USC, UCLA, Rutgers and Maryland: The B1G Coastal





ETA: They won't do 4 team pods.

Live content is super valuable to networks in particular because it's the one type of content where viewers actually watch ads. Content in general is valuable today because you have trillion dollar corporations throwing absurd amounts of money at it.

I don't think they stop at 16 but in terms of pods I prefer your B1G Coastal recommendation.

rainbow & rust divisions

I'm pulling this completely out of my ass, but if they stayed at 16 I think it would most likely be a version of what the ACC is doing -- a 3/6/6 system. Each team has 3 'rivals' they play every year, then they play six of the other 12 teams each year on a rotating basis. 9 conference games.

But I tend to think you're right and they go to 20 if the right schools are willing. Who knows, maybe even 24.

Conflicting stuff out there on twitter about more, with a couple sources saying Washington and Oregon applying to join the B1G, while L.A. Times beat writer says multiple sources saying no other PAC teams to the B1G at this time.

Stay buckled up, it's going to be a long bumpy ride.

This will just lead to 2 teams from the big ten going against 2 teams from the sec in the playoff.

I'm hoping eventually it will be 4 and 4. Or better yet, how about 5 SEC teams, 5 B1G teams and then 2 of the little guys from the other conferences get at large bids. So, 12 team playoffs and byes go to the top 2 SEC teams and top 2 B1G teams.

This is all Notre Dame's fault.

Doubt it. These schools are so far apart that the literal distance doesn't matter. Northwestern is a lot easier to get to from LA than Nebraska

Still feeling pretty depressed about all this. Makes CFB a lot less fun imo.

It's also frustrating bc I think all of these actions just reek of economic inefficiency. This is definitely turning more fans off than it is exciting people, and I think the overall net $ that networks pay to schools is going to actually go down compared to if we'd stayed with 5 confs. But the USCs and Texases will get more and the Wazzus and Kansas States will get way, way less.

In retrospect, this is just a really, really roundabout and convoluted way USC, Texas and Oklahoma getting a larger share of the $ they generated for their conferences. I wonder if this could have been avoided by just giving a larger share of the conf $ to them in the first place (I know UT and OU tried this and it failed)

Like if the Pac-12 was like fine, USC you get 14% o the money instead of 8.3%, and Wazzu, Oregon State etc get less, would that have worked? I certainly imagine that all things equal USC and UCLA would RATHER be in the pac-12, and probably would've taken a little less $ to do it, but not half as much.

Rather than just naming names, you could tie it to winning divisions, winning titles, earning viewership etc. So when a team has a meteoric rise over a few years like when Stanford or Texas Tech or WV becomes a contender, or when Utah wins the Pac, they earn a bigger share

Except that then means a smaller share for someone (and that someone might be UCLA and USC) and they're not going to feel that's fair to them. Keeping the status quo requires a level of something resembling altruism and that seems to be in short supply.

These are businesses and business are going to strongly prefer (a) a lot more money and (b) stable, predictable amounts of money.

Like every other change in the landscape we'll adjust and get used to this, and there will undoubtedly be additional major changes coming.

an Athletic article from yday said this exact same thing. went on to say the coming super conferences very well could take this step too. sorry Rutgers, you're going to get less than Sparty and Brutus ... just be happy you have a room in the castle. Vandy, you are a uni full of smart ppl, you understand why we can't give you the same % as UGA and Bama right? sure you do. now back to the cellar you go.

While I know what you mean and agree CFB is going to lose a lot of hardcore fans in the regions affected negatively, the demand is greater in the south, rust belt & midwest for college football than the blue coasts, so the supply is following suit.

The powerful schools with $ will always get their way. After Don James built a powerhouse that was dominating the Pac-10, they were sunk my probation from relatively minor transgressions. It was the Pac-10 that initiated the investigation, and ended up imposing the worst penalties, at the behest of USC and Stanford. Contemporaneously, 4 players at USC were carjacking some lady and having her take them to her ATM at gunpoint. Not a peep about "loss of control" there. It just got worse from there in CFB, and has basically been semi-pro for the last ~20 years. It's a shame though that the Conference of Champions looks like it will never be the same, being one of the oldest conferences containing some of the oldest and most storied programs. RIP

Oh the horror, the best teams will now be playing the best teams on a regular basis. We should go back to an 8 game season, play 4 patsies, and then 4 conference games capped off in Bluebonnet Bowl glory!

Sorry West Coasters but the blame for this rests solely on your own shoulders. Spend less of your time in rush hour traffic and more time supporting your teams both on TV and at the games. It was so painfully obvious that the next Pac-12 TV deal was going to be terrible because the West coast fanbase is absolutely awful. USC had no choice but to leave and the Big 10 had to pull the trigger because if they didn't the SEC would.

