks off multiple boxes for the conference.

This is what I think happens:

The Big Ten finalizes their deals with FOX/CBS/NBC. Everyone in the conference knows what they will make as a group for years to come. Once that is 100% complete…

The Big Ten invites Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal to the conference at the pro-rata increase that they can negotiate for. You could see FOX paying some more to lock down a B1G after dark game for FS1. The Big Ten gets no immediate financial benefit from their memberships, but it doesn’t cost them anything either.

While this gives UO/UW/Stan/Cal less money than the rest of the Big Ten, it would still pay them more than they could make in an independent (since their home slate will have USC/UCLA/and other B1G games) or with the PAC12 ($30mil) or B12 ($50mil) deals. They’ll also be bringing the BTN in market for SFO, SEA, and PDX which should pay big dividends towards their finances.

If the B1G is pulling $100 million a year per school, one could envision these 4 PAC12 North schools making somewhere in the $60-$70 million range for the duration of this arrangement. Once the new contract is ready to be renegotiated these 4 would be full fledged members with full shares.

billfromlaketravis · August 29, 2022

28 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-should-the-big-ten-expand-next-we-crunched-the-numbers/

538 lays out the options pretty well.

A: ND

B: UNC, Oregon, FSU, Washington

and C : Clemson, Utah, Miami, Stanford, Cal

Whether you agree or disagree with his analysis, we all can agree that ND while the best option will be the hardest to pull and with the ACC’s GOR it keeps UNC, FSU, Miami, Clemson, UVA, GT, etc off the table until next cycle so…

If the Big Ten wants to expand before their next contract the only options are PAC12 schools. Oregon/Washington are solid “B” options and the synergy of Cal/Stanford joining the B1G and giving them eternal academic scoreboard on everyone outside the Ivy League plus alleviating the political pressure from the UCLA fallout seems like it checks off multiple boxes for the conference.

This is what I think happens:

The Big Ten finalizes their deals with FOX/CBS/NBC. Everyone in the conference knows what they will make as a group for years to come. Once that is 100% complete…

The Big Ten invites Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal to the conference at the pro-rata increase that they can negotiate for. You could see FOX paying some more to lock down a B1G after dark game for FS1. The Big Ten gets no immediate financial benefit from their memberships, but it doesn’t cost them anything either.

While this gives UO/UW/Stan/Cal less money than the rest of the Big Ten, it would still pay them more than they could make in an independent (since their home slate will have USC/UCLA/and other B1G games) or with the PAC12 ($30mil) or B12 ($50mil) deals. They’ll also be bringing the BTN in market for SFO, SEA, and PDX which should pay big dividends towards their finances.

If the B1G is pulling $100 million a year per school, one could envision these 4 PAC12 North schools making somewhere in the $60-$70 million range for the duration of this arrangement. Once the new contract is ready to be renegotiated these 4 would be full fledged members with full shares.

OR Phil Knight sends Larry Scott to Cambodia to work off his debt in a sweatshop.

thunderlounge · August 29, 2022

Pssst…

The ACC’s GOR is worse off than a steaming pile of shit if there isn’t an ACC left to enforce it.

If Dis/Fox are ready before that, it won’t be an issue.

B1g/SEC get what they want, enough get moved to b12+-/ to finish it off. The rest get whatever seat they can wherever.

But that’s only if they needed to. Might not, but if they want to act beforehand, it isn’t going to be stopped by the GOR.

A couple brands getting cherry picked, sure. GOR prevents that. It does not prevent the conference from being blown up.

Trojan Man · August 29, 2022

I'll say it again, but it would be a huge disappointment to leave behind the boat anchor of the Pac 12's "Non-revenue sports are equal to football and parity is more important than championships and we're going to play our biggest games late at night when everybody is asleep or drunk off their ass" athletic departments for a conference that plays its biggest games when people are actually paying attention and prioritizes football as #1 instead of pretending soccer and women's equestrian are just as valuable as football only to be told "Here's your new Big 10 schedule: you play UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon and Washington all at 10 PM ET every year and maybe you can play prime time games against Ohio State or Michigan or Penn State or Wisconsin once every 4 years." What was the fucking point of leaving the Pac 12 in the first place if it's just going to be rebranded as the Big 10? Washington and Stanford can come, that's enough to alleviate travel problems and lock down the West Coast and uphold the academic circle jerking and not feel like we're just merging the Pac 12 with the Big 10. Utah would be an acceptable replacement if Stanford decides they want to go the Ivy League route or the state of Washington attaches Washington State to the Huskies.

Fuck the rest of the Pac 12, they're reductive deadweight. If they weren't the Pac 10 wouldn't be circling the drain right now. I want nothing more to do with the clowns in Berkeley after 2023. USC no longer having to give a shit what Cal thinks about anything is one of the best parts of joining the Big 10. If Cal doesn't give a fuck about their own football program I don't see why anyone else should be concerned about their fate. That's such a garbage athletic department to rub elbows with, I'm thrilled to leave them and their hostility towards sports behind. Oregon can go fuck themselves. Leaving them to rot in the Wac 10 is nice payback for one of their athletic department employees participating in the absurd sanctions handed down to USC and using that to prop themselves up. Leaving out Oregon isn't purely a spiteful move, either. Every Big 10 team should be opposed to it. Oregon is never signing another top shelf California recruit if they don't get into the Big 10 (that's how they make their living), which would be beneficial for USC and UCLA and every Big 10 team hoping to recruit California better now that the LA schools are in the conference. If you bring Oregon you just make your own recruiting harder while gaining nothing new because Oregon produces next to no FBS talent. They don't bring enough revenue to offset the problems they'd cause in recruiting with a good coach, they don't win national championships to bring the prestige that comes with rings and they're a stepping stone program that is one bad hire away from 5-7 win irrelevancy. If there were any upsides to being in the same conference with Oregon I would have noticed them at some point.

thunderlounge · August 29, 2022

I don’t think anyone at home on a Texas board really cares what condom or their fans want.

Hank Chinaski · August 29, 2022

42 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

I'll say it again, but it would be a huge disappointment to leave behind the boat anchor of the Pac 12's "Non-revenue sports are equal to football and parity is more important than championships and we're going to play our biggest games late at night when everybody is asleep or drunk off their ass" athletic departments for a conference that plays its biggest games when people are actually paying attention and prioritizes football as #1 instead of pretending soccer and women's equestrian are just as valuable as football only to be told "Here's your new Big 10 schedule: you play UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon and Washington all at 10 PM ET every year and maybe you can play prime time games against Ohio State or Michigan or Penn State or Wisconsin once every 4 years."

Holy shit, that’s one sentence.

Trojan Man · August 29, 2022

14 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

I don’t think anyone at home on a Texas board really cares what condom or their fans want.

When they're discussing possible Pac/Big 10 realignment moves in the realignment thread maybe they do. I'm guessing the enthusiasm for Texas moving to the SEC would be watered down quite a bit among Texas fans if the SEC also added Baylor, TCU, Kansas and Iowa State so you have to keep playing them and play fewer games against Alabama, Georgia, Florida, LSU etc. That's what bringing all the Pac leftovers to the Big 10 would feel like from USC's and UCLA's perspective. And this sentiment isn't solely among sports fans. Administrators and leadership at most of the Pac schools don't get along with each other. It was never a "Sing Kumbaya around the campfire and all cheer for one another" conference like the SEC, it's a bucket of crabs. From a decision-making perspective, if the leftover Pac teams were valuable enough to grow the Big 10's massive TV revenue the Pac 12's media value wouldn't have been getting lapped by the Big 10 and the SEC in the first place.

2 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

Holy shit, that’s one sentence.

Here's the rewrite: Pac teams bad Big 10 teams good, leave the Pac teams in the Pac.

TKthunder2 · August 29, 2022

15 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

Here's the rewrite: Pac teams bad Big 10 teams good, leave the Pac teams in the Pac.

Obviously in conference realignment the most successful thing you can do is to add a jewel (UT/OU/USC/ND), but now there is literally only 1 of those left.

The second part of conference realignment is to raise the bar strengthen your middle and lesser your weaknesses. Washington and Oregon are the only programs in the P12 that everyone agrees would slot into the middle of the Big Ten alongside Wisconsin, Michigan State and Iowa.

Hate Oregon, that’s cool, but to act like they have no value is asinine.

Edited August 29, 2022 by TKthunder2

bullet · August 29, 2022

2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-should-the-big-ten-expand-next-we-crunched-the-numbers/

538 lays out the options pretty well.

A: ND

B: UNC, Oregon, FSU, Washington

and C : Clemson, Utah, Miami, Stanford, Cal

Whether you agree or disagree with his analysis, we all can agree that ND while the best option will be the hardest to pull and with the ACC’s GOR it keeps UNC, FSU, Miami, Clemson, UVA, GT, etc off the table until next cycle so…

If the Big Ten wants to expand before their next contract the only options are PAC12 schools. Oregon/Washington are solid “B” options and the synergy of Cal/Stanford joining the B1G and giving them eternal academic scoreboard on everyone outside the Ivy League plus alleviating the political pressure from the UCLA fallout seems like it checks off multiple boxes for the conference.

This is what I think happens:

The Big Ten finalizes their deals with FOX/CBS/NBC. Everyone in the conference knows what they will make as a group for years to come. Once that is 100% complete…

The Big Ten invites Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal to the conference at the pro-rata increase that they can negotiate for. You could see FOX paying some more to lock down a B1G after dark game for FS1. The Big Ten gets no immediate financial benefit from their memberships, but it doesn’t cost them anything either.

While this gives UO/UW/Stan/Cal less money than the rest of the Big Ten, it would still pay them more than they could make in an independent (since their home slate will have USC/UCLA/and other B1G games) or with the PAC12 ($30mil) or B12 ($50mil) deals. They’ll also be bringing the BTN in market for SFO, SEA, and PDX which should pay big dividends towards their finances.

If the B1G is pulling $100 million a year per school, one could envision these 4 PAC12 North schools making somewhere in the $60-$70 million range for the duration of this arrangement. Once the new contract is ready to be renegotiated these 4 would be full fledged members with full shares.

I think they take UW and Stanford. The question is whether they leave room for ND as 20 or ignore them and add Oregon and Cal. From what I'm reading I think they go to 20 with the 4 Pac. Personally, I would stick at 18.

Sandbagging Steve · August 29, 2022

7 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

When they're discussing possible Pac/Big 10 realignment moves in the realignment thread maybe they do. I'm guessing the enthusiasm for Texas moving to the SEC would be watered down quite a bit among Texas fans if the SEC also added Baylor, TCU, Kansas and Iowa State so you have to keep playing them and play fewer games against Alabama, Georgia, Florida, LSU etc. That's what bringing all the Pac leftovers to the Big 10 would feel like from USC's and UCLA's perspective. And this sentiment isn't solely among sports fans. Administrators and leadership at most of the Pac schools don't get along with each other. It was never a "Sing Kumbaya around the campfire and all cheer for one another" conference like the SEC, it's a bucket of crabs. From a decision-making perspective, if the leftover Pac teams were valuable enough to grow the Big 10's massive TV revenue the Pac 12's media value wouldn't have been getting lapped by the Big 10 and the SEC in the first place.

