I think you seem to be overvaluing the "USC's in Los Angeles, teams will want to play in Los Angeles" aspect. Last time I checked, so was UCLA. Assuming USC goes independent and UCLA stays in the Pac-12, Pac-12 teams still will be going to LA to play UCLA, do they really need to play at USC to play in LA? No. Other schools can always play at UCLA too. When A&M left for the SEC, the Texas-Texas A&M game stopped. When Missouri left for the SEC, the Kansas-Missouri game stopped. I can see several Pac-12 teams telling USC they won't play them if USC leaves the conference similar to the bad blood of the other rivalry games. UCLA probably will still play them (or who knows, maybe they won't, if Texas and A&M won't play, all bets are off). But no one in the Pac-12 needs to play USC to play in LA as long as UCLA's still there.

You can say UCLA's not USC. Last time I checked, USC's recruiting class was 78th nationally and dead last in the Pac-12 (https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story...-ranking). You know you suck when you can't outrecruit Oregon State and Wazzu.

Can USC get better? Sure. Is USC a better program in general than UCLA? Of course. But if USC were a top program, the Pac-12 wouldn't have the financial issues they have now. Ohio State and Alabama aren't talking about going independent. They have to share with the Northwesterns and Mississippi States of the world. But 1/14th of the pies they're getting are still big pieces! The problem is the Pac-12 pies are tiny.

If USC wants a bigger piece of the Pac-12 TV revenue, don't be surprised to see Arizona, ASU, and/or Colorado contacting the Big 12.

(02-29-2020 09:13 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-28-2020 12:19 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-28-2020 11:50 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-28-2020 11:33 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  In one of the many previous realignment hypothetical threads, there were some proposals of creating a national high academic/athletic conference/alliance involving private institutions. I'm sure there are many hurdles for Olympic sports and travel, but here is what it could look like:

Boston College
Duke
Notre Dame
Miami
Northwestern
Rice
SMU
Stanford
Tulane
USC
Vanderbilt
Wake Forest

Call it the Snotty Conference, the Spoiled Rich Conference, or the You're Not Good Enough For Us Conference.

No Syracuse ?

Apparently this conference would not want to be associated with the best TV and Sports Journalism school or the school leading the nation in men's basketball attendance. A school bigger in size than most of the schools on the list.

Apologies - I had Syracuse listed, but when I was reorganizing the programs in alphabetical order, I must have accidentally deleted them.

FWIW, I also had Georgetown listed in there as well (which I also must have deleted). Here it is again:

Boston College
Duke
Georgetown
Notre Dame
Miami
Northwestern
Rice
SMU
Stanford
Syracuse
Tulane
USC
Vanderbilt
Wake Forest

(02-29-2020 10:11 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I think you seem to be overvaluing the "USC's in Los Angeles, teams will want to play in Los Angeles" aspect. Last time I checked, so was UCLA. Assuming USC goes independent and UCLA stays in the Pac-12, Pac-12 teams still will be going to LA to play UCLA, do they really need to play at USC to play in LA? No. Other schools can always play at UCLA too. When A&M left for the SEC, the Texas-Texas A&M game stopped. When Missouri left for the SEC, the Kansas-Missouri game stopped. I can see several Pac-12 teams telling USC they won't play them if USC leaves the conference similar to the bad blood of the other rivalry games. UCLA probably will still play them (or who knows, maybe they won't, if Texas and A&M won't play, all bets are off). But no one in the Pac-12 needs to play USC to play in LA as long as UCLA's still there.

You can say UCLA's not USC. Last time I checked, USC's recruiting class was 78th nationally and dead last in the Pac-12 (https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story...-ranking). You know you suck when you can't outrecruit Oregon State and Wazzu.

Can USC get better? Sure. Is USC a better program in general than UCLA? Of course. But if USC were a top program, the Pac-12 wouldn't have the financial issues they have now. Ohio State and Alabama aren't talking about going independent. They have to share with the Northwesterns and Mississippi States of the world. But 1/14th of the pies they're getting are still big pieces! The problem is the Pac-12 pies are tiny.

That may go away in the future as the big "brands", the blue bloods who actually generate TV viewership may tire of subsidizing other schools in their conferences.

