[TreesAndBirds]

Apparently the USC boards have been talking about it. Some of their points are fair ones that we all recognize, but the  answer is to make some changes in Pac12 scheduling/rules. As for Pac12 TV rights being less valuable than other conferences so Rutgers makes more than USC from football....not sure what the answer is. As for USC going independent...I dont think so.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...gnment-lol

[TreesAndBirds]

Apparently the USC boards have been talking about it. Some of their points are fair ones that we all recognize, but the  answer is to make some changes in Pac12 scheduling/rules. As for Pac12 TV rights being less valuable than other conferences so Rutgers makes more than USC from football....not sure what the answer is. As for USC going independent...I dont think so.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...gnment-lol

[BostonCard]

Interesting article.  The final point was a good one.  I think the fight for more and more live content to fill TV slots is over, and I doubt USC would get a deal like the longhorn network.  I'm sure it will get a pretty good payout, from somebody, but I doubt that it will be nearly as much as they might have been able to demand a few years ago.

I wonder if the Pac-12 and Big-12 continue to alternate getting shafted by the playoffs (with an occasional BigTen team screwed as well), whether the Texas/Oklahoma to the Pac-12 talk will heat up again.  The Big-12 disintegrating and its teams finding homes in other conferences would then enable the CFP to simply be a four team playoff of conference champions, as it should be.

BC 

[BostonCard]

Interesting article.  The final point was a good one.  I think the fight for more and more live content to fill TV slots is over, and I doubt USC would get a deal like the longhorn network.  I'm sure it will get a pretty good payout, from somebody, but I doubt that it will be nearly as much as they might have been able to demand a few years ago.

I wonder if the Pac-12 and Big-12 continue to alternate getting shafted by the playoffs (with an occasional BigTen team screwed as well), whether the Texas/Oklahoma to the Pac-12 talk will heat up again.  The Big-12 disintegrating and its teams finding homes in other conferences would then enable the CFP to simply be a four team playoff of conference champions, as it should be.

BC 

[2006alum]

Interesting read. A few quick reactions:

-If U$C wanted a Longhorn Network-like arrangement, they missed the boat by half a decade. With TV revenue quickly falling for televised sports, such a network would be in trouble from day 1; I'd venture to guess all the Conference TV contracts will be renegotiated down when the next set of renewals comes. Without that TV money, I don't know where they make the rest of the shortfall up, unless they do well enough in FBS bowl games that taking home the entire pot themselves outstrips what they get from the Pac-12.

-Relatedly, although U$C is in a large TV market, I don't think it has a wide enough fan base for this to work. UT Austin has an undergraduate enrollment of 40,000+ and the UT system as a whole has over 160,000 undergrads; U$C has 18,000 undergrads. UT is the state school, so many from Texas can support it even if they don't have direct ties. (I'm admittedly biased in saying this, but...) Who voluntarily wants to associate with U$C with their rich and spoiled, cash-over-values image?

-This would be highly detrimental to their Olympics sports, which U$C also cares quite a bit about. They're only a few national championships behind us and send brobdingnagian contingents to the Olympics every four years, and I don't think they want to be cutting their teeth on the weaker competition of the WCC. And, by the way, how is having to fly to Gonzaga, Portland, and BYU all that different from having to fly to Pullman and Corvallis? Same distance, same weak recruiting markets, same hassles.

-Finally, U$C's rivalries with UCLA and Stanford are really, really important. Those schools, plus Notre Dame and the East Coast Ivies + Duke, are the schools U$C internally compares itself to - not just in sports, but in everything: academic recruiting, faculty hiring, fundraising, departmental quality, etc. U$C cares a lot about the schools it is categorized with. I don't know why you'd trade Stanford and UCLA for University of the Pacific and Santa Clara.

But just my two cents.

[2006alum]

Interesting read. A few quick reactions:

-If U$C wanted a Longhorn Network-like arrangement, they missed the boat by half a decade. With TV revenue quickly falling for televised sports, such a network would be in trouble from day 1; I'd venture to guess all the Conference TV contracts will be renegotiated down when the next set of renewals comes. Without that TV money, I don't know where they make the rest of the shortfall up, unless they do well enough in FBS bowl games that taking home the entire pot themselves outstrips what they get from the Pac-12.

-Relatedly, although U$C is in a large TV market, I don't think it has a wide enough fan base for this to work. UT Austin has an undergraduate enrollment of 40,000+ and the UT system as a whole has over 160,000 undergrads; U$C has 18,000 undergrads. UT is the state school, so many from Texas can support it even if they don't have direct ties. (I'm admittedly biased in saying this, but...) Who voluntarily wants to associate with U$C with their rich and spoiled, cash-over-values image?