Here's the rewrite: Pac teams bad Big 10 teams good, leave the Pac teams in the Pac.

Yeah, no.

Washington and Oregon are much better than the Baylors and TCUs of the world and you know that. You don't want them in the B1G because, as you've already stated weeks ago, you don't want the competition. Oregon is stealing our recruits!

Baylor and TCU have no fans and recruit overlooked kids with testing numbers. They also bring no new territory. There is no comparison with Oregon and Washington.

Washington and Oregon would both rank in the top half of the B1G in revenue generated and competitiveness. They aren't tOSU, Michigan, Penn State or USC but there's only a handful of teams that can hang with that group. Both programs easily rank as two of the top 25 most desirable programs in the country.

If you take B1GN into consideration, Oregon and Washington will bring plenty of money to the B1G. Washington, in reality, with the B1GN revenue, would pay for itself. A lot of the numbers thrown around in the media are nothing more than public negotiation IMO. I imagine the B1G will make the new teams take a pay cut for the first contract. B1G has the leverage to do that right now. If they take both Stanford and Cal, they're going to be losing revenue and will make Oregon and Washington assist in paying for it.

In order to have a quality late night game every week, the B1G needs more options out west.

The B1G, considering the lack of quality in the lower half of the league, still needs more helmet schools with speed. The lack of speed in the conference makes it a complete joke. Ohio State is the only program that remains competitive in the College Football Playoff.

Oregon, along with USC, brings speed and Washington is a solid program. UCLA has the potential to bring speed, if they get the program turned around.

bullet · August 29, 2022

11 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Obviously in conference realignment the most successful thing you can do is to add a jewel (UT/OU/USC/ND), but now there is literally only 1 of those left.

The second part of conference realignment is to raise the bar strengthen your middle and lesser your weaknesses. Washington and Oregon are the only programs in the P12 that everyone agrees would slot into the middle of the Big Ten alongside Wisconsin, Michigan State and Iowa.

Hate Oregon, that’s cool, but to act like they have no value is asinine.

Oregon has value now. I don't think they are one bad hire from irrelevance, but 10 years like OU had in the 90s or UT in the 10s and Oregon is not much different than Oregon St. or Colorado St.

Look at Colorado now. They actually had an MNC. They have a big media market. And they are one of the lower value teams in the Pac 10.

statsman · August 29, 2022

He’s (Trojan man) right about Oregon, except for one thing. They only rely mostly on California recruiting. They rely partly on Texas recruiting, too. (Tkthunder, if you’re from Oklahoma, you may not understand why that’s an issue, relying, as zombies do, on Texas recruits)

Edited August 29, 2022 by statsman

Trojan Man · August 29, 2022

14 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Obviously in conference realignment the most successful thing you can do is to add a jewel (UT/OU/USC/ND), but now there is literally only 1 of those left.

The second part of conference realignment is to raise the bar strengthen your middle and lesser your weaknesses. Washington and Oregon are the only programs in the P12 that everyone agrees would slot into the middle of the Big Ten alongside Wisconsin, Michigan State and Iowa.

Hate Oregon, that’s cool, but to act like they have no value is asinine.

4 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

Yeah, no.

Washington and Oregon are much better than the Baylors and TCUs of the world and you know that. You don't want them in the B1G because, as you've already stated weeks ago, you don't want the competition. Oregon is stealing our recruits!

Baylor and TCU have no fans and recruit overlooked kids with testing numbers. They also bring no new territory. There is no comparison with Oregon and Washington.

Washington and Oregon would both rank in the top half of the B1G in revenue generated and competitiveness. They aren't tOSU, Michigan, Penn State or USC but there's only a handful of teams that can hang with that group. Both programs easily rank as two of the top 25 most desirable programs in the country.

If you take B1GN into consideration, Oregon and Washington will bring plenty of money to the B1G. Washington, in reality, with the B1GN revenue, would pay for itself. A lot of the numbers thrown around in the media are nothing more than public negotiation IMO. I imagine the B1G will make the new teams take a pay cut for the first contract. B1G has the leverage to do that right now. If they take both Stanford and Cal, they're going to be losing revenue and will make Oregon and Washington assist in paying for it.

In order to have a quality late night game every week, the B1G needs more options out west.

The B1G, considering the lack of quality in the lower half of the league, still needs more helmet schools with speed. The lack of speed in the conference makes it a complete joke. Ohio State is the only program that remains competitive in the College Football Playoff.

Oregon, along with USC, brings speed and Washington is a solid program. UCLA has the potential to bring speed, if they get the program turned around.

Oregon would increase the Big 10's value if they were replacing a clunker like Illinois, but that's not happening. As a standalone? They do not increase everyone's $80M slice of the pie. Neither do any other Pac leftovers. This whole thing is about making as much money as possible. If you don't grow the pie why should you get an invitation to the party? Again, if Oregon (or any other Pac leftover) was valued that highly by the networks it would have been reflected in previous Pac contracts and it would be reflected in current Pac TV negotiations.

Half-shares for the first contract are a possible workaround, but then you're gambling on Oregon bringing enough value to be worth a full share for the next contract. If they go through a decade in the wilderness in the 2020s like 2010s USC and Texas they aren't worth anywhere near that much and they don't have the clear path back to contention USC and Texas do. Stanford is the only Pac leftover with a realistic shot at joining the Big 10 in the near future and that's almost entirely because Notre Dame would insist on it plus the Irish would bring enough revenue to cover Stanford and then some. Unlike Oregon, Stanford at least brings a market and recruiting territory (USC's/UCLA's sphere of influence doesn't expand to the Bay Area) and the most elite academics in major college football so there are some perks to having them around.

Sandbagging Steve · August 30, 2022

12 minutes ago, bullet said:

Oregon has value now. I don't think they are one bad hire from irrelevance, but 10 years like OU had in the 90s or UT in the 10s and Oregon is not much different than Oregon St. or Colorado St.

Look at Colorado now. They actually had an MNC. They have a big media market. And they are one of the lower value teams in the Pac 10.

The difference is Oregon's admin and their above average fan base care about maintaining a good program. You can't say the same about most of those other programs. None of them, the closest being Colorado, ever had the national following of Oregon. Colorado's admin doesn't care about its football program. They also only won for roughly decade. Oregon has been building a competitive program since the 1990s. It's close to 30 years now. How many coaches has Oregon cycled through and still remained a consistent winner? This isn't a situation where the coach made them good. Knight has set them up for long passed when he's gone. Autzen Stadium is one of the great environments in all of college football.

Oklahoma is able to remain competitive with somewhat similar recruiting territory. Ohio State needs to go OOS to win on a national scale (decent in-state but no enough).

This isn't Nebraska, either. Kids want to play at UO. They have a much larger national following than fans of other programs want to admit. Their TV numbers will go way up once they get to play other large fan bases (B1G) every week. With that said, I get your points. But the B1G still needs two more helmet schools in that time zone.

TKthunder2 · August 30, 2022

1 hour ago, statsman said:

He’s (Trojan man) right about Oregon, except for one thing. They only rely mostly on California recruiting. They rely partly on Texas recruiting, too. (Tkthunder, if you’re from Oklahoma, you may not understand why that’s an issue, relying, as zombies do, on Texas recruits)

I’m a 3rd generation Longhorn and a Mavericks fan. Never lived outside the state (Alvin, Longview, Austin, and Dallas).

I get why USC would hate Oregon, doesn’t make blackballing them the right decision for them or the Big Ten. If USC gets back to regular 10 wins seasons Oregon won’t be an issue.

I get USC not wanting to sign on for another PAC12 after dark deal, but they signed a deal with the devil and the devil is going to get his pound of flesh. At least, they can limit their exposure by adding more time zone challenged programs so it’s not every other week.

statsman · August 30, 2022

(Apologies, tkthunder)

Sandbagging Steve · August 30, 2022

25 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

Oregon would increase the Big 10's value if they were replacing a clunker like Illinois, but that's not happening. As a standalone? They do not increase everyone's $80M slice of the pie. Neither do any other Pac leftovers. This whole thing is about making as much money as possible. If you don't grow the pie why should you get an invitation to the party? Again, if Oregon (or any other Pac leftover) was valued that highly by the networks it would have been reflected in previous Pac contracts and it would be reflected in current Pac TV negotiations.

Half-shares for the first contract are a possible workaround, but then you're gambling on Oregon bringing enough value to be worth a full share for the next contract. If they go through a decade in the wilderness in the 2020s like 2010s USC and Texas they aren't worth anywhere near that much and they don't have the clear path back to contention USC and Texas do. Stanford is the only Pac leftover with a realistic shot at joining the Big 10 in the near future and that's almost entirely because Notre Dame would insist on it plus the Irish would bring enough revenue to cover Stanford and then some. Unlike Oregon, Stanford at least brings a market and recruiting territory (USC's/UCLA's sphere of influence doesn't expand to the Bay Area) and the most elite academics in major college football so there are some perks to having them around.

That makes no sense at all. Why wasn't USC able to save the PAC then? Under your own admission, USC must be worthless because they weren't able to get the entire PAC a better contract. That makes no sense at all.

Comparing Oregon to Illinois just shows you're way too biased for this subject. You can go look at just about any list that rates the value of any program and there's no comparison.

USC/UCLA didn't increase the value of the B1G. It's the B1GN that made up for it and that's not the future of television. Should the B1G tell USC no? Of course not. That would be stupid.

There is only one team available in all of college football that increases the pie: Notre Dame. That doesn't mean adding top programs won't increase the pie later down the road. Oregon consistently playing in more competitive games against larger fan bases will increase their ratings. Same goes for all the other top programs. This is the new reality of college football. This is about top programs vs. top programs and eliminating everyone else from the regular season schedule. Why do you think I've been harping about an expansion in conference games on here for months? And Warren just mentioned going to ten conference games at some point? At some point, it's going to be more than ten conference games. That's where we are heading. That's where the money is at.

The PACs weaknesses had nothing to do with Oregon and Washington and everything to do with the conferences region, the weak programs at the bottom and no fan bases as large as Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame to cover up for the weaknesses. Not even USC has a large enough fan base to cover for more than maybe one team, and that team better bring at least something of value. USC's fan base is not Michigan, Ohio State, Texas or Notre Dame. USC's strengths' are recruiting, tradition, and competitiveness. It's a helmet school with the biggest recruiting advantage in the country. Its fan base is the smallest of all the Bluebloods.

If all PAC 12 teams were equal to Oregon and Washington, the conference would still be around.

PAC 12 weaknesses:

1. Playing only out West

2. None of the very largest fan bases to cover for weak teams

3. You cannot carry Washington State, Oregon State, two uninterested programs in passive NorCal, two programs in Arizona and expect to survive with no Ohio State, Michigan type fan bases to cover up for it.

Oregon and Washington had nothing to do with the downfall of the PAC or its money issues.

