USC, UCLA to join the Big Ten in 2024

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1,077      
Just watched a YouTube video from CBS Sports saying that B1G is currently looking at Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington as expansion candidates. CBS also says that B1G is requesting an additional 250 million from media partners if these schools are added to the conference. Interesting stuff if true.

It's not surprising that the B1G would be looking at them. They need to be planning 3 or 4 steps ahead. It doesn't mean any of the schools get offers or that they would come in at the same time as LA schools. IIRC, USC and UCLA didn't sign off on the media deal so they are free to move. The other PAC teams did. Unless something happens like the collapse of the conference or the SEC grabbing ND, I see the B1G sitting tight for a couple of years before they move again. Of course my opinion isn't worth the space Dan gives us to write.
 
#1,078      
Just watched a YouTube video from CBS Sports saying that B1G is currently looking at Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington as expansion candidates. CBS also says that B1G is requesting an additional 250 million from media partners if these schools are added to the conference. Interesting stuff if true.
 
#1,080      
The baby-splitting logic keeps getting harder to figure. If you're adding six west coast teams, why not add eight. If you're adding eight, why not add ten. Why not make the ten you added a stand-alone division who only play each other and have their own separately negotiated media rights contract with a payout that is split amongst them. Why not have the champion of that division play the champion that emerges from the original B1G in a special game, perhaps one played on New Year's Day in Pasadena. If you add Stanford, Washington, Oregon, and Cal, as that article suggested, is that not in effect what you're doing? Except instead of Arizona and Colorado dragging down the numbers, you're cleaving three expendable schools off your western border to join the Pacific Six plus Nebraska to even the sides.
 
#1,083      
After one month of the newest round of conference cannibalism, I have some questions:

1. Do we really believe the SEC is done with expansion?
2. What will happen to the Rose Bowl? B1G Champ USC playing PAC Champ Washington in the Rose Bowl is a big 'ole meh for me.
3. If Stanford agrees to join the B1G, will that pry ND loose to join the B1G?
4. The B1G seems to want to expand west. SEC says its done with expansion. Is the ACC safe?
5. Does the Big 12 really have enough muscle to pry away PAC teams?
6. Is this really good for college football?
 
#1,087      
One way to look at it is that it's better to dilute your own pool than increase someone else's. Not sure I agree with that in this specific situation, but keeping assets out of your competition's portfolio is considered "winning" by many.
There’s no business case for adding Stanford and Cal. There’s probably a business case for affirmatively disbanding the PAC-12 entirely by adding Stanford and Cal in addition to Oregon and Washington and thereby sending Utah, Colorado, and the Arizona schools scrambling to the Big 12 (which it sounds like they might do that anyway).

But if that’s the plan—world domination regardless of short-term profits—why stop there? Aren’t you going to team up with the SEC to lay siege to the other two surviving “majors”?

I still maintain that Amazonian superconferences are an inevitability but it seems like what’s been revealed the past 4-5 weeks is that there’s still a degree of denial, foot-dragging, and confusion among some of the key institutionalists.
 
#1,088      

IlliniSaluki

IL metro east burbs of St. Louis
This is all true but since none of us know for sure right now what the current $$$ is with USC & UCLA it could be high enough that the extra $250 mil a year would still keep each schools pay out above that original guess of $71 mil a year before USC & UCLA. So who knows? Certainly no one on this board.

edit: to clarify maybe their is a $$ number all the current schools have agreed on that if it's that # or higher they would be willing to add those 4 schools. Personally I don't think it happens at least not any time soon. I still think until it's clear ND goes elsewhere or will never join a conference the B1G stays put for a while.
 
