CSNbbs

That wouldn't surprise me. They had LA market with USC, OR would give them a really good program, plus another market to sell.

(03-19-2023 08:19 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]That wouldn't surprise me. They had LA market with USC, OR would give them a really good program, plus another market to sell.

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me either.

Some have said that they needed UCLA to truly lock down the LA market, but IMO, USC does that by themselves, in terms of allowing the B1G to financially exploit LA.

Taking UCLA did freeze the PAC out of the LA market, but IMO the B1G didn't have an incentive to do that on purpose. They don't compete geographically with the PAC like they do with the ACC in the northeast corridor. Heck, leaving UCLA in the PAC arguably would have had a benefit - keeping the integrity of the Rose Bowl much more intact.

(03-19-2023 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:19 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]That wouldn't surprise me. They had LA market with USC, OR would give them a really good program, plus another market to sell.

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me either.

Some have said that they needed UCLA to truly lock down the LA market, but IMO, USC does that by themselves, in terms of allowing the B1G to financially exploit LA.

Taking UCLA did freeze the PAC out of the LA market, but IMO the B1G didn't have an incentive to do that on purpose. They don't compete geographically with the PAC like they do with the ACC in the northeast corridor. Heck, leaving UCLA in the PAC arguably would have had a benefit - keeping the integrity of the Rose Bowl much more intact.

I find it plausible, too. Robbins is an authoritative source, naturally, and relationships matter. Oregon's president is well connected to the B1G Ten, as Maryland's was a decade ago.

(03-19-2023 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:19 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]That wouldn't surprise me. They had LA market with USC, OR would give them a really good program, plus another market to sell.

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me either.

Some have said that they needed UCLA to truly lock down the LA market, but IMO, USC does that by themselves, in terms of allowing the B1G to financially exploit LA.

Taking UCLA did freeze the PAC out of the LA market, but IMO the B1G didn't have an incentive to do that on purpose. They don't compete geographically with the PAC like they do with the ACC in the northeast corridor. Heck, leaving UCLA in the PAC arguably would have had a benefit - keeping the integrity of the Rose Bowl much more intact.

Taking Oregon in place of UCLA would have been the better move for the BIG. They caused irreparable damage by adding both LA schools to the conferece. Look at the mess the PAC is in as a result.

(03-19-2023 08:35 AM)Gitanole Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:19 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]That wouldn't surprise me. They had LA market with USC, OR would give them a really good program, plus another market to sell.

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me either.

Some have said that they needed UCLA to truly lock down the LA market, but IMO, USC does that by themselves, in terms of allowing the B1G to financially exploit LA.

Taking UCLA did freeze the PAC out of the LA market, but IMO the B1G didn't have an incentive to do that on purpose. They don't compete geographically with the PAC like they do with the ACC in the northeast corridor. Heck, leaving UCLA in the PAC arguably would have had a benefit - keeping the integrity of the Rose Bowl much more intact.

I find it plausible, too. Robbins is an authoritative source, naturally, and relationships matter. Oregon's president is well connected to the B1G Ten, as Maryland's was a decade ago.

Is he though? Is the President of the University of Arizona in a position to know this, or is he more likely to be kept in the dark and blindsided?

I mean he has better sources of rumors and information than you or I do, but I guarantee that nobody from USC told him anything before they dropped the bomb.

Do we choose to believe that The Powers That Be at Oregon stayed quiet and took it gracefully when they were dropped from the Big Ten adventure? Oregon was in the initial plan, got replaced, and stayed quiet? Does that make sense?

This sounds snarky maybe, and I'm sorry about the tone. I'm just trying to evaluate the information we're getting and how good it is.

If true, I would think this might bode well for Oregon (to the Big Ten) in the future.

(03-19-2023 09:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:35 AM)Gitanole Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:19 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]That wouldn't surprise me. They had LA market with USC, OR would give them a really good program, plus another market to sell.

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me either.

Some have said that they needed UCLA to truly lock down the LA market, but IMO, USC does that by themselves, in terms of allowing the B1G to financially exploit LA.

Taking UCLA did freeze the PAC out of the LA market, but IMO the B1G didn't have an incentive to do that on purpose. They don't compete geographically with the PAC like they do with the ACC in the northeast corridor. Heck, leaving UCLA in the PAC arguably would have had a benefit - keeping the integrity of the Rose Bowl much more intact.

I find it plausible, too. Robbins is an authoritative source, naturally, and relationships matter. Oregon's president is well connected to the B1G Ten, as Maryland's was a decade ago.

Is he though? Is the President of the University of Arizona in a position to know this, or is he more likely to be kept in the dark and blindsided?

I mean he has better sources of rumors and information than you or I do, but I guarantee that nobody from USC told him anything before they dropped the bomb.

Do we choose to believe that The Powers That Be at Oregon stayed quiet and took it gracefully when they were dropped from the Big Ten adventure? Oregon was in the initial plan, got replaced, and stayed quiet? Does that make sense?

This sounds snarky maybe, and I'm sorry about the tone. I'm just trying to evaluate the information we're getting and how good it is.

Yeah - my thinking is that this was post-hoc analysis and speaking to some media consultants after the fact. By all indications, everyone in the Pac-12 was 100% blindsided. UCLA didn’t even tell their own freaking Board of Regents (including the Governor). I doubt Oregon itself was in any talks *before* the USC/UCLA move at all or else it wouldn’t have caught everyone in the league (including Oregon) with total shock.

(03-19-2023 09:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:35 AM)Gitanole Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:19 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]That wouldn't surprise me. They had LA market with USC, OR would give them a really good program, plus another market to sell.

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me either.

Some have said that they needed UCLA to truly lock down the LA market, but IMO, USC does that by themselves, in terms of allowing the B1G to financially exploit LA.

Taking UCLA did freeze the PAC out of the LA market, but IMO the B1G didn't have an incentive to do that on purpose. They don't compete geographically with the PAC like they do with the ACC in the northeast corridor. Heck, leaving UCLA in the PAC arguably would have had a benefit - keeping the integrity of the Rose Bowl much more intact.

I find it plausible, too. Robbins is an authoritative source, naturally, and relationships matter. Oregon's president is well connected to the B1G Ten, as Maryland's was a decade ago.

Is he though? Is the President of the University of Arizona in a position to know this, or is he more likely to be kept in the dark and blindsided?

I mean he has better sources of rumors and information than you or I do, but I guarantee that nobody from USC told him anything before they dropped the bomb.

Do we choose to believe that The Powers That Be at Oregon stayed quiet and took it gracefully when they were dropped from the Big Ten adventure? Oregon was in the initial plan, got replaced, and stayed quiet? Does that make sense?

This sounds snarky maybe, and I'm sorry about the tone. I'm just trying to evaluate the information we're getting and how good it is.

That is an interesting point...possibly Oregon has been assured that their invitation IS coming, so long as they stay quiet and don't rock the boat until the B1G is ready?

(03-19-2023 09:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:35 AM)Gitanole Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:19 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]That wouldn't surprise me. They had LA market with USC, OR would give them a really good program, plus another market to sell.

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me either.

Some have said that they needed UCLA to truly lock down the LA market, but IMO, USC does that by themselves, in terms of allowing the B1G to financially exploit LA.

Taking UCLA did freeze the PAC out of the LA market, but IMO the B1G didn't have an incentive to do that on purpose. They don't compete geographically with the PAC like they do with the ACC in the northeast corridor. Heck, leaving UCLA in the PAC arguably would have had a benefit - keeping the integrity of the Rose Bowl much more intact.

I find it plausible, too. Robbins is an authoritative source, naturally, and relationships matter. Oregon's president is well connected to the B1G Ten, as Maryland's was a decade ago.

Is he though? Is the President of the University of Arizona in a position to know this, or is he more likely to be kept in the dark and blindsided?

I mean he has better sources of rumors and information than you or I do, but I guarantee that nobody from USC told him anything before they dropped the bomb.

Do we choose to believe that The Powers That Be at Oregon stayed quiet and took it gracefully when they were dropped from the Big Ten adventure? Oregon was in the initial plan, got replaced, and stayed quiet? Does that make sense?

This sounds snarky maybe, and I'm sorry about the tone. I'm just trying to evaluate the information we're getting and how good it is.

I would keep my mouth shut in the expectation that I’d be invited in the future, rather than piss off enough people to hurt our chances of getting the golden ticket.

(03-19-2023 09:38 AM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 09:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:35 AM)Gitanole Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:19 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]That wouldn't surprise me. They had LA market with USC, OR would give them a really good program, plus another market to sell.

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me either.

Some have said that they needed UCLA to truly lock down the LA market, but IMO, USC does that by themselves, in terms of allowing the B1G to financially exploit LA.

Taking UCLA did freeze the PAC out of the LA market, but IMO the B1G didn't have an incentive to do that on purpose. They don't compete geographically with the PAC like they do with the ACC in the northeast corridor. Heck, leaving UCLA in the PAC arguably would have had a benefit - keeping the integrity of the Rose Bowl much more intact.

