Maybe I missed something, but it feels like this thread is really jumping the gun and assuming the end of the Pac 12 is coming. Is it understood the Pac 12 is “ending” if USC and UCLA leave?
First, is it 100% yet that they are leaving? Last I saw, Wilner thought there was still a 10-15% chance it wouldn’t go through (at least, for UCLA).
Second, I’d argue the tradeoffs just changed dramatically with the 12 team CFB playoff. Would it be better for USC to be part of the Pac 12 and make semi-regular appearances in the CFB or be in the Big 10 and never go? Which path sells more tickets and jerseys and pulls in more donations?
I would argue the UCLA and USC presidents/chancellors haven’t thought through the long-term implications of this plan. In the long run, going to the Big 10 will be disastrous. Instead of having 1-2 trips per year to Notre Dame/Central Florida/Vanderbilt, they will have 5-6 trips per year to Ohio State/Michigan. Their non-conference games may be against Stanford, USC/UCLA and Notre Dame. So they will be constantly jetlagged, exhausted, they will lose more than a week of practice due to travel, and they will have the most brutal schedules in the nation. Other Big 10 teams will fly out to sunny CA once a year, but the LA Traitorous Two will fly out to the Midwest 4-6 times a year. Sports with lots of games — like basketball and baseball — will be ruined by all the travel. Eventually, they will become the poster children of schools abusing students for revenues, their players will be exhausted and have fewer practices, they will have a harder time graduating, they will become bottom dwellers in their conference, and eventually, recruits will start wondering — why should I go to UCLA/USC to be in the Big 10 and spend half my life travelling, when I could go to Ohio State, play in the Big 10, and not be at a disadvantage due to all the travel? Why be a midwest conference team 5 hours away from the midwest?
And last, who is to say the Pac 12 won’t be a good place to be even without the Los Angelenos? Even without those two, it’ll still be one of the top 5 conferences, just an even more distant fifth. The Pac 10 will still pull in more money than non Power 5 conferences, and it’ll be a nice little perch for sending teams into the expanded college football playoffs.
Even if you subtract LA County, the Pac 12 will still cover areas with an audience of 58 million viewers (instead of 68 million), including many of the nation’s highest income, highest wealth markets.
First, is it 100% yet that they are leaving? Last I saw, Wilner thought there was still a 10-15% chance it wouldn’t go through (at least, for UCLA).
Second, I’d argue the tradeoffs just changed dramatically with the 12 team CFB playoff. Would it be better for USC to be part of the Pac 12 and make semi-regular appearances in the CFB or be in the Big 10 and never go? Which path sells more tickets and jerseys and pulls in more donations?
I would argue the UCLA and USC presidents/chancellors haven’t thought through the long-term implications of this plan. In the long run, going to the Big 10 will be disastrous. Instead of having 1-2 trips per year to Notre Dame/Central Florida/Vanderbilt, they will have 5-6 trips per year to Ohio State/Michigan. Their non-conference games may be against Stanford, USC/UCLA and Notre Dame. So they will be constantly jetlagged, exhausted, they will lose more than a week of practice due to travel, and they will have the most brutal schedules in the nation. Other Big 10 teams will fly out to sunny CA once a year, but the LA Traitorous Two will fly out to the Midwest 4-6 times a year. Sports with lots of games — like basketball and baseball — will be ruined by all the travel. Eventually, they will become the poster children of schools abusing students for revenues, their players will be exhausted and have fewer practices, they will have a harder time graduating, they will become bottom dwellers in their conference, and eventually, recruits will start wondering — why should I go to UCLA/USC to be in the Big 10 and spend half my life travelling, when I could go to Ohio State, play in the Big 10, and not be at a disadvantage due to all the travel? Why be a midwest conference team 5 hours away from the midwest?
And last, who is to say the Pac 12 won’t be a good place to be even without the Los Angelenos? Even without those two, it’ll still be one of the top 5 conferences, just an even more distant fifth. The Pac 10 will still pull in more money than non Power 5 conferences, and it’ll be a nice little perch for sending teams into the expanded college football playoffs.
Even if you subtract LA County, the Pac 12 will still cover areas with an audience of 58 million viewers (instead of 68 million), including many of the nation’s highest income, highest wealth markets.