(02-26-2020 11:34 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 08:59 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 08:49 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  USC Is far less nationally relevant then USC Alums would like to believe

Small school. Hasn’t been relevant in decades. National following isn’t that great. No built in non-alum base like ND has. No viable P5 option for other sports

?

Small school?
USC is huge for a private.

20,000 UG students and another 25,000 in graduate and professional schools

"big for a" sounds an awful lot like agreeing that they aren't really big. Undergrad enrollment carries more long term weight than graduate for college sports media value.

20,000 UG is more than Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech and UVa have.

(02-26-2020 12:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 11:34 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 08:59 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 08:49 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  USC Is far less nationally relevant then USC Alums would like to believe

Small school. Hasn’t been relevant in decades. National following isn’t that great. No built in non-alum base like ND has. No viable P5 option for other sports

?

Small school?
USC is huge for a private.

20,000 UG students and another 25,000 in graduate and professional schools

"big for a" sounds an awful lot like agreeing that they aren't really big. Undergrad enrollment carries more long term weight than graduate for college sports media value.

20,000 UG is more than Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech and UVa have.

USC has under 8K undergraduates from the US. Having 13,000 international students doesn't make a difference for American football reach.

Those graduates for the most part don't stay here, don't have interest in football, and don't command TV dollars.

(02-26-2020 11:40 AM)YNot Wrote:  The blame lies with Larry Scott and Coach Helton.

While recruiting is an issue, USC finished especially poorly in the recruiting RANKINGS because they had a tiny class - and the rankings favor large classes. USC's average player rating was #4 in the PAC and as high as the average player rating for some schools with top-25 classes. And even though Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, and Georgia landed some of the top players in California, the PAC 12 still landed 5 of the top 10 CA recruits and 70%+ of the 4-star CA recruits - Oregon, Washington and even ASU and Utah with good showings. PAC 12 teams also landed quality 4-star recruits in Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Ohio and obviously throughout the rest of the West.

USC has already landed the #2 QB in the nation in its 2021 class.

The Helton contract is the biggest issue. A quality coach would turn USC around quickly.

New PAC 12 leadership would quickly help to shrink the revenue gap. They need to re-think the ridiculous conference overhead expenses, the PAC 12 networks structure and distribution, and the PAC 12 football scheduling philosophy.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, with the possible exception of the recruiting. USC was recruiting lot of the top players in the area, they just didn't get any of them. They really wanted quarterback Bryce Young and linebacker Justin Flowe and they didn't get either of them. They had a kid from Southern California, an offensive lineman, decommit and decide to go to Boise State. That never should happen. The quarterback you speak of, Jake Garcia, just received an offer from UCLA. His response was, "Thankful to receive an offer from the University of California, Los Angeles." I don't think his recruitment is over yet.

Clemson has recruited four top players from California in the past two years. Before that, they had not successfully recruited a player from California since 1991. That is not a good trend for the Pac-12. Even if some players end up at Oregon, Washington, Utah and Arizona State, it is not a good trend in California, especially in Southern California. USC and UCLA should not be losing recruits in their backyard.

And it is not just USC that is unhappy with Scott - the ASU/UCLA basketball game Thursday SHOULD be a national game, but only on the Pac-12 network.

This sounds like USC issuing a wake up call to the conference - "Fix this!" Time to reopen efforts to expand east by raiding the Big 12, with four schools including Texas, Oklahoma and 2 out of 3 from Oklahoma St., Kansas and Texas Tech. As currently constituted, the population within the Pac 12 footprint is substantially lower than that of the SEC, B1G or ACC. Adding Texas, Oklahoma and possibly Kansas to the footprint would bring it in line. In addition, it would allow the P12 to offer weekly games in the Noon eastern time slot.

Secondly, the P12 really needs to sell a majority interest in the P12 network to Fox or ESPN. This will bring some initial cash, but more importantly would give it leverage in carriage negotiations.

USC's biggest problem is the school President is OK with the school being mediocre in Football and Basketball. The weakness of the AD was shown in the keeping of Helton as FB coach. So whatever he says is not important.

