Let’s pretend for a moment that the PAC 12’s crown jewel was dissatisfied to the point of taking their football independent and moving the rest of their sports to the WCC.

What might that look like?

Annual Opponents:
ND
UCLA
Cal
Stanford
Washington
Oregon
2 G5s
4 Big Ten/SEC/ACC

thoughts?

They could do it and manage reasonably well, but there's no good reason for them to. Almost all of their rivals and important geographic areas are in the PAC. What's the upside?

I don't want to be Debbie Downer, but

$$$

Not sure they'd get as much in the WCC and an Indy schedule. Now... money isn't everything. The Irish supposedly leave money on the table by not joining a conference, it is part of their brand. Perhaps it could/should be for the Trojans as well.

I DO think they'd get decent schedules, as good as the Irish get. They've got strong regional rivals and can easily score intersectional games. 'Maybe' a TV partner can capitalize on late night games? But, again, that'll be for only a handful of games, as there is a lot of risk for a single-team TV property. Partner with Notre Dame on their next TV contract??

Also makes you wonder if they and those 5 Pac-12 teams could find a home in the Big Ten. Probably not this go-round.

(10-08-2021 08:18 PM)Bogg Wrote:  They could do it and manage reasonably well, but there's no good reason for them to. Almost all of their rivals and important geographic areas are in the PAC. What's the upside?

Be their own boss?

(10-08-2021 07:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s pretend for a moment that the PAC 12’s crown jewel was dissatisfied to the point of taking their football independent and moving the rest of their sports to the WCC.

What might that look like?

Annual Opponents:
ND
UCLA
Cal
Stanford
Washington
Oregon
2 G5s
4 Big Ten/SEC/ACC

thoughts?

USC's problem with independence isn't putting together a football schedule it would be their unwillingness to sacrifice their olympic sports to make a go at it. They leave in football they would have to take everything with them and having to put their olympic programs in the Big West or WCC is a complete non starter for them.

In a vacuum, USC football could likely do rather well as a football independent.

But, and hypothetically, many Pac-12 programs could refuse to schedule the Trojans (feeling "shunned" by an indy USC), which would hurt USC.

BYU being independent in football makes more sense (in most ways) than USC being indy.

(10-08-2021 07:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s pretend for a moment that the PAC 12’s crown jewel was dissatisfied to the point of taking their football independent and moving the rest of their sports to the WCC.

What might that look like?

Annual Opponents:
ND
UCLA
Cal
Stanford
Washington
Oregon
2 G5s
4 Big Ten/SEC/ACC

thoughts?

You are kidding? USC should be dissatisfied with themselves. They are an embarrassment. They got crushed at home by Stanford and Oregon State. In your hypothetical scenario, they would be on their own. The other Pac-12 schools would not do them any favors by scheduling them. Recruiting would get nasty, because schools in the Pac-12 would point out that they will never play in the Rose Bowl, they left because they can't compete in the Pac-12, that they have downgraded their Olympic sports schedule to games against LMU, Pepperdine, San Diego.

Going independent would be a revenue loser, both in football and basketball. The alumni would not be happy at all. They are not happy as it is. With all of their football history and all of the football talent in Southern California, they should be the crown jewell. But they are not.

(10-08-2021 08:53 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(10-08-2021 07:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s pretend for a moment that the PAC 12’s crown jewel was dissatisfied to the point of taking their football independent and moving the rest of their sports to the WCC.

What might that look like?

Annual Opponents:
ND
UCLA
Cal
Stanford
Washington
Oregon
2 G5s
4 Big Ten/SEC/ACC

thoughts?

USC's problem with independence isn't putting together a football schedule it would be their unwillingness to sacrifice their olympic sports to make a go at it. They leave in football they would have to take everything with them and having to put their olympic programs in the Big West or WCC is a complete non starter for them.

Exactly, the Irish have a great option with the ACC and the Big East before that. USC doesn't have a high level conference to park its non revenue sports in.

(10-08-2021 10:32 PM)BigEastMike Wrote:  

(10-08-2021 08:53 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(10-08-2021 07:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s pretend for a moment that the PAC 12’s crown jewel was dissatisfied to the point of taking their football independent and moving the rest of their sports to the WCC.

