ADVERTISEMENT

On the Big-10 or SEC's future....if it's about the money...

ttowncoug

Hall Of Fame
Sep 9, 2001
4,837
851
113
....and a coast to coast league, why wouldn't say the 10 most valuable and storied brands and markets just form a new league and drive up a larger number? Also, don't share the market with another team (IE USC/UCLA)

Example: USC, Notre Dame, Texas, Bama, Florida, Penn St., Stanford, Miami, etc.

I would seem if the markets and the matches are good enough, this league could get NFL type of money.
 
....and a coast to coast league, why wouldn't say the 10 most valuable and storied brands and markets just form a new league and drive up a larger number? Also, don't share the market with another team (IE USC/UCLA)

Example: USC, Notre Dame, Texas, Bama, Florida, Penn St., Stanford, Miami, etc.

I would seem if the markets and the matches are good enough, this league could get NFL type of money.

It's a good question. And when money rules, then why not?

I think there is still some appreciation in the Big10 and SEC for rivalries though, so maybe for least awhile they will keep the teams in small markets in those leagues. It'd be worried though if I were, say, Indiana.
 
The teams that have bolted (see USC and Texas) don't seem to care about rivalries and history. They have a sense of entitlement that doesn't allow that type of thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cr8zyncalif
For me, that whole discussion relates to UCLA's decision to jump with USC, rather than finally getting to be the big boy in town (which would have been the case had they stayed in the PAC). I guess some programs relish being the little brother forever...
 
For me, that whole discussion relates to UCLA's decision to jump with USC, rather than finally getting to be the big boy in town (which would have been the case had they stayed in the PAC). I guess some programs relish being the little brother forever...

UCLA does an incredible amount of nothing with a staggering amount of something. They’ll be back.
 
Well put.

When people write about how location matters so much for college football, I think of UCLA.

A school can have literally every advantage and still screw it up.

If there was an honest list made of Pac 12 schools that truly wanted to be good at football, it might be 1 school. Maybe 2.
 
When people write about how location matters so much for college football, I think of UCLA.

A school can have literally every advantage and still screw it up.

If there was an honest list made of Pac 12 schools that truly wanted to be good at football, it might be 1 school. Maybe 2.

That's just a really dumb comment.
 
I agree with the statement about UCLA screwing up every opportunity they have, location, stadium, resources, and finding a way to underachieve for YEARS...they are the poster program for that.
 
When Biggs commented that so few PAC schools really want to be good at football, I think he is right IF you take it in context. "Want", if it is serious, means commitment. There are few schools in the PAC ready to make the same sort of commitment as half of the SEC schools...ergo, they don't really "want" it. In that sense, I have to agree with his idea, though I think USC, Oregon and Washington all spend the money. Heck, so does Stanford and UCLA. The difference is that USC kept Helton for years when he was obviously the wrong guy. UW has fumbled their way through multiple coaches. Both, if they were serious, would have gotten a better AD a long time ago. UCLA continues their disfunction and utterly failed to seize the opportunity to be THE MAN in SoCal when they elected to continue to be subservient to USC in their new league, rather than being their own man (the main draw in the biggest market; what an opportunity to squander!!). Stanford maintains some perspective and considers themselves above SEC type behavior. That leaves Oregon, who has tried. They have tried hard, due mostly to Uncle Phil's money. If there was a program that wanted it and is committed, I'd have to point to Oregon ahead of the inept USC and UW folks. And now that SC has hired a real coach, they can join the "want to" list. So that is two schools. UW does not make the list...their AD is worthless and their hunt for the current coach (as well as the results of that search) make that clear. Note that I have not mentioned Colorado (a slightly more serious version of Berkeley), Utah (who is simply too well mentally grounded...I mean that as a compliment; much like WSU), the Arizona's (the potential there will forever be unrealized, similar to UCLA), or OSU (WSU's little brother).