(02-29-2020 11:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-29-2020 10:11 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I think you seem to be overvaluing the "USC's in Los Angeles, teams will want to play in Los Angeles" aspect. Last time I checked, so was UCLA. Assuming USC goes independent and UCLA stays in the Pac-12, Pac-12 teams still will be going to LA to play UCLA, do they really need to play at USC to play in LA? No. Other schools can always play at UCLA too. When A&M left for the SEC, the Texas-Texas A&M game stopped. When Missouri left for the SEC, the Kansas-Missouri game stopped. I can see several Pac-12 teams telling USC they won't play them if USC leaves the conference similar to the bad blood of the other rivalry games. UCLA probably will still play them (or who knows, maybe they won't, if Texas and A&M won't play, all bets are off). But no one in the Pac-12 needs to play USC to play in LA as long as UCLA's still there.

You can say UCLA's not USC. Last time I checked, USC's recruiting class was 78th nationally and dead last in the Pac-12 (https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story...-ranking). You know you suck when you can't outrecruit Oregon State and Wazzu.

Can USC get better? Sure. Is USC a better program in general than UCLA? Of course. But if USC were a top program, the Pac-12 wouldn't have the financial issues they have now. Ohio State and Alabama aren't talking about going independent. They have to share with the Northwesterns and Mississippi States of the world. But 1/14th of the pies they're getting are still big pieces! The problem is the Pac-12 pies are tiny.

That may go away in the future as the big "brands", the blue bloods who actually generate TV viewership may tire of subsidizing other schools in their conferences.

But there's a good reason why it hasn't happened yet - Blue Bloods need somebody to play, even other than each other. A league consisting of nothing but the top 20 or 30 brands would fizzle pretty quick, IMO, as fans would tire of it.

Truth is, a Michigan fan doesn't want Michigan to play Notre Dame and Ohio State every week. They would lose a lot more games and the games would lose lustre. One reason Michigan vs Ohio State is so big is because the rest of the season consists of games vs lesser opponents. You need the lesser opponents, hence the conference structure. The conference structure then creates history, which raises fan interest. That's why in the SEC, the entire core of the conference are rivals, and the fans like it that way. LSU sells out for Mississippi State not just for Auburn.

I mean, Notre Dame is as big a brand as anyone, but it gets considerably less media money these days than does any other blue-blood, even the PAC and ACC schools. That's because it lacks that cohesive roster of readymade opponents that a conference provides.

(02-29-2020 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-29-2020 11:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-29-2020 10:11 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I think you seem to be overvaluing the "USC's in Los Angeles, teams will want to play in Los Angeles" aspect. Last time I checked, so was UCLA. Assuming USC goes independent and UCLA stays in the Pac-12, Pac-12 teams still will be going to LA to play UCLA, do they really need to play at USC to play in LA? No. Other schools can always play at UCLA too. When A&M left for the SEC, the Texas-Texas A&M game stopped. When Missouri left for the SEC, the Kansas-Missouri game stopped. I can see several Pac-12 teams telling USC they won't play them if USC leaves the conference similar to the bad blood of the other rivalry games. UCLA probably will still play them (or who knows, maybe they won't, if Texas and A&M won't play, all bets are off). But no one in the Pac-12 needs to play USC to play in LA as long as UCLA's still there.

You can say UCLA's not USC. Last time I checked, USC's recruiting class was 78th nationally and dead last in the Pac-12 (https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story...-ranking). You know you suck when you can't outrecruit Oregon State and Wazzu.

Can USC get better? Sure. Is USC a better program in general than UCLA? Of course. But if USC were a top program, the Pac-12 wouldn't have the financial issues they have now. Ohio State and Alabama aren't talking about going independent. They have to share with the Northwesterns and Mississippi States of the world. But 1/14th of the pies they're getting are still big pieces! The problem is the Pac-12 pies are tiny.

That may go away in the future as the big "brands", the blue bloods who actually generate TV viewership may tire of subsidizing other schools in their conferences.

But there's a good reason why it hasn't happened yet - Blue Bloods need somebody to play, even other than each other. A league consisting of nothing but the top 20 or 30 brands would fizzle pretty quick, IMO, as fans would tire of it.