What might that look like?

Annual Opponents:
ND
UCLA
Cal
Stanford
Washington
Oregon
2 G5s
4 Big Ten/SEC/ACC

thoughts?

USC's problem with independence isn't putting together a football schedule it would be their unwillingness to sacrifice their olympic sports to make a go at it. They leave in football they would have to take everything with them and having to put their olympic programs in the Big West or WCC is a complete non starter for them.

Exactly, the Irish have a great option with the ACC and the Big East before that. USC doesn't have a high level conference to park its non revenue sports in.

They would do fine as an independent. Probably make a little more money on the football side, but it might hurt their Olympic sports.

I think for Olympic sports they would swing a deal with the MWC over the WCC. The 2 G5 opponents would be MWC teams as part of that deal. But they'd probably just be USC home games or neutral site games rather than home-and-homes.

(10-08-2021 11:06 PM)WAChsenburggemeinde Wrote:  

(10-08-2021 10:32 PM)BigEastMike Wrote:  

(10-08-2021 08:53 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(10-08-2021 07:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s pretend for a moment that the PAC 12’s crown jewel was dissatisfied to the point of taking their football independent and moving the rest of their sports to the WCC.

What might that look like?

Annual Opponents:
ND
UCLA
Cal
Stanford
Washington
Oregon
2 G5s
4 Big Ten/SEC/ACC

thoughts?

USC's problem with independence isn't putting together a football schedule it would be their unwillingness to sacrifice their olympic sports to make a go at it. They leave in football they would have to take everything with them and having to put their olympic programs in the Big West or WCC is a complete non starter for them.

Exactly, the Irish have a great option with the ACC and the Big East before that. USC doesn't have a high level conference to park its non revenue sports in.

They would do fine as an independent. Probably make a little more money on the football side, but it might hurt their Olympic sports.

I think for Olympic sports they would swing a deal with the MWC over the WCC. The 2 G5 opponents would be MWC teams as part of that deal. But they'd probably just be USC home games or neutral site games rather than home-and-homes.

With USC they aren't going to accept "slumming" it in a conference they feel beneath them, the WCC, MWC, Big Sky, Big West, WAC etc... none of them are viable options to a school like SC that holds their olympic sports to such a high level.

(10-08-2021 07:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s pretend for a moment that the PAC 12’s crown jewel was dissatisfied to the point of taking their football independent and moving the rest of their sports to the WCC.

What might that look like?

Annual Opponents:
ND
UCLA
Cal
Stanford
Washington
Oregon
2 G5s
4 Big Ten/SEC/ACC

thoughts?

I wonder the same for Stanford. Yes, they don't have the football history of USC but they are the Harvard of the West Coast. They have a cache that goes beyond sports. I think Stanford could use its name to promote their football team all over the country. The problem is not many in the Eastern Time Zone are aware of Stanford football. Since the actual Harvard and Yale demoted their football that's a niche that Stanford should be well-positioned to take the most advantage of. Playing Notre Dame and Northwestern are nice but they need to go further. Get a bunch of home-and-homes with programs in the East, from New York down to Miami. Playing Kansas State doesn't do much for them. They need a steady diet of SMU, TCU, Miami, Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers, Navy, Army, Wake Forest, Pitt, Temple, maybe a good G5 like App State or Coastal Carolina.

(10-08-2021 11:06 PM)WAChsenburggemeinde Wrote:  

(10-08-2021 10:32 PM)BigEastMike Wrote:  

(10-08-2021 08:53 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(10-08-2021 07:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s pretend for a moment that the PAC 12’s crown jewel was dissatisfied to the point of taking their football independent and moving the rest of their sports to the WCC.

What might that look like?

Annual Opponents:
ND
UCLA
Cal
Stanford
Washington
Oregon
2 G5s
4 Big Ten/SEC/ACC

thoughts?

USC's problem with independence isn't putting together a football schedule it would be their unwillingness to sacrifice their olympic sports to make a go at it. They leave in football they would have to take everything with them and having to put their olympic programs in the Big West or WCC is a complete non starter for them.