-This would be highly detrimental to their Olympics sports, which U$C also cares quite a bit about. They're only a few national championships behind us and send brobdingnagian contingents to the Olympics every four years, and I don't think they want to be cutting their teeth on the weaker competition of the WCC. And, by the way, how is having to fly to Gonzaga, Portland, and BYU all that different from having to fly to Pullman and Corvallis? Same distance, same weak recruiting markets, same hassles.

-Finally, U$C's rivalries with UCLA and Stanford are really, really important. Those schools, plus Notre Dame and the East Coast Ivies + Duke, are the schools U$C internally compares itself to - not just in sports, but in everything: academic recruiting, faculty hiring, fundraising, departmental quality, etc. U$C cares a lot about the schools it is categorized with. I don't know why you'd trade Stanford and UCLA for University of the Pacific and Santa Clara.

But just my two cents.

[Redrum]

So, if USC is driven by bottom line revenue, amidst a bigger national exposure would they be tempted to fill out the schedule weaker Pac11 teams that would take a smaller deal (or more likely, not bring the threat of defeats which look bad national ranking-wise)?  Or would they continue to schedule the current stronger / big market P12 teams to burnish their brand and accept a greater risk of a L on their record?  Have a feeling that if payout and national ranking prestige are USC's twin "pole stars", Stanford might not be considered a prime opponent worthy of consideration.  My gut reaction is F-'em, but that would be my reaction to anything that puffs up USC football.  Wouldn't put it past them to try to create dual-affiliation.  Independent in football, affiliated with the P11 for other sports.  Best of both worlds for them and just what I'd expect.

[Redrum]

So, if USC is driven by bottom line revenue, amidst a bigger national exposure would they be tempted to fill out the schedule weaker Pac11 teams that would take a smaller deal (or more likely, not bring the threat of defeats which look bad national ranking-wise)?  Or would they continue to schedule the current stronger / big market P12 teams to burnish their brand and accept a greater risk of a L on their record?  Have a feeling that if payout and national ranking prestige are USC's twin "pole stars", Stanford might not be considered a prime opponent worthy of consideration.  My gut reaction is F-'em, but that would be my reaction to anything that puffs up USC football.  Wouldn't put it past them to try to create dual-affiliation.  Independent in football, affiliated with the P11 for other sports.  Best of both worlds for them and just what I'd expect.

[Canalejas]

I don't see why the other 11 schools would allow them to keep their other sports in the conference if they pull football out.  It's all or nothing.

[Canalejas]

I don't see why the other 11 schools would allow them to keep their other sports in the conference if they pull football out.  It's all or nothing.

[French Rage]

I don't recall scheduling or TV money keeping them out of the NCG in 2003, 2004, or 2005.  Perhaps that's because they won games when they needed to back then.  Even with the WSU loss they're still in if they beat ND this year.  If they deserve to be in, they'll be in.  If not, they won't.  Whining about what conference they're in is re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

[French Rage]

I don't recall scheduling or TV money keeping them out of the NCG in 2003, 2004, or 2005.  Perhaps that's because they won games when they needed to back then.  Even with the WSU loss they're still in if they beat ND this year.  If they deserve to be in, they'll be in.  If not, they won't.  Whining about what conference they're in is re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

[FarmBoy]

I don't think they can do this for some of the reasons raised here. If 'SC wants to take their ball and play elsewhere, the remaining Pac12 teams should agree to not schedule them in any sports going forward and kick them out of the conference overall. The league could potentially go nuclear and discontinue academic collaborations as well. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I remember during the expansion discussions that the real money was on the academic and research side and that as crazy as it sounds, having these athletic affiliations encourages other forms of collaborations that U of U especially was going to benefit from having not been part of a Power conference.

[FarmBoy]

I don't think they can do this for some of the reasons raised here. If 'SC wants to take their ball and play elsewhere, the remaining Pac12 teams should agree to not schedule them in any sports going forward and kick them out of the conference overall. The league could potentially go nuclear and discontinue academic collaborations as well. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I remember during the expansion discussions that the real money was on the academic and research side and that as crazy as it sounds, having these athletic affiliations encourages other forms of collaborations that U of U especially was going to benefit from having not been part of a Power conference.

[TreesAndBirds]

If I remember correctly the Big10 has a substantial academic alliance that was considered a non trivial draw when Maryland was considering leaving the ACC. The AD liked the expected more money, but the faculty liked the opptys with the Academic Alliance which helped ease the initial surprise in the MD community that they would leave the ACC.

And while reflecting on the unintended effect of college sports conferences....in some ways the most successful one is the Ivy League, which has created a very powerful academic brand from an athletic designation.