Oregon brings another helmet program with speed that the B1G desperately needs in its conference. B1G's two biggest issues are competitiveness and recruiting territory. They solved some of that with USC/UCLA. It also makes no sense to stop at two teams in that time zone. You really need at least 4 solid teams to make sure there's a competitive game worth watching in the late time slot.

Washington brings more of its over 4,000,000 Seattle metro and 7,500,000 state pop than Stanford brings the 7.7 San Francisco metro area. There's no difference in the two in size, other than one (Washington) has a much bigger following and has fans that actually care about the team.

Oregon out-recruits Stanford every year.

Stanford will get in because of Notre Dame and the fact the B1G still needs more teams in that time zone.

It's going to be Oregon, Washington, Stanford in the B1G at some point.

pops · August 30, 2022

Phil has a big swinging dick. If there is a possibility that oregon can get in you can bet he will use his Nike leverage to make it happen. UA and adidas are cute but that's a big fucking stick.

Treefidy · August 30, 2022

1 hour ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

Yeah, no.

Washington and Oregon are much better than the Baylors and TCUs of the world and you know that. You don't want them in the B1G because, as you've already stated weeks ago, you don't want the competition. Oregon is stealing our recruits!

Baylor and TCU have no fans and recruit overlooked kids with testing numbers. They also bring no new territory. There is no comparison with Oregon and Washington.

Washington and Oregon would both rank in the top half of the B1G in revenue generated and competitiveness. They aren't tOSU, Michigan, Penn State or USC but there's only a handful of teams that can hang with that group. Both programs easily rank as two of the top 25 most desirable programs in the country.

If you take B1GN into consideration, Oregon and Washington will bring plenty of money to the B1G. Washington, in reality, with the B1GN revenue, would pay for itself. A lot of the numbers thrown around in the media are nothing more than public negotiation IMO. I imagine the B1G will make the new teams take a pay cut for the first contract. B1G has the leverage to do that right now. If they take both Stanford and Cal, they're going to be losing revenue and will make Oregon and Washington assist in paying for it.

In order to have a quality late night game every week, the B1G needs more options out west.

The B1G, considering the lack of quality in the lower half of the league, still needs more helmet schools with speed. The lack of speed in the conference makes it a complete joke. Ohio State is the only program that remains competitive in the College Football Playoff.

Oregon, along with USC, brings speed and Washington is a solid program. UCLA has the potential to bring speed, if they get the program turned around.

If the B1G had a clue it needs speed Oklahoma would have been at the top of the list.

TKthunder2 · August 30, 2022

34 minutes ago, Treefidy said:

If the B1G had a clue it needs speed Oklahoma would have been at the top of the list.

Yeah, the B1G and PAC must have felt like the assholes they are after Oklahoma was invited to the SEC.

Good thing about realignment is that most of that holier-than-thou attitude is likely going to die with the PAC12.

PAC: academic snootiness of Cal/Stanford and trying to be like the Big Ten killed the conference. They had their chance at Texas and Oklahoma and then basically every B12 school for the last year but wasted it. Colorado calling the B12 a JUCO league and then returning would be glorious.

B1G: the friendliest foe that will stab you in the back for a dollar. Sure they have old money and academics prestige, but they single-handedly killed the regional conference concept and raided the A10, Big 12, ACC, Big East, and even their bff PAC12. Brag about academics in one hand, and have your athlete fly from LA to Newark in the other.

ACC: who the fuck cares, they’ve been pulling anyone and everyone with a pulse since 2000. They lost any respect they had when they invited Louisville.

bullet · August 30, 2022

3 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

The difference is Oregon's admin and their above average fan base care about maintaining a good program. You can't say the same about most of those other programs. None of them, the closest being Colorado, ever had the national following of Oregon. Colorado's admin doesn't care about its football program. They also only won for roughly decade. Oregon has been building a competitive program since the 1990s. It's close to 30 years now. How many coaches has Oregon cycled through and still remained a consistent winner? This isn't a situation where the coach made them good. Knight has set them up for long passed when he's gone. Autzen Stadium is one of the great environments in all of college football.

Oklahoma is able to remain competitive with somewhat similar recruiting territory. Ohio State needs to go OOS to win on a national scale (decent in-state but no enough).

This isn't Nebraska, either. Kids want to play at UO. They have a much larger national following than fans of other programs want to admit. Their TV numbers will go way up once they get to play other large fan bases (B1G) every week. With that said, I get your points. But the B1G still needs two more helmet schools in that time zone.

Its only above average if you consider the G5. Oregon's attendance (2016-2019) is 36th, so its in the lower half of the P5. Just ahead of them? #31-35 are Iowa St., Texas Tech, Oklahoma St., UCLA and Kentucky. Colorado is only a few slots back at #42.

Colorado was pretty good in the 60s and 70s. In 1971 they finished #3, behind #1 Nebraska and #2 OU. From 1988-2005 they were pretty good with 6 top 10s, 10 ranked years at the end of the season and ranked at some point all but 2004. They also had their MNC They won the Big 12 N 4 out of the first 10 years. Oregon started rolling in 1999. Their 9 top 10s and 15 ranked years in 23 years is a little better, but not a lot. From 2008-2014 they finished in the top 11 every year, but have slipped since then with only one top 10 and only 3 years ranked.

Sandbagging Steve · August 30, 2022

2 hours ago, bullet said:

Its only above average if you consider the G5. Oregon's attendance (2016-2019) is 36th, so its in the lower half of the P5. Just ahead of them? #31-35 are Iowa St., Texas Tech, Oklahoma St., UCLA and Kentucky. Colorado is only a few slots back at #42.

Colorado was pretty good in the 60s and 70s. In 1971 they finished #3, behind #1 Nebraska and #2 OU. From 1988-2005 they were pretty good with 6 top 10s, 10 ranked years at the end of the season and ranked at some point all but 2004. They also had their MNC They won the Big 12 N 4 out of the first 10 years. Oregon started rolling in 1999. Their 9 top 10s and 15 ranked years in 23 years is a little better, but not a lot. From 2008-2014 they finished in the top 11 every year, but have slipped since then with only one top 10 and only 3 years ranked.

Some good points. I can see there being an issue, if Oregon were to go on a long dry spell.

Oregon's turnaround really started in Rich Brooks last season in 1994. He'd actually been building to that moment since the late 1980s. He went to the Rose Bowl that year and the Ducks were energized and had something to sell. It took Bellotti a few years of some really good and some really average to get some consistency, but Oregon's been solid for close to 30 years.

Oregon keeps a smaller stadium for the consistent (actual) sellouts. We are talking actual attendance here and not the fake attendance many programs use. Their fans actually show up to the games. The complete drop-off of the PAC has hurt them though. That's not their fault and easily fixed with a better conference. There's been debate on whether they should continue to expand or hold steady. Yes, it's a young program, considering how bad they once were throughout their history. But Oregon could sell 80,000 tickets to big games. They want everyone to have a great seat and make each seat seem prized. They don't want empty seats against noncompetitive teams. Right now, in the PAC, you have plenty of matchups that just don't excite fan bases.

Oregon held the record for the most current sellouts for a very long time. It ended in 2016 as the entire PAC became lackluster. A 110 game streak of sellouts. I believe they started another steak, but I haven't kept up to see if it is still current. The point is, they would have a higher average attendance by adding seats to their stadium. If they move to the B1G, they may increase their stadium size again. It's one of the best stadiums I've ever watched a live game. Not a single bad seat in the entire stadium. Incredible atmosphere and very, very loud.

Let's not forget they've built up a solid following all across the country. Not just fans that watch because they are good, but diehard fans of the team. And they are a favorite of the young generation, thanks to Phil Knight.

For that reason, you can't measure their impact on attendance alone.

I do get your point: If they start losing, how will the fans react? But that's also a problem everywhere but a very few amount of programs. It's an issue at USC.

You would get a huge increase in TV viewership for Oregon and Washington in the B1G, just like Texas/OU are going to get an increase in viewership in the SEC. It's going to be significant.

Colorado's success was because of coach Bill McCartney; and then Neuheisel just flat out cheated. But the Colorado admin has never really cared enough about the program. Colorado always seems to have financial issues that will never be an issue at UO. Oregon was built with money and a good, steady admin that cares about a winning program. Oregon runs a business. Colorado runs a department much like Michigan, Texas, Notre Dame and UCLA, without the natural advantages of those programs. The coaches come and go, the Ducks program stays the same. They are on their seventh coach since 1994. Although NIL will change the landscape, I don't think it's going to kill the Oregon program. Knight has them setup for a very long time.

I'll be the first to admit, Washington is worth more in the long run. I don't see that keeping Oregon out of it. As I stated earlier, there is eventually going to be an increase in conference games and a decrease in cupcake games. This consolidation isn't just about how much a program is worth right now. It's also about playing more competitive matchups against like-minded programs every single week. This will significantly boost TV viewership. Universities need to increase the cash cow in order to pay the players without having to fire a bunch administrative bloat within the departments, which would be admitting this has all been a sham for decades now. There's been plenty of revenue, they just spend it unnecessarily to make it look like there's no profits.

hawkfan · August 30, 2022

I don't want the B1G to add Cal, I'd be fine with Stanford/Washington/Oregon.

Ideally you get ND at 20 (or 17, however you want to look at it), but if you need filler for #20, I'd prefer Utah or Colorado to Cal. Utah is interesting to me because there isn't a pro football team there, it's a fairly large market (top 40 TV market), it's a totally new time zone, and they are AAU.

I think the 4 remaining spots go to UNC/UVA/GT/FSU down the road. FSU seems to make more sense in the SEC though, so I could see the B1G taking Miami instead.

Edited August 30, 2022 by hawkfan

statsman · August 30, 2022

Couple of things-

1. Steve, you say CU was dirty? Well, they did recruit a lot of gang bangers (Scipio told a great story of 30 years ago, when the Buff team beat the shit out of a LA recruit that was a “blood”, because CU was a “crips” team). In no way we’re they as shamelessly dirty as Oregon has been since the departure of Bellotti. They buy recruits, and that is their big recruiting pitch, more than anything else.

2. A conference has to vote a school in. USC is an easy “yes” vote- they have fans, name recognition and…are located in a region with many more top recruits than USC can absorb. USC will not upset recruiting in the Ohio Valley, or any other B10 recruiting regions.
Oregon has to recruit out of state to be good, and they buy recruits. This is why Oregon isn’t being snatched up, and why Knight is trying to wrangle them into the B10- because they have a big flaw that undermines their advantages. (This is why Cristobal left Oregon for Miami- he left the program that was overachieving to overcome its disadvantage for the underachieving program in the region that is ridiculously talent rich).

Texzilla58 · August 30, 2022

All this handwringing over fucking Oregon. Most folks in Oregon don’t care in a state that has to split with OSU, which most non duck Oregonians like as the school of the people rather than the snooty Duck program, much like Iowa and Iowa State.

Oregon is simply a marketing creation built on paid recruits and hot imported from Cali cheerleaders, a smoke and mirrors operation no different than the expensive cheap shoes Phil Knight makes in Vietnamese sweat shops. The second they lose their TV exposure they are Idaho or Montana St, berift of their Cali and Texas imports, scrambling for crumbs.

