(03-06-2023 11:17 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  No reason why these matchups need to be annual. No reason whatsoever. 2/4 year trips to LA is more than enough. Just a blatant money grab to try to make the TV contract whole.

That’s called conference realignment!

Hence the reported proposal to have Oklahoma-Florida be a protected SEC rivalry, too. Those two schools have played a grand total of twice in their entire histories.

OP makes sense. You need the biggest names to get USC & UCLA fans excited about their new conference.

(03-06-2023 12:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-06-2023 11:17 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  No reason why these matchups need to be annual. No reason whatsoever. 2/4 year trips to LA is more than enough. Just a blatant money grab to try to make the TV contract whole.

That’s called conference realignment!

Hence the reported proposal to have Oklahoma-Florida be a protected SEC rivalry, too. Those two schools have played a grand total of twice in their entire histories.

No Frank, it's called a huge favor. Almost everyone in the SEC wants to play in Florida more often. It's the biggest reason there is massive interest in Florida State.

UCLA with Ohio State makes sense to me. OSU should win most years, and they get annual exposure to kids in Los Angeles because of the game. LA boosts OSU's recruiting without sacrificing a brand school in the playoff picture. If you assume that with more revenue USC becomes competitive again in a meaningful way, why do you want OSU and USC meeting anywhere but a CCG? UCLA/OSU preserves one of OSU and USC another loss and still gives the Buckeyes the exposure.

(03-06-2023 04:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2023 12:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-06-2023 11:17 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  No reason why these matchups need to be annual. No reason whatsoever. 2/4 year trips to LA is more than enough. Just a blatant money grab to try to make the TV contract whole.

That’s called conference realignment!

Hence the reported proposal to have Oklahoma-Florida be a protected SEC rivalry, too. Those two schools have played a grand total of twice in their entire histories.

No Frank, it's called a huge favor. Almost everyone in the SEC wants to play in Florida more often. It's the biggest reason there is massive interest in Florida State.

UCLA with Ohio State makes sense to me. OSU should win most years, and they get annual exposure to kids in Los Angeles because of the game. LA boosts OSU's recruiting without sacrificing a brand school in the playoff picture. If you assume that with more revenue USC becomes competitive again in a meaningful way, why do you want OSU and USC meeting anywhere but a CCG? UCLA/OSU preserves one of OSU and USC another loss and still gives the Buckeyes the exposure.

I agree - I get why you wouldn't have OSU play USC annually if they're already playing Michigan and Penn State annually. However, my main point is that I don't understand why OSU-PSU would be sacrificed if OSU is playing UCLA annually (for the reasons that you've stated).

To be sure, though, Oklahoma-Florida will be a TV ratings bonanza for the SEC and that's the primary reason why it would exist as an annual game. (Sure, everyone wants to recruit in Florida, but everyone wants to recruit in Texas, too, and OU is guaranteed the Red River Rivalry Game.) I'm not hating - I'm watching that OU-UF game every year, which is the whole goal. When there isn't an obvious third rival for either OU or UF, then that's exactly what the SEC should be doing here.

(03-06-2023 04:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-06-2023 04:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2023 12:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-06-2023 11:17 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  No reason why these matchups need to be annual. No reason whatsoever. 2/4 year trips to LA is more than enough. Just a blatant money grab to try to make the TV contract whole.

That’s called conference realignment!

Hence the reported proposal to have Oklahoma-Florida be a protected SEC rivalry, too. Those two schools have played a grand total of twice in their entire histories.

No Frank, it's called a huge favor. Almost everyone in the SEC wants to play in Florida more often. It's the biggest reason there is massive interest in Florida State.

UCLA with Ohio State makes sense to me. OSU should win most years, and they get annual exposure to kids in Los Angeles because of the game. LA boosts OSU's recruiting without sacrificing a brand school in the playoff picture. If you assume that with more revenue USC becomes competitive again in a meaningful way, why do you want OSU and USC meeting anywhere but a CCG? UCLA/OSU preserves one of OSU and USC another loss and still gives the Buckeyes the exposure.