Last edited:
#1,089      
After one month of the newest round of conference cannibalism, I have some questions:

1. Do we really believe the SEC is done with expansion?
2. What will happen to the Rose Bowl? B1G Champ USC playing PAC Champ Washington in the Rose Bowl is a big 'ole meh for me.
3. If Stanford agrees to join the B1G, will that pry ND loose to join the B1G?
4. The B1G seems to want to expand west. SEC says its done with expansion. Is the ACC safe?
5. Does the Big 12 really have enough muscle to pry away PAC teams?
6. Is this really good for college football?
I'll take a pass on all the other questions but # 4, is the ACC safe? Yes. All the schools swallowed the grant of rights poison pill. They are stuck until 2036 unless the league as a whole merged with another conference.
Oh # 3, Can Stanford pry ND loose? I say probably not.
 
#1,090      
After one month of the newest round of conference cannibalism, I have some questions:

1. Do we really believe the SEC is done with expansion?
2. What will happen to the Rose Bowl? B1G Champ USC playing PAC Champ Washington in the Rose Bowl is a big 'ole meh for me.
3. If Stanford agrees to join the B1G, will that pry ND loose to join the B1G?
4. The B1G seems to want to expand west. SEC says its done with expansion. Is the ACC safe?
5. Does the Big 12 really have enough muscle to pry away PAC teams?
6. Is this really good for college football?
1. No, but the schools that make the most sense for them are temporarily frozen by the ACC grant of rights. There are some politics though, South Carolina doesn't want Clemson, Florida doesn't want FSU or Miami, it's slightly complicated. They probably don't want any Pac 12 schools because they don't think they're good enough at football to deserve entry, even Oregon. Different mindset.

2. I would predict it will be the designated first round game for the B1G champion in a future expanded playoff. The name and the existence of a game will definitely continue. And for as long as they can get away with pretending it will absolutely be advertised to you as if that's what the Rose Bowl always was.

3. No. ND cares about no one but themselves.

4. The ACC is unequivocally and irrevocably dead as a "major" conference. They're also closed for ins and outs until that grant of rights gets much closer to the expiration date and moves for 2037 become more feasible. Everyone who can leave for the B1G or SEC at that time will without a second thought. That might be several of them or none of them, hard to project that far.

5. Can they make them a financial offer that compels them to move? No. Are there reasons some schools might rather play in that conference anyway? Maybe, who knows. The Big 12 and Pac 12 are just two different color deck chairs on the Titanic.

6. It is horrendous for college football, a sport that has long-term challenges as it is. It's a true American tragedy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wpr
#1,091      

sacraig

The desert
The article mentions that those 4 schools are expected to substantially dilute the Big Ten's value to rightsholders per school (i.e., reduce the proportion of marquee matchups) so they could be asked to accept less money than the rest of the conference. Personally, I like the idea of adding those schools but not really if the consequence is an unequal payment structure. That's exactly what has led to the slow death of the Big 12 and I have no doubt that Illinois would be among the schools whose cut would be set to be reduced if our equal payment structure ends.
 
#1,092      

IlliniSaluki

IL metro east burbs of St. Louis
The article mentions that those 4 schools are expected to substantially dilute the Big Ten's value to rightsholders per school (i.e., reduce the proportion of marquee matchups) so they could be asked to accept less money than the rest of the conference. Personally, I like the idea of adding those schools but not really if the consequence is an unequal payment structure. That's exactly what has led to the slow death of the Big 12 and I have no doubt that Illinois would be among the schools whose cut would be set to be reduced if our equal payment structure ends.
To be fair I think the unequal structure would just last till the next media rights deal if they did do an unequal one for those 4 schools. My guess is the 250 mil a year would be split between those schools. Then when a new media rights deal is up it would all go back to an equal share deal. At least that is what I hope it would be.
 
#1,093      
To be fair I think the unequal structure would just last till the next media rights deal if they did do an unequal one for those 4 schools. My guess is the 250 mil a year would be split between those schools. Then when a new media rights deal is up it would all go back to an equal share deal. At least that is what I hope it would be.
I think that's what they've done in the past with new members, right? I may be wrong, but I thought Maryland and Rutgers might still be getting less than other schools.
 