Zinhead · August 30, 2022

12 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

That makes no sense at all. Why wasn't USC able to save the PAC then? Under your own admission, USC must be worthless because they weren't able to get the entire PAC a better contract. That makes no sense at all.

Comparing Oregon to Illinois just shows you're way too biased for this subject. You can go look at just about any list that rates the value of any program and there's no comparison.

USC/UCLA didn't increase the value of the B1G. It's the B1GN that made up for it and that's not the future of television. Should the B1G tell USC no? Of course not. That would be stupid.

There is only one team available in all of college football that increases the pie: Notre Dame. That doesn't mean adding top programs won't increase the pie later down the road. Oregon consistently playing in more competitive games against larger fan bases will increase their ratings. Same goes for all the other top programs. This is the new reality of college football. This is about top programs vs. top programs and eliminating everyone else from the regular season schedule. Why do you think I've been harping about an expansion in conference games on here for months? And Warren just mentioned going to ten conference games at some point? At some point, it's going to be more than ten conference games. That's where we are heading. That's where the money is at.

The PACs weaknesses had nothing to do with Oregon and Washington and everything to do with the conferences region, the weak programs at the bottom and no fan bases as large as Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame to cover up for the weaknesses. Not even USC has a large enough fan base to cover for more than maybe one team, and that team better bring at least something of value. USC's fan base is not Michigan, Ohio State, Texas or Notre Dame. USC's strengths' are recruiting, tradition, and competitiveness. It's a helmet school with the biggest recruiting advantage in the country. Its fan base is the smallest of all the Bluebloods.

If all PAC 12 teams were equal to Oregon and Washington, the conference would still be around.

PAC 12 weaknesses:

1. Playing only out West

2. None of the very largest fan bases to cover for weak teams

3. You cannot carry Washington State, Oregon State, two uninterested programs in passive NorCal, two programs in Arizona and expect to survive with no Ohio State, Michigan type fan bases to cover up for it.

Oregon and Washington had nothing to do with the downfall of the PAC or its money issues.

Oregon brings another helmet program with speed that the B1G desperately needs in its conference. B1G's two biggest issues are competitiveness and recruiting territory. They solved some of that with USC/UCLA. It also makes no sense to stop at two teams in that time zone. You really need at least 4 solid teams to make sure there's a competitive game worth watching in the late time slot.

Washington brings more of its over 4,000,000 Seattle metro and 7,500,000 state pop than Stanford brings the 7.7 San Francisco metro area. There's no difference in the two in size, other than one (Washington) has a much bigger following and has fans that actually care about the team.

Oregon out-recruits Stanford every year.

Stanford will get in because of Notre Dame and the fact the B1G still needs more teams in that time zone.

It's going to be Oregon, Washington, Stanford in the B1G at some point.

Notice the big empty area in Oregon. From the following map, they get much of their talent by attracting the best players in less competitive states.

Recruiting Map

From reports on some BIG blogs, travel for Olympic sports is a consideration as part of the expansion process, and one advantage that the Stanford/Cal pair-up has for the BIG is scheduling for Olympic sports. Teams can fly into the Bay area, play Cal and Stanford, and then jet down to LA to play USC and UCLA. Four games for three flights is very appealing for an athletic department.

As a casual Stanford fan, the best case scenario would be to join the BIG with Washington, Oregon and Cal. That would keep all of the good PAC rivalries in place, and the BIG could play the conference championship game in the Rose Bowl.

statsman · August 30, 2022

Indiana isn’t awash in talent, but ND is attractive because:

1. They are a national brand

2. they do recruit nationally, but they are one of the “cleaner” recruiters (they’re not getting into bidding wars for recruits. Oregon is). Maybe

TKthunder2 · August 30, 2022

5 hours ago, hawkfan said:

I don't want the B1G to add Cal, I'd be fine with Stanford/Washington/Oregon.

Ideally you get ND at 20 (or 17, however you want to look at it), but if you need filler for #20, I'd prefer Utah or Colorado to Cal. Utah is interesting to me because there isn't a pro football team there, it's a fairly large market (top 40 TV market), it's a totally new time zone, and they are AAU.

I think the 4 remaining spots go to UNC/UVA/GT/FSU down the road. FSU seems to make more sense in the SEC though, so I could see the B1G taking Miami instead.

Completely valid opinion and I agree doubling down on the Bay Area with a football program that barely draws any attention doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Utah, Colorado, or one of the Arizona schools would all fit better in the B1G’s master plan. From football, marketing, and money perspective Cal makes no sense.

But the presidents run this show, not businessmen, and we’re talking about the presidents of the now very wealthy Big Ten schools, not the struggling PAC/B12. Cal is that exceptional public university (like Michigan and Virginia) that other public schools hold up as the model what what they should strive to be. Cal is also the flagship university of the state and of the UC system, that carries a lot of weight.

The Big Ten would have every elite major public college in their members states, with Cal being the only outlier. Associating with Cal is associating with their history and their achievements of which there are too many to list here.

If the Big Ten has the choice to associate with Cal and keep them in the Power 2 club AND they can make the dollars work, I don’t see them letting Cal fall into obscurity. Presidents, professors, deans, chancellors, and researchers would all see value in adding Cal to their conference and research consortiums.

Is that what the focus of realignment is, obviously not. But only a handful of these moves are purely about football, most are about markets and money. Cal is in a completely different world than the vast majority of college football so it would make sense that their specialness also factors into these types of decisions.

Trojan Man · August 30, 2022

2 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

That makes no sense at all. Why wasn't USC able to save the PAC then? Under your own admission, USC must be worthless because they weren't able to get the entire PAC a better contract. That makes no sense at all.

Comparing Oregon to Illinois just shows you're way too biased for this subject. You can go look at just about any list that rates the value of any program and there's no comparison.

USC/UCLA didn't increase the value of the B1G. It's the B1GN that made up for it and that's not the future of television. Should the B1G tell USC no? Of course not. That would be stupid.

There is only one team available in all of college football that increases the pie: Notre Dame. That doesn't mean adding top programs won't increase the pie later down the road. Oregon consistently playing in more competitive games against larger fan bases will increase their ratings. Same goes for all the other top programs. This is the new reality of college football. This is about top programs vs. top programs and eliminating everyone else from the regular season schedule. Why do you think I've been harping about an expansion in conference games on here for months? And Warren just mentioned going to ten conference games at some point? At some point, it's going to be more than ten conference games. That's where we are heading. That's where the money is at.

The PACs weaknesses had nothing to do with Oregon and Washington and everything to do with the conferences region, the weak programs at the bottom and no fan bases as large as Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame to cover up for the weaknesses. Not even USC has a large enough fan base to cover for more than maybe one team, and that team better bring at least something of value. USC's fan base is not Michigan, Ohio State, Texas or Notre Dame. USC's strengths' are recruiting, tradition, and competitiveness. It's a helmet school with the biggest recruiting advantage in the country. Its fan base is the smallest of all the Bluebloods.

If all PAC 12 teams were equal to Oregon and Washington, the conference would still be around.

PAC 12 weaknesses:

1. Playing only out West

2. None of the very largest fan bases to cover for weak teams

3. You cannot carry Washington State, Oregon State, two uninterested programs in passive NorCal, two programs in Arizona and expect to survive with no Ohio State, Michigan type fan bases to cover up for it.

Oregon and Washington had nothing to do with the downfall of the PAC or its money issues.

Oregon brings another helmet program with speed that the B1G desperately needs in its conference. B1G's two biggest issues are competitiveness and recruiting territory. They solved some of that with USC/UCLA. It also makes no sense to stop at two teams in that time zone. You really need at least 4 solid teams to make sure there's a competitive game worth watching in the late time slot.

Washington brings more of its over 4,000,000 Seattle metro and 7,500,000 state pop than Stanford brings the 7.7 San Francisco metro area. There's no difference in the two in size, other than one (Washington) has a much bigger following and has fans that actually care about the team.

Oregon out-recruits Stanford every year.

Stanford will get in because of Notre Dame and the fact the B1G still needs more teams in that time zone.

It's going to be Oregon, Washington, Stanford in the B1G at some point.

USC's attempt to save the Pac was the Pac 16, which was my preferred outcome for the super conference era. Ideally there would have been a super conference composed entirely of teams west of the Mississippi to serve as a counter balance to the center of the sport's universe continually shifting towards the Southeast and the Midwest. A conference with USC/Texas/OU at the top and a middle class of Oregon/Washington/UCLA/Stanford/Oklahoma State/Tech would have received a huge media contract on par with what the Big 10 and SEC earn, plus the geography breaks down in such a way you could give each team the 3 yearly matchups that preserve every regional rivalry, but it wasn't meant to be.

USC was worth 30% of the Pac 12's media value despite the last decade of mediocrity, they're the last team to point at for not doing enough to save this conference. Also, why save a conference where you account for almost a third of the revenue while only being paid 8.3%? I wouldn't stay at a sales job where I generated 30% of the company's revenue but was paid the exact same as the slapdicks contributing 2% because said slapdicks consistently outvoted me to make everyone's salary equal all while management insisted the slapdicks were just as important and valuable to the company's success as me. In the Big 10 USC won't be the only horse pulling the cart, which makes equal revenue sharing with the teams riding in the cart much more palatable. My comparison of Oregon to Illinois was more flattering for Oregon than Illinois. The only way Oregon increases the Big 10's value is if they replaced a team like Illinois because Oregon is worth more than them so that would increase the per team share. Oregon is not worth enough to increase everyone else's 80M slice of the pie while also paying for their own slice as team #17. Adding more teams also means fewer matchups between the teams. Is getting more Oregon/Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State games worth getting fewer games between USC/Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State? TV executives were having wet dreams about the latter games when the Big 10's next TV contract was negotiated, not the former.

The map Zinhead posted drives home the point I'm trying to make with recruiting and why Oregon is a bad idea. The Big 10 desperately needs more recruiting territory. It's the lifeblood of the sport. The SEC has Texas, Georgia and Florida plus the rest of the Southeast punches above its weight in producing recruits so recruiting territory isn't as critical of a consideration for SEC expansion as it is for the Big 10. Texas and the Southeast are also all growing in population while most Big 10 states are falling or stagnant. That's another reason I'm OK with Utah getting into the Big 10, they already produce some talent every cycle and with their rapid population growth I can see them becoming a better recruiting state in 10-20 years. If you invite Oregon you add nothing in terms of recruiting territory but you're giving that program a huge shot in the arm to make life harder for your teams on the recruiting trail.

statsman · August 30, 2022

Preach, brother

thunderlounge · August 30, 2022

14 hours ago, Treefidy said:

If the B1G had a clue it needs speed Oklahoma would have been at the top of the list.

what you did there, I see it.

hawkfan · August 30, 2022

1 hour ago, Trojan Man said:

USC's attempt to save the Pac was the Pac 16, which was my preferred outcome for the super conference era. Ideally there would have been a super conference composed entirely of teams west of the Mississippi to serve as a counter balance to the center of the sport's universe continually shifting towards the Southeast and the Midwest. A conference with USC/Texas/OU at the top and a middle class of Oregon/Washington/UCLA/Stanford/Oklahoma State/Tech would have received a huge media contract on par with what the Big 10 and SEC earn, plus the geography breaks down in such a way you could give each team the 3 yearly matchups that preserve every regional rivalry, but it wasn't meant to be.