Truth is, a Michigan fan doesn't want Michigan to play Notre Dame and Ohio State every week. They would lose a lot more games and the games would lose lustre. One reason Michigan vs Ohio State is so big is because the rest of the season consists of games vs lesser opponents. You need the lesser opponents, hence the conference structure. The conference structure then creates history, which raises fan interest. That's why in the SEC, the entire core of the conference are rivals, and the fans like it that way. LSU sells out for Mississippi State not just for Auburn.

I mean, Notre Dame is as big a brand as anyone, but it gets considerably less media money these days than does any other blue-blood, even the PAC and ACC schools. That's because it lacks that cohesive roster of readymade opponents that a conference provides.

It hasn't happened...yet.

But to pick up JR's theme....if in the future money from the state budget and elsewhere dries up, such an arrangement may look better and better.

Who knows? Its as speculative a theme as any on these boards.

(02-28-2020 09:28 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  They'll continue to play UCLA. That's nearly certain. Stanford and Cal will also figure a lot. After that, a mix of Notre Dame, Arizona State, Oregon, Big Ten, SEC, anyone who wants to have some West Coast exposure. BYU would be available at some point.

Possibly Amazon, Comcast or Sinclair (with their newly acquired regional networks).

Considering that the Mountain and Northwest schools need to play in Southern California, I'll say that USC would have a lot more leverage than many other programs. If, say, USC and Stanford become independent, then that forces the other PAC schools to look to add from the CTZ. If PAC schools will play BYU then they'll certainly play USC and Stanford.

Pride and ego will only go so far until the athletic directors look at their schedules and try to find ways to keep the fan base interested.

With that said, it's possible that they won't leave but be part of a greater re-organization. Both the Pac-12 and Big 12 Grants of Rights will end almost simultaneously, so there's a huge opportunity to do something drastic.

It is a 99.9% possibility they won't leave. Notre Dame gets paid $15 million annually for their football deal with NBC, plus another $8 million from the ACC. USC gets $33 million from the Pac-12.

Scheduling UCLA will be very difficult. The UCLA football schedule is done for 2025 & 2026. Most Pac-12 schools will have their non-conference schedules done for future years. That is if they want to play USC in football. Then there is the issue of where they put their 20 Olympic sports. It is just not going to happen. USC is not unhappy with the Pac-12, they are unhappy with Larry Scott. You don't leave a conference because of a conference commissioner, you fire the conference commissioner.

If State money dries up, the UC Schools and UW are in good position as institutions. They have money coming in from from other sources. ASU and UofA are also tied in to the California Nexus, as is CU. That binds these schools together like no other conference. And it's at the faculty level.

Comparisons of USC to Notre Dame miss the mark; a better comparison would be Miami (FL), both in their appeal to low "hood" athletes and their smaller undergraduate student body composed of not quite elite, but very wealthy kids. Their fan base is disconnected for the most part from the institutional side, and looks more like "Raider Nation" Lite. There isn't the depth of a big public school, unlike Notre Dame who has the equivalent from Catholic America, especially in the Midwest. USC is important to the P12, but they do not have an out sized share of the viewership. They are not Alabama, Texas or Ohio State in that regard. And even Ohio State knows full well that they alone are not as powerful as the association with out large fan bases of Michigan, Penn State and Wisconsin. Alabama is equally aware that their brand has more weight in association with Tennessee, Florida, Georgia and LSU. And USC does not rise to the same level. They do not have legions whose entire identity as Angelinos depend on Trojan football; that just doesn't exits like it does in Ohio, Alabama and Michigan (among many others). USC as an Independent would be little better than BYU.

Also comparisons of Arizona State and Arizona to the plains States or Southern schools also miss the mark. These both have levels of research double the likes of Oklahoma, Nebraska, Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia and so on. They are also dependent upon California both for institutional money and for students and alumni. The levels of this money are far greater than the athletic budgets. In short neither Arizona school can survive without California. Fantasy realignments die right there in the faculty room.

Like it or not, the Oregon, Washington, Arizona and California schools are so interdependent they can't go anywhere else.

(02-29-2020 11:19 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(02-29-2020 09:13 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-28-2020 12:19 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-28-2020 11:50 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-28-2020 11:33 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  In one of the many previous realignment hypothetical threads, there were some proposals of creating a national high academic/athletic conference/alliance involving private institutions. I'm sure there are many hurdles for Olympic sports and travel, but here is what it could look like:

Boston College
Duke
Notre Dame
Miami
Northwestern
Rice
SMU
Stanford
Tulane
USC
Vanderbilt
Wake Forest

Call it the Snotty Conference, the Spoiled Rich Conference, or the You're Not Good Enough For Us Conference.