Everything on the table probably means Bohn quits his job at USC sooner rather than later. This noise is to build excuse to exit.

(02-26-2020 08:49 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  USC Is far less nationally relevant then USC Alums would like to believe

Small school. Hasn’t been relevant in decades. National following isn’t that great. No built in non-alum base like ND has. No viable P5 option for other sports

You must be thinking of Oregon State. USC has 11 national championships and has had more players drafted into the NFL than any other school except Notre Dame. They have won 123 national championships in athletics. Small school? There is 45,000 students at USC and the school has an endowment of $5.7 billion. Notre Dame and USC have one of the great rivalries in college football. They seem to be very relevant to Notre Dame...

Could the PAC 12 revenue problems be with location? One of their biggest cities la has to many teams vying for air time? LA has 2 pro basketball teams and 2 pro football teams. while football wouldn't directly effect tv revenue it could effect ticket sales.(watch pro or a college game) LA also has a hockey and baseball team. TThere also 2 MLS teams in LA but like baseball it's off-season for most major college sports. he PAC 12 has 2 of the 3 D1 schools in LA.(WCC has the other) there are also multiple D1 basketball schools within a 2 hour drive to watch.
Neither USC or UCLA sports are the big ticket in LA. When USC had their last run around 2000-2005 both were the only football game in town and the Lakers were the only draw away from either basketball program.( The clippers were horrible at the time) the thing that help the other conferences is that most schools are the only games in the region.

PAC-12's biggest problem in Stanford. They vote against everything that would move the conference forward.

(02-26-2020 08:20 AM)chess Wrote:  Southern Cal is not alone. UCLA is also having revenue challenges.

In my opinion, USC, UCLA, California, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Arizona State, or some version of this... shop themselves to the Big XII or Big Ten.

Or- The Pac XII Network sells part of itself to ESPN who can guarantee the schools' distribution rights on platforms. Unlike the Big Ten and SEC, the Pac 12 owns its own network.

Quote: UCLA athletics reported a whopping $18.9 million deficit for the 2019 fiscal year, according to a statement of revenues and expenses submitted to the NCAA and obtained by the Hotline.

The Bruins generated $108.4 million in revenue against $127.3 million in expenses for the 12-month period that included Chip Kelly’s first season as the football coach and the tumultuous basketball stretch in which Steve Alford was dismissed. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/01/24/u...om-campus/

This is one of the problems that I have argued on this forum and other forums about why schools including in the P5 conferences that they are not making money. Why? The travel costs which helps caused schools' AD be in debt. Adding Colorado to the conference did not helped. UCLA was in debt for their AD was in debt before to 2010, and gone up after Colorado was added. USC going to another P5 conference is a bad idea. I also think the Big 12 should let West Virginia go. Here is what I think P5 should do.

P5 should invite all the best football and basketball schools from D1 and D2 in their footprint so that schools do not go in debt because of all the travel costs for all sports. Land grant or state flagship schools should look at the largest JC and turned them into a 4 year school. California, Texas, Arizona (was a hotbed for football players for P5 schools), Florida, New York, etc. You could tier the P5 schools into pools based on their strength in each sports. As it is, you do get a lack of content for each conference. You be adding content if the conferences grow in member size. Would it help the PAC 12 if they added schools like Boise State (football), Gonzaga, Hawaii, UNR, Saint Mary's and BYU to raise the revenue for their conference for tv contracts? You would get stronger adding these top names who are not in a P5 conference.

(02-26-2020 01:34 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 08:49 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  USC Is far less nationally relevant then USC Alums would like to believe

Small school. Hasn’t been relevant in decades. National following isn’t that great. No built in non-alum base like ND has. No viable P5 option for other sports

You must be thinking of Oregon State. USC has 11 national championships and has had more players drafted into the NFL than any other school except Notre Dame. They have won 123 national championships in athletics. Small school? There is 45,000 students at USC and the school has an endowment of $5.7 billion. Notre Dame and USC have one of the great rivalries in college football. They seem to be very relevant to Notre Dame...

They are ND's biggest and only true rival.

