UCLA and USC move to Big 10

[Roadgeekteen]

I hate the move. It screws up the geography of the Big 10 even more than Rutgers joining did.

[jp the roadgeek]

It totally goes against a traditional B1G rule: a school could only join if it is in a state that borders a state with another school.  This is why UConn couldn't join; the nearest school is Rutgers (which was allowed because of Penn State), so it would take a school in NY state (eg Syracuse) to join before any New England school could ever join.

[Ted$8roadFan]

Rutgers makes more sense than either USC or UCLA, although I understand the skepticism. In any event, it seems that we are heading towards two classes of college football: the elite (Big 10/SEC) and everyone else. 

[RoadWarrior56]

As a Purdue Alumnus, I am not excited about the proposed Big Ten expansion.  For one, I am a traditionalist, and I grew up with the traditional conference lineups.  I attended college when the Big Ten only had ten schools, what a concept, which was several years before even Penn State joined the conference.  The biggest reason I am opposed is that Purdue will likely end up being little more than a bottom-feeder in this super conference, at least in football.  Hopefully, we can still beat IU.

[NWI_Irish96]

Two things attract a conference to a school:

1) Football success
2) Popular in a large TV market

Penn State and Nebraska got added because of 1)
Maryland and Rutgers got added because of 2)
USC qualifies on both counts, and that carried enough weight that they could bring UCLA with them.

Of course there's one team that has not only had success but is very popular in every large TV market outside of the deep south and the BIG will be doing whatever they can to add that team.

[1995hoo]

I don't particularly like the continuing dominoes falling where one realignment leads to another. Part of what makes college sports fun are longtime rivalries, and those are being scrapped in pursuit of TV money. I recognize the business of sports and that it's no different, in principle, from pro teams losing a free agent to a bigger offer or having to trade or not re-sign a player due to the salary cap. But casting aside 70+ year rivalries takes away a lot of what made college sports interesting to watch.

I read something interesting that suggested that Notre Dame will remain independent as long as they have a path to the playoff and that, in turn, the SEC's self-interest is to help Notre Dame maintain that path because the alternative is to see Notre Dame join the Big Ten, which the SEC doesn't want for obvious reasons. (I think it's generally accepted that a Jesuit institution is highly unlikely ever to join the SEC.)

[davewiecking]

Two things attract a school to a conference

1) Football success
2) Popular in a large TV market

Penn State and Nebraska got added because of 1)
Maryland and Rutgers got added because of 2)
USC qualifies on both counts, and that carried enough weight that they could bring UCLA with them.

Of course there's one team that has not only had success but is very popular in every large TV market outside of the deep south and the BIG will be doing whatever they can to add that team.

I believe you meant to write that those 2 things make a school attractive to a conference. The things that attract a school to a conference are $ and $$. Maryland made it clear those were the reasons they joined the B1G.

[NWI_Irish96]

I don't particularly like the continuing dominoes falling where one realignment leads to another. Part of what makes college sports fun are longtime rivalries, and those are being scrapped in pursuit of TV money. I recognize the business of sports and that it's no different, in principle, from pro teams losing a free agent to a bigger offer or having to trade or not re-sign a player due to the salary cap. But casting aside 70+ year rivalries takes away a lot of what made college sports interesting to watch.

I read something interesting that suggested that Notre Dame will remain independent as long as they have a path to the playoff and that, in turn, the SEC's self-interest is to help Notre Dame maintain that path because the alternative is to see Notre Dame join the Big Ten, which the SEC doesn't want for obvious reasons. (I think it's generally accepted that a Jesuit institution is highly unlikely ever to join the SEC.)

1) Notre Dame is Catholic but not Jesuit, yet your point remains that ND is culturally incompatible with the SEC yet the larger issue is that the SEC is secondary to the BIG in the largest TV markets of NY/Chi/LA.

2) You're right in that ND to the BIG would be bad for the SEC. The SEC poaching Clemson and Florida St from the ACC would pretty much force ND into the BIG but I don't know if the SEC is looking at it this way.

Ultimately everything is going to hinge on whether the ACC continues to exist in a form that provides ND with a level of competition and access to recruiting-rich areas in NC/GA/FL that allows them to remain independent.

Another factor is whether the BIG wants ND badly enough to give ND some of the benefits they've had as an independent in guaranteeing them a game in California every Thanksgiving weekend and no noon start times for home games.

[NWI_Irish96]

Two things attract a school to a conference

1) Football success
2) Popular in a large TV market

Penn State and Nebraska got added because of 1)
Maryland and Rutgers got added because of 2)
USC qualifies on both counts, and that carried enough weight that they could bring UCLA with them.

Of course there's one team that has not only had success but is very popular in every large TV market outside of the deep south and the BIG will be doing whatever they can to add that team.

I believe you meant to write that those 2 things make a school attractive to a conference. The things that attract a school to a conference are $ and $$. Maryland made it clear those were the reasons they joined the B1G.

You're correct in that I had that backwards. I edited it.

