(11-05-2022 11:48 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 06:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  If Stanford wanted to leave instead of UCLA, I'm not sure USC would have left. For that matter, if UCLA refused to leave I'm not at all sure that the B1G would have invited any team from the PAC. Travel would be difficult enough with two LA teams, but at least current Big teams would be able to visit the west coast with a single flight and hotel stay.

Yeah, who wants USC, they're only valuable if you get UCLA with them. Plus, USCtanford doesn't have the same ring to it as USCLA.

If the B1G had passed on either USC or UCLA, or both, then they'd both be joining the SEC in 2024.

I think the OP's hypothetical is that Gavin Newsom had found out about the negotiations before they were finalized, and he had blocked UCLA from joining.


If UCLA was blocked from leaving the PAC and the Big 10 (for travel reasons) wouldn't take USC without UCLA, I doubt the SEC would take USC without UCLA either.

(11-05-2022 07:28 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Reason #28 why I don't want Stanford in the Big Ten. Did you hear the story about them and their band and mascot?

I googles "Stanford Mascot" and found out that Stanford hates fun. They were never getting into the SEC anyway, but especially not now!

(11-05-2022 12:03 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 07:28 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Reason #28 why I don't want Stanford in the Big Ten. Did you hear the story about them and their band and mascot?

I googles "Stanford Mascot" and found out that Stanford hates fun. They were never getting into the SEC anyway, but especially not now!

It's a California school, not only that it's an Elitist California school.

(11-05-2022 09:15 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  USCLA only viable combo because of Olympic sports. 30 minutes from each campus. Only one road trip required for incumbent B1G members. Plus UCLA is second best all around program historically. It's still a cluster **** no matter how you slice and dice it though.

I've said this many times when people are critical of the B1G's previous moves from 2014: It's hard to criticize the B1G for any move they've made in Realignment since they're half of the P2. Rutgers was a good add. Maryland was a good add. USCLA was a good add.

Do you really thing that Rutgers athletes are going to complain about traveling to SoCal once or twice a year instead of just going to Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, etc etc etc all the time?

(11-05-2022 10:39 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  Stability is the wrong word. A leftover PAC with a team in LA is stronger than one without, but it doesn’t guarantee stability. The Big Ten is still looming.

As it stands now, if the Big Ten was definitively done with expansion, the PAC has stability because nobody is leaving for the Big 12 otherwise. But they don’t know that and having UCLA instead of Stanford doesn’t provide any more stability.

I actually think that it would provide more stability. Not b/c UCLA is somehow superior to Stanford, or b/c UCLA doesn't hate fun, but rather b/c Stanford has a long and distinguished history of blocking "lesser institutions" from joining the Pac. They put the kibosh on tx, a public Ivy, in 1990. They've put the kibosh on almost every team that was ever in the big 12 over the years. UCLA, despite their Stanford-esque Academics, has not been as opposed to expansion, and they would be more likely to vote in favor of additions in the future.

(11-05-2022 10:58 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 10:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 08:52 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 08:48 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 08:07 AM)Poster Wrote:  Attendance tends to translate into TV viewers. The Big Ten definitely cares about that.

Maryland and Rutgers love your positivity

1. Both of those teams had better attendance, and presumably TV viewership, a decade ago.

2. Markets mattered more a decade ago. That was pre-cord cutting.


3. A lot of people view that expansion as a “what in the world was the Big Ten thinking” move. I have a hard time seeing that being the blueprint for future expansions.


4. Wouldn’t USC (even without UCLA) be enough to put the BTN somewhat in market in the entire state of California? I really am not sold on the revenue that Stanford would supposedly add to the BTN.

1. Meh, Maryland certainly did playing ACC opponents. That’s been gone over quite a bit.

2. True, but that has nothing to do with their attendance being in the bottom half of the Big Ten when they were added. Probably bottom quarter. Big Ten doesn’t care about attendance.

3. Not me, I know exactly why they were added.

4. I have to think the Big Ten wanted to expand with a pair of schools: USC and Notre Dame. ND said no, and UCLA was the best available.

That being said, my argument is less about what they bring to the table but more about the Big Ten not caring about attendance. If UCLA/Cal were off the table, USC/Stanford would have happened because it would have increased the Big Ten payout substantially and the eggheads would have spilled their yolk at the idea.