(02-26-2020 01:34 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 08:49 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  USC Is far less nationally relevant then USC Alums would like to believe

Small school. Hasn’t been relevant in decades. National following isn’t that great. No built in non-alum base like ND has. No viable P5 option for other sports

You must be thinking of Oregon State. USC has 11 national championships and has had more players drafted into the NFL than any other school except Notre Dame. They have won 123 national championships in athletics. Small school? There is 45,000 students at USC and the school has an endowment of $5.7 billion. Notre Dame and USC have one of the great rivalries in college football. They seem to be very relevant to Notre Dame...

USC has a ton of t-shirt fans just waiting for them to be good again. A quality new coach would solve that issue almost immediately.

I guess one big looming question is why do top CA HS football players not want to play for PAC 12 schools?

The schools have to do a better job hiring coaching staffs and recruiting.

Larry has to figure out how to get more dollars for the media rights but to get a higher dollar amount the teams need to be performing at a high enough level for folks in the other 3 time zones to either stay up late or choose a PAC 12 game over the prime time offerings of other conferences.

(02-26-2020 01:34 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 08:49 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  USC Is far less nationally relevant then USC Alums would like to believe

Small school. Hasn’t been relevant in decades. National following isn’t that great. No built in non-alum base like ND has. No viable P5 option for other sports

You must be thinking of Oregon State. USC has 11 national championships and has had more players drafted into the NFL than any other school except Notre Dame. They have won 123 national championships in athletics. Small school? There is 45,000 students at USC and the school has an endowment of $5.7 billion. Notre Dame and USC have one of the great rivalries in college football. They seem to be very relevant to Notre Dame...

They haven't been relevant. And only 7K of those students are US undergrads.

National Championships in Water Polo don't move the dial for TV viewing.

USC used to be a national brand. USED TO BE is the key word. Maybe still is for people like me that grew up watching the USC powerhouse teams of the 70's etc.

USC is a top school. The point was whether they could command enough national interest as an Independent to try to dictate terms with the Pac 12. My answer is no, USC's days of national interest have waned.

(02-26-2020 02:16 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 11:54 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 10:52 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I'd sympathize with an unhappy PAC school who wanted both OU and OSU and B1G-PAC but saw both rejected. USC is not that school. No ****s will be given.

For anyone who puts down others with that "think like college presidents" stuff, folks, here's your PAC-12 at its best. Put your alumni in a bind by placing your content in hard-to-access places, turn down creative ways to increase and restructure your media revenue, and collectively fall off in both football and basketball, but expect the money to just show up because...?

Didn't USC float out there that they would have considered independence if the B1G-PAC thing went through? This is the card you now play when threatened by something you don't like?

Can you please elaborate?

Who was for the BIG-PAC & who was against it? I don't remember a merger being seriously discussed; was it just a scheduling arrangement or a full merger?

Who was for/against adding the Texahoma 4?

The B1G and Pac-12 almost got into a schedule agreement but USC and Stanford derailed the alliance because they claimed playing 9 conference games, Notre Dame and a B1G school was too much. Even at 8 conference games, playing 10 P5 games was a challenge. Later on, the B1G invited Maryland and Rutgers. It makes you wonder if the schedule agreement succeeded if Maryland would still be in the ACC and Rutgers and Louisville in the Big East or AAC.....perhaps Louisville and Cincinnati would be in the Big XII with West Virginia.

From what I remember in the Dallas media, it was Larry Scott who told OU and OkSt no unless they were bringing Texas with them. It never mentioned any particular school(s) that were for or against......at least not that I remember.

To be fair, there were one or two others who weren’t ready to move forward with B1G-PAC. B1G wanted it fast and soon, and others couldn’t accommodate. It’s not just on USC.

What I could recall of the OU-OSU thing, the votes weren’t there. I don’t recall individual schools coming forward to say no, but don’t remember anyone freaking out that it didn’t happen, either. Scott being the bearer of bad news to the applicants is him doing his job; I firmly believe that if Scott went rogue/solo on that one, he’d have lost his job. But, there were PAC schools who didn’t want to lose games in California without Texas as a consolation prize, as well as straight up snobs who won’t give OSU a look.

