(02-26-2020 08:07 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  They are simply looking for an Boise agreement.

What he said. There is place for USC to go nor do they want to go. They just wany more cash.

What I haven't heard considered yet is an XII expansion of USC and Arizona St.

Get back to 12 with 2 big media markets in LA and Phoenix. Offer USC a Texas deal where they can have their own channel.

This is really the superior move over hoping the PAC will earn a better TV deal when its not nationally competitive enough in FB/BB.

What if a group of blue bloods and/or waning blue bloods all became independents like the old days, but with a bundled media contract?

Texas
Oklahoma
Notre Dame
USC
Florida St
Miami



Maybe a few more. What kind of money could they get for their collective media rights? Let’s assume that part of that deal is that among those schools there are contracts in place to play one another for the duration of the media deal.

ND-USC
USC-Texas
Texas-Oklahoma
USC-Texas
Miami-Florida St
Etc

Join the sec and have a good rivalry with South Carolina ? I think the big 10 adding 10 pac 12 schools makes a lot of sense with 3 divisions of 8. Wash state and Oregon state can join the mwc

(02-26-2020 02:47 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  The issue with Larry Scott is the ONLY issue.

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.

Look, when you are 13-13 over the last 26 games at USC, that is not acceptable. That has nothing to do with Larry Scott. Read the statement 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."

Bohn has to return USC football to "a place of strength." It is currently in a place of mediocrity. For your theory to be valid, Bohn has to get the football program "to a place of strength." He has no leverage with a mediocre football team. I think Scott will eventually be replaced. He really needs to go. That is not a USC decision, that is a conference decision. If he doesn't make progress on the issues that have plagued the Pac-12 over the last few years, he should be gone by the end of the year.

(02-26-2020 03:23 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(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:  "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.

It's like you're not even trying. The link you just provided says that USC is 25.4% international. Not 65%, like you tried to claim.

I just pulled the data from IPEDS (federal government). USC's freshman class in fall 2018 was 3,401 students. 522 (15%) were international students. Check yourself if you don't believe me: https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Data.aspx

Would a Big 20 make everyone more money?

Pac: USC, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, UT, CO, AZ, AZ St, WA, OR in one division, the current Big 12 in another?

(02-26-2020 02:47 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  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.

No offense, I hope this is more fans speaking for him than how he actually feels. His school's actions are directly responsible for these shortfalls. It would concern me that not taking accountability, any accountability, would be the USC line.

Just stunned. You get upset that when you order the hamburger at the hamburger price that you receive it and not a Big Mac instead just because of who you are?

Then again, this is USC...if their admissions can't do their jobs right vetting applicants, why assume others higher up the chain can?

(02-26-2020 04:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What if a group of blue bloods and/or waning blue bloods all became independents like the old days, but with a bundled media contract?

Texas
Oklahoma
Notre Dame
USC
Florida St
Miami



Maybe a few more. What kind of money could they get for their collective media rights? Let’s assume that part of that deal is that among those schools there are contracts in place to play one another for the duration of the media deal.

ND-USC
USC-Texas
Texas-Oklahoma
USC-Texas
Miami-Florida St
Etc

The problem still stands on where the bulk of USC sports go. Best case take Hawaiis all sports spot for the MWC. The MWC most likely loses San Diego State to the PAC 12. Miami and Florida State have at least have some options. About the only "safe" team is Texas but would the tv deal destroy the Longhorn network? The ACC,Big 12 and the PAC 12 won't allow associate membership. Should Miami and Florida State want football Independence I could see them dropping them and Notre Dame and getting UCF and USF to stay in Florida. I doubt the SEC would want them for all sports but football. Each school would need what $40 million a school for just football?

(02-26-2020 03:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 08:07 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  They are simply looking for an Boise agreement.

What he said. There is place for USC to go nor do they want to go. They just wany more cash.

I think they're looking for a better conference commissioner and/or one that will put USC & their needs first. They are the flagship of the Pac 12. First thing they need to do is have their kickoffs not be at 10 pm.

(02-26-2020 04:44 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 03:23 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(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:  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.

It's like you're not even trying. The link you just provided says that USC is 25.4% international. Not 65%, like you tried to claim.

I just pulled the data from IPEDS (federal government). USC's freshman class in fall 2018 was 3,401 students. 522 (15%) were international students. Check yourself if you don't believe me: https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Data.aspx

That is a huge graduate school.