I find it plausible, too. Robbins is an authoritative source, naturally, and relationships matter. Oregon's president is well connected to the B1G Ten, as Maryland's was a decade ago.

Is he though? Is the President of the University of Arizona in a position to know this, or is he more likely to be kept in the dark and blindsided?

I mean he has better sources of rumors and information than you or I do, but I guarantee that nobody from USC told him anything before they dropped the bomb.

Do we choose to believe that The Powers That Be at Oregon stayed quiet and took it gracefully when they were dropped from the Big Ten adventure? Oregon was in the initial plan, got replaced, and stayed quiet? Does that make sense?

This sounds snarky maybe, and I'm sorry about the tone. I'm just trying to evaluate the information we're getting and how good it is.

That is an interesting point...possibly Oregon has been assured that their invitation IS coming, so long as they stay quiet and don't rock the boat until the B1G is ready?

Or Oregon was never in the plan, and that's some gossip that got made up and passed around. The conspiracy theory is more fun (Oregon has been told to keep everything hushed up, but WE know the real truth), but I think it's much more likely that people -- even high level people -- are telling each other stories about what they think probably happened.

(03-19-2023 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:19 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]That wouldn't surprise me. They had LA market with USC, OR would give them a really good program, plus another market to sell.

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me either.

Some have said that they needed UCLA to truly lock down the LA market, but IMO, USC does that by themselves, in terms of allowing the B1G to financially exploit LA.

Taking UCLA did freeze the PAC out of the LA market, but IMO the B1G didn't have an incentive to do that on purpose. They don't compete geographically with the PAC like they do with the ACC in the northeast corridor. Heck, leaving UCLA in the PAC arguably would have had a benefit - keeping the integrity of the Rose Bowl much more intact.

I think a people are underrating the value of UCLA a LOT on this forum in general and also not internalizing that the LA market alone is larger than every state other than Texas, New York and Florida. (We have an internal bias that thinks a state is bigger than a metro area, but LA alone completely dwarfs every state other than the 3 listed above.) If you were to ask me who were the most valuable expansion targets in the Pac-12 long before all of this ever happened, it would have been unequivocally USC and UCLA. It make sense that you’d want both USC and UCLA together just like you’d want both Texas and Texas A&M together or Florida and Florida State together (despite covering the same market). Think if it as the State of Southern California of 20 million people as opposed to the LA market - that’s a market that’s worth locking down if all it takes it two schools (as unlike Florida and Texas, there’s no other FBS competition other than San Diego State, much less other P5 competition).

Plus, the proof is in the pudding. If USC/UCLA has been more damaging to the Pac-12 than USC/Oregon, then by extension, that expansion must have been the more valuable one. All of these TV media dollar decisions are getting made in Los Angeles itself - they know the power of locking out all competition from that specific market. I think a lot of people are missing just how powerful it was for the Big Ten to go to the TV rights market and say, “We are the ONLY league that can deliver LA. There is no alternative.” That’s simply much more powerful to the decision makers that are all based in Los Angeles itself that don’t need market research or data on this matter because they LIVE there and see it everyday.

Up to that point, the Pac-12 was looked at as less valuable, but at least seen as, “At least they still have LA.” The Big Ten shutting that off completely is what got NBC/Comcast in particular from being lukewarm on bidding to coming over the top with a massive bid for prime time games. Even the sheer number of people in the LA market doesn’t do it justice: even beyond the number of people there, owning that market has a completely different cache and value than anywhere other than the NYC market and, as evidenced by how the Big Ten media rights deals turned out, they got a premium yet again even over the better performing SEC.

If that had happened, the PAC would have been fine. They would have kept their biggest TV market.

Is it possible USC wanted Oregon instead of UCLA? Have the rival in the lessor conference plus damage Washington by removing Oregon? Maybe that's what USC thinks is best for USC? Side benefit of not damaging the Pac 12 as badly.

(03-19-2023 09:58 AM)Section 200 Wrote: [ -> ]Is it possible USC wanted Oregon instead of UCLA? Have the rival in the lessor conference plus damage Washington by removing Oregon? Maybe that's what USC thinks is best for USC? Side benefit of not damaging the Pac 12 as badly.

Indications are the opposite that USC supposedly *doesn’t* want Oregon in the Big Ten. UCLA is seen by USC as a historical partner (sort of like Texas and Oklahoma), whereas Oregon is seen as straight up competition for recruits (particularly with Oregon being the one coming in from out-of-town into Southern California), NIL compensation, coaching staff, etc.