USC was worth 30% of the Pac 12's media value despite the last decade of mediocrity, they're the last team to point at for not doing enough to save this conference. Also, why save a conference where you account for almost a third of the revenue while only being paid 8.3%? I wouldn't stay at a sales job where I generated 30% of the company's revenue but was paid the exact same as the slapdicks contributing 2% because said slapdicks consistently outvoted me to make everyone's salary equal all while management insisted the slapdicks were just as important and valuable to the company's success as me. In the Big 10 USC won't be the only horse pulling the cart, which makes equal revenue sharing with the teams riding in the cart much more palatable. My comparison of Oregon to Illinois was more flattering for Oregon than Illinois. The only way Oregon increases the Big 10's value is if they replaced a team like Illinois because Oregon is worth more than them so that would increase the per team share. Oregon is not worth enough to increase everyone else's 80M slice of the pie while also paying for their own slice as team #17. Adding more teams also means fewer matchups between the teams. Is getting more Oregon/Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State games worth getting fewer games between USC/Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State? TV executives were having wet dreams about the latter games when the Big 10's next TV contract was negotiated, not the former.

The map Zinhead posted drives home the point I'm trying to make with recruiting and why Oregon is a bad idea. The Big 10 desperately needs more recruiting territory. It's the lifeblood of the sport. The SEC has Texas, Georgia and Florida plus the rest of the Southeast punches above its weight in producing recruits so recruiting territory isn't as critical of a consideration for SEC expansion as it is for the Big 10. Texas and the Southeast are also all growing in population while most Big 10 states are falling or stagnant. That's another reason I'm OK with Utah getting into the Big 10, they already produce some talent every cycle and with their rapid population growth I can see them becoming a better recruiting state in 10-20 years. If you invite Oregon you add nothing in terms of recruiting territory but you're giving that program a huge shot in the arm to make life harder for your teams on the recruiting trail.

To me the map shows why it's critical that the B1G have both a West division and a SE division, and the SE division needs to have UVA/UNC/GT and either FSU/Miami (or both if that works out somehow, but I doubt the SEC is going to let that happen).

The SEC will have no interest in GT and they won't take both FSU/Miami, the only real battle between the SEC/B1G will likely be UVA/UNC. UVA admin was supposedly wanting to join the B1G back when they added Maryland, no clue what UNC would prefer - athletic boosters would probably want SEC, admin would probably prefer B1G.

camel at sea · August 30, 2022

10 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

To me the map shows why it's critical that the B1G have both a West division and a SE division, and the SE division needs to have UVA/UNC/GT and either FSU/Miami (or both if that works out somehow, but I doubt the SEC is going to let that happen).

The SEC will have no interest in GT and they won't take both FSU/Miami, the only real battle between the SEC/B1G will likely be UVA/UNC. UVA admin was supposedly wanting to join the B1G back when they added Maryland, no clue what UNC would prefer - athletic boosters would probably want SEC, admin would probably prefer B1G.

I'm completely unconvinced that UNC and UVA will pay for themselves in the B1G, or come close, in ten years when cable is dead. Disney can just hold onto the ACC GOR and run out the clock on the cable box era and on the B1G.

If we see a big shakeup in the way that revenue is distributed for the men's basketball tourney, then maybe that changes. But that change has to be done in a way wherein the increased P5 tourney revenue is attached to individual big brands, and not to the tourney itself.

Trojan Man · August 30, 2022

22 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

To me the map shows why it's critical that the B1G have both a West division and a SE division, and the SE division needs to have UVA/UNC/GT and either FSU/Miami (or both if that works out somehow, but I doubt the SEC is going to let that happen).

The SEC will have no interest in GT and they won't take both FSU/Miami, the only real battle between the SEC/B1G will likely be UVA/UNC. UVA admin was supposedly wanting to join the B1G back when they added Maryland, no clue what UNC would prefer - athletic boosters would probably want SEC, admin would probably prefer B1G.

I agree for the most part. If it was up to me the Big 10 would expand to 20 in 2024 with Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington and Utah then wait for the ACC's GOR to either expire or get overturned in court. That's far enough in the future it's impossible to accurately predict who/what the networks will prioritize or how much the next wave of contracts will be worth, but I don't think it would be out of the question for the Big 10 to land both Florida State and Miami. I imagine they'll want to stick together and if the SEC doesn't offer them that possibility the Big 10 definitely would.

It will be interesting to see how willing the SEC is to add more teams in their backyard just to keep the Big 10 out, as well as how the Big 10's national strategy vs the SEC's regional strategy plays out in terms of competitiveness and ratings and recruiting and media money. I can see strengths and weaknesses for each approach. It's very fun to ponder if you're into game theory.

thunderlounge · August 30, 2022

Strategy?

whatever fox/mouse tells their respective folds to do.

That’s the strategy.

Zinhead · August 30, 2022

1 hour ago, Trojan Man said:

It will be interesting to see how willing the SEC is to add more teams in their backyard just to keep the Big 10 out, as well as how the Big 10's national strategy vs the SEC's regional strategy plays out in terms of competitiveness and ratings and recruiting and media money. I can see strengths and weaknesses for each approach. It's very fun to ponder if you're into game theory.

SEC and BIG expansion into the ACC will really be driven by how much more ESPN or Fox wants the additional schools and inventory circa 2032-2034 when these decisions will be played out. Unless the broadcasters are will to pay up for the new schools, there will be no expansion.

Some additional comments:

1 - There was a survey of UNC fans a few years ago, and the vast majority of fans at the time preferred the SEC to the Big 10. Moreover, UNC has reached out in the past to the SEC about joining. Note that these conversations were on the presidential level, not the AD level.

UNC to SEC or Big 10

2 - How much leverage does Notre Dame have in negotiations with the BIG? We know they want a game in California at the end of each year, as well as regular trips to Florida, Georgia and the southeast for recruiting. If ND joins the BIG, how much will current BIG members give up in terms of scheduling to keep ND happy?

3 - FSU and Miami are not interconnected like UNC/Duke, UVA/VT or UNC/NCState. Either would ditch the other in a moments notice. The former UNC President talks about this around the 10:00 minute mark.

Interview with Former UNC President

Edited August 30, 2022 by Zinhead

Sandbagging Steve · August 30, 2022

9 hours ago, statsman said:

Couple of things-

1. Steve, you say CU was dirty? Well, they did recruit a lot of gang bangers (Scipio told a great story of 30 years ago, when the Buff team beat the shit out of a LA recruit that was a “blood”, because CU was a “crips” team). In no way we’re they as shamelessly dirty as Oregon has been since the departure of Bellotti. They buy recruits, and that is their big recruiting pitch, more than anything else.

2. A conference has to vote a school in. USC is an easy “yes” vote- they have fans, name recognition and…are located in a region with many more top recruits than USC can absorb. USC will not upset recruiting in the Ohio Valley, or any other B10 recruiting regions.
Oregon has to recruit out of state to be good, and they buy recruits. This is why Oregon isn’t being snatched up, and why Knight is trying to wrangle them into the B10- because they have a big flaw that undermines their advantages. (This is why Cristobal left Oregon for Miami- he left the program that was overachieving to overcome its disadvantage for the underachieving program in the region that is ridiculously talent rich).

1. The only reason CU won was because of the coach, who bought players. That coach is gone. He's not coming back. Oregon works from the admin level, not the coaching level. For this reason, there's no comparison between the two programs' future success. I don't consider paying employees for their work to be dirty. It's actually dirty NOT to pay them when you're running a billion dollar empire. I do consider all the other stuff going on at CU very dirty.

2.Why Oregon isn't being snatched up? Says who? Fanatics on the internet? No one, including the so-called journalists, have a clue until something actually happens. USC was "snatched up" because they called the B1G and begged to get in. I know the fanatics don't want to believe this, but these conferences actually do have to be careful about tampering. B1G can't just start adding a bunch of PAC schools at the same time as USC/UCLA because of not only tampering concerns, but because Stanford, Cal and most of the rest of the PAC would have blown up the deal and USC/UCLA would still be in the PAC. It was done in secrecy with the intentions of now fielding calls for future expansion. Once the dam is broke, it's more likely other programs will follow suit. B1G also now has leverage, as the PAC couldn't survive any losses (other than OSU,WSU), and can probably get other programs at a bargain.

2a. Cristobal left Oregon for one reason: Miami is his alma mater and has promised to pay players through NIL.

2b. Oregon has no more flaws than any other PAC program. I guess Washington may have more value, with their huge cable subscription advantage and fairly large fan base.

6 hours ago, Texzilla58 said:

All this handwringing over fucking Oregon. Most folks in Oregon don’t care in a state that has to split with OSU, which most non duck Oregonians like as the school of the people rather than the snooty Duck program, much like Iowa and Iowa State.

Oregon is simply a marketing creation built on paid recruits and hot imported from Cali cheerleaders, a smoke and mirrors operation no different than the expensive cheap shoes Phil Knight makes in Vietnamese sweat shops. The second they lose their TV exposure they are Idaho or Montana St, berift of their Cali and Texas imports, scrambling for crumbs.

I've lived in Vancouver, Washington, and this holds no water. It isn't 1950 anymore. Oregon State isn't even P5 worthy. Oregon owns that state. Oregon owns part of southern Washington as well. PNW area has plenty of rabid sports fans. This isn't California or Arizona. It's much closer to Utah, but with more people. This reminds me of Clemson fans in South Carolina. Clemson is winning big right now, but South Carolina actually owns that state. It's not even close. If you look at Clemson's viewership, considering the level of success, it is lacking. Oregon probably has more fans than Clemson.

"Marketing creation built on paid recruits." You just described the majority of the most successful programs in America. Honestly, every program is supposed to be the front porch of the university. It's a marketing machine. The paying players part involves most winners in the NCAA, including USC and Ohio State. USC's entire history is built on paying players. How do you think the private school in the hood won so much? Go look at their history. Most of the fighting in the early days of the PAC was the PNW schools getting the California programs in trouble for paying players. USC always whined and said it wasn't true! Despite all the evidence to the contrary. USC used to fight it and has managed to get away with a bunch of stuff over the past 70 years. Even with the escapes, they're still one of the most penalized programs of all time. UCLA's entire basketball success was built on paying players before the days of the shoe companies. But you're going to blame Oregon for finally joining them in an attempt to level the playing field? It's only an issue when Oregon elects to start paying? Generations and generations after the southern schools started the so-called deed?

Sweat shops? You are correct, but don't let me get into just about every other corporation, lawyer, university, religious organization and politician in the world. It's all turned dirty. This includes in our very own backyard. You may want to back off on that statement or be willing to call out all the dirty deeds around here as well. I'm all for the call outs BTW. It's time this country wakes up and starts looking in the mirror. All the above I mentioned is beyond filthy and needs a complete restructure. Probably a better topic on another forum.