[Max Rockatansky]

I can see non-Rose Bowl Michigan games now in California, so yes.  If this signals the beginning of the destruction of the NCAA even better.

[US 89]

I don't particularly like the continuing dominoes falling where one realignment leads to another. Part of what makes college sports fun are longtime rivalries, and those are being scrapped in pursuit of TV money. I recognize the business of sports and that it's no different, in principle, from pro teams losing a free agent to a bigger offer or having to trade or not re-sign a player due to the salary cap. But casting aside 70+ year rivalries takes away a lot of what made college sports interesting to watch.

I agree 100% with all of this.

Those rivalries and tradition are why college sports - especially football - are such a great money maker. I do wonder if at some point with all these clearly money-oriented realignments, the schools and conferences may bite off more than they can chew and wind up losing some of their public interest (and money-making ability).

[ET21]

Its clear the Big10 just wants to compete with the SEC for the championship, make a super conference or tourney for the national title. Conferences like the Big12, ACC, and Pac12 now need to either recruit G5 teams or die off/merge.

[JayhawkCO]

Its clear the Big10 just wants to compete with the SEC for the championship, make a super conference or tourney for the national title. Conferences like the Big12, ACC, and Pac12 now need to either recruit G5 teams or die off/merge.

Big 12 is clearly the third biggest with the recent news. They should be able to poach from the other conferences as they see fit.

[1995hoo]

Its clear the Big10 just wants to compete with the SEC for the championship, make a super conference or tourney for the national title. Conferences like the Big12, ACC, and Pac12 now need to either recruit G5 teams or die off/merge.

The ACC has a problem in that respect: If they add additional members that would affect their TV deal, it means they would have to reopen the "Grant of Rights" agreement that currently binds the members to the league. That, in turn, makes it possible for current members (e.g., Clemson) to jump to other leagues without the significant penalty they'd incur under the existing grant of rights. There's pretty much one potential member that would make it feasible to renegotiate the TV deal and reopen the grant of rights. No prizes for guessing which university that is (hint: it's already an ACC member for most sports except football). Whether there is a snowball's chance in hell of that ever happening is a totally different question, of course.

[Roadgeekteen]

Glad that most people agree with me. USC and UCLA have been in the pac for close to a century. Also, what happens to the rose bowl?

[JayhawkCO]

Glad that most people agree with me. USC and UCLA have been in the pac for close to a century. Also, what happens to the rose bowl?

I mean, for UCLA at least, that's an irrelevant question. (Haven't been since '99)

[Alps]

As a Purdue Alumnus, I am not excited about the proposed Big Ten expansion.  For one, I am a traditionalist, and I grew up with the traditional conference lineups.  I attended college when the Big Ten only had ten schools, what a concept, which was several years before even Penn State joined the conference.  The biggest reason I am opposed is that Purdue will likely end up being little more than a bottom-feeder in this super conference, at least in football.  Hopefully, we can still beat IU.

As a Michigan fan, I'm tired of this. I'm fine with 16 teams but WHY THESE TWO can we PLEASE have them ANYWHERE near the Midwest?

[Scott5114]

Why even have conferences? What game mechanic does that add?

[Alps]

Why even have conferences? What game mechanic does that add?

Well otherwise the top funded teams - maybe 40 of them total - will all just schedule each other as much as possible and eventually become their own elite group that no one else has a shot with.

[JayhawkCO]

Why even have conferences? What game mechanic does that add?

Well otherwise the top funded teams - maybe 40 of them total - will all just schedule each other as much as possible and eventually become their own elite group that no one else has a shot with.

AKA the SEC's and Big Ten's dream come true?

[Scott5114]

Why even have conferences? What game mechanic does that add?

Well otherwise the top funded teams - maybe 40 of them total - will all just schedule each other as much as possible and eventually become their own elite group that no one else has a shot with.

So why doesn't something like the NCAA (not necessarily the NCAA itself because it sucks) handle the scheduling nationwide?

[Roadgeekteen]

Why even have conferences? What game mechanic does that add?

Well otherwise the top funded teams - maybe 40 of them total - will all just schedule each other as much as possible and eventually become their own elite group that no one else has a shot with.

So why doesn't something like the NCAA (not necessarily the NCAA itself because it sucks) handle the scheduling nationwide?

The schools could just abandon the NCAA.

[CtrlAltDel]

Why even have conferences? What game mechanic does that add?

Well otherwise the top funded teams - maybe 40 of them total - will all just schedule each other as much as possible and eventually become their own elite group that no one else has a shot with.

Would they? If given the chance, I think they'd all play teams they thought they could beat. That is, pretty much every game would be a cupcake game.

[Ted$8roadFan]

I wonder if these moves have anything to do with the new NIL (name, image, likeness) controversies now that the student-athlete compensation genie has left the bottle.

[GaryV]

Why even have conferences? What game mechanic does that add?

Well otherwise the top funded teams - maybe 40 of them total - will all just schedule each other as much as possible and eventually become their own elite group that no one else has a shot with.

And then they can call it the NFL minor leagues, and end the pretense of getting an education.