The one entity that should really take the bull by the horns now is The Rose Bowl. The Rose Bowl was once the "Granddaddy of them All" but in recent years has been downgraded to the "Who Gives a ****" bowl. In order to bring back its former glory they really need tie ins to the SEC. The big argument against that was "Tradition tradition blah blah blah bullshit" but now even if the Pac-12 were to survive what would be the tradition without USC? It's gonna be like Boise State vs Rutgers every year.

Normally I love money, but this crap just sucks.

It's not like USC's schedule is going to get any tougher. The regular ass big 10 teams are just as regular as the regular ass pac teams. And they always play a ton of marquee non con games anyway. Nothing stops them from playing Texas and Alabama and Ohio State (all of which I think they've done).


USC absolutely had a choice. They're going to make like $100m a year or something in the B1G, and they probably would've gotten $60m a year on the new Pac deal. This isn't a company where their job is to maximize revenue at all costs. They have actual stakeholders like students and alumni that presumably care. They also could've tried to strong arm the rest of the Pac into a larger share than $60m and idk, maybe they would've gotten it.

Also, lol at talking about "support your team and spend less time in rush hour traffic." UCLA has the 7th best attendance in the Pac and is dead last in stadium fullness. USC is 2nd in attendance and 6th in stadium fullness.

If supporting your teams in person was what mattered, Utah, Washington and Oregon would be headed to the B1G, not UCLA and USC.

Here's where I see this going:

B1G eats Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford, then the ACC falls apart and they take Duke, UNC and UVA. Notre Dame is forced to join and they have a 24 team mega conference with four six team pods:

USC / UCLA / Oregon / Washington / Cal / Stanford

Notre Dame / Duke / UNC / Virginia / Maryland / Rutgers

Ohio State / Michigan / MSU / Purdue / Indiana

Wisconsin / Nebraska / Iowa / NW / Illinois / Minnesota

You play the 5 game round-robin against your pod, then some kind of flex scheduling, like the #1 teams from the four pods all play each other, the #2 teams all play each other, etc.



SEC eats FSU, Clemson and Miami and tells Vanderbilt to go kick rocks

Big-12 eats Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Utah, then adds Pitt, Louisville, Wake, NC State, Cuse, BC, VT and GT when the ACC implodes to get to 24


lol

SEC has some decent academic research funding, but telling Vandy to go would be silly for its overall book-learnin stats. Also, round numbers of teams don't really mean **** when the mega conferences come.

Not really, the Pac-12 is such a **** conference. They're pretty much as bad as it gets for a "power 5 conference." Even the remaining little Big 12 without any major brands would likely outperform Pac-12 on the football field and that's even with USC/UCLA.

Perhaps you need a reminder of the final AP poll last year:

1) SEC
2) SEC
3) B1G
4) Lil 12 (to be)
5) Lil 12
6) B1G
7) Lil 12
8) ND
9) B1G
10) SEC (to be)
11) SEC
12) PAC (UTAH)
13) ACC
14) ACC
15) ACC
16) Group of 5
17) Lil 12 (to be)
18) SEC
19) Lil 12 (to be)
20) ACC
21) SEC
22) PAC (Oregon)
23) B1G
24) Group of 5
25) Group of 5

The regular B1G and SEC teams are bringing in way too much football revenue to be the same as a regular Pac-12 school. They're just putting way too much money back into their programs for that to be the case. You have guys like Mike Leach and Mark Stoops coaching low to midling SEC teams who have been making as much as any coach in the Pac-12. As the revenue disparity continues to grow these differences will become more and more apparent. Also, NIL is a huge deal going forward in regards to competitiveness.


Yes, they could choose between being a **** team in a **** conference that was incapable of being competitive on a national level or they could choose to build on their 11 National Champions and continue to be relevant in college football. It was very clear what choice they had made when they signed Lincoln Riley to a huge salary that was double that of the most recent nobody head coach that led USC.


The Pac-12 has terrible fan-bases. None of them support their teams. That's the point. USC was wise to get the hell out.

These criticisms were equally as true 50 years ago, when SC lookwon their 3rd of their 4 national titles under McKay,

Sounds like Oregon will be the next addition to the B1G.

Bob Thompson, who is the former President of Fox Sports Networks and an Oregon alumnus, doesn't seem to agree. For a team to be a breakeven addition to the Big 10 the team needs to bring $71 million/yr to the league. Oregon + Washington combined only bring $60 million. ( source )

In order to bring in Oregon their going to have to do something creative. Maybe Phil Knight can pull of his magic with Nike sponsorships or something. Oregon has a pretty good brand but they don't bring a lot to the table. It's not like Oregon is some great fertile recruiting grounds. In fact, I've heard the opposite that USC doesn't want Oregon brought in because Oregon raids the SoCal talent.

Also, there's this:

B1G stage. B1G life. B1G Ten.