Yes, I see 2 PAC programs who are really serious about football at the moment...when measured by an SEC type commitment level, including cheating, bribery and all that goes with it. Oregon and SC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BleedCrimsonandGray
When Biggs commented that so few PAC schools really want to be good at football, I think he is right IF you take it in context. "Want", if it is serious, means commitment. There are few schools in the PAC ready to make the same sort of commitment as half of the SEC schools...ergo, they don't really "want" it. In that sense, I have to agree with his idea, though I think USC, Oregon and Washington all spend the money. Heck, so does Stanford and UCLA. The difference is that USC kept Helton for years when he was obviously the wrong guy. UW has fumbled their way through multiple coaches. Both, if they were serious, would have gotten a better AD a long time ago. UCLA continues their disfunction and utterly failed to seize the opportunity to be THE MAN in SoCal when they elected to continue to be subservient to USC in their new league, rather than being their own man (the main draw in the biggest market; what an opportunity to squander!!). Stanford maintains some perspective and considers themselves above SEC type behavior. That leaves Oregon, who has tried. They have tried hard, due mostly to Uncle Phil's money. If there was a program that wanted it and is committed, I'd have to point to Oregon ahead of the inept USC and UW folks. And now that SC has hired a real coach, they can join the "want to" list. So that is two schools. UW does not make the list...their AD is worthless and their hunt for the current coach (as well as the results of that search) make that clear. Note that I have not mentioned Colorado (a slightly more serious version of Berkeley), Utah (who is simply too well mentally grounded...I mean that as a compliment; much like WSU), the Arizona's (the potential there will forever be unrealized, similar to UCLA), or OSU (WSU's little brother).

Yes, I see 2 PAC programs who are really serious about football at the moment...when measured by an SEC type commitment level, including cheating, bribery and all that goes with it. Oregon and SC.

The list is:
Oregon. They will spend the $.

SC, in the past yes. Maybe now that they’ve hired a new coach?

Stanford will spend the $ on a coach.

uw, well, Jimmy Lake. Not only did they hire him, they’re paying him not to coach.

And that’s it. Everyone else is some kind of middle class or lower class program. Won’t or can’t spend the $. Has dumb admin. Who knows what else. They piss away what should be natural advantages. Amazing.

If location mattered why is Oregon at the top of the list? No local talent, not a major metro area, yet they win. And UCLA sucks. And ASU. And Cal. And uw. Amazing.
 
The list is:
Oregon. They will spend the $.

If location mattered why is Oregon at the top of the list? No local talent, not a major metro area, yet they win. And UCLA sucks. And ASU. And Cal. And uw. Amazing.
Phil Knight. Oregon has mostly made really good decisions with Knights money (and PR) but having the luxury of Nike behind them means there is no such thing as "can't or won't". He runs the athletic department.
 
Jimmy Lake looks like he is going to suck, but anyone who thinks that UW isn't trying to be great at football is just delusional. I'm grateful that they are sucking but they are trying. Everyone seems to be forgetting Utah here. I'm thinking that the Utes are trying too.....and it's working.

With the money that our conference has to spend, everyone is trying as hard as they can. It's too bad that west coast fans suck at supporting their teams the way that other fans do. That's not the school's fault though.
 
Phil Knight. Oregon has mostly made really good decisions with Knights money (and PR) but having the luxury of Nike behind them means there is no such thing as "can't or won't". He runs the athletic department.

Yep. Oregon overcomes their perceived lack of location because they are committed to winning.

Location doesnt matter. Commitment to winning does. Spending $ does.

Location is fools gold.
 
Jimmy Lake looks like he is going to suck, but anyone who thinks that UW isn't trying to be great at football is just delusional. I'm grateful that they are sucking but they are trying. Everyone seems to be forgetting Utah here. I'm thinking that the Utes are trying too.....and it's working.

With the money that our conference has to spend, everyone is trying as hard as they can. It's too bad that west coast fans suck at supporting their teams the way that other fans do. That's not the school's fault though.
UW upper campus has a dilemma on their hands. They hate the importance of football but know they have to at least try to be good at it.
 
UW upper campus has a dilemma on their hands. They hate the importance of football but know they have to at least try to be good at it.
If Zima chugging was a collegiate sport, the flow of cash running through that university would only rival that of the Nile River after a heavy rain storm.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT