I don't think there is any way UCLA doesn't end up in the B1G. They want Rose Bowl Stadium in their conference. I wouldn't be surprised if in the end what the regents want is to force the hand of the B1G to take Cal with them.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
What I'm looking at is if they tie them together and do block the big ten move (which I don't think will happen), and the big ten does raid for UW, UO and I'm guessing standford. That would severely cripple the PAC. The question then comes to is Cal and UCLA better than two of the corner schools, I would probably say yes if we don't have to deal with the Cali political crap that is reported to come along with Cal.
USC wouldn't back out. They'd just find a new partner. Whether that's Stanford, Oregon, or Washington probably doesn't matter as much to them as the payday.
This whole thing just ends with UCLA, USC, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, and Washington in the Big 10. It might not be in the next year, but it certainly ends that way in 6-10 years. The leftover teams that have value will end up in the Big 12.
I think the threat by floating OU/WU getting invites and dissolving the conference results in UCLA being free to move as there wont be a PAC!0 money to keep the UCLA athletics going considering their debt. If for some reason the Regents force UCLA and CAL as a package the Big 10 can just get Stanford (and the SF market) since they are private and not governed by Regents like USC.
It would be ironic that the PAC 10 Commishs actively working with a hail marry succeeds to keep UCLA in the PAC 10 leading to directly destroying the PAC 10.
Dodd could have a gotten that statement from a drunk guy at a bar. Common sense if UCLA backs out, the Big10 would need to replace them with Oregon, Washington, Stanford, etc. I think Kevin Warren would actually like the opportunity for the Big10 to add more than 2 teams right now. With Oregon & Washington having solid seasons, they look better to the TV folks now than over the summer.
That said, when the initial news came out that the California BOR was voting on UCLA in mid-December, I listened to a podcast where the guys laughed off the slant most news organizations took- possibility BOR could vote no. They mentioned that when the BOR met last month to discuss the focus was on:
- Financial Aspect of UCLA Moving to Big10. Its a huge win. Sure travel costs increase, but they might eat up $10M of the $40M increase in media rights fees. And that $10M included MORE than just travel. aka Pac12 Commissioner Blowing Smoke
- Financial impact on UC-Berkley. Minimal if any over today.
- Student Athlete Well-Being from increased travel
- Impact on Olympic Sports
It'll actually be pretty funny and one of the all-time great "shooting ourselves in the d*ck" moments if the Cali BoR somehow blocks UCLA's move. All they'd be doing is moving gobs of new B1G $$$$ from one of their state schools to another school outside of their system, and instead of just Cal being on the sinking ship that is the PAC, putting UCLA on it as well. Lol, yeah, you really showed them who's boss.
If warren wanted to add more then two teams from the PAC they would already be added.
I think Warren would have added more Pac12 teams, but I don't think Big10 University Presidents were sold.
But if UCLA can't join the Big10, then University Presidents might look at Big10 expansion a little differently. I also think it changes the dynamic of the conversation, because who is the 16th team. The USC/UCLA combination is a no-brainer. But, if the question is USC +1, who is that one team? I think there would be divergent opinions:
- Stanford (SF Market & proximity to LA vs OR or WA)
- Oregon (2nd Best Pac12 FB Brand)
- Washington (Seattle TV Market & Solid FB Tradition)
The Cali teams came to the Big Ten with an ultimatum so to be honest I am not 100% sure what the Big Ten wants and I don't think the powers that be really know either from what I have heard.
The plus one is an interesting question, and it really depends on the situation.
Scenario #1 is UCLA backs out and the Big 10 needs to get one for 16. In that scenario, Stanford is probably the frontrunner followed by Washington and Oregon. This might be more realistic short term, as USC is the prize in LA and it appears as if UCLA is getting the invite as USC's preference. The coattail rider has a coattail rider, if you will. USC might not be terribly happy with not having at least one very local conference mate, but it's not like they have a ton of options available to them.
Scenario #2 is UCLA is shackled to Cal and Warren uses this as an excuse to push the B10 presidents on further expansion to 18. With Cal already in the fold, there's not much of a reason to bring Stanford in and double up in the SF market. Washington is probably the frontrunner here as it checks all the boxes and brings in a considerably larger TV market than Oregon.
Oregon is likely the 19th school to get into the B10. I'm not sure who #20 would be unless the economic realities allow for both Cal and Stanford to get an invite. Otherwise, Oregon is probably on the outside until the ACC schools become available.
I don't see the B1G getting bullied into taking any school if it's not an institution the conference wants, unless it's to get ND to join.
You’re making the assumption that the big ten wants to expand past 16 with more PAC schools. If they wanted it then it would already be done. USC forced the big tens hand to move earlier then they wanted.
But what would the Big 10’s option be if UCLA is blocked (which I think is very, very unlikely still)? Stay at 15 with USC on an island? I guess they did that with Penn St.
I think it’s more likely they just invite someone else to get to 16 or 3 more to get to 18. It doesn’t really matter if the SoCal schools came to the B10 with an ultimatum, any school would accept an invite from the B10 right now.
Not doubting you at all...just lost track of this story. How/what did USC do to get the B1G to move early?
Since divisions are going away they could stay at 15. Or they could add one of Oregon/Washington. If they wanted to add others past 16 it would have happened since those schools are waiting for potential invites.
If I’m reading between the lines, other than USC and UCLA, it sounds like the Big 10 is waiting for the ACC next.
Sure it’s been reported already plus other stuff I heard confirmed it but essentially the Cali schools came to the big ten with a very short timeline to get out of their new PAC arrangement without dealing with any GOR. They basically told the big ten they were leaving the Pac and wanted the big ten but if the big ten said no they would pursue SEC membership. Considering the SEC pulled off a major win getting OUT the big ten almost had to add two marquee programs or else be completely out of the cfb conversation if they went to the SEC.
ACC schools would continue to expand the footprint while remaining in the same time zone with much less distance to travel. The football upside for those schools is no where near as high as USC but would be solid adds that the presidents would approve of.
