Strykur said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

Man that is one wordy ass advertisement

---

Dude probably has more info than 99% of the people around here...

---

That's not a high bar

he didn't write LA to SF. Its LA to Seattle.

To me - a UCLA or an SC have to do a pure East Coast swing (Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State), what, 3 times per year? Maybe 4? Travel isn't an issue. And the UC Regents reviewed this and blessed the move.

The PSU fan's take is a good one and one I've been saying for a while now. The B1G got what they wanted for the West Coast. And expansion has to make sense for Fox. UCLA and SC don't want another west coast team. To me this was always a no brainer. They left the P12 for a reason. Its pretty straightforward that they want to leave the membership behind.

I said once and I'll say again - Its UNC, Virginia and FSU that they want. That would bring in Notre Dame.

philly1121 said:

---

he didn't write LA to SF. Its LA to Seattle.

To me - a UCLA or an SC have to do a pure East Coast swing (Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State), what, 3 times per year? Maybe 4? Travel isn't an issue. And the UC Regents reviewed this and blessed the move.

The PSU fan's take is a good one and one I've been saying for a while now. The B1G got what they wanted for the West Coast. And expansion has to make sense for Fox. UCLA and SC don't want another west coast team. To me this was always a no brainer. They left the P12 for a reason. Its pretty straightforward that they want to leave the membership behind.

I said once and I'll say again - Its UNC, Virginia and FSU that they want. That would bring in Notre Dame.

---

LA to Seattle and LA to State College or Newark or East Lansing or Columus or Iowa City aren't even close to the same thing. USC and UCLA may think that for now because they're high off the smell of money. But anyone who travels knows that the time zone change is huge. Plus it can take several times longer to get to those places than Seattle.

The PSU post also forgets that SF exists as a possible West Coast add. The rest of the post seems pretty solid,
but that one statement is so absurd it casts doubt on the entire thing.

Big Dog said:

---

The issue is gonna be the baseball/softball and other non-rev teams having to play mid-week games in the Eastern time zone. Of course, PSU may not care about the student-athlete experience, but the UC Regents certainly do.

---

Sure. That's why they were OK with UCLA moving to the B1G.. It's ultimately all about the money; to hell with the student-athlete eperience.

yeah, its longer distance. Agreed. But UCLA and SC must have weighed all the pros and cons about staying or going and thought it better to take the burden of the distance and leave. I'm not saying its not going to hurt, but they're not going to College Station, Piscataway or College Park every year.

They'll be fine.

linebiz said:

---

Sorry for the double post but I thought this background info on Greg Flugaur might be helpful in the main thread here.

This guy Greg Flugaur is a dude in Minnesota who has a source he calls Big Ten Man (BTM) who is a whale donor at U of Minn. He also has a source he calls the ASU money perch who doesn't name but is the big Arizona State donor that helped get ASU hockey into the Big Ten hockey league.

This guy was basically the only guy who was aware of USC heading to the B1G and he knew it months in advance. The only people that listened to him, so were aware themselves, were the Minnesota and USC 247 forums. That is documented and not in dispute.

He's actually a really nice, down-to-earth modest midwesterner type and he doesn't want to be the story but he wants to relate as much info as he can without going against his sources' wishes. As a bit of background, he mentioned he had major speech issues as a child so having a youtube channel is a major accomplishment for him. He said that it was Big Ten Man encourage him to start his twitter feed, @flugempire, and youtube channel and BTM would help him with insider info.

Also, before the twitter and youtube channel, I think all this started on the Minnesota 247 forums.

I'm not affiliated with him in any way. I just like kind, modest, unpretentious people so I liked this guy when I started listening to him to get my realignment fix. You can tell he's a really kind person by the way he treats his callers.

To do this he's been painting a metaphorical theatre play. He says that after events unfold, he says that the story will be written by the media but if not, he'll lay it out afterwards.

Anyway, in Act 12 of his play, he correctly told us, metaphorically, about the exact dates of the meetings between Colorado and the Big 12 (in Chicago, for sure, and I think the other one was in DC). Plus he gave us the correct dates for Colorado meeting with minnow donors in Boulder and their whale donors in Newport Beach.

He said, in advance (all documented on his youtube channel), that Act 12 was ending July 24 and Act 13 was starting July 25 and it would have a totally different vibe than Act 12 but he didn't know when Act 13 would end. Lo and behold, just a couple of days after Act 13 started, Colorado announced their move.

He does accept his Ls when he's wrong. He actually said that he thought Colorado would announce next week to avoid angering FOX but it happened this past week so he admitted he was wrong on the date. I think he thought next week because he's been hearing for a while that they wanted to announce early in the week for maximum media coverage. He was off by a couple of day on his explicit prediction but I don't really hold that one against him. He did nail it implicitly with his Act 13 date.

