Stop acting like USC and UCLA represent the PAC, this ship is sinking for other reasons
The downfall anre idiots who wanted the PAC 12 network instead of selling out to ESPN. In this age ESPN rules college sports like it or not. Take the next best deal and move forward. UW and UO can lead this conference forward and fuck UCLA. Take the automatic bid every year.
Comments
-
Technically UW and UO have been leading this conference for the past 10+ years, at least on the field. Too bad the leadership sucks ass to remind everyone of this.
-
California leads the way pal. Sorry if this offends.
-
Seriously Cal is ranked too high… but read the history those schools founded this conference in 1915coronabruin said:California leads the way pal. Sorry if this offends.
-
USC and UCLA playing Penn State, Michigan Michigan State, Iowa or Ohio State during November /December in the snow will be special. , How many times will USC best Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Iowa to make it to the CFP? UCLA… never
-
I’m not quite sure what this means until I hear from @TheChart
-
Idaho and Montana > UCLA
-
I've said it before and will say again that one of the reasons it's particularly fucked UCLA and USC leaving the conference is killing it is part of the reason the conference sucks is they haven't carried their water for nearly 15 years.
Hyperthetical - UCLA and USC perform as they could and should have the past 10+ years and it was Washington having Stanford's run and building off of it and the conference is mostly fine, even with the cultural and demographic issues the region has.
Fuck, also got me thinking of hypotheticals where Willingham retires after sucking in 2006 somehow and Washington hires Harbaugh. -
I have a hard time imagining that USC and UCLA fans want to fly to the upper Midwest in late Fall. That sucks for them. It also sucks for all of their other sports and the team members.
Geographically, it would make more sense for USC and UCLA to join the Big 12 and for UW and Oregon to join the Big 10. -
Bring back the Northwest Conference
Montana Agricultural College (Montana State) Oct. 1902
Oregon Agricultural College (Oregon State) Oct. 1902 Founding member of reorganized body in 1908
University of Idaho Oct. 1902 Founding member of reorganized body in 1908
University of Montana Oct. 1902
University of Oregon Dec. 1902 Left c. 1905; helped found reorganized body in 1908
University of Washington Oct. 1902 Founding member of reorganized body in 1908
Washington Agricultural College (Washington State) Oct. 1902 Founding member of reorganized body in 1908
+ Central WashingtonWhitman CollegeOct. 1902 Founding member of reorganized body in 1908
+ Eastern WashingtonWillamette University
We've seen Eastern/Montana be competitive at this level... CWU has some work to do -
I hold out hope the Big 10 takes on Oregon, UW, and the Bay Area schools and just makes it like a third division. Maybe don't take Cal and put Nebraska in it. I know the Bay Area schools are a burden but sell the academis boost, the hypothetical TV market, and how you'll get a lot of Bay Area Big 10 alums to come out when they play there.HFNY said:I have a hard time imagining that USC and UCLA fans want to fly to the upper Midwest in late Fall. That sucks for them. It also sucks for all of their other sports and the team members.
Geographically, it would make more sense for USC and UCLA to join the Big 12 and for UW and Oregon to join the Big 10. -
I'd be happy with that, ideally we are in the same conference as USC and UCLA.WoolleyDoog said:
I hold out hope the Big 10 takes on Oregon, UW, and the Bay Area schools and just makes it like a third division. Maybe don't take Cal and put Nebraska in it. I know the Bay Area schools are a burden but sell the academis boost, the hypothetical TV market, and how you'll get a lot of Bay Area Big 10 alums to come out when they play there.HFNY said:I have a hard time imagining that USC and UCLA fans want to fly to the upper Midwest in late Fall. That sucks for them. It also sucks for all of their other sports and the team members.
Geographically, it would make more sense for USC and UCLA to join the Big 12 and for UW and Oregon to join the Big 10.