In SC’s case, they are partly to blame for B1G-PAC, and, at best, let two big schools get by without what we would see as a similar stink. It’s simply hard to empathize with them. You hold such stroke, and when new opportunities arise, you reject them or let them get rejected.

They have no right to complain. Or, they do, but it says something that they think their name alone and not the product should bring in more money. You dug this hole, don’t blame others for being in it.

(02-26-2020 01:29 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  USC's biggest problem is the school President is OK with the school being mediocre in Football and Basketball. The weakness of the AD was shown in the keeping of Helton as FB coach. So whatever he says is not important.

Everything on the table probably means Bohn quits his job at USC sooner rather than later. This noise is to build excuse to exit.

Many at Carolina were happy to see Carol Folt go.

(02-25-2020 08:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Well.....now we know why BYU changed their student honor code.

I had texted a friend saying realignment must be coming when they did that.

(02-26-2020 10:50 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 02:10 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 09:26 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  This is what I read from Bohn:"It's really simple, you think of the LA market and the value to the league there, obviously our ongoing series with Notre Dame, our marquee games that we commit to in non-conference, it's important for us to continue to be leaders in the Pac-12," Bohn said. "It's important for us to operate from a place of strength."

That is what I got out of the article. Bohn has so many problems that he inherited that talking about leaving a conference is nonsense. He has to get the football program back to where it belongs. His men's basketball team is not playing up to the talent they are recruiting. He has to decide if he has got the right football and basketball coach in place.

What he is doing is putting pressure on Larry Scott to improve the revenue. But he also knows that USC has to play their part. That is not happening.

Bobcat, If this is what you "read from Bohn," then you have a case of willful blindness. This isn't about problems in the athletic dept. It's not about wins and losses in football or hoops. He would not blame those issues on Larry Scott. He wants Larry Scott to deliver a media deal that matches the money of the SEC/B1G. At least, that's what I "read from Bohn."

He's looking ahead to 2024 when the new media contract will begin. He knows very well that the PAC will not be offered that kind of money. He also knows that his USC program in the LA market deserves money in the range of Texas, Bama, and Ohio State. He's telling us that USC wants to change conferences. Do you think he isn't talking back-channels to the SEC and B1G? It will not be an easy move, but he knows his program will die in the PAC12. Success as an indy is a longshot and there would be no way back to the safety of a conference.

You don't get what is going on with west coast football. These are separate issues. On the football issue, per rivals.com, USC ranked 65th overall in team football recruiting. From 2002 through 2018, according to 247sports.com, USC was ranked in the top ten 17 of 18 seasons. The lone exception was a No. 13 ranking in 2013. In 2015, USC recruited 10 of the top 25 players in California and UCLA had three, including two in the top four. In 2015, a combined 13 players in the California top 25 went to USC and UCLA. In 2020, a combined 2 players in the California top 25 went to USC and UCLA. From 2002 through 2018, USC was ranked in the top two in Pac-12 football recruiting. In 2020, USC was ranked last in the Pac-12 in football recruiting, per rivals.com.

That weakness from USC and UCLA is being exploited by schools from back east. In 2020 the top three quarterbacks in California are going to Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State. In 2021 recruiting, Clemson already has commitments from two of the top four players in California, including the No. 1 ranked player in the nation in defensive end Korey Foreman. USC is 13-13 in their last 26 games. UCLA football has fallen of the map. Bohn inherited a head coach and his staff that are under contract through 2023 and are owed over $20 million. So he is stuck with this group, which is effecting ticket sales and alumni donations. Bohn has a big football issue and that issue is hurting Pac-12 football.

The issue with Larry Scott is a separate issue. Every school in the conference is unhappy with the TV revenue and the TV exposure from the Pac-12 Network. But USC is not leaving the Pac-12. That is a ridiculous idea. The message being sent is that Larry Scott may be leaving the Pac-12 and USC and UCLA will both likely lead that fatal decision. Bohn just started in November and UCLA will have a new AD in the summer. Both of the AD's will have no relationship or loyalty to Scott and will both be in the best position to pressure Scott.

Scott needs to come up with some revenue enhancements this year or he is likely gone. USC and UCLA need to get their act together so they can help the Pac-12. They are separate issues but they both need to be corrected.