Exactly, the Irish have a great option with the ACC and the Big East before that. USC doesn't have a high level conference to park its non revenue sports in.

They would do fine as an independent. Probably make a little more money on the football side, but it might hurt their Olympic sports.

I think for Olympic sports they would swing a deal with the MWC over the WCC. The 2 G5 opponents would be MWC teams as part of that deal. But they'd probably just be USC home games or neutral site games rather than home-and-homes.

Why do you assume their football team would make more money as an independent? Notre Dame doesn't, and their following is more national than the Trojans'.

There are five valuable brands on the west coast, and if they were to move to the B1G as a group (along with Cal) they could make more than they do now in the PAC. But none of those five would make more as an independent IMO.

Maybe USC, Stanford, and a small group of Pac-12 schools could "Mountain West" themselves away from the dead weight of the Pac-12 (Oregon State, Washington State) athletically and academically and form a new conference and make more money for themselves per school. They would have to find a television partner or partner willing to pay more for a slimmed down "Pac-8" or "Pac-10" than the current Pac-12. Maybe they replace Oregon State and Wazzu with BYU and Kansas? There is precedence for the media companies to shed "dead weight", look at them successfully getting Oklahoma and Texas away from the Big 12. Could the "California 4" schools package themselves together and make more money than they would from the Pac 12 or as individual schools? Why should one have to break free from the others? The media rights of the four together dominates the most populous state in the country, in theory they have more eyeballs than the University of Texas would, and all any media company would need is one of them to be good rather than to depend on UT to be good. Then they can pick any four (or more) teams out west and leave any unwanted Pac-12 teams behind.

Haha I’m for it.

Bring in UNLV or Boise State to the PAC-12 and the rest of the conference can make up the difference. /s

(10-09-2021 06:30 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Maybe USC, Stanford, and a small group of Pac-12 schools could "Mountain West" themselves away from the dead weight of the Pac-12 (Oregon State, Washington State) athletically and academically and form a new conference and make more money for themselves per school. They would have to find a television partner or partner willing to pay more for a slimmed down "Pac-8" or "Pac-10" than the current Pac-12. Maybe they replace Oregon State and Wazzu with BYU and Kansas? There is precedence for the media companies to shed "dead weight", look at them successfully getting Oklahoma and Texas away from the Big 12. Could the "California 4" schools package themselves together and make more money than they would from the Pac 12 or as individual schools? Why should one have to break free from the others? The media rights of the four together dominates the most populous state in the country, in theory they have more eyeballs than the University of Texas would, and all any media company would need is one of them to be good rather than to depend on UT to be good. Then they can pick any four (or more) teams out west and leave any unwanted Pac-12 teams behind.

Oregon State and Washington State serve their purpose in the conference. Reser Stadium looks more chill and laid back than other stadiums.

Not sure how you can label Washington State dead weight either, they’re a feast or famine program that has flashes of brilliance. That’s just how that program is.

Every conference needs an average to “dead weight” program to make USC, Oregon, Washington and whatever other up and coming school (Utah) to look good.

(10-09-2021 06:58 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  Every conference needs an average to “dead weight” program to make USC, Oregon, Washington and whatever other up and coming school (Utah) to look good.

In a conference of 10 or 12 teams, someone is almost always going to be the dead weight. If the SEC kicked Vanderbilt out, either Tennessee, Kentucky, or one or both of the Mississippi schools would become the new dead weight. There were dead weights in the Big Ten before Rutgers got there, Northwestern mainly was the dead weight in the 80's before Gary Barnett got there. If Rutgers and Maryland left the Big Ten, Ohio State would still beat up on Illinois and the Indiana schools (and these days Michigan )

Dead weight has more than one meaning and football isn't everything. Maybe Oregon State and Washington State can be competitive with the California schools in football. So what? So could 20-50 other schools in the country. What makes them more special than say San Diego State other than historical ties? The California schools (especially Stanford) take great pride on academics, and Oregon State and Washington State are pretty bad academically according to USN&WR rankings. And unless Corvallis and Pullman are nicer places than I think they are, why would UCLA and Berkeley want to go there every other year or however often they do? If the California schools have Oregon and Washington (the clear cut #1 schools in those states, do they need the "little brothers"?)