[TreesAndBirds]

If I remember correctly the Big10 has a substantial academic alliance that was considered a non trivial draw when Maryland was considering leaving the ACC. The AD liked the expected more money, but the faculty liked the opptys with the Academic Alliance which helped ease the initial surprise in the MD community that they would leave the ACC.

And while reflecting on the unintended effect of college sports conferences....in some ways the most successful one is the Ivy League, which has created a very powerful academic brand from an athletic designation.

[cctop]

USC fans are seriously overestimating their brand to think they could bring in a lot more money by being independent.

Over on BearInsider there's a thread https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/77420 where the viewership stats were discussed.  Cut-and-pasting here:

Total number of viewers (incl streaming) for conference championship games:
SEC: 13.5 million
Big Ten: 12.9 million
Big 12: 5.9 million
ACC: 5.4 million
PAC-12: 3.7 million (down from last year's UW-Colorado game which had 5.7M viewers and was also on Friday)
AAC: 3.4 million

It's not just playoff-relevant games where the conference has struggled to pull in viewers. The conference game with the highest tv ratings (USC-UCLA) didn't even crack the top 30 games. And the highest rated game involving a PAC-12 team (the school I wish I had gotten into/ND) was only around 20th. There's just a low avidity for college football fandom in the West. Even USC doesn't rank in the top 25 in terms of numbers of fans.


USC's highest-rated game this year which was against Texas pulled in about 5 million viewers.  USC-UCLA got about 4 million, USC-ND about 3 million.

Going independent would allow them to schedule some opponents with larger fanbases/more eyeballs but filling out their schedule with WAC opponents would balance it out.

Really the best thing they can do to raise viewership and make more money is to continue winning.

[cctop]

USC fans are seriously overestimating their brand to think they could bring in a lot more money by being independent.

Over on BearInsider there's a thread https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/77420 where the viewership stats were discussed.  Cut-and-pasting here:

Total number of viewers (incl streaming) for conference championship games:
SEC: 13.5 million
Big Ten: 12.9 million
Big 12: 5.9 million
ACC: 5.4 million
PAC-12: 3.7 million (down from last year's UW-Colorado game which had 5.7M viewers and was also on Friday)
AAC: 3.4 million

It's not just playoff-relevant games where the conference has struggled to pull in viewers. The conference game with the highest tv ratings (USC-UCLA) didn't even crack the top 30 games. And the highest rated game involving a PAC-12 team (the school I wish I had gotten into/ND) was only around 20th. There's just a low avidity for college football fandom in the West. Even USC doesn't rank in the top 25 in terms of numbers of fans.


USC's highest-rated game this year which was against Texas pulled in about 5 million viewers.  USC-UCLA got about 4 million, USC-ND about 3 million.

Going independent would allow them to schedule some opponents with larger fanbases/more eyeballs but filling out their schedule with WAC opponents would balance it out.

Really the best thing they can do to raise viewership and make more money is to continue winning.

[Spiny_Norman]

Really the best thing they can do to raise viewership and make more money is to continue winning.

Or schedule SEC teams

[Spiny_Norman]

Really the best thing they can do to raise viewership and make more money is to continue winning.

Or schedule SEC teams

[washingtonismoney]

Part of the problem for the Pac-12 this year was that its marquee teams were either knocked out of the playoff race early (SC) or never had any great matchups to begin with (UW).

[washingtonismoney]

Part of the problem for the Pac-12 this year was that its marquee teams were either knocked out of the playoff race early (SC) or never had any great matchups to begin with (UW).

[Redrum]

[quote author=cctop link=topic=18348.msg218129#msg218129 date=1513185629]
Really the best thing they can do to raise viewership and make more money is to continue winning.

Or schedule SEC teams
[/quote]

Living, as I do, in the heart of SEC country, I would LOVE to watch the Trojans bring their act to the SEC.  If they wanted "money" match-ups, I could easily see one (possibly two in some years) losses a season if they were playing against the SEC leaders. ( Playing a schedule against the bottom feeders yields pretty much the same result whether they are P12 bottom feeders or SEC bottom feeders.)  Maybe that's the long game for the Trojan AD.  Get a different stable of bottom feeders for schedule padding while getting to dwell in the greater exposure of the SEC.  At least my kid would know that for the sake of family sports politics I would not be faking it to finally root for Bama.

[Redrum]

[quote author=cctop link=topic=18348.msg218129#msg218129 date=1513185629]
Really the best thing they can do to raise viewership and make more money is to continue winning.