Why do you think Stanford would increase the Big Ten payout substantially?


I always forget the exact numbers, but there’s at least one leaked study showing Stanford and Cal to be pretty clear money losers for the Big Ten. Not only would they produce less money than Oregon and Washington, but they also would produce less money than Arizona State and possibly a few other PAC teams that aren’t even rumored for Big Ten expansion.

Bob Thompson, a guy who would know about such things, has Stanford very close to Oregon/UW in overall value, and quite a bit ahead of the rest of the Pac.

(11-05-2022 12:22 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 10:58 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 10:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 08:52 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 08:48 AM)esayem Wrote:  Maryland and Rutgers love your positivity

1. Both of those teams had better attendance, and presumably TV viewership, a decade ago.

2. Markets mattered more a decade ago. That was pre-cord cutting.


3. A lot of people view that expansion as a “what in the world was the Big Ten thinking” move. I have a hard time seeing that being the blueprint for future expansions.


4. Wouldn’t USC (even without UCLA) be enough to put the BTN somewhat in market in the entire state of California? I really am not sold on the revenue that Stanford would supposedly add to the BTN.

1. Meh, Maryland certainly did playing ACC opponents. That’s been gone over quite a bit.

2. True, but that has nothing to do with their attendance being in the bottom half of the Big Ten when they were added. Probably bottom quarter. Big Ten doesn’t care about attendance.

3. Not me, I know exactly why they were added.

4. I have to think the Big Ten wanted to expand with a pair of schools: USC and Notre Dame. ND said no, and UCLA was the best available.

That being said, my argument is less about what they bring to the table but more about the Big Ten not caring about attendance. If UCLA/Cal were off the table, USC/Stanford would have happened because it would have increased the Big Ten payout substantially and the eggheads would have spilled their yolk at the idea.

Why do you think Stanford would increase the Big Ten payout substantially?


I always forget the exact numbers, but there’s at least one leaked study showing Stanford and Cal to be pretty clear money losers for the Big Ten. Not only would they produce less money than Oregon and Washington, but they also would produce less money than Arizona State and possibly a few other PAC teams that aren’t even rumored for Big Ten expansion.

Bob Thompson, a guy who would know about such things, has Stanford very close to Oregon/UW in overall value, and quite a bit ahead of the rest of the Pac.

Thompson's point values are


Washington 36

Oregon 34

Stanford 30

Cal 20


Cal is actually behind Arizona State and Utah. (I thought that Stanford might have been behind those teams too, but they weren't.)


At the very least, that makes Cal's Big 10 prospects look bad.

(11-05-2022 12:10 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 09:15 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  USCLA only viable combo because of Olympic sports. 30 minutes from each campus. Only one road trip required for incumbent B1G members. Plus UCLA is second best all around program historically. It's still a cluster **** no matter how you slice and dice it though.

I've said this many times when people are critical of the B1G's previous moves from 2014: It's hard to criticize the B1G for any move they've made in Realignment since they're half of the P2. Rutgers was a good add. Maryland was a good add. USCLA was a good add.

Do you really thing that Rutgers athletes are going to complain about traveling to SoCal once or twice a year instead of just going to Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, etc etc etc all the time?

CFB revenues in all conferences have grown to the point that the Big 12 can increase their per-school income after losing Texas and Oklahoma.

Do you seriously think that Rutgers and Maryland are the reason why the Big 10 has increased its income so much?

(11-05-2022 12:51 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 12:22 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Bob Thompson, a guy who would know about such things, has Stanford very close to Oregon/UW in overall value, and quite a bit ahead of the rest of the Pac.

Thompson's point values are

Washington 36

Oregon 34

Stanford 30

Cal 20

Cal is actually behind Arizona State and Utah. (I thought that Stanford might have been behind those teams too, but they weren't.)

At the very least, that makes Cal's Big 10 prospects look bad.

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-ma...th-pac-12s
"The ex-Fox Sports Network president, Bob Thompson, placed Oregon’s media-rights value at $30 million and Stanford’s at $45 million when I pressed him."

"Cal is paired with Stanford and sits in the Bay Area television market. Because of that former Fox Sports Network president Bob Thompson told me he believes Cal/Stanford are worth $90 million total in annual television revenue. That is a huge advantage."