Ultimately, if USC came up to the Big Ten or any other league and said, “We’ll join as long you also take School X” and School X isn’t completely objectionable by whatever standards that league has (e.g. academics, market, athletic profile, etc.), then you’re taking School X.

I don’t think there was much debate or discourse here: USC and UCLA went to the Big Ten together and asked to join, and then the Big Ten didn’t screw around and then got it done.

(03-19-2023 09:56 AM)Big Frog II Wrote: [ -> ]If that had happened, the PAC would have been fine. They would have kept their biggest TV market.

You guys think UCLA would have accepted being left behind? They would have burned it all down and left as soon as they could, too.

I dont believe a word of this. Delusional ramblings by some jilted, scorned lovers.

(03-19-2023 09:38 AM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 09:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:35 AM)Gitanole Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:19 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]That wouldn't surprise me. They had LA market with USC, OR would give them a really good program, plus another market to sell.

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me either.

Some have said that they needed UCLA to truly lock down the LA market, but IMO, USC does that by themselves, in terms of allowing the B1G to financially exploit LA.

Taking UCLA did freeze the PAC out of the LA market, but IMO the B1G didn't have an incentive to do that on purpose. They don't compete geographically with the PAC like they do with the ACC in the northeast corridor. Heck, leaving UCLA in the PAC arguably would have had a benefit - keeping the integrity of the Rose Bowl much more intact.

I find it plausible, too. Robbins is an authoritative source, naturally, and relationships matter. Oregon's president is well connected to the B1G Ten, as Maryland's was a decade ago.

Is he though? Is the President of the University of Arizona in a position to know this, or is he more likely to be kept in the dark and blindsided?

I mean he has better sources of rumors and information than you or I do, but I guarantee that nobody from USC told him anything before they dropped the bomb.

Do we choose to believe that The Powers That Be at Oregon stayed quiet and took it gracefully when they were dropped from the Big Ten adventure? Oregon was in the initial plan, got replaced, and stayed quiet? Does that make sense?

This sounds snarky maybe, and I'm sorry about the tone. I'm just trying to evaluate the information we're getting and how good it is.

That is an interesting point...possibly Oregon has been assured that their invitation IS coming, so long as they stay quiet and don't rock the boat until the B1G is ready?

Washington as well.

(03-19-2023 09:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]I think a people are underrating the value of UCLA a LOT on this forum in general and also not internalizing that the LA market alone is larger than every state other than Texas, New York and Florida. (We have an internal bias that thinks a state is bigger than a metro area, but LA alone completely dwarfs every state other than the 3 listed above.) If you were to ask me who were the most valuable expansion targets in the Pac-12 long before all of this ever happened, it would have been unequivocally USC and UCLA. It make sense that you’d want both USC and UCLA together just like you’d want both Texas and Texas A&M together or Florida and Florida State together (despite covering the same market). Think if it as the State of Southern California of 20 million people as opposed to the LA market - that’s a market that’s worth locking down if all it takes it two schools (as unlike Florida and Texas, there’s no other FBS competition other than San Diego State, much less other P5 competition).

I think it's two different ideas working in tandem. One is the sheer under-rating of UCLA. Most of us don't see UCLA as a kingpin-level program. The Big Ten has Penn State and USC, we don't fully grok a need for Pitt and UCLA. The SEC has Georgia and Kentucky, they don't need Georgia Tech and / or Louisville.

The other is the value of locking down a monopoly, compared to just a dominant position. 9 times out of 10, a conference doesn't really get a cookie for destroying the value of another conference.

In this case, the Big Ten DID get a cookie--Fox, NBC and CBS all had a more-or-less set budget available, and the Big Ten kneecapped the PAC value, grabbing the NBC and CBS money-pots leaving nothing for the PAC.

But I'm still not convinced that USC and Stanford doesn't work just as well. In terms of ratings and money. I respect your argument in the next block about vibes though.

Quote:Plus, the proof is in the pudding. If USC/UCLA has been more damaging to the Pac-12 than USC/Oregon, then by extension, that expansion must have been the more valuable one.