The issue with Larry Scott is the ONLY issue.

The most recent USC media payout was $33 million. That had nothing to do with their W-L record. If they had been undefeated, the media payout would still have been $33 million. It is determined by the media contract. Next year's payout will be somewhere above the $33 million, but not much above. That will will not depend on performance. It is matter of what the media company and the conference agreed to when they made the deal. It is a fixed amount each year of the deal regardless of how the teams perform.

The contract expires after the 2024 season (I think). That is when the conference will have an opportunity to demand more money. Bohn wants his sterling program in a golden media market to be paid in the range of SEC/B1G; USC should earn as much as Ohio State and Alabama. The media companies have to offer an amount for the whole conference which the members divide equally (typically). That's why Northwestern and Iowa cashed media checks of around $55 million last year. Bohn can see that and he knows that his current conference has no chance of getting into that range.

The media companies are going to lowball the Big12 in order to pressure Texas and Oklahoma to move elsewhere. Then the media companies can treat the remaining Big12 schools as less than P5 properties. Bohn sees that those same media companies can lowball the PAC12 in the same way in hopes of transferring the most valuable programs into the premier conferences and discarding the rest as less than P5.

Bohn is telling the PAC12 that he intends to get SEC/B1G money for USC. If the conference can't give him that, he will seek to get it elsewhere.

(02-26-2020 12:53 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 12:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 11:34 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 08:59 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 08:49 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  USC Is far less nationally relevant then USC Alums would like to believe

Small school. Hasn’t been relevant in decades. National following isn’t that great. No built in non-alum base like ND has. No viable P5 option for other sports

?

Small school?
USC is huge for a private.

20,000 UG students and another 25,000 in graduate and professional schools

"big for a" sounds an awful lot like agreeing that they aren't really big. Undergrad enrollment carries more long term weight than graduate for college sports media value.

20,000 UG is more than Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech and UVa have.

USC has under 8K undergraduates from the US. Having 13,000 international students doesn't make a difference for American football reach.

Those graduates for the most part don't stay here, don't have interest in football, and don't command TV dollars.

This is false. USC is only 13% international students for undergraduate. That's actually lower than Washington, Purdue, Tulsa, Miami OH, Miami FL, Illinois, Buffalo, Syracuse, and Cal.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ran...ernational

USC still ranks high on total number of international students, but that's because it has 45,687 students. So it's bigger than every ACC, SEC, and Big 12 school except the Gators and Longhorns.

(02-26-2020 02:48 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 12:53 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 12:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 11:34 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 08:59 AM)XLance Wrote:  ?

Small school?
USC is huge for a private.

20,000 UG students and another 25,000 in graduate and professional schools

"big for a" sounds an awful lot like agreeing that they aren't really big. Undergrad enrollment carries more long term weight than graduate for college sports media value.

20,000 UG is more than Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech and UVa have.

USC has under 8K undergraduates from the US. Having 13,000 international students doesn't make a difference for American football reach.

Those graduates for the most part don't stay here, don't have interest in football, and don't command TV dollars.

This is false. USC is only 13% international students for undergraduate. That's actually lower than Washington, Purdue, Tulsa, Miami OH, Miami FL, Illinois, Buffalo, Syracuse, and Cal.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ran...ernational

USC still ranks high on total number of international students, but that's because it has 45,687 students. So it's bigger than every ACC, SEC, and Big 12 school except the Gators and Longhorns.

From USC's website
https://about.usc.edu/facts/

Students (2019-2020 academic year)
Rounded to the nearest 500
Undergraduates 20,500
Graduate and professional 28,000
Total 48,500

All International Students by Country of Citizenship
Rounded to the nearest tenth.
China 6,626
India 1,970
South Korea 527
Taiwan 426
Canada 302
Saudi Arabia 140
Iran 144
Indonesia 120
Hong Kong 102
Other countries 1,908
Total 12,265



Now granted, a portion of the international could be grad students, but USC's own figures show 30% international students. And your link doesn't specify grad or undergrad.

Regardless, USC has a huge international enrollment, and huge grad enrollment.