(02-26-2020 04:36 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 02:47 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  The issue with Larry Scott is the ONLY issue.

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.

Look, when you are 13-13 over the last 26 games at USC, that is not acceptable. That has nothing to do with Larry Scott. Read the statement 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."

Bohn has to return USC football to "a place of strength." It is currently in a place of mediocrity. For your theory to be valid, Bohn has to get the football program "to a place of strength." He has no leverage with a mediocre football team. I think Scott will eventually be replaced. He really needs to go. That is not a USC decision, that is a conference decision. If he doesn't make progress on the issues that have plagued the Pac-12 over the last few years, he should be gone by the end of the year.

Disagree. IMO, that quote is all about the market value of USC not results on the field. He talks about the LA market, its value to the PAC, the value of the USC rivalry with Notre Dame and the other OOC games USC can attract. That's all stuff related to revenue.

USC is USC in a market sense whether the team is going through a down stretch on the field or not. Like all the blue-chip schools, its value is much more enduring than that. So I don't think he's saying they have to start going 12-0 again to be valuable and attract money.

Sure, the fans and alumni want more wins. But I mean crikey, USC hasn't won the Rose Bowl since all the way back in 2017, so there are 3-year olds who have no memory of it every happening. The Horror! There are two year olds who can't remember them ever winning a PAC 12 title.

So yes, I think in the end, he's talking about USC needing to make more money.

(02-26-2020 07:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 04:36 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 02:47 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  The issue with Larry Scott is the ONLY issue.

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.

Look, when you are 13-13 over the last 26 games at USC, that is not acceptable. That has nothing to do with Larry Scott. Read the statement 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."

Bohn has to return USC football to "a place of strength." It is currently in a place of mediocrity. For your theory to be valid, Bohn has to get the football program "to a place of strength." He has no leverage with a mediocre football team. I think Scott will eventually be replaced. He really needs to go. That is not a USC decision, that is a conference decision. If he doesn't make progress on the issues that have plagued the Pac-12 over the last few years, he should be gone by the end of the year.

Disagree. IMO, that quote is all about the market value of USC not results on the field. He talks about the LA market, its value to the PAC, the value of the USC rivalry with Notre Dame and the other OOC games USC can attract. That's all stuff related to revenue.

USC is USC in a market sense whether the team is going through a down stretch on the field or not. Like all the blue-chip schools, its value is much more enduring than that. So I don't think he's saying they have to start going 12-0 again to be valuable and attract money.

Sure, the fans and alumni want more wins. But I mean crikey, USC hasn't won the Rose Bowl since all the way back in 2017, so there are 3-year olds who have no memory of it every happening. The Horror! There are two year olds who can't remember them ever winning a PAC 12 title.

So yes, I think in the end, he's talking about USC needing to make more money.

I mentioned earlier that the market in LA has changed since USC was good. Both pro teams are good in LA now so there overshadow USC basketball. For college basketball they share la with UCLA and Loyola Maramount. While Loyola Maramount isn't top gear at all they might be able to sell you Gonzaga, BYU and Saint Mary coming to LA.(possible tv spot for them) during basketball season we also have the king's playing that might drive down USC's value. La now has 2 NFL teams during football season so there not the top football game in town.

I'd like to argue that San Diego State would be a better market fit for the PAC 12 then USC. All San Diego State fights is a non scholarship San Diego football team and new D1 UC San Diego. The only sports team sharing San Diego is the Padres. Sports wise the LA market is to saturated in sports options. I'm not even counting the options with driving distance.(there's a reason why USC and UCLA feed on Big West teams)

Basically USC has no leg to stand on unless they can get UCLA to back them up. If just USC leaves then the PAC 12 picks up a game in San Diego. While staying in LA. I honestly don't know if even USC joining the SEC would propel it over either the NFL or NBA.

BYU and Gonzaga would give the left kidney of every incoming freshman if they could have USC in their conference for Olympic sports

(02-26-2020 08:35 PM)46566 Wrote:  I'd like to argue that San Diego State would be a better market fit for the PAC 12 then USC. All San Diego State fights is a non scholarship San Diego football team and new D1 UC San Diego. The only sports team sharing San Diego is the Padres. Sports wise the LA market is to saturated in sports options. I'm not even counting the options with driving distance.(there's a reason why USC and UCLA feed on Big West teams)

USC has thrived in the face of NFL competition before. And let's face it, Chargers support in LA is pathetic and Rams support is tepid, as it always has been.