6 hours ago, statsman said:

Indiana isn’t awash in talent, but ND is attractive because:

1. They are a national brand

2. they do recruit nationally, but they are one of the “cleaner” recruiters (they’re not getting into bidding wars for recruits. Oregon is). Maybe

Again, every consistent winner does this. USC is the worst and the first in the PAC at doing this. It's the only way the private program from the hood was ever going to beat out UCLA for the recruits in the old days. The old days was also much more about strength than speed, something the northern schools had more of during that time period. There's also this thing called NIL and the fact that all these moves right now are a precursor to paying the athletes a salary. The commissioner of the B1G is already in talks with players about eventual payments down the road. The commissioner of the B1G actually sees your "bidding war" as a positive point in favor of Oregon to the B1G. And make no mistake about it, he's (w/ TV execs) pushing all the buttons with tOSU's support. The crazies at Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. will shut up and do as they're told.

6 hours ago, Zinhead said:

Notice the big empty area in Oregon. From the following map, they get much of their talent by attracting the best players in less competitive states.

Recruiting Map

From reports on some BIG blogs, travel for Olympic sports is a consideration as part of the expansion process, and one advantage that the Stanford/Cal pair-up has for the BIG is scheduling for Olympic sports. Teams can fly into the Bay area, play Cal and Stanford, and then jet down to LA to play USC and UCLA. Four games for three flights is very appealing for an athletic department.

As a casual Stanford fan, the best case scenario would be to join the BIG with Washington, Oregon and Cal. That would keep all of the good PAC rivalries in place, and the BIG could play the conference championship game in the Rose Bowl.

This is actually a good post, although the recruiting part doesn't hold up. Here's why:

1. Yes, all this realignment has happened because of the B1G. It's pretty hypocritical for them not to stand up and just say it. They point fingers when they are the one's who started all this. But that's the B1G for you. They've always been the biggest hypocrite in the room. Just like their complaining, back in the day, about paying players while some of their programs had old men fucking a bunch children and then covering it all up. Not to mention, Ohio State has one of the largest pay for play schemes in the whole business.

2. Two biggest reasons the B1G has been forced to expand over the years: lack of recruiting territory and too much deadweight at the bottom of the conference. If you take a look at your map, remove the top 4 recruiting hotbeds of California, Texas, Florida and Georgia. Now, there's not a whole lot left, but if you look at the NE you will see a somewhat blue area of New Jersey and Maryland. It's not much, but there's not much out there after the Big 4. How has that helped recruiting in New Jersey? Rutgers isn't getting the top players in their own state. Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State have always landed talent there. The fact is, the SEC has actually recruited very well there since Rutgers joined the B1G. The point? It doesn't matter about recruiting territory if the new programs can't actually land players in the recruiting territory. Oregon can actually land top ranked recruits. It's why they will eventually be included in the B1G, if there's expansion out West.

5 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

USC's attempt to save the Pac was the Pac 16, which was my preferred outcome for the super conference era. Ideally there would have been a super conference composed entirely of teams west of the Mississippi to serve as a counter balance to the center of the sport's universe continually shifting towards the Southeast and the Midwest. A conference with USC/Texas/OU at the top and a middle class of Oregon/Washington/UCLA/Stanford/Oklahoma State/Tech would have received a huge media contract on par with what the Big 10 and SEC earn, plus the geography breaks down in such a way you could give each team the 3 yearly matchups that preserve every regional rivalry, but it wasn't meant to be.

USC was worth 30% of the Pac 12's media value despite the last decade of mediocrity, they're the last team to point at for not doing enough to save this conference. Also, why save a conference where you account for almost a third of the revenue while only being paid 8.3%? I wouldn't stay at a sales job where I generated 30% of the company's revenue but was paid the exact same as the slapdicks contributing 2% because said slapdicks consistently outvoted me to make everyone's salary equal all while management insisted the slapdicks were just as important and valuable to the company's success as me. In the Big 10 USC won't be the only horse pulling the cart, which makes equal revenue sharing with the teams riding in the cart much more palatable. My comparison of Oregon to Illinois was more flattering for Oregon than Illinois. The only way Oregon increases the Big 10's value is if they replaced a team like Illinois because Oregon is worth more than them so that would increase the per team share. Oregon is not worth enough to increase everyone else's 80M slice of the pie while also paying for their own slice as team #17. Adding more teams also means fewer matchups between the teams. Is getting more Oregon/Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State games worth getting fewer games between USC/Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State? TV executives were having wet dreams about the latter games when the Big 10's next TV contract was negotiated, not the former.

The map Zinhead posted drives home the point I'm trying to make with recruiting and why Oregon is a bad idea. The Big 10 desperately needs more recruiting territory. It's the lifeblood of the sport. The SEC has Texas, Georgia and Florida plus the rest of the Southeast punches above its weight in producing recruits so recruiting territory isn't as critical of a consideration for SEC expansion as it is for the Big 10. Texas and the Southeast are also all growing in population while most Big 10 states are falling or stagnant. That's another reason I'm OK with Utah getting into the Big 10, they already produce some talent every cycle and with their rapid population growth I can see them becoming a better recruiting state in 10-20 years. If you invite Oregon you add nothing in terms of recruiting territory but you're giving that program a huge shot in the arm to make life harder for your teams on the recruiting trail.

You didn't answer my question. You said if Oregon and Washington had any value they would have been able to save the PAC. My counter is that makes no sense. If you want to cry on that hill, then USC is worthless because they couldn't save the PAC by themselves. I don't actually think USC is worthless. I'm just pointing out that your argument doesn't hold up.

I've already answered your recruiting pitch above in another reply. Landing recruits is more important than actual recruiting territory. They both do matter. B1G is never going to outdo the SEC in recruiting territory. They need to make sure every program added can recruit.

Why are you scared of Oregon and their recruiting in California? You or some other Trojan fan actually admitted this last month. "Oregon is taking our recruits." If you could get away with it, you'd invite Mater Dei HS for the easy win? I'm just here to say the old days of easy wins and manipulating schedules is about to be a thing of the past. We are in the last decade of it.

BTW, Oregon is going to continue to recruit well in California, whether they're in the B1G or not.

You're gonna bet the house Oregon isn't eventually in the B1G, if they expand with more PAC programs?

B1G may take Stanford first, because of the future possibility of ND, but they aren't leaving out Oregon and Washington in the long term.

4 hours ago, camel at sea said:

I'm completely unconvinced that UNC and UVA will pay for themselves in the B1G, or come close, in ten years when cable is dead. Disney can just hold onto the ACC GOR and run out the clock on the cable box era and on the B1G.

If we see a big shakeup in the way that revenue is distributed for the men's basketball tourney, then maybe that changes. But that change has to be done in a way wherein the increased P5 tourney revenue is attached to individual big brands, and not to the tourney itself.

No one has to pay for themselves anymore. This is what is getting lost in the shuffle on here right now. The journalists are completely lost on what is going on. The biggest programs are joining together to eventually increase the number of conference games played. That alone eliminates the cupcake schedules; allows commissioners/TV execs to create fair and competitive schedules for all teams; and increases TV viewership. The new scheduling will boost revenue and a deal will eventually be made to pay the players. In other words, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and it's going to be a massive windfall for the Big 2.

3 hours ago, thunderlounge said:

Strategy?

whatever fox/mouse tells their respective folds to do.

That’s the strategy.

TRUTH.

bullet · August 30, 2022

9 hours ago, Texzilla58 said:

All this handwringing over fucking Oregon. Most folks in Oregon don’t care in a state that has to split with OSU, which most non duck Oregonians like as the school of the people rather than the snooty Duck program, much like Iowa and Iowa State.

Oregon is simply a marketing creation built on paid recruits and hot imported from Cali cheerleaders, a smoke and mirrors operation no different than the expensive cheap shoes Phil Knight makes in Vietnamese sweat shops. The second they lose their TV exposure they are Idaho or Montana St, berift of their Cali and Texas imports, scrambling for crumbs.

If you make that claim, you need to prove it.

Where are the pictures of the hot imported Cali cheerleaders?!

SOBMarcos · August 30, 2022

Biennial-every 2 years
Bicameral-two chambers

He just got excited by the “bi” and lost focus

Trojan Man · August 30, 2022

1 hour ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

1. The only reason CU won was because of the coach, who bought players. That coach is gone. He's not coming back. Oregon works from the admin level, not the coaching level. For this reason, there's no comparison between the two programs' future success. I don't consider paying employees for their work to be dirty. It's actually dirty NOT to pay them when you're running a billion dollar empire. I do consider all the other stuff going on at CU very dirty.

2.Why Oregon isn't being snatched up? Says who? Fanatics on the internet? No one, including the so-called journalists, have a clue until something actually happens. USC was "snatched up" because they called the B1G and begged to get in. I know the fanatics don't want to believe this, but these conferences actually do have to be careful about tampering. B1G can't just start adding a bunch of PAC schools at the same time as USC/UCLA because of not only tampering concerns, but because Stanford, Cal and most of the rest of the PAC would have blown up the deal and USC/UCLA would still be in the PAC. It was done in secrecy with the intentions of now fielding calls for future expansion. Once the dam is broke, it's more likely other programs will follow suit. B1G also now has leverage, as the PAC couldn't survive any losses (other than OSU,WSU), and can probably get other programs at a bargain.

2a. Cristobal left Oregon for one reason: Miami is his alma mater and has promised to pay players through NIL.

2b. Oregon has no more flaws than any other PAC program. I guess Washington may have more value, with their huge cable subscription advantage and fairly large fan base.

I've lived in Vancouver, Washington, and this holds no water. It isn't 1950 anymore. Oregon State isn't even P5 worthy. Oregon owns that state. Oregon owns part of southern Washington as well. PNW area has plenty of rabid sports fans. This isn't California or Arizona. It's much closer to Utah, but with more people. This reminds me of Clemson fans in South Carolina. Clemson is winning big right now, but South Carolina actually owns that state. It's not even close. If you look at Clemson's viewership, considering the level of success, it is lacking. Oregon probably has more fans than Clemson.

"Marketing creation built on paid recruits." You just described the majority of the most successful programs in America. Honestly, every program is supposed to be the front porch of the university. It's a marketing machine. The paying players part involves most winners in the NCAA, including USC and Ohio State. USC's entire history is built on paying players. How do you think the private school in the hood won so much? Go look at their history. Most of the fighting in the early days of the PAC was the PNW schools getting the California programs in trouble for paying players. USC always whined and said it wasn't true! Despite all the evidence to the contrary. USC used to fight it and has managed to get away with a bunch of stuff over the past 70 years. Even with the escapes, they're still one of the most penalized programs of all time. UCLA's entire basketball success was built on paying players before the days of the shoe companies. But you're going to blame Oregon for finally joining them in an attempt to level the playing field? It's only an issue when Oregon elects to start paying? Generations and generations after the southern schools started the so-called deed?