#1,094      

IlliniSaluki

IL metro east burbs of St. Louis
I think that's what they've done in the past with new members, right? I may be wrong, but I thought Maryland and Rutgers might still be getting less than other schools.
Not sure I thought Rutgers got full payment but Maryland didn't because the B1G payed some of Maryland's penalty for getting out of the ACC. I do remember Nebraska had a few years of not getting full payment when they first joined. I could be wrong on Rutgers and they also got less at first.

I didn't even think that the $250 mil might just be split between Cal, Stan, OR and WA until I actually watched the CBS video where the guy said they wouldn't be part of the current media rights deal being finalized that USC & UCLA are apart of.
 
#1,095      
4. The ACC is unequivocally and irrevocably dead as a "major" conference. They're also closed for ins and outs until that grant of rights gets much closer to the expiration date and moves for 2037 become more feasible. Everyone who can leave for the B1G or SEC at that time will without a second thought. That might be several of them or none of them, hard to project that far.
A few honest questions:
1. Isn't the ACC's top tier of Clemson, FSU, Miami, and 1/2 of ND a lot better football than either the top tier of the PAC 12 or Big XII? If so, what are the Big XII and PAC 12 in comparison to the dead ACC?
2. How much of all this is recency bias? If we flash back to 2010 and compare it to 2025...If you said that the PAC 10 would lose USC and UCLA but gain Utah and Colorado, that would be bad but I at least still see a major conference. But if on the contrary, the Big XII were to lose Colorado, Nebraska, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Missouri (the best half of the conference), and have to add six mid majors, wouldn't we view the Big XII as a mid-major, especially in comparison to the PAC 12?
 
#1,096      
A few honest questions:
1. Isn't the ACC's top tier of Clemson, FSU, Miami, and 1/2 of ND a lot better football than either the top tier of the PAC 12 or Big XII? If so, what are the Big XII and PAC 12 in comparison to the dead ACC?
2. How much of all this is recency bias? If we flash back to 2010 and compare it to 2025...If you said that the PAC 10 would lose USC and UCLA but gain Utah and Colorado, that would be bad but I at least still see a major conference. But if on the contrary, the Big XII were to lose Colorado, Nebraska, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Missouri (the best half of the conference), and have to add six mid majors, wouldn't we view the Big XII as a mid-major, especially in comparison to the PAC 12?
1. Equally dead. There are only two major conferences and the only thing that can ever change that is the eventual consolidation into one.

2. I do think the Pac 12 is a stronger league as things currently stand than the Big 12. Means nothing though. Neither can command anything in the same stratosphere of TV money as the big two.
 
#1,097      
Add Notre Dame, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida State. Scrap the college football playoff and play the SEC champ in the Rose Bowl each year. :)
Slight modification...Rose Bowl becomes the B1G championship game, played at 3:30 on Jan 1. Sugar Bowl becomes the SEC championship game, played at 7:00 on Jan 1. Two winners meet 10-15 days later at a neutral site, for the college football championship.
 
Last edited:
#1,098      
Slight modification...Rose Bowl becomes the B1G championship game, played at 3:30 on Jan 1. Sugar Bowl becomes the SEC championship game, played at 7:00 on Jan 1. Two winners meet 10-15 days later at a neutral site, for the college football championship.

Pretty sure they're looking to expand the CFP. The main drivers for this realignment is to A. TV Contracts (short term) and B. Get more SEC and in response more B10 teams into the playoff (long term).
 
#1,100      
Pretty sure they're looking to expand the CFP. The main drivers for this realignment is to A. TV Contracts (short term) and B. Get more SEC and in response more B10 teams into the playoff (long term).
Well and mixing the two, get a bigger piece of the expanded CFP TV contract due to having the lion's share of the teams.

The idea of just the champions meeting, with the substantial narrative of the season being the contest within the conferences to win them, is a perspective on college football that died forever with this move.

As I said somewhere many pages ago, this isn't so much the victory of two conferences as the end of conferences as a concept.

And one other point on the notion of the Rose Bowl as the B1G championship game, besides the scheduling issues there, there's also the reality that in the expanded playoff world, those conference title games have just become meaningless exhibitions where playoff seeding (if that) is all that's at stake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.