This may be a questionFS but is there any chance USC and UCLA could change their minds and remain with the rest of the Pac without financial penalty? -
WoolleyDoog said:
I hold out hope the Big 10 takes on Oregon, UW, and the Bay Area schools and just makes it like a third division. Maybe don't take Cal and put Nebraska in it. I know the Bay Area schools are a burden but sell the academis boost, the hypothetical TV market, and how you'll get a lot of Bay Area Big 10 alums to come out when they play there.HFNY said:I have a hard time imagining that USC and UCLA fans want to fly to the upper Midwest in late Fall. That sucks for them. It also sucks for all of their other sports and the team members.
Geographically, it would make more sense for USC and UCLA to join the Big 12 and for UW and Oregon to join the Big 10.
Aside from the fact that nobody in the Bay Area cares about the Bay Area schools, the Bay Area schools are responsible for ruining the PAC by rejecting Texas in 1990 and the ruining the talks with Texas and OU in 2010-11. -
Sandra6 said:WoolleyDoog said:
I hold out hope the Big 10 takes on Oregon, UW, and the Bay Area schools and just makes it like a third division. Maybe don't take Cal and put Nebraska in it. I know the Bay Area schools are a burden but sell the academis boost, the hypothetical TV market, and how you'll get a lot of Bay Area Big 10 alums to come out when they play there.HFNY said:I have a hard time imagining that USC and UCLA fans want to fly to the upper Midwest in late Fall. That sucks for them. It also sucks for all of their other sports and the team members.
Geographically, it would make more sense for USC and UCLA to join the Big 12 and for UW and Oregon to join the Big 10.
Aside from the fact that nobody in the Bay Area cares about the Bay Area schools, the Bay Area schools are responsible for ruining the PAC by rejecting Texas in 1990 and the ruining the talks with Texas and OU in 2010-11.
?
-
SECDAWG said:Sandra6 said:WoolleyDoog said:
I hold out hope the Big 10 takes on Oregon, UW, and the Bay Area schools and just makes it like a third division. Maybe don't take Cal and put Nebraska in it. I know the Bay Area schools are a burden but sell the academis boost, the hypothetical TV market, and how you'll get a lot of Bay Area Big 10 alums to come out when they play there.HFNY said:I have a hard time imagining that USC and UCLA fans want to fly to the upper Midwest in late Fall. That sucks for them. It also sucks for all of their other sports and the team members.
Geographically, it would make more sense for USC and UCLA to join the Big 12 and for UW and Oregon to join the Big 10.
Aside from the fact that nobody in the Bay Area cares about the Bay Area schools, the Bay Area schools are responsible for ruining the PAC by rejecting Texas in 1990 and the ruining the talks with Texas and OU in 2010-11.
?
-
The UCLA/SC leadership will give themselves raises and keep all their Olympic sports afloat with the B1G money.
None of it will enhance their football programs.
SC can already pick their roster and has 3 Pac 12 title appearances and 1 win. In 12 fucking seasons.
Neither LA school fan understands how fucked they are long term with this move. No one in LA is showing up to watch middling SC/UCLA play rust belt schools. -
haie said:
The UCLA/SC leadership will give themselves raises and keep all their Olympic sports afloat with the B1G money.
None of it will enhance their football programs.
SC can already pick their roster and has 3 Pac 12 title appearances and 1 win. In 12 fucking seasons.
Neither LA school fan understands how fucked they are long term with this move. No one in LA is showing up to watch middling SC/UCLA play rust belt schools.
To a large extent, this TV money from football is really about keeping a bunch of sports teams that nobody cares about alive. Ironically people complain about USC and UCLA’s water polo teams having to travel across the country, ignoring that USC and UCLA might have to drop sports like water polo if they still made PAC tv money.
But these big TV contracts do also help the football team. Just five years ago, I would have thought that the difference between making $75 million a year in TV money and $35-40 million a year in TV money (or whatever the PAC would be making if USC and UCLA weren’t leaving) would be completely irrelevant to a football program. I would have thought, how could a school possibly spend those $75 million. But every time I think that teams have maxed out the amount of money they could possibly spend on football, schools somehow find some new way to spend money on football. For example, they’ll suddenly start paying coordinators $2 million, then they’ll start paying head coaches $10 million, and all the while they’ll create some fancy football facilities that attract football recruits, but probably don’t really do anything to make players stronger.
