https://www.postguam.com/forum/ucla-big-...f7f71.html

(12-13-2022 05:00 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  https://www.postguam.com/forum/ucla-big-...f7f71.html

Interesting opinion piece.

Seems very not thrilled with the move.

(12-13-2022 05:47 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(12-13-2022 05:00 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  https://www.postguam.com/forum/ucla-big-...f7f71.html

Interesting opinion piece.

Seems very not thrilled with the move.

I read Dave Zirin's work on a regular basis, but it's safe to say College Sports in general and conference realignment in particular aren't anywhere near his wheelhouse

"With the addition of the Southern California teams, the Big Ten’s new media deal is expected to bring in roughly $100 million annually for each of its 16 member schools, far outpacing the $31 million that the current Pac-12’s television deal promises."

either he doesn't understand math, or he's being deliberately obtuse. It's not a $69m difference.

Judging by the tone of the article, I'd say that he wanted that $$ different to be as large as possible to hammer home his point. His discussion of "cutting coach salaries" is hardly on point, as coaching salaries are a market set in B1G and SEC country, not LA. Well, I guess that's not exactly true, as the USC football coach makes more than the football and bball coaches combined at UCLA.

The UCLA move to the B1G is IMO bad on every level, save for the level of dumping cash in to UCLA athletic coffers.

So that they can more easily afford the same toys that schools like Michigan, Texas and LSU have - toys they manage to have without moving to a conference 1600 miles away.

Any competitive advantages are negated when the competition is equally compensated. The fact is, UCLA is at a competitive disadvantage in the B1G. Is UCF going to be better off in the Big 12? Maybe... or maybe it's another Rutgers/Maryland situation. Or WVU for that matter... so who exactly is benefiting? Coaches, ADs and Presidents. Not the fans or students... that's comical if you believe otherwise.