Or schedule SEC teams
[/quote]

Living, as I do, in the heart of SEC country, I would LOVE to watch the Trojans bring their act to the SEC.  If they wanted "money" match-ups, I could easily see one (possibly two in some years) losses a season if they were playing against the SEC leaders. ( Playing a schedule against the bottom feeders yields pretty much the same result whether they are P12 bottom feeders or SEC bottom feeders.)  Maybe that's the long game for the Trojan AD.  Get a different stable of bottom feeders for schedule padding while getting to dwell in the greater exposure of the SEC.  At least my kid would know that for the sake of family sports politics I would not be faking it to finally root for Bama.

[Mick]

Interesting read. A few quick reactions:

-If U$C wanted a Longhorn Network-like arrangement, they missed the boat by half a decade. With TV revenue quickly falling for televised sports, such a network would be in trouble from day 1; I'd venture to guess all the Conference TV contracts will be renegotiated down when the next set of renewals comes. Without that TV money, I don't know where they make the rest of the shortfall up, unless they do well enough in FBS bowl games that taking home the entire pot themselves outstrips what they get from the Pac-12.

-Relatedly, although U$C is in a large TV market, I don't think it has a wide enough fan base for this to work. UT Austin has an undergraduate enrollment of 40,000+ and the UT system as a whole has over 160,000 undergrads; U$C has 18,000 undergrads. UT is the state school, so many from Texas can support it even if they don't have direct ties. (I'm admittedly biased in saying this, but...) Who voluntarily wants to associate with U$C with their rich and spoiled, cash-over-values image?

-This would be highly detrimental to their Olympics sports, which U$C also cares quite a bit about. They're only a few national championships behind us and send of exceedingly large proportions contingents to the Olympics every four years, and I don't think they want to be cutting their teeth on the weaker competition of the WCC. And, by the way, how is having to fly to Gonzaga, Portland, and BYU all that different from having to fly to Pullman and Corvallis? Same distance, same weak recruiting markets, same hassles.

-Finally, U$C's rivalries with UCLA and Stanford are really, really important. Those schools, plus Votre Dame and the East Coast Ivies + Duke, are the schools U$C internally compares itself to - not just in sports, but in everything: academic recruiting, faculty hiring, fundraising, departmental quality, etc. U$C cares a lot about the schools it is categorized with. I don't know why you'd trade Stanford and UCLA for University of the Pacific and Santa Clara.

But just my two cents.

I think you're right.  I think part of the problem is that they've had fewer Pac-12 championships in the past decade than they've been accustomed to.  As others in the Pac-12 have risen, their star has diminished somewhat.  If they were an independent like Noter Dame, maybe they think they would get a better following.  But ND has a million Catholics who know how to stop by Target and Wal-Mart and buy green and blue gear.  USC has no such equivalent following.  There aren't a million football fans who aspire to be S.C.G.V.D.B's (SoCal Garden-Variety D-Bags).

[Mick]

Interesting read. A few quick reactions:

-If U$C wanted a Longhorn Network-like arrangement, they missed the boat by half a decade. With TV revenue quickly falling for televised sports, such a network would be in trouble from day 1; I'd venture to guess all the Conference TV contracts will be renegotiated down when the next set of renewals comes. Without that TV money, I don't know where they make the rest of the shortfall up, unless they do well enough in FBS bowl games that taking home the entire pot themselves outstrips what they get from the Pac-12.

-Relatedly, although U$C is in a large TV market, I don't think it has a wide enough fan base for this to work. UT Austin has an undergraduate enrollment of 40,000+ and the UT system as a whole has over 160,000 undergrads; U$C has 18,000 undergrads. UT is the state school, so many from Texas can support it even if they don't have direct ties. (I'm admittedly biased in saying this, but...) Who voluntarily wants to associate with U$C with their rich and spoiled, cash-over-values image?

-This would be highly detrimental to their Olympics sports, which U$C also cares quite a bit about. They're only a few national championships behind us and send of exceedingly large proportions contingents to the Olympics every four years, and I don't think they want to be cutting their teeth on the weaker competition of the WCC. And, by the way, how is having to fly to Gonzaga, Portland, and BYU all that different from having to fly to Pullman and Corvallis? Same distance, same weak recruiting markets, same hassles.

-Finally, U$C's rivalries with UCLA and Stanford are really, really important. Those schools, plus Votre Dame and the East Coast Ivies + Duke, are the schools U$C internally compares itself to - not just in sports, but in everything: academic recruiting, faculty hiring, fundraising, departmental quality, etc. U$C cares a lot about the schools it is categorized with. I don't know why you'd trade Stanford and UCLA for University of the Pacific and Santa Clara.

But just my two cents.