Sweat shops? You are correct, but don't let me get into just about every other corporation, lawyer, university, religious organization and politician in the world. It's all turned dirty. This includes in our very own backyard. You may want to back off on that statement or be willing to call out all the dirty deeds around here as well. I'm all for the call outs BTW. It's time this country wakes up and starts looking in the mirror. All the above I mentioned is beyond filthy and needs a complete restructure. Probably a better topic on another forum.

Again, every consistent winner does this. USC is the worst and the first in the PAC at doing this. It's the only way the private program from the hood was ever going to beat out UCLA for the recruits in the old days. The old days was also much more about strength than speed, something the northern schools had more of during that time period. There's also this thing called NIL and the fact that all these moves right now are a precursor to paying the athletes a salary. The commissioner of the B1G is already in talks with players about eventual payments down the road. The commissioner of the B1G actually sees your "bidding war" as a positive point in favor of Oregon to the B1G. And make no mistake about it, he's (w/ TV execs) pushing all the buttons with tOSU's support. The crazies at Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. will shut up and do as they're told.

This is actually a good post, although the recruiting part doesn't hold up. Here's why:

1. Yes, all this realignment has happened because of the B1G. It's pretty hypocritical for them not to stand up and just say it. They point fingers when they are the one's who started all this. But that's the B1G for you. They've always been the biggest hypocrite in the room. Just like their complaining, back in the day, about paying players while some of their programs had old men fucking a bunch children and then covering it all up. Not to mention, Ohio State has one of the largest pay for play schemes in the whole business.

2. Two biggest reasons the B1G has been forced to expand over the years: lack of recruiting territory and too much deadweight at the bottom of the conference. If you take a look at your map, remove the top 4 recruiting hotbeds of California, Texas, Florida and Georgia. Now, there's not a whole lot left, but if you look at the NE you will see a somewhat blue area of New Jersey and Maryland. It's not much, but there's not much out there after the Big 4. How has that helped recruiting in New Jersey? Rutgers isn't getting the top players in their own state. Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State have always landed talent there. The fact is, the SEC has actually recruited very well there since Rutgers joined the B1G. The point? It doesn't matter about recruiting territory if the new programs can't actually land players in the recruiting territory. Oregon can actually land top ranked recruits. It's why they will eventually be included in the B1G, if there's expansion out West.

You didn't answer my question. You said if Oregon and Washington had any value they would have been able to save the PAC. My counter is that makes no sense. If you want to cry on that hill, then USC is worthless because they couldn't save the PAC by themselves. I don't actually think USC is worthless. I'm just pointing out that your argument doesn't hold up.

I've already answered your recruiting pitch above in another reply. Landing recruits is more important than actual recruiting territory. They both do matter. B1G is never going to outdo the SEC in recruiting territory. They need to make sure every program added can recruit.

Why are you scared of Oregon and their recruiting in California? You or some other Trojan fan actually admitted this last month. "Oregon is taking our recruits." If you could get away with it, you'd invite Mater Dei HS for the easy win? I'm just here to say the old days of easy wins and manipulating schedules is about to be a thing of the past. We are in the last decade of it.

BTW, Oregon is going to continue to recruit well in California, whether they're in the B1G or not.

You're gonna bet the house Oregon isn't eventually in the B1G, if they expand with more PAC programs?

B1G may take Stanford first, because of the future possibility of ND, but they aren't leaving out Oregon and Washington in the long term.

No one has to pay for themselves anymore. This is what is getting lost in the shuffle on here right now. The journalists are completely lost on what is going on. The biggest programs are joining together to eventually increase the number of conference games played. That alone eliminates the cupcake schedules; allows commissioners/TV execs to create fair and competitive schedules for all teams; and increases TV viewership. The new scheduling will boost revenue and a deal will eventually be made to pay the players. In other words, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and it's going to be a massive windfall for the Big 2.

TRUTH.

It's got nothing to do with being afraid of Oregon. After Notre Dame recently added a FCS team to a future schedule USC is the only school left to have never played a FCS team. USC still routinely schedules games against other top P5 teams in addition to the annual game with Notre Dame + 9 conference games, unlike certain teams and conferences that absolutely refuse to play more than 9 games per year against P5 competition, so take that high school shit somewhere else.

My opposition to Oregon getting into the Big 10 is based on a lifetime of experience being in the same conference with them and not seeing all these magical benefits that keep getting brought up in their favor. Phil Knight and the Nike connection is a big myth. I've never heard any fans or employees of Pac 12 schools talk about how Nike pays them more or treats them better because they regularly play against Nike's baby. Oregon isn't an elite academic institution so no points there. And I'll bring up media value again. Oregon benefits from USC's media value, which is why they were one of the ringleaders for equal revenue sharing (of course, the assholes immediately dropped their decades-long history of supporting equal revenue shares and demanded unequal revenue sharing after the LA schools dipped out and it was their turn to be on the losing end of equal revenue sharing). Oregon needs exposure in LA to recruit, USC could care less if they never play another game in the state of Oregon after leaving the Pac 12. You can claim that doesn't matter, but I'll point out Oregon's own actions to prove it does. They wouldn't be desperately trying to reunite with USC and UCLA in the Big 10 and exploring the stopgap of San Diego State joining the Pac in the meantime if they didn't think this was important. When the Pac 12's divisions were established the California schools were split up because Oregon and the rest of the PNW schools demanded more games in California for recruiting purposes, then they made us act like it was a gift from them to keep playing our regional rivals yearly while the PNW schools got that for free since they were all in the North. If Oregon doesn't get into the Big 10 I guarantee they would still schedule home and homes with USC or UCLA if offered.

Oregon reaps massive financial and recruiting benefits from being associated with USC. What does USC get in return from Oregon? They fucking hate us (and not just for being good/when we're good), they use their employees to sanction us so they can prop themselves up (Bush's benefits from an agent to leave USC were peanuts compared to what recruits legally get now from boosters to go to schools btw) and they generally act like a bunch of disrespectful shitheads towards USC. Yeah, Oregon fields a quality football team most of the time. But the value of that is diminished going forward. They don't win titles so no conference-wide prestige from that. Unlike the Pac 12 where it's a constant battle to fill your schedule with teams that get a little respect from voters, once in the Big 10 USC won't need help with strength of schedule or quality wins or opponents people outside the West Coast care about. I hope that explains why I'm not too eager for this relationship to continue and why the LA schools aren't exactly tripping over themselves to help Oregon. It's always been a totally one-sided relationship and the one side getting all the benefits can't even be a little thankful for it. All that being said, Oregon probably does get in the Big 10 eventually. But hopefully we can go through at least one full TV contract with Oregon panicking about their future while every 5* and high 4* goes to the Big 10 or SEC and watching Rutgers earn 3x more media revenue than them.

Sandbagging Steve · August 31, 2022

22 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

It's got nothing to do with being afraid of Oregon. After Notre Dame recently added a FCS team to a future schedule USC is the only school left to have never played a FCS team. USC still routinely schedules games against other top P5 teams in addition to the annual game with Notre Dame + 9 conference games, unlike certain teams and conferences that absolutely refuse to play more than 9 games per year against P5 competition, so take that high school shit somewhere else.

My opposition to Oregon getting into the Big 10 is based on a lifetime of experience being in the same conference with them and not seeing all these magical benefits that keep getting brought up in their favor. Phil Knight and the Nike connection is a big myth. I've never heard any fans or employees of Pac 12 schools talk about how Nike pays them more or treats them better because they regularly play against Nike's baby. Oregon isn't an elite academic institution so no points there. And I'll bring up media value again. Oregon benefits from USC's media value, which is why they were one of the ringleaders for equal revenue sharing (of course, the assholes immediately dropped their decades-long history of supporting equal revenue shares and demanded unequal revenue sharing after the LA schools dipped out and it was their turn to be on the losing end of equal revenue sharing). Oregon needs exposure in LA to recruit, USC could care less if they never play another game in the state of Oregon after leaving the Pac 12. You can claim that doesn't matter, but I'll point out Oregon's own actions to prove it does. They wouldn't be desperately trying to reunite with USC and UCLA in the Big 10 and exploring the stopgap of San Diego State joining the Pac in the meantime if they didn't think this was important. When the Pac 12's divisions were established the California schools were split up because Oregon and the rest of the PNW schools demanded more games in California for recruiting purposes, then they made us act like it was a gift from them to keep playing our regional rivals yearly while the PNW schools got that for free since they were all in the North. If Oregon doesn't get into the Big 10 I guarantee they would still schedule home and homes with USC or UCLA if offered.

Oregon reaps massive financial and recruiting benefits from being associated with USC. What does USC get in return from Oregon? They fucking hate us (and not just for being good/when we're good), they use their employees to sanction us so they can prop themselves up (Bush's benefits from an agent to leave USC were peanuts compared to what recruits legally get now from boosters to go to schools btw) and they generally act like a bunch of disrespectful shitheads towards USC. Yeah, Oregon fields a quality football team most of the time. But the value of that is diminished going forward. They don't win titles so no conference-wide prestige from that. Unlike the Pac 12 where it's a constant battle to fill your schedule with teams that get a little respect from voters, once in the Big 10 USC won't need help with strength of schedule or quality wins or opponents people outside the West Coast care about. I hope that explains why I'm not too eager for this relationship to continue and why the LA schools aren't exactly tripping over themselves to help Oregon. It's always been a totally one-sided relationship and the one side getting all the benefits can't even be a little thankful for it. All that being said, Oregon probably does get in the Big 10 eventually. But hopefully we can go through at least one full TV contract with Oregon panicking about their future while every 5* and high 4* goes to the Big 10 or SEC and watching Rutgers earn 3x more media revenue than them.

I never said anything about the USC admin playing anyone. I was referring to USC fans here admitting they don't want to play Oregon because they recruit the state of California. Mater Dei has nothing to do with the actual admin, but the fans her whining.

As someone who knows a thing or two about the history of the sport, I'm well versed into the reasons USC doesn't like Oregon. It has nothing to do with "value".

I hate to break it to you, but Oregon doesn't need USC to keep winning. Also, Oregon can't keep up with USC, if the Trojans admin knew how to take care of business. Texas has the same problem here.

It does no good to debate from this point forward. Are you guaranteeing me Oregon will be left out of the B1G? That's all I really want to know. That's the bottom line. You seem to just know for sure Oregon is equivalent to Iowa State or Oregon State and they're not getting into the Big 2. They have no value and USC is God's country. I think you're going to be proven wrong within 10 years.

I do appreciate you at least trying to explain your stance, although it's a very, very biased and one-sided take on the situation.

And thanks to the other fuckface USC fan (USC_TMB) for the middle finger on a Texas board. USC_TMB, are you upset with USC's cheating past? Or the chicken shit move to avoid playing Oregon for recruiting purposes? If SC fan is going to call Oregon a cheater, they need to confess and maybe not be a hypocrite. If USC is going to say Oregon is worthless, maybe USC should sellout their stadium and stuff. It may be a start. Go back to your own board, if you want to live in a fantasy world USC_TMB.