I agree - I get why you wouldn't have OSU play USC annually if they're already playing Michigan and Penn State annually. However, my main point is that I don't understand why OSU-PSU would be sacrificed if OSU is playing UCLA annually (for the reasons that you've stated).

To be sure, though, Oklahoma-Florida will be a TV ratings bonanza for the SEC and that's the primary reason why it would exist as an annual game. (Sure, everyone wants to recruit in Florida, but everyone wants to recruit in Texas, too, and OU is guaranteed the Red River Rivalry Game.) I'm not hating - I'm watching that OU-UF game every year, which is the whole goal. When there isn't an obvious third rival for either OU or UF, then that's exactly what the SEC should be doing here.

If OSU vs PSU is dropped, I suspect it is to save one of them a loss and increase the likelihood that both could be in the expanded playoffs. Yes, you sacrifice a major event for the Big 10 schedule, but you are also increasing the likelihood both will play on the bigger stage at the end of the season. So I get this one too. But OU / UF is about recruiting. OU vs 1/3rd of the SEC would generate as many viewers.

(03-06-2023 10:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-05-2023 09:24 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  What happens with Ohio State-Penn State is going to be fascinating. It's been one of the biggest TV draws for the league over the last decade, and Ohio State is probably the program that Penn State fans would consider the closest thing to a "rival" in the conference.

But I've also heard the same thing....that Ohio State was very likely to get either USC or UCLA as an annual rival, and that they wouldn't give Ohio State Michigan/Penn State/an LA school. At 16 teams, and with SO many Big Ten rivalry games, you simply can't make all of them annual games. Some stuff just won't get to happen every year. Right now, I'd bet money that Penn State doesn't get Ohio State OR Michigan as an annual opponent.

I would be pretty surprised if Nebraska doesn't get an annual game against one of the LA schools as well. They historically recruit SoCal in a way most other Big Ten teams don't, their fans travel, and it's the (lmao) closest flight for any LA team.

That's crazy to me. (I'm not saying that you're crazy as you would know better than us, but rather the Big Ten office is crazy if they're actually thinking this way.) I would think that Ohio State-Penn State is mandatory going forward. It's consistently the biggest TV draw outside of Michigan-Ohio State. I could understand not giving Ohio State an annual USC game on top of Michigan and PSU, but that could be satisfied by giving them UCLA.

Plus, Michigan is almost certainly not going to play PSU annually going forward, so the Big Ten is already losing one of the existing huge monster brand vs. monster brand games. It would be nuts to me that OSU-PSU would go away as an annual game on top of it (although I get that presidents/ADs are totally looking out for their own self-interests with these internal political debates).

Completely agree that OSU-PSU is a must have game every year. Alabama plays LSU, Auburn, Texas A&M, Ole Miss, Tennessee every year. Outside of Michigan the last 2 years, OSU has destroyed the Big Ten for 15+ years. It makes no sense to drop that game - its one of the few competitive OSU games each year.

(03-06-2023 12:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-06-2023 11:17 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  No reason why these matchups need to be annual. No reason whatsoever. 2/4 year trips to LA is more than enough. Just a blatant money grab to try to make the TV contract whole.

That’s called conference realignment!

Hence the reported proposal to have Oklahoma-Florida be a protected SEC rivalry, too. Those two schools have played a grand total of twice in their entire histories.

Well, most SEC teams have almost never played OU. Just to pick the two random teams I looked up on Mcubed, LSU has only played OU 3 times, and Ole Miss has only played OU once. And all 4 of those games were bowl games, meaning they weren't actually pre-scheduled. Apparently OU and Auburn have also never met in the regular season before, although they have played in two Sugar Bowls.

Almost anybody you pair OU with will be a team they've almost never played before.

(03-06-2023 11:18 AM)jokewood Wrote:  Penn State may get one but not both of Maryland and Rutgers (probably Maryland). Those are FS1/BTN games.

