USC/UCLA to the Big Ten in 2024?
Source: USC and UCLA are planning to leave for the Big Ten as early as 2024. Move *has not been finalized* at the highest levels of power.
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) June 30, 2022
Why not take OR, WA, Stanford and Cal along with UCLA and USC. We have 7 divisions of 2 to 5 teams with and 3 guaranteed match ups per team across divisions and we have play off games on Wednesdays just to fuck with people.
I actually think there's some logic here that the Big Ten would like. The Bay Are is like the 5th largest TV market, and the big ten already has a place in the other 4 (NYC, now LA, Chicago, DC). Oregon is a national brand because of Nike and is in a position Texas used to be in. Washington is in Seattle - also a major market, and a good travel partner for Oregon.
I mean I hate the idea of a 16 team conference and if we got 6 of the old Pac 8 I don't think it's really much worse and also I'd feel a little less bad for being one of the 2 reasons college football is being killed. I mean, "changing."
One report I saw mentioned that USC and UCLA may have actually approached the B1G and told them "we're either going to you or going elsewhere." If that's the case, the B1G might've felt like it was too good of an opportunity to pass up. Plus, if they'd gone to the SEC, that would've created an even bigger power imbalance than we were already bound to see with UT and OU going to the SEC. I think the B1G had to do it.
Can you imagine how unappealing the idea of UCLA having to go to Madison in November is?
To the contrary, I find that notion very appealing.
it's UCLA, they never did anything to anyone. Those kids just want a great education, 5 years in Westwood and the occasional Diddy Riese ice cream sandwich. They didn't sign up for fall Saturdays in the midwest, it feels like a mean thing to do to those kids. Hell haven't they suffered enough, they're coached by chip kelly
Maybe we'll just play all of the November games in SoCal.
The complaints would be skyrocketing in mid-October already - colder at night by then, miserable and protracted rain when it does rain....yeah, the kids on those rosters from the southwestern reaches of the US will love it around here definitely.
How are you gonna keep em in LA once they've seen Rutgers :D
Lincoln Riley didn't leave the boredom of Norman, OK just to be dragged back to middle America multiple times per year.
Big 16 here we come! Can even keep the B1G logo and pretend its a six
B16.
I've already applied for trademark rights.
"The" B16
Find a Sharpie and make the change!
Auerbach also reporting the same thing.
If they join us only for hockey, then this tweet is the ultimate troll job.
we should get a huge boost in recruiting because California is now in our footprint!!! Oh wait..
::ducks:: but not THOSE Ducks.
I agree. We will see an even more diverse cross section of high end recruits who put us in their top three choices before going somewhere else.
Big media market. Academic fit. Traditional powers. Makes sense.
Still thought ND/USC would be a good combo, but this is a pretty good package.
Also, to hell with ND.
Might as well get Oregon and Washington
If only we could boot Maryland and Rutgers...
Maryland and Rutgers has brought a lot of money into the B1G through the DMV and NY markets.
It's always weird to me that people want to jettison Maryland and Rutgers but don't have the same compunction about Nebraska, a team in a talent-deficient state that doesn't improve marketing or talent access AND really isn't all that good at sports and trails most other conference schools academically. I don't love any of those schools as members of the conference but Nebraska has had 1 winning season since the joined the Big 10 and has made the NCAA basketball tournament 1 time since they joined the conference as well. Rutgers has 2 NCAA bids and won an actual bowl game over that same period, and they were abjectly horrible for most of that run.
Personally it's because I don't give a shit about how good they are or how much money they bring the conference. I care about conferences making geographical sense and not just being a semi-pro agglomeration of dick-measuring between conference commissioners. So fuck Rutgers and Maryland, and also fuck USC and UCLA.
I guess I care more about tradition than the average person these days, and have less of a desire for shiny objects. That's why I want to jettison Rutgers and Maryland.
Then we might as well jettison Nebraska and PSU while we're at it, as neither of those programs have been in the conference all that long and don't have deep traditions to uphold.
I get the "tradition" argument to a degree but if the breaking point for your fandom is playing USC and UCLA as conference mates after (gestures) everything else going on in college athletics that feels more like a personal preference than some larger "I care about sports traditions more than you commoners".
I wouldn't actually mind going back to an actual ten-team conference. Perfectly OK with it, actually, if it were to happen. But one thing that's very traditional is regionalism. Nebraska and PSU are cultural and regional fits to a much greater extent. And at least with Penn State we weren't ruining someone else's show and creating yet another domino effect. USC and UCLA are a bullet to the head for the idea that conferences are regional, which had at least been somewhat maintained up til now, Big 12 notwithstanding. Now there's no rhyme or reason for the makeup of any conference anymore. Oregon to the SEC? Florida State to the Pac-12? Why not? The more national the conference makeup, the more purely professional the league.
And believe me, it's not like I've sat and watched everything else going on and said "this is fine."
My wife wishes her Huskers would return to the old Big 8 every time UM kicks their butts.
I’d prefer to return to the conference setup of 1996.
You come off sounding like the guy who has the 1970's cabinet with the built in 24'' RCA picture tube television wondering why everyone is wanting a new 4K UHD television when your television still works just fine.
