USC/UCLA to the Big Ten in 24?

qwerty

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 3, 2020
3,771
4,749
113
58
Muscatine, IA
To add to your first point, the school covered it all up because the team had become successful under Briles and the donors and administrators didn't want to give up that success. Thus, they covered it up sexual assault being committed by the football players. The fact that the consequences were hardly anything given how many people knew about it and did nothing is why the hate exists.

One of the Baylor players involved in 2013 had an appeal denied. I find it hard to believe he only got 180 days for convicted sexual assault. I wonder if he even served any of that or if he has been out the entire time on appeals.

1664539825514.png
 

Stormin

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
42,952
9,521
113
Its to add another team for a late night time slot in case we cant land enough of the 4 corners.

Tbh, I don't see why San Diego State is lesser than Cal, who sucks at everything, nobody watches, and is very openly not even trying to field decent teams either in this scenario

Less people watch SDSU. San Diego is a nice city. But SDSU would be a poor addition. And not really interested in adding teams with stadiums that have the seating capacity of Clyde Williams. And that is a brand new stadium.
 

Clonefan94

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2006
9,635
3,667
113
Schaumburg, IL
Its to add another team for a late night time slot in case we cant land enough of the 4 corners.

Tbh, I don't see why San Diego State is lesser than Cal, who sucks at everything, nobody watches, and is very openly not even trying to field decent teams either in this scenario

OMG, not this **** again. SDSU would be a terrible addition that would devalue the conference. Please stop.
 

CoKane

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 26, 2013
16,480
8,439
113
Cedar Rapids
OMG, not this **** again. SDSU would be a terrible addition that would devalue the conference. Please stop.
Im not arguing that they're good or bad. I think they're better than the 3 nothing schools the Pac has though.

Being G5 isn't an auto DQ towards being a good add. Boise State outdrew Oregon State over the last few years according to the Sicem 365 guys research. Yet I get the idea more people here would be more interested in OSU than Boise.
 

Clonefan94

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2006
9,635
3,667
113
Schaumburg, IL
Im not arguing that they're good or bad. I think they're better than the 3 nothing schools the Pac has though.

Being G5 isn't an auto DQ towards being a good add. Boise State outdrew Oregon State over the last few years according to the Sicem 365 guys research. Yet I get the idea more people here would be more interested in OSU than Boise.
I would say at this point in the game, when you are talking perception of the conference, yes, 100% being G5 is an auto DQ. There is no one out there who would make an impact to improve the status of the conference. This is now 100% on the perception of the league and retaining our P? status. Adding more G5 schools only devalues the league.

Give me some SDSU numbers, not Boise St. What does Boise St. outperforming OSU have to do with SDSU joining the Big 12? P.S. I don't want Boise St. either.
 

PickSix

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2013
241
314
63

This jibes with Andrew Marchand's report of the sides being "hundreds of millions a part"

If you take 200 mil divided 5, that's 40 mil per team per season gap.

In the most recent episode of the Marchand and Ourand podcast, he seemed to infer that the conference was initially looking to be at $50+ mil per season.

$16 mil may seem shocking low, but it adds up with the other bits and pieces that have been reported...

I GOTTA imagine that the Big 12 has better numbers than this. I'm starting to get optimistic again.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CoKane

JHUNSY

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2013
4,849
2,297
113
Des Moines, IA
Kliavkoff swinging for the fences on that ask, more specifically the no termination clause.

I get why he has to ask for that to be off the table, but it’s obvious there’s no chance ESPN or Fox will play ball with that. Going to be hard to sell the four corners on it when 2-4 others will leave at first offer.

Rock and a hard place. Quite contrary to the “optimism” he has claimed.
 

Cyclonepride

Thought Police
Staff member
Apr 11, 2006
91,948
47,295
113
52
A pineapple under the sea
www.oldschoolradical.com
This jibes with Andrew Marchand's report of the sides being "hundreds of millions a part"

If you take 200 mil divided 5, that's 40 mil per team per season gap.

In the most recent episode of the Marchand and Ourand podcast, he seemed to infer that the conference was initially looking to be at $50+ mil per season.

$16 mil may seem shocking low, but it adds up with the other bits and pieces that have been reported...

I GOTTA imagine that the Big 12 has better numbers than this. I'm starting to get optimistic again.
I am too. I really think the key is for this to play out as it appears to be, and then have invitations in hand (with tentative or outright acceptance) for added schools, and negotiate from that standpoint.
 

alarson

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 15, 2006
47,283
47,148
113
Ankeny
I find it extremely difficult to believe they are that far apart. That doesn’t pass the smell test.

Could be a lot of reasons for it.

PAC 12 self-valuation seems pretty high.
ESPN could be low-balling.

Also, that ESPN valuation may be the valuation without the termination clause.
 

JHUNSY

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2013
4,849
2,297
113
Des Moines, IA
Fwiw, some are speculating in the comments of that thread that it’s more likely ESPN’s offer on only half (assuming the PAC-12 is trying to obtain a combined Amazon/ESPN type deal). Say Amazon matches, that’s $32M per and a lot more in line with the initial reports, right?

Still think the networks aren’t going to keep a termination clause off the table though, or it’ll be low at that.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Acylum

Help Support Us

Become a patron