Agreed. The notion that Md/Rutgers were added to give PSU eastern rivals is overstated, as it was primarily to gain cable scripts in Baltimore/DC/NYC. If it was about giving PSU eastern rivals, maybe MD would have still been chosen, but PSU would have had a real rivalry restored (Probably 'Cuse, bc Pitt adds no cable scripts and WVU doesn't have the academics/fanbase) in place of Rutgers. That said, taking full advantage of the additions of MD/Rutgers does require PSU playing them regularly given the significant following/alumni PSU has in those DMAs. PSU serves those additions more than they serve PSU.

(03-06-2023 08:40 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(03-06-2023 12:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-06-2023 11:17 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  No reason why these matchups need to be annual. No reason whatsoever. 2/4 year trips to LA is more than enough. Just a blatant money grab to try to make the TV contract whole.

That’s called conference realignment!

Hence the reported proposal to have Oklahoma-Florida be a protected SEC rivalry, too. Those two schools have played a grand total of twice in their entire histories.

Well, most SEC teams have almost never played OU. Just to pick the two random teams I looked up on Mcubed, LSU has only played OU 3 times, and Ole Miss has only played OU once. And the Ole Miss-OU game and one of the LSU-OU games were bowl games, meaning they weren't actually pre-scheduled. Apparently OU and Auburn have also never met in the regular season before, although they have played in two Sugar Bowls.

Almost anybody you pair OU with will be a team they've almost never played before.

They could have given UT, Mizzou and A&M to OU on the historical and regional geography front. That would have been the “natural” set of opponents for them. However, to JRsec’s point about the importance of Florida recruiting, my educated guess is that the SEC doesn’t want all of the old Big 12 schools to play each other annually because the other SEC schools want to get access to Texas recruiting and TV markets, too.

Buckeye YouTube blew up with TSUN / Penn State / USC and how unfair it is ... swapping UCLA for USC was proposed as an improvement.

(03-06-2023 08:58 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Buckeye YouTube blew up with TSUN / Penn State / USC and how unfair it is ... swapping UCLA for USC was proposed as an improvement.

That’s modern realignment for ya.

“Hey, we want to make money off you in our conference, but don’t actually want to play you!”

(03-06-2023 08:43 PM)gwelymernans Wrote:  

(03-06-2023 11:18 AM)jokewood Wrote:  Penn State may get one but not both of Maryland and Rutgers (probably Maryland). Those are FS1/BTN games.

Agreed. The notion that Md/Rutgers were added to give PSU eastern rivals is overstated, as it was primarily to gain cable scripts in Baltimore/DC/NYC. If it was about giving PSU eastern rivals, maybe MD would have still been chosen, but PSU would have had a real rivalry restored (Probably 'Cuse, bc Pitt adds no cable scripts and WVU doesn't have the academics/fanbase) in place of Rutgers. That said, taking full advantage of the additions of MD/Rutgers does require PSU playing them regularly given the significant following/alumni PSU has in those DMAs. PSU serves those additions more than they serve PSU.

I do think not making Penn State feel like any eastern island in a Midwest conference was a bigger deal at the time than made out. The ACC had just taken Pitt and Syracuse, Notre Dame was coming partially, and it had Maryland, Boston College, and the Virginia schools. Penn State was coming off the JoePa blow up where the conference didn't seem to help them and was surrounded by ACC schools. I think there was some long term fear in the Big Ten if it didnt make a move, the balance of power might shift. It wasn't immediate, but think even the president of Iowa (if memory serves) said expanding was less dangerous than standing pat.

That said, that was an issue of the past. I do agree now, there will be serious consideration of not giving Penn State one of Rutgers or Maryland (probably Rutgers). They would likely keep Michigan State then. I won't bet in that but can definitely see.

(03-06-2023 11:50 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(03-06-2023 08:43 PM)gwelymernans Wrote:  

(03-06-2023 11:18 AM)jokewood Wrote:  Penn State may get one but not both of Maryland and Rutgers (probably Maryland). Those are FS1/BTN games.

Agreed. The notion that Md/Rutgers were added to give PSU eastern rivals is overstated, as it was primarily to gain cable scripts in Baltimore/DC/NYC. If it was about giving PSU eastern rivals, maybe MD would have still been chosen, but PSU would have had a real rivalry restored (Probably 'Cuse, bc Pitt adds no cable scripts and WVU doesn't have the academics/fanbase) in place of Rutgers. That said, taking full advantage of the additions of MD/Rutgers does require PSU playing them regularly given the significant following/alumni PSU has in those DMAs. PSU serves those additions more than they serve PSU.