I think you're right.  I think part of the problem is that they've had fewer Pac-12 championships in the past decade than they've been accustomed to.  As others in the Pac-12 have risen, their star has diminished somewhat.  If they were an independent like Noter Dame, maybe they think they would get a better following.  But ND has a million Catholics who know how to stop by Target and Wal-Mart and buy green and blue gear.  USC has no such equivalent following.  There aren't a million football fans who aspire to be S.C.G.V.D.B's (SoCal Garden-Variety D-Bags).

[Mick]

I don't see why the other 11 schools would allow them to keep their other sports in the conference if they pull football out.  It's all or nothing.

Exactly.  Who would 'SC schedule if the Pac-12 schools declined to schedule them in anything?

[Mick]

I don't see why the other 11 schools would allow them to keep their other sports in the conference if they pull football out.  It's all or nothing.

Exactly.  Who would 'SC schedule if the Pac-12 schools declined to schedule them in anything?

[jacketree]

Didn't USC get tuned 51-6 by Bama just last year?

USC can ask BYU how awesome it is to be an independent.  I think the allure is even fading for the Irish, but they keep after it.  Scheduling would definitely be a problem if banned from playing the California teams.  But no one can ban whom you play, can they? As an independent they could annually schedule Stanford, UCLA, Cal, San Diego State and Notre Dame as rivals; grab one SEC opponent, one Big11 opponent and one BigXII opponent for recruiting exposure outside California, leaving 4 filler games.  Probably workable actually.  Don't see it happening though.

[jacketree]

Didn't USC get tuned 51-6 by Bama just last year?

USC can ask BYU how awesome it is to be an independent.  I think the allure is even fading for the Irish, but they keep after it.  Scheduling would definitely be a problem if banned from playing the California teams.  But no one can ban whom you play, can they? As an independent they could annually schedule Stanford, UCLA, Cal, San Diego State and Notre Dame as rivals; grab one SEC opponent, one Big11 opponent and one BigXII opponent for recruiting exposure outside California, leaving 4 filler games.  Probably workable actually.  Don't see it happening though.

[CTcard]

I guess this is a thing in Troojan-land, as now Wilner has a podcast and short article on the topic.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/13/ho...nsidering/

Wilner writes,

3. There are non-lunatic U$C fans who have become increasingly frustrated with the Pac-12 and believe that it would be in the school’s best interest to at least explore the option of becoming an Independent.

I know that sentence is completely false because I know the first five words are completely untrue.


There are two competing strains of complaint, which aren't new, aren't confined to $C and wouldn't be solved by leaving the conference.
1. Schedule that annoys fans with late games and weekday games.
2. Not as much money coming in as from Big Ten/SEC TV contracts.

Of course the less money coming in stems from being less popular, not some inherent incompetence. And the annoying schedule is an attempt to make more money come in. That's not gonna get much better, because the decision has already been made and the ADs/administrations can't really make a different fundamental choice.

As others have pointed out, while $C may get better than average Pac 12 viewership numbers, they aren't SEC-Big Ten numbers. Going to a worse schedule isn't going to make those viewership numbers better. So, where is the great source of money that will allow any redress? In the end they will be faced with the same issue, and a worse schedule.

My guess is that the independence discussion, like many things, is fans fantasizing and not anything serious coming out of the administration at $C. On the other hand, I don't really know how great is the grasp on reality of the $C administration.

[CTcard]

I guess this is a thing in Troojan-land, as now Wilner has a podcast and short article on the topic.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/13/ho...nsidering/

Wilner writes,

3. There are non-lunatic U$C fans who have become increasingly frustrated with the Pac-12 and believe that it would be in the school’s best interest to at least explore the option of becoming an Independent.

I know that sentence is completely false because I know the first five words are completely untrue.


There are two competing strains of complaint, which aren't new, aren't confined to $C and wouldn't be solved by leaving the conference.
1. Schedule that annoys fans with late games and weekday games.
2. Not as much money coming in as from Big Ten/SEC TV contracts.

Of course the less money coming in stems from being less popular, not some inherent incompetence. And the annoying schedule is an attempt to make more money come in. That's not gonna get much better, because the decision has already been made and the ADs/administrations can't really make a different fundamental choice.

As others have pointed out, while $C may get better than average Pac 12 viewership numbers, they aren't SEC-Big Ten numbers. Going to a worse schedule isn't going to make those viewership numbers better. So, where is the great source of money that will allow any redress? In the end they will be faced with the same issue, and a worse schedule.

My guess is that the independence discussion, like many things, is fans fantasizing and not anything serious coming out of the administration at $C. On the other hand, I don't really know how great is the grasp on reality of the $C administration.