The SEC and Big Ten can ask themselves the same questions about conference members but they are being paid well despite having to share with the Rutgers's and Vanderbilt's so they are OK with it. Texas and Oklahoma were dangled with more money so they left. Can the California Four get more money leaving behind some schools?

(10-09-2021 08:10 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-09-2021 06:58 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  Every conference needs an average to “dead weight” program to make USC, Oregon, Washington and whatever other up and coming school (Utah) to look good.

In a conference of 10 or 12 teams, someone is almost always going to be the dead weight. If the SEC kicked Vanderbilt out, either Tennessee, Kentucky, or one or both of the Mississippi schools would become the new dead weight. There were dead weights in the Big Ten before Rutgers got there, Northwestern mainly was the dead weight in the 80's before Gary Barnett got there. If Rutgers and Maryland left the Big Ten, Ohio State would still beat up on Illinois and the Indiana schools (and these days Michigan )

Dead weight has more than one meaning and football isn't everything. Maybe Oregon State and Washington State can be competitive with the California schools in football. So what? So could 20-50 other schools in the country. What makes them more special than say San Diego State other than historical ties? The California schools (especially Stanford) take great pride on academics, and Oregon State and Washington State are pretty bad academically according to USN&WR rankings. And unless Corvallis and Pullman are nicer places than I think they are, why would UCLA and Berkeley want to go there every other year or however often they do? If the California schools have Oregon and Washington (the clear cut #1 schools in those states, do they need the "little brothers"?)

The SEC and Big Ten can ask themselves the same questions about conference members but they are being paid well despite having to share with the Rutgers's and Vanderbilt's so they are OK with it. Texas and Oklahoma were dangled with more money so they left. Can the California Four get more money leaving behind some schools?

Kinda a shame that Tennessee for football these days is considered dead weight but it’s true. This type of **** is why they need a 5-1-2 playoff system. Plus, 8 teams keeps the regular season important.

And Washington/Washington State & Oregon/Oregon State are good rivalries. The PAC-12 is a little more than the California schools. You know better.

That’s okay. The PAC-8 aka the new WAC would look good without USC/UCLA/Stanford/Cal.

I’m not trying to hate but Berkeley, CA is a little overrated compared to what you think of Corvallis. Nothing I’ve seen indicates that town is a shithole.

(10-08-2021 10:06 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-08-2021 07:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s pretend for a moment that the PAC 12’s crown jewel was dissatisfied to the point of taking their football independent and moving the rest of their sports to the WCC.

What might that look like?

Annual Opponents:
ND
UCLA
Cal
Stanford
Washington
Oregon
2 G5s
4 Big Ten/SEC/ACC

thoughts?

You are kidding? USC should be dissatisfied with themselves. They are an embarrassment. They got crushed at home by Stanford and Oregon State. In your hypothetical scenario, they would be on their own. The other Pac-12 schools would not do them any favors by scheduling them. Recruiting would get nasty, because schools in the Pac-12 would point out that they will never play in the Rose Bowl, they left because they can't compete in the Pac-12, that they have downgraded their Olympic sports schedule to games against LMU, Pepperdine, San Diego.

Going independent would be a revenue loser, both in football and basketball. The alumni would not be happy at all. They are not happy as it is. With all of their football history and all of the football talent in Southern California, they should be the crown jewell. But they are not.

Every program goes through cycles where they are truly awful. Alabama went through this awhile back (pre-Nick Saban), LSU went through it, etc. The important thing is to get an AD who can get it right because if not, you could have a situation like Tennessee who hasn't got it right yet!! I'm sure with the right coach, USC can be good once again. But I think you're right about the Pac 12 schools.

(10-09-2021 08:55 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(10-09-2021 08:10 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-09-2021 06:58 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  Every conference needs an average to “dead weight” program to make USC, Oregon, Washington and whatever other up and coming school (Utah) to look good.