No Syracuse ?

Apparently this conference would not want to be associated with the best TV and Sports Journalism school or the school leading the nation in men's basketball attendance. A school bigger in size than most of the schools on the list.

Apologies - I had Syracuse listed, but when I was reorganizing the programs in alphabetical order, I must have accidentally deleted them.

FWIW, I also had Georgetown listed in there as well (which I also must have deleted). Here it is again:

Boston College
Duke
Georgetown
Notre Dame
Miami
Northwestern
Rice
SMU
Stanford
Syracuse
Tulane
USC
Vanderbilt
Wake Forest

Other locales that could be brought in are non-football members or some with football.

Fordham or Saint Johns in NY.
Villanova
Mercer
Jacksonville
Tampa D2
Saint Louis
Dayton
Marquette
Butler
Bellarmine
Tulsa
TCU
U. of San Diego
Denver
BYU
Saint Mary's
Gonzaga


Those could help to ease the cost of travel, and they are either R1 or R2 by Carnegie Rankings.

(02-28-2020 06:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-28-2020 01:24 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  She did exactly that. The prior three AD's were all ex-USC football players with no prior experience. She hired a real athletic director.

FWIW, as a Georgetown supporter of more than 40 years, I will always love John Thompson, and Patrick Ewing will always be my #1 hoops hero, but for over a decade now I've felt that we needed to do the same thing your alumni group advocated for USC - hire a real experienced coach, not a legendary Hoya player or relative of the same with little track record.

I don't think Georgetown hoops will regain its proper stature until we stop hiring "within the family". We need an outside perspective. Coach Thompson himself had no connections to Georgetown when he was hired back in the 1970s.

Quo, it is not my alumni group. I am a UCLA fan and I was a member of a UCLA alumni group. The Pac-12 needs USC to play well in football. At this point in time, the conference cannot count on UCLA football. I know the frustration USC football fans are feeling, because UCLA has not won a conference title in football since 1998. But I agree with you about hiring "within the family." It has not worked well for UCLA or USC.

(02-29-2020 02:31 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  If State money dries up, the UC Schools and UW are in good position as institutions. They have money coming in from from other sources. ASU and UofA are also tied in to the California Nexus, as is CU. That binds these schools together like no other conference. And it's at the faculty level.

Comparisons of USC to Notre Dame miss the mark; a better comparison would be Miami (FL), both in their appeal to low "hood" athletes and their smaller undergraduate student body composed of not quite elite, but very wealthy kids. Their fan base is disconnected for the most part from the institutional side, and looks more like "Raider Nation" Lite. There isn't the depth of a big public school, unlike Notre Dame who has the equivalent from Catholic America, especially in the Midwest. USC is important to the P12, but they do not have an out sized share of the viewership. They are not Alabama, Texas or Ohio State in that regard. And even Ohio State knows full well that they alone are not as powerful as the association with out large fan bases of Michigan, Penn State and Wisconsin. Alabama is equally aware that their brand has more weight in association with Tennessee, Florida, Georgia and LSU. And USC does not rise to the same level. They do not have legions whose entire identity as Angelinos depend on Trojan football; that just doesn't exits like it does in Ohio, Alabama and Michigan (among many others). USC as an Independent would be little better than BYU.

Also comparisons of Arizona State and Arizona to the plains States or Southern schools also miss the mark. These both have levels of research double the likes of Oklahoma, Nebraska, Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia and so on. They are also dependent upon California both for institutional money and for students and alumni. The levels of this money are far greater than the athletic budgets. In short neither Arizona school can survive without California. Fantasy realignments die right there in the faculty room.

Like it or not, the Oregon, Washington, Arizona and California schools are so interdependent they can't go anywhere else.

Stugray, I can't dispute a single point you make here. I agree that realignment from the PAC 12 is not a good bet. But the prospect of starving through another weak media contract while the SEC/B1G widen the gap is not appealing. There is a window coming up that USC and/or Stanford may want to take advantage of. Let's hide and watch.