Cal and Stanford produce a lot of NFL talent. The NFL 2010's All-Decade Team had four players from Cal on it: Aaron Rodgers, Marshawn Lynch, Cameron Jordan and Alex Mack. The Bay Area is the sixth largest TV market in the country. This is an area with a lot of football talent and with two top academic institutions, Stanford and Cal are very attractive additions for the Big Ten. I just think there is a law of diminshing returns for the Big Ten to grow the conference further at this time. By 2030, things could be different.

(11-05-2022 10:58 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 10:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 08:52 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 08:48 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 08:07 AM)Poster Wrote:  Attendance tends to translate into TV viewers. The Big Ten definitely cares about that.

Maryland and Rutgers love your positivity

1. Both of those teams had better attendance, and presumably TV viewership, a decade ago.

2. Markets mattered more a decade ago. That was pre-cord cutting.


3. A lot of people view that expansion as a “what in the world was the Big Ten thinking” move. I have a hard time seeing that being the blueprint for future expansions.


4. Wouldn’t USC (even without UCLA) be enough to put the BTN somewhat in market in the entire state of California? I really am not sold on the revenue that Stanford would supposedly add to the BTN.

1. Meh, Maryland certainly did playing ACC opponents. That’s been gone over quite a bit.

2. True, but that has nothing to do with their attendance being in the bottom half of the Big Ten when they were added. Probably bottom quarter. Big Ten doesn’t care about attendance.

3. Not me, I know exactly why they were added.

4. I have to think the Big Ten wanted to expand with a pair of schools: USC and Notre Dame. ND said no, and UCLA was the best available.

That being said, my argument is less about what they bring to the table but more about the Big Ten not caring about attendance. If UCLA/Cal were off the table, USC/Stanford would have happened because it would have increased the Big Ten payout substantially and the eggheads would have spilled their yolk at the idea.

Why do you think Stanford would increase the Big Ten payout substantially?


I always forget the exact numbers, but there’s at least one leaked study showing Stanford and Cal to be pretty clear money losers for the Big Ten. Not only would they produce less money than Oregon and Washington, but they also would produce less money than Arizona State and possibly a few other PAC teams that aren’t even rumored for Big Ten expansion.

Stanford by themselves don’t, but pretty much any Pac team + USC would have warranted Big Ten expansion.

(11-05-2022 09:04 AM)ken d Wrote:  That's probably true. But the premise of the OP is that UCLA would not be part of the B1G expansion.

I covered that in the paragraph just above this. Any other school would have taken the call:

the B1G has been approached by everyone in a P5/M3 conference. Everyone wants a call up.

And any other PAC school with USC would have been a bonus for the B1G. So.

The deal was to lock ESPN out of LA. They did that.

(11-05-2022 08:02 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 07:16 AM)Poster Wrote:  Why do you think that Stanford and their 32,000 fans a game would have been the PAC’s #2 pick?



You should start your hypothetical by suggesting that the Big 10 would have selected a higher revenue team from the PAC to go with USC.

I really don’t think the Big Ten cares about attendance

No one does. It is about TV.

(11-05-2022 12:51 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 12:22 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 10:58 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 10:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 08:52 AM)Poster Wrote:  1. Both of those teams had better attendance, and presumably TV viewership, a decade ago.

2. Markets mattered more a decade ago. That was pre-cord cutting.


3. A lot of people view that expansion as a “what in the world was the Big Ten thinking” move. I have a hard time seeing that being the blueprint for future expansions.


4. Wouldn’t USC (even without UCLA) be enough to put the BTN somewhat in market in the entire state of California? I really am not sold on the revenue that Stanford would supposedly add to the BTN.

1. Meh, Maryland certainly did playing ACC opponents. That’s been gone over quite a bit.

2. True, but that has nothing to do with their attendance being in the bottom half of the Big Ten when they were added. Probably bottom quarter. Big Ten doesn’t care about attendance.

3. Not me, I know exactly why they were added.

4. I have to think the Big Ten wanted to expand with a pair of schools: USC and Notre Dame. ND said no, and UCLA was the best available.