In a conference of 10 or 12 teams, someone is almost always going to be the dead weight. If the SEC kicked Vanderbilt out, either Tennessee, Kentucky, or one or both of the Mississippi schools would become the new dead weight. There were dead weights in the Big Ten before Rutgers got there, Northwestern mainly was the dead weight in the 80's before Gary Barnett got there. If Rutgers and Maryland left the Big Ten, Ohio State would still beat up on Illinois and the Indiana schools (and these days Michigan )

Dead weight has more than one meaning and football isn't everything. Maybe Oregon State and Washington State can be competitive with the California schools in football. So what? So could 20-50 other schools in the country. What makes them more special than say San Diego State other than historical ties? The California schools (especially Stanford) take great pride on academics, and Oregon State and Washington State are pretty bad academically according to USN&WR rankings. And unless Corvallis and Pullman are nicer places than I think they are, why would UCLA and Berkeley want to go there every other year or however often they do? If the California schools have Oregon and Washington (the clear cut #1 schools in those states, do they need the "little brothers"?)

The SEC and Big Ten can ask themselves the same questions about conference members but they are being paid well despite having to share with the Rutgers's and Vanderbilt's so they are OK with it. Texas and Oklahoma were dangled with more money so they left. Can the California Four get more money leaving behind some schools?

Kinda a shame that Tennessee for football these days is considered dead weight but it’s true. This type of **** is why they need a 5-1-2 playoff system. Plus, 8 teams keeps the regular season important.

And Washington/Washington State & Oregon/Oregon State are good rivalries. The PAC-12 is a little more than the California schools. You know better.

That’s okay. The PAC-8 aka the new WAC would look good without USC/UCLA/Stanford/Cal.

I’m not trying to hate but Berkeley, CA is a little overrated compared to what you think of Corvallis. Nothing I’ve seen indicates that town is a shithole.

Oregon State is the top baseball program of the Pac 12!! Vandy used to have that distinction within the SEC although it's definitely debatable now, IMO.

(10-09-2021 08:55 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(10-09-2021 08:10 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-09-2021 06:58 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  Every conference needs an average to “dead weight” program to make USC, Oregon, Washington and whatever other up and coming school (Utah) to look good.

In a conference of 10 or 12 teams, someone is almost always going to be the dead weight. If the SEC kicked Vanderbilt out, either Tennessee, Kentucky, or one or both of the Mississippi schools would become the new dead weight. There were dead weights in the Big Ten before Rutgers got there, Northwestern mainly was the dead weight in the 80's before Gary Barnett got there. If Rutgers and Maryland left the Big Ten, Ohio State would still beat up on Illinois and the Indiana schools (and these days Michigan )

Dead weight has more than one meaning and football isn't everything. Maybe Oregon State and Washington State can be competitive with the California schools in football. So what? So could 20-50 other schools in the country. What makes them more special than say San Diego State other than historical ties? The California schools (especially Stanford) take great pride on academics, and Oregon State and Washington State are pretty bad academically according to USN&WR rankings. And unless Corvallis and Pullman are nicer places than I think they are, why would UCLA and Berkeley want to go there every other year or however often they do? If the California schools have Oregon and Washington (the clear cut #1 schools in those states, do they need the "little brothers"?)

The SEC and Big Ten can ask themselves the same questions about conference members but they are being paid well despite having to share with the Rutgers's and Vanderbilt's so they are OK with it. Texas and Oklahoma were dangled with more money so they left. Can the California Four get more money leaving behind some schools?

Kinda a shame that Tennessee for football these days is considered dead weight but it’s true. This type of **** is why they need a 5-1-2 playoff system. Plus, 8 teams keeps the regular season important.

And Washington/Washington State & Oregon/Oregon State are good rivalries. The PAC-12 is a little more than the California schools. You know better.

That’s okay. The PAC-8 aka the new WAC would look good without USC/UCLA/Stanford/Cal.

I’m not trying to hate but Berkeley, CA is a little overrated compared to what you think of Corvallis. Nothing I’ve seen indicates that town is a shithole.

Actually, South Carolina is more dead weight than Tennessee, IMO, but Tennessee isn't much better.