Lou_Sassle · August 31, 2022

3 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

1. The only reason CU won was because of the coach, who bought players. That coach is gone. He's not coming back. Oregon works from the admin level, not the coaching level. For this reason, there's no comparison between the two programs' future success. I don't consider paying employees for their work to be dirty. It's actually dirty NOT to pay them when you're running a billion dollar empire. I do consider all the other stuff going on at CU very dirty.

2.Why Oregon isn't being snatched up? Says who? Fanatics on the internet? No one, including the so-called journalists, have a clue until something actually happens. USC was "snatched up" because they called the B1G and begged to get in. I know the fanatics don't want to believe this, but these conferences actually do have to be careful about tampering. B1G can't just start adding a bunch of PAC schools at the same time as USC/UCLA because of not only tampering concerns, but because Stanford, Cal and most of the rest of the PAC would have blown up the deal and USC/UCLA would still be in the PAC. It was done in secrecy with the intentions of now fielding calls for future expansion. Once the dam is broke, it's more likely other programs will follow suit. B1G also now has leverage, as the PAC couldn't survive any losses (other than OSU,WSU), and can probably get other programs at a bargain.

2a. Cristobal left Oregon for one reason: Miami is his alma mater and has promised to pay players through NIL.

2b. Oregon has no more flaws than any other PAC program. I guess Washington may have more value, with their huge cable subscription advantage and fairly large fan base.

I've lived in Vancouver, Washington, and this holds no water. It isn't 1950 anymore. Oregon State isn't even P5 worthy. Oregon owns that state. Oregon owns part of southern Washington as well. PNW area has plenty of rabid sports fans. This isn't California or Arizona. It's much closer to Utah, but with more people. This reminds me of Clemson fans in South Carolina. Clemson is winning big right now, but South Carolina actually owns that state. It's not even close. If you look at Clemson's viewership, considering the level of success, it is lacking. Oregon probably has more fans than Clemson.

"Marketing creation built on paid recruits." You just described the majority of the most successful programs in America. Honestly, every program is supposed to be the front porch of the university. It's a marketing machine. The paying players part involves most winners in the NCAA, including USC and Ohio State. USC's entire history is built on paying players. How do you think the private school in the hood won so much? Go look at their history. Most of the fighting in the early days of the PAC was the PNW schools getting the California programs in trouble for paying players. USC always whined and said it wasn't true! Despite all the evidence to the contrary. USC used to fight it and has managed to get away with a bunch of stuff over the past 70 years. Even with the escapes, they're still one of the most penalized programs of all time. UCLA's entire basketball success was built on paying players before the days of the shoe companies. But you're going to blame Oregon for finally joining them in an attempt to level the playing field? It's only an issue when Oregon elects to start paying? Generations and generations after the southern schools started the so-called deed?

Sweat shops? You are correct, but don't let me get into just about every other corporation, lawyer, university, religious organization and politician in the world. It's all turned dirty. This includes in our very own backyard. You may want to back off on that statement or be willing to call out all the dirty deeds around here as well. I'm all for the call outs BTW. It's time this country wakes up and starts looking in the mirror. All the above I mentioned is beyond filthy and needs a complete restructure. Probably a better topic on another forum.

Again, every consistent winner does this. USC is the worst and the first in the PAC at doing this. It's the only way the private program from the hood was ever going to beat out UCLA for the recruits in the old days. The old days was also much more about strength than speed, something the northern schools had more of during that time period. There's also this thing called NIL and the fact that all these moves right now are a precursor to paying the athletes a salary. The commissioner of the B1G is already in talks with players about eventual payments down the road. The commissioner of the B1G actually sees your "bidding war" as a positive point in favor of Oregon to the B1G. And make no mistake about it, he's (w/ TV execs) pushing all the buttons with tOSU's support. The crazies at Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. will shut up and do as they're told.

This is actually a good post, although the recruiting part doesn't hold up. Here's why:

1. Yes, all this realignment has happened because of the B1G. It's pretty hypocritical for them not to stand up and just say it. They point fingers when they are the one's who started all this. But that's the B1G for you. They've always been the biggest hypocrite in the room. Just like their complaining, back in the day, about paying players while some of their programs had old men fucking a bunch children and then covering it all up. Not to mention, Ohio State has one of the largest pay for play schemes in the whole business.

2. Two biggest reasons the B1G has been forced to expand over the years: lack of recruiting territory and too much deadweight at the bottom of the conference. If you take a look at your map, remove the top 4 recruiting hotbeds of California, Texas, Florida and Georgia. Now, there's not a whole lot left, but if you look at the NE you will see a somewhat blue area of New Jersey and Maryland. It's not much, but there's not much out there after the Big 4. How has that helped recruiting in New Jersey? Rutgers isn't getting the top players in their own state. Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State have always landed talent there. The fact is, the SEC has actually recruited very well there since Rutgers joined the B1G. The point? It doesn't matter about recruiting territory if the new programs can't actually land players in the recruiting territory. Oregon can actually land top ranked recruits. It's why they will eventually be included in the B1G, if there's expansion out West.

You didn't answer my question. You said if Oregon and Washington had any value they would have been able to save the PAC. My counter is that makes no sense. If you want to cry on that hill, then USC is worthless because they couldn't save the PAC by themselves. I don't actually think USC is worthless. I'm just pointing out that your argument doesn't hold up.

I've already answered your recruiting pitch above in another reply. Landing recruits is more important than actual recruiting territory. They both do matter. B1G is never going to outdo the SEC in recruiting territory. They need to make sure every program added can recruit.

Why are you scared of Oregon and their recruiting in California? You or some other Trojan fan actually admitted this last month. "Oregon is taking our recruits." If you could get away with it, you'd invite Mater Dei HS for the easy win? I'm just here to say the old days of easy wins and manipulating schedules is about to be a thing of the past. We are in the last decade of it.

BTW, Oregon is going to continue to recruit well in California, whether they're in the B1G or not.

You're gonna bet the house Oregon isn't eventually in the B1G, if they expand with more PAC programs?

B1G may take Stanford first, because of the future possibility of ND, but they aren't leaving out Oregon and Washington in the long term.

No one has to pay for themselves anymore. This is what is getting lost in the shuffle on here right now. The journalists are completely lost on what is going on. The biggest programs are joining together to eventually increase the number of conference games played. That alone eliminates the cupcake schedules; allows commissioners/TV execs to create fair and competitive schedules for all teams; and increases TV viewership. The new scheduling will boost revenue and a deal will eventually be made to pay the players. In other words, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and it's going to be a massive windfall for the Big 2.

TRUTH.

Yeah...I ain't reading all that. Cool story though

Sandbagging Steve · August 31, 2022

BTW, I have no issues with USC. USC's issues are the same as Texas. The admin of both programs don't get it. It's not the BMDs causing the downfall of either program. College football is much better when USC, Texas and Michigan are winning. It makes the sport much more competitive and fun to watch.

But some of these talking points by USC fans in realignment don't add up. And most of these journalists out West are just straight up nuts. They sound like The Dude of West Virginia. A lot of propaganda fed to them by certain schools behind closed doors.

DeadArmadillo · August 31, 2022

13 hours ago, Zinhead said:

Notice the big empty area in Oregon. From the following map, they get much of their talent by attracting the best players in less competitive states.

Recruiting Map

From reports on some BIG blogs, travel for Olympic sports is a consideration as part of the expansion process, and one advantage that the Stanford/Cal pair-up has for the BIG is scheduling for Olympic sports. Teams can fly into the Bay area, play Cal and Stanford, and then jet down to LA to play USC and UCLA. Four games for three flights is very appealing for an athletic department.

As a casual Stanford fan, the best case scenario would be to join the BIG with Washington, Oregon and Cal. That would keep all of the good PAC rivalries in place, and the BIG could play the conference championship game in the Rose Bowl.

Gruver, Texas >>> than Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and both Dakotas, combined

Go Greyhounds

DFW Horn · August 31, 2022

1 hour ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

College football is much better when USC, Texas and Michigan are winning. It makes the sport much more competitive and fun to watch.

Fun to watch? Sure, but how do 3 programs make the sport more competitive?

The Original Greaser Bob · August 31, 2022

Fuck USC.

TKthunder2 · August 31, 2022

The Big Ten can only expand into so many TV slots they have 16 teams for a total of 8 games most weeks.

3 National games on FOX/CBS/NBC, 2 spots on FS1, 3 spots on BTN.

If they add 4 more PAC members that gets them 2 games on FS1 including a weekly LATE game (4 total) and maybe another occasional national spot on FOX depending on how their agreements with CBS/NBC.

Adding 3+ND pretty much guarantees 2 games on FOX, 2 on NBC, and 1 on CBS which would be half their inventory with BTN and FS1 getting the other half.

Edited August 31, 2022 by TKthunder2

Sandbagging Steve · August 31, 2022

Just now, DFW Horn said:

Fun to watch? Sure, but how do 3 programs make the sport more competitive?

Because it keeps a few more top recruits away from Alabama, Georgia, tOSU. The more teams competing for the title, the more it opens up recruiting for everyone. This would then open up recruiting to even more teams than the 3 listed. The issue right now is the majority of the top recruits are being bought by 4 or so programs. Those programs win all the games and it just becomes a compounded problem.

Things were much better even 20 years ago. The internet age has allowed the under the table payment schemes to dominate not only regional recruiting, but nationwide. If you look at NIL, it's helped a little with this so far. There's more good recruits spreading out to more programs in different regions. We still have a long ways to go though.

Go look at recruiting 20 years ago. The top recruits were spread-out all over the country.

A better recruiting format, with actual enforceable rules, tougher schedules across the board and we would see results. Most teams used to line up and play each other. These days, too many teams dodge playing other good programs OOC.

College football is not competitive right now. It's in the worse shape it has ever been in.

If more Bluebloods were competing with and beating the pay for play schemes at tOSU, Alabama, and Georgia, it would open up recruiting, especially with NIL.

Texzilla58 · August 31, 2022

How is college football in the worst shape it’s ever been? The amount of money involved from TV and NIL is beyond anyone’s expectations, even for lower tier schools that will be left behind. You’re just all bent because Oregon is being exposed as the fuckstain it has always been. When I lived in Portland only blue bloods liked Oregon; the unwashed preferred the Beavers. The reality is don’t give a shit is the majority opinion.

Oregon brings nothing but dilution to any conference they want to go to.

Sign In

Realignment talk not going away

Recommended Posts

statsman 5461

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hiphopopotamos

MAUFRAIS

jofus

Posted Images

TKthunder2 4991

Link to comment

Share on other sites

billfromlaketravis 11466

Link to comment

Share on other sites

thunderlounge 7825

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Trojan Man 429

Link to comment

Share on other sites

thunderlounge 7825

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hank Chinaski 6314

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Trojan Man 429

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TKthunder2 4991

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bullet 1596

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sandbagging Steve 982

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bullet 1596

Link to comment

Share on other sites

statsman 5461

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Trojan Man 429

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sandbagging Steve 982

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TKthunder2 4991

Link to comment

Share on other sites

statsman 5461

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sandbagging Steve 982

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pops 6984

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Treefidy 1463

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TKthunder2 4991

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bullet 1596

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sandbagging Steve 982

Link to comment