I do think not making Penn State feel like any eastern island in a Midwest conference was a bigger deal at the time than made out. The ACC had just taken Pitt and Syracuse, Notre Dame was coming partially, and it had Maryland, Boston College, and the Virginia schools. Penn State was coming off the JoePa blow up where the conference didn't seem to help them and was surrounded by ACC schools. I think there was some long term fear in the Big Ten if it didnt make a move, the balance of power might shift. It wasn't immediate, but think even the president of Iowa (if memory serves) said expanding was less dangerous than standing pat.

That said, that was an issue of the past. I do agree now, there will be serious consideration of not giving Penn State one of Rutgers or Maryland (probably Rutgers). They would likely keep Michigan State then. I won't bet in that but can definitely see.

Oh, I do think it was a proactive defensive move, but I also think PSU likely would have remained in the B10 anyway. Unless if their movement would've guaranteed ND as a full member or made ACC overtures towards UT more realistic, I don't see the money being more than a wash at best.

MSU does makes sense, although one of Iowa/NE/WI/USC/UCLA would also work for competative balance/strength of schedule purposes.

When you consider that all teams will be playing each other at least 50% of the time, making USC and Mich permanent rivals seems to be an over-reaction.

You can set up a schedule where USC plays Mich and PSU one year, and plays OSU and MSU the other year. That should be enough. Playing them more than that just seems like overkill.

Of course under the new setup, USC and UCLA both still need to find 2 teams as permanent rivals, at least until the Big Ten expands again. Now if the Big Ten ever follows though on rumors and adds 2 more West Coast teams, then suddenly it becomes obvious who USC and UCLA permanent rivals will be.

(03-07-2023 09:00 AM)goofus Wrote:  When you consider that all teams will be playing each other at least 50% of the time, making USC and Mich permanent rivals seems to be an over-reaction.

You can set up a schedule where USC plays Mich and PSU one year, and plays OSU and MSU the other year. That should be enough. Playing them more than that just seems like overkill.

Of course under the new setup, USC and UCLA both still need to find 2 teams as permanent rivals, at least until the Big Ten expands again. Now if the Big Ten ever follows though on rumors and adds 2 more West Coast teams, then suddenly it becomes obvious who USC and UCLA permanent rivals will be.

It’s overkill for coaches and fans worried about wins and losses.

It’s NOT overkill for TV, which is why USC and UCLA moved to the Big Ten. The TV networks will never get enough of those top brand games.

Now, in practicality, there’s going to be a balance between the two. My main point again is that Michigan-Penn State is most likely not going to continue as an annual game. So, the Big Ten is already losing oje monster game annually. That needs to be replaced. If OSU-PSU somehow doesn’t continue as an annual game (truly idiotic if that’s the case), then that also needs to be replaced.

That points to USC playing either or both of Michigan and Penn State. It would be insane to me to bring them in and stick them with even one “non-sexy” annual opponent. The LA market, above all others, needs star brand power (not just “good” matchups).

To your point, these “permanent rivals” might only be “permanent” for the next few years before Big Ten expansion rears its head again, which actually points to me seeing the league milking as many USC/UCLA vs. Michigan/PSU/OSU games as they can in the beginning before other West Coast schools are added and would then make those other matchups naturally less frequent.

(03-06-2023 09:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-06-2023 08:58 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Buckeye YouTube blew up with TSUN / Penn State / USC and how unfair it is ... swapping UCLA for USC was proposed as an improvement.

That’s modern realignment for ya.

“Hey, we want to make money off you in our conference, but don’t actually want to play you!”

Playing them two years out of every four is more often than Ohio State plays most Western division schools at present, so it's a long way from "we want to never play you"

(03-06-2023 08:58 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Buckeye YouTube blew up with TSUN / Penn State / USC and how unfair it is ... swapping UCLA for USC was proposed as an improvement.

I’d absolutely love it!