[lex24]

1733953237[/url]']

1733948204[/url]']

1733945994[/url]']
Thanks for posting.  Big money flowing into college football.  

There is a link to an article about why the four PAC-12 schools joining B1G are going to soon regret it.  I haven't read the article yet.

Here is the B1G article (which was published before this football season) - https://nil-ncaa.com/big-ten-blues/

In its 2 case examples (Oklahoma vs. Nebraska and Virginia vs. Maryland), the 2 schools that changed conferences (Nebraska and Maryland) ended up worse off (in the author's opinion) because the large increase in media rights revenue was offset by a small decrease in booster support which may be related to a decline in football success in the new conference. The 2 schools that stayed (Oklahoma and Virginia) realized large increases in booster support, presumably because they were still competitive in their old conference.

In this analysis, Oregon would get the best of both sides - big media rights payday and increased booster support from their football success. Washington, USC and UCLA may not realize the financial windfall they expect if they remain middle of the pack in the B10.

My original point. USC could've been the big, fat, hairy deal in the Pac-12 almost every year. In the Big 10, they're now "who cares?" and a .500 team, albeit one that needs to travel much, much more.

Karma.

---

USC is earning double what they would have received, in a best case scenario, from the P12.  The same applies to UCLA.  

Had USC/UCLA been publicly-held companies, they would have had a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of their stockholders (fans).  Yes, they should have left an organization (P12) that was grossly mismanaged to join an organization (Big Ten) that was well managed.

I have often said that Stanford (and Cal) fans have no right to complain about the breakup of the P12.  Both schools would have leaped at the opportunity to join the Big Ten had they been the first choice rather than USC/UCLA.  

I have no hard feelings at all towards USC and UCLA.  As the saying goes, “It’s not personal, it’s strictly business”.

Yes, but they are not publicly held corporations. Their universities. And I’ll always have “hard feelings” about USC.”  And I will always hope that they fail miserably

[lex24]

1733953237[/url]']

1733948204[/url]']

1733945994[/url]']
Thanks for posting.  Big money flowing into college football.  

There is a link to an article about why the four PAC-12 schools joining B1G are going to soon regret it.  I haven't read the article yet.

Here is the B1G article (which was published before this football season) - https://nil-ncaa.com/big-ten-blues/

In its 2 case examples (Oklahoma vs. Nebraska and Virginia vs. Maryland), the 2 schools that changed conferences (Nebraska and Maryland) ended up worse off (in the author's opinion) because the large increase in media rights revenue was offset by a small decrease in booster support which may be related to a decline in football success in the new conference. The 2 schools that stayed (Oklahoma and Virginia) realized large increases in booster support, presumably because they were still competitive in their old conference.

In this analysis, Oregon would get the best of both sides - big media rights payday and increased booster support from their football success. Washington, USC and UCLA may not realize the financial windfall they expect if they remain middle of the pack in the B10.

My original point. USC could've been the big, fat, hairy deal in the Pac-12 almost every year. In the Big 10, they're now "who cares?" and a .500 team, albeit one that needs to travel much, much more.

Karma.

---

USC is earning double what they would have received, in a best case scenario, from the P12.  The same applies to UCLA.  

Had USC/UCLA been publicly-held companies, they would have had a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of their stockholders (fans).  Yes, they should have left an organization (P12) that was grossly mismanaged to join an organization (Big Ten) that was well managed.

I have often said that Stanford (and Cal) fans have no right to complain about the breakup of the P12.  Both schools would have leaped at the opportunity to join the Big Ten had they been the first choice rather than USC/UCLA.  

I have no hard feelings at all towards USC and UCLA.  As the saying goes, “It’s not personal, it’s strictly business”.

Yes, but they are not publicly held corporations. Their universities. And I’ll always have “hard feelings” about USC.”  And I will always hope that they fail miserably