I don't know if that's true, it's usually not a zero sum game. Louisville is more valuable in the ACC than in the Big East, but Florida State or Clemson isn't necessarily more valuable in the SEC than in the ACC. (In the ACC, Clemson and Florida STate are lords of the realm, peers with Alabama and Texas and Ohio State. In the SEC, Clemson is South Carolina, FSU is Tennessee or Arkansas or Auburn)

Quote:All of these TV media dollar decisions are getting made in Los Angeles itself - they know the power of locking out all competition from that specific market. I think a lot of people are missing just how powerful it was for the Big Ten to go to the TV rights market and say, “We are the ONLY league that can deliver LA. There is no alternative.” That’s simply much more powerful to the decision makers that are all based in Los Angeles itself that don’t need market research or data on this matter because they LIVE there and see it everyday.

I think that most of that is accomplished just by the Big Ten raiding the PAC 12, marking the Big Ten as higher on the food chain, prison-yard-style.

Quote:Up to that point, the Pac-12 was looked at as less valuable, but at least seen as, “At least they still have LA.” The Big Ten shutting that off completely is what got NBC/Comcast in particular from being lukewarm on bidding to coming over the top with a massive bid for prime time games.

I'm not sure that NBC was lukewarm. https://frontofficesports.com/nbc-to-mak...ia-rights/

The PAC was a viable backup plan, maybe, before losing USC.

In support of your point, if the Big Ten had listened to me and taken USC and Stanford, they wouldn't be inviting San Diego State to try to scrape up a semblance of a SoCal presence. They'd still have UCLA.

But they'd be second-tier in both southern and northern California, overshadowed by the real major conference the Big Ten. Like what happened to the PAcific Coast League when the Giants and Dodgers came to California and MLB went transcontinental.

Quote:Even the sheer number of people in the LA market doesn’t do it justice: even beyond the number of people there, owning that market has a completely different cache and value than anywhere other than the NYC market and, as evidenced by how the Big Ten media rights deals turned out, they got a premium yet again even over the better performing SEC.

They were also on the open market, and they had the right guy -- Kevin Warren -- in the right spot.

(03-19-2023 09:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:35 AM)Gitanole Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 08:19 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]That wouldn't surprise me. They had LA market with USC, OR would give them a really good program, plus another market to sell.

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me either.

Some have said that they needed UCLA to truly lock down the LA market, but IMO, USC does that by themselves, in terms of allowing the B1G to financially exploit LA.

Taking UCLA did freeze the PAC out of the LA market, but IMO the B1G didn't have an incentive to do that on purpose. They don't compete geographically with the PAC like they do with the ACC in the northeast corridor. Heck, leaving UCLA in the PAC arguably would have had a benefit - keeping the integrity of the Rose Bowl much more intact.

I find it plausible, too. Robbins is an authoritative source, naturally, and relationships matter. Oregon's president is well connected to the B1G Ten, as Maryland's was a decade ago.

Is he though? Is the President of the University of Arizona in a position to know this, or is he more likely to be kept in the dark and blindsided?

I mean he has better sources of rumors and information than you or I do, but I guarantee that nobody from USC told him anything before they dropped the bomb.

Do we choose to believe that The Powers That Be at Oregon stayed quiet and took it gracefully when they were dropped from the Big Ten adventure? Oregon was in the initial plan, got replaced, and stayed quiet? Does that make sense?

This sounds snarky maybe, and I'm sorry about the tone. I'm just trying to evaluate the information we're getting and how good it is.

Yes. He clearly heard rumors. I wouldn't be surprised if they thought about it, but I would be surprised if they seriously considered it. In any event, I would think Washington would be higher on their list than Oregon.

(03-19-2023 10:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-19-2023 09:58 AM)Section 200 Wrote: [ -> ]Is it possible USC wanted Oregon instead of UCLA? Have the rival in the lessor conference plus damage Washington by removing Oregon? Maybe that's what USC thinks is best for USC? Side benefit of not damaging the Pac 12 as badly.

Indications are the opposite that USC supposedly *doesn’t* want Oregon in the Big Ten. UCLA is seen by USC as a historical partner (sort of like Texas and Oklahoma), whereas Oregon is seen as straight up competition for recruits (particularly with Oregon being the one coming in from out-of-town into Southern California), NIL compensation, coaching staff, etc.

I don’t think there was much debate or discourse here: USC and UCLA went to the Big Ten together and asked to join, and then the Big Ten didn’t screw around and then got it done.

Yeah, there's so much talk about how USC and UCLA *need* a "travel partner", meaning a West Coast school like Oregon that's a 2 hour charter flight from LA, or a 2 hour commercial flight to Portland plus a 2 hour bus ride for the nonrevenue sports.

And we discount the value of a "travel partner" which is literally across town.