Money is driving college athletics and if you think that Michigan and/or the Big Ten is simply going to give back ALL THAT MONEY so that the conference can be 10 teams in close geographical proximity then you are going to be upset for quite a while. The Big Ten was the conference which got out in front of everyone else realizing media rights were much more important than brand name.
And all that money makes college athletics better, how, exactly? Are we as fans supposed to be excited that Alabama has, like, a waterfall in the locker room because they have TV money out the wazoo?
It's more like I'm wondering why everyone else is running out to buy a new 24" RCA, but in a mahogany cabinet this time. The experience isn't actually better.
Every year (except last year) when the athletic department transfers their profits to the University the school says that it is better. A rising tide lifts all boats. You can talk of the excesses from football but that money has also raised salaries for non-revenue sports as well as equipment, travel, trainers and so on.
Fact: If you're going to spring for a cabinet, you're gonna go big with the 27 inch screen. Just sayin'.
If you care about tradition, I have some bad news for you. . .
Money seems to be all that anybody cares about at this point. The conference, the kids, and the coaches. I am not naive enough to think that money shouldn't matter, but it is the only thing people are talking about.
It is like accepting an offer from a company based solely on the salary, without considering what the company does, who would be your boss, and who your coworkers would be. It is a very mercenary approach, and it doesn't show any concern or commitment to building a long-term connection with said company, boss or coworkers. Just get paid ASAP, and cut ties immediately if a higher offer comes along. Being a Michigan wolverine means something to a lot of us, and I don't get the sense that many of the kids involved in these bidding wars will feel that way. Maybe time will prove me wrong, but I doubt it.
Ideally there would be a middle ground, but none appears to be on the horizon.
I think you couldn't be more right if you tried, unfortunately. The funny thing is that the same TV people who promise giant stacks of cash to the conferences to get California schools into the Big Ten, will be trying to sell us on tradition.
Now to be fairrrrrr, Michigan (and JH in particular) really screwed ourselves in the "building relationships" department with the NFL dalliance and coaching turnover. That's on us. But I think that kids that are only chasing the highest payout are doing themselves a disservice. Even Tom Brady was willing to take less money to help build championship teams. I suppose it is possible for the talent gap to be so severe that a team of me-first players will beat one that is team-oriented, but we have also seen OSU teams (particularly on defense) that are far less than the sum of their parts. I would like to think that there is value in recruiting players that have a team focus, but maybe I am just living in the past.
And I am all for helping them maximize their earning potential. We mock the "transformational vs. transactional" language, but I get it. If your wife only agreed to marry you after you won a literal bidding war against a bunch of other dudes, she may not be in it for the long haul.
Boot out Maryland and Rutgers and have two 12 team divisions. All the pac-12 teams in one and all the big ten teams in the other. I think that makes the most sense by far
I don't know if I'm still pissed about all the losses to Oregon, but screw them. I want them and their Nike money relegated to a has been conference.
I'll take UW all day long though.
Purdue to the Big Ten East!
Nah these two will go in the East and we’ll give them Rutgers and Indiana. Seems to be the trend…
it's all part of the superconference plan. the B1G east will add difficult teams until eventually it can separate into its own conference once it reaches ten teams. It will claim naming rights to the Big Ten. The West will disintegrate into the Mountain West, Big 12 and Pac 10. fixed.
I can pretty much guarantee it would be the end of divisions, if they are still around by then. USC and UCLA aren't joining to play a Big Ten West schedule.
This is brilliant if true. But you'd think they'd need to add a few more Western teams for balance.
Washington. Oregon. Cal. Stanford.
If they went to 20, you'd effectively have two different conferences. Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa in a new "PAC10".
Not necessarily opposed to this, but they probably wouldn't even have any crossover games. Play the nine teams in your division and then a true title game.
Thats where they are going. SEC super conference and B1G super conference and they'll be new Division 1 football programs. Then they'll split into divisions and the winners will meet in the super conference championship and then those winners will go to the national title game.
The remnants are now Division 1AA.
If they went to 20, you'd effectively have two different conferences.
Yeah, the Big 10 and Pac 10... (I know, I'm deliberately ignoring the rest of what you said).
But when expand to where you have super conferences where the divisions are essentially the old, pre-expansion conferences, what's the point...
Why have a title game and hurt a team's chance at the playoff? Let the two different divisions play it out and hopefully the winner of both divisions have a good enough record to make the playoff. This keeps The Game relevant because it will be for the division championship of the Big Ten East and USC can play Wisconsin at the end of the year as a Big Ten West division Championship.
I'm sure this is what the SEC will end up doing.
Not that long ago I would have scoffed at rumors like this as ridiculous click-bait that nobody in their right mind would believe because the basic premise is nuts: two long-time members of the PAC leaving for a conference two time zones across the country requiring them to play yearly conference games in cold weather.
But since nothing else makes any sense in this country any longer, sure, why not.
Texas/OU to the SEC put the writing on the wall. The Big Ten has to make a move to keep up. USC/UCLA probably desperate to make themselves relevant again, the post-Carroll era has been rough for both. They are superb academic fits too. I'm not saying it this isn't insane but, but in context...
In retrospect you hit the nail on the head. After poaching TX/OU the SEC was saying...your move Big Ten, and with USC/UCLA floundering in Pac 10 purgatory their move make a lot of sense. It's going to happen.
Think we can get Stanford too? I'd love a new rivalry.