That being said, my argument is less about what they bring to the table but more about the Big Ten not caring about attendance. If UCLA/Cal were off the table, USC/Stanford would have happened because it would have increased the Big Ten payout substantially and the eggheads would have spilled their yolk at the idea.

Why do you think Stanford would increase the Big Ten payout substantially?


I always forget the exact numbers, but there’s at least one leaked study showing Stanford and Cal to be pretty clear money losers for the Big Ten. Not only would they produce less money than Oregon and Washington, but they also would produce less money than Arizona State and possibly a few other PAC teams that aren’t even rumored for Big Ten expansion.

Bob Thompson, a guy who would know about such things, has Stanford very close to Oregon/UW in overall value, and quite a bit ahead of the rest of the Pac.

Thompson's point values are


Washington 36

Oregon 34

Stanford 30

Cal 20


Cal is actually behind Arizona State and Utah. (I thought that Stanford might have been behind those teams too, but they weren't.)


At the very least, that makes Cal's Big 10 prospects look bad.

Interesting to note that Thompson has valued SDSU at $23M. I don't understand the love for Cal, loaded with debt and have lousy FB and BB teams. But yeah, they are very woke.

(11-05-2022 10:39 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  Stability is the wrong word. A leftover PAC with a team in LA is stronger than one without, but it doesn’t guarantee stability. The Big Ten is still looming.

As it stands now, if the Big Ten was definitively done with expansion, the PAC has stability because nobody is leaving for the Big 12 otherwise. But they don’t know that and having UCLA instead of Stanford doesn’t provide any more stability.

The only sensible post in this thread. Naturally, everyone ignored it. I didnt, great points.

If the state forces UCLA to stay, watch for the Big to pick up Stanford, Washington, and Oregon to make them pay.

(11-06-2022 10:35 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  If the state forces UCLA to stay, watch for the Big to pick up Stanford, Washington, and Oregon to make them pay.

Well, maybe one of those. UCLA was taken just to lock ESPN out of the LA market. Pretty sure the PAC would trade keeping UCLA over the loss of any other school.

(11-05-2022 07:32 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 07:28 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Reason #28 why I don't want Stanford in the Big Ten. Did you hear the story about them and their band and mascot?

I was on Google one day and the Stanford mascot was one of the first search suggestions because apparently something happened to get it a whole lot of worldwide attention. I didn’t even bother to read that story. Mostly because I didn’t even want to think about the Stanford mascot.


The Stanford tree is by far the most hideous mascot in college sports.

BTW, before 1972 Stanford's athletic team's nickname was "Indians".

(11-05-2022 11:48 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2022 06:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  If Stanford wanted to leave instead of UCLA, I'm not sure USC would have left. For that matter, if UCLA refused to leave I'm not at all sure that the B1G would have invited any team from the PAC. Travel would be difficult enough with two LA teams, but at least current Big teams would be able to visit the west coast with a single flight and hotel stay.

Yeah, who wants USC, they're only valuable if you get UCLA with them. Plus, USCtanford doesn't have the same ring to it as USCLA.

If the B1G had passed on either USC or UCLA, or both, then they'd both be joining the SEC in 2024.

The SEC has no desire to expand outside of its region and if it added Kansas it would be a peripheral move to secure a rivalry and lend group integrity to the additions of Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, and A&M.

This is an indefensible quip. What would likely have happened had the Big 10 passed on the Los Angeles pair is that Southern Cal could have explored, likely successfully, an independent option which would have still wounded the PAC 12, and may well have been entertained by ESPN which would have used the ACC, SEC, and some of its Big 12 rights to help them with a schedule.

The loss of USC would have left the PAC with no football teams which had at least one national championship in 30 years, counting the vacated title in 2004. As an independent USC, aligned with ESPN, would have weakened the Big 10's hopes of landing the Irish to a greater extent, would have isolated the Big 10's position in football even more with ND and USC associated with Southern ESPN holdings, and that is why the move was a no brainer for the Big 10.

Now, they need to finish it with Washington and Oregon which most years out earn USC and UCLA and which together represent the 4 top earners and values of the PAC 12 with Arizona State being 5th (non AAU) and Stanford 6th.

(11-06-2022 10:35 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  If the state forces UCLA to stay, watch for the Big to pick up Stanford, Washington, and Oregon to make them pay.

I don't believe the UC Regents have that power.