USC is one of the top 10 brand names in college football whereas San Diego State is nothing. You might as well argue that the B1G would be better off with Temple than Penn State or the SEC better of with Memphis than Alabama.

(02-26-2020 04:44 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I just pulled the data from IPEDS (federal government). USC's freshman class in fall 2018 was 3,401 students. 522 (15%) were international students. Check yourself if you don't believe me: https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Data.aspx

If USC is 25% international, and about 50:50 UG:Grad, 15% international UG and 35% international Grad school sounds about right. So scale 20,000 down to 17,000.

17,000 can not be described as a "big" P5 school. They may not be a "small" P5 school in the sense that TCU is small, but neither are they big. That's about the size of the smallest of the three OSU's, in Stillwater.

They are without a shred of doubt a big University ... indeed, in Academic circles, where grad school is the main thing, they punch above their weight because of their grad enrollment intensity. But that flips when it comes to college sports media value.

We should add in the secondary impact of the roughly 13,000 American grad students, it boosts it a little, because at least some of those will have a "rooting interest" in games involving USC, and if looking for a game to watch may well start at an available USC game if the school they support isn't on. And some fraction will have come from a school without a serious sports program, and will have adopted USC as their "kind of" alma mater.

So it's not "they are private, therefore they are small", but let's not go overboard and translate "biggest private school" into "a big school for conference realignment purposes". Their media value is rather in their legacy and their location, if they can activate it with noteworthy performances in the present day

(02-26-2020 01:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  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.

Or just grab Texas....

(02-26-2020 04:49 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Would a Big 20 make everyone more money?

Pac: USC, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, UT, CO, AZ, AZ St, WA, OR in one division, the current Big 12 in another?

The answer to the question is yes. In order to do it, I guess the Big 12 would have to invite everyone in the Pac-12 except WSU and Oregon State (I refuse to call anyone OSU except THE Ohio State University and being from the Big Ten you can guess MSU is only you know who). I mean a clear merge between the two conferences would be a huge 22 team conference and Peter Burns has suggested it but is that practical? 20 is almost as big as 22 and leaves two schools out. Ideally you'd like any combination of the Pac 12 and Big 12 schools to have 14 or 16 schools and you'd like to cut "fat" from both sides but you'd have to go back to the Big East when they booted Temple and added more members for that to happen. The Pac-12 and Big 12 can merge and then the desired members for ESPN or FOX can break off leaving the undesired stranded.

Obviously I created the thread "Eliminating the Big 12 as a P5 Conference". There's certainly a thought to "merging" the Pac 12 and Big 12 as well. Maybe they just do a full merge and take everyone and it's the biggest conference in NCAA history with 22! Or we have 22 and ESPN or FOX figures out who are the preferred and they "break free" and get the teams they really want. If that's the case, who's in and who's out?

Who would you boot from a Pac 12/Big 12 combo? I would say Oregon State and Washington State are the two obvious ones for sure. Oklahoma State and Kansas State look like they're not needed. Baylor, despite their great men's basketball season, is probably out. Iowa State looks weak and it's one state further East which if you're California is bad but they still bring an additional state. TCU is a private school but they're in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. If you can convince BYU to join, I'd ditch ISU and TCU, otherwise, decide whether you'd rather have TCU or Iowa State.

Another idea is for the Pac 12 and Big 12 to stay separate conferences but to pool their media rights together. ABC/ESPN could then choose the best game(s) from either conference each week. One week they take the Red River Rivalry, next week Oregon/USC. Will each conference want a game each week? Sure. Can they get it? Not so sure.

I stupidly forgot in my last thread about West Virginia. Of course they'd be out, no way can you have them in a conference with California schools.

14 teams:

Pac: UCLA, USC, California Berkeley, Stanford, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State (needed for Phoenix metro)
Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas Tech

If you can get BYU, dump Texas Tech or keep Tech and add TCU for 16.

With arguments over the size of USC's student population, this thread hasn't just jumped the shark, it's turned surreal.

USC is one of the 10 most valuable brands in college football. Has zero to do with the size of their student body any more than Notre Dame's does (small, but extremely valuable) or Texas State's does (huge, no value at all).

USC is valuable for the same reason Alabama, Ohio State, Notre Dame and Oklahoma are valuable - their long and storied history of success which has earned them one of the top legacies and hence brands in college football. This is not diminished by the fact that they haven't won a PAC title or Rose Bowl in 3 long years. The whole discussion is farcical.