I say all this to relay that I think this guy has real legitimate sources and I feel he knows a lot more than he can say publicly. He is more candid in his 2 hour live steam call in shows, if you're so inclined.

This particular video is from this morning (only 8 minutes long) and he discusses the issues with MWC exit fees complicating Pac-12 expansion.



Sorry for the long message. I've been a lurker for a long time and really enjoy this message board so I just want to contribute what I can. This forum is easily the most intelligent free sports message board around, IMO. And I've read tons of others for comparison.

---

I have watched some of his stuff. He is a hard follow as he rambles quite a bit, but much of what he said has actually occurred. He was on USC to the B1G early. As a Cal fan it may be discouraging to watch him if you believe he has any insight at all. He has never mentioned Cal as a candidate for the B1G. Only UW and UO.

So if he does have a legit source then that source does not feel Cal to the B1G is happening. Could change once the conference collapses but for now no smoke on Cal to any conference.

philly1121 said:

---

yeah, its longer distance. Agreed. But UCLA and SC must have weighed all the pros and cons about staying or going and thought it better to take the burden of the distance and leave. I'm not saying its not going to hurt, but they're not going to College Station, Piscataway or College Park every year.

They'll be fine.

---

The B1G wants a west coast pod. How many schools is the question. They do also want ND. The ACC will be hard to poach for now due to the GOR. Some schools are trying to break it, but there is also an exit fee. It will be very costly and likely will end up in court. FSU is looking hard at it now. That will be interesting to observe.

When Kevin Warren was B1G commissioner he was bullish on expansion. He envisioned a 24 team conference. A conference from coast to coast. I think some still share that vision. But will TV pay for that? I do think if the P12 collapses they bring in at least 2 western teams. For 2024. If Notre Dame wants in they will make it happen.

I agree the B1G wants programs like UVa, UNC, Duke and others. But would those schools test the GOR and exit fees in court. They may eventually but for 2024 that seems a stretch. ESPN is the media partner in the ACC, Fox in the B1G with others. They may be able to work out a settlement regarding the GOR but exit fees may be a different story.

6956bear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

yeah, its longer distance. Agreed. But UCLA and SC must have weighed all the pros and cons about staying or going and thought it better to take the burden of the distance and leave. I'm not saying its not going to hurt, but they're not going to College Station, Piscataway or College Park every year.

They'll be fine.

---

The B1G wants a west coast pod.

---

Says who? Warren may have wanted one, but what evidence is there the current B1G members want one? Why do legacy B1G members want MORE long-distance away games with teams that are even less interesting than USC? Especially when there may be more financially attractive and much closer options hake loose form the ACC before too long.

MTbear22 said:

---

6956bear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

yeah, its longer distance. Agreed. But UCLA and SC must have weighed all the pros and cons about staying or going and thought it better to take the burden of the distance and leave. I'm not saying its not going to hurt, but they're not going to College Station, Piscataway or College Park every year.

They'll be fine.

---

The B1G wants a west coast pod.

---

Says who? Warren may have wanted one, but what evidence is there the current B1G members want one? Why do legacy B1G members want MORE long-distance away games with teams that are even less interesting than USC? Especially when there may be more financially attractive and much closer options hake loose form the ACC before too long.

---

It has been expressed on this board and in other reporting that USC and UCLA were "promised" a western pod when they agreed to join. They would have joined regardless but the B1G recognizes that it makes less sense to leave them on an island.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the Olympic sports. I believe all the so called revenue sports will be expected to be in the B1G. But some sports may not have to be.

The ACC has a couple of more financially attractive programs (FSU and Clemson) than the western adds. But there will be serious competition for those schools. They would have to buy out their GOR and may choose the SEC if available. UW and UO are every bit as attractive as UVa or Miami. UNC is a wildcard. But until they are out of their GOR they are tied to the ACC. The western schools will come initially at a discount. Something that likely will not occur if the ACC teams hit the open market.

Also traveling to Clemson from say Minnesota is no easy task. UW and the Bay Area schools are in large metros with major airports nearby.

MTbear22 said:

---

6956bear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

yeah, its longer distance. Agreed. But UCLA and SC must have weighed all the pros and cons about staying or going and thought it better to take the burden of the distance and leave. I'm not saying its not going to hurt, but they're not going to College Station, Piscataway or College Park every year.

They'll be fine.

---

The B1G wants a west coast pod.

---

Says who? Warren may have wanted one, but what evidence is there the current B1G members want one? Why do legacy B1G members want MORE long-distance away games with teams that are even less interesting than USC? Especially when there may be more financially attractive and much closer options hake loose form the ACC before too long.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with just USC and UCLA, and assuming a BIG 8 game in-conference schedule. That would mean both UCLA and USC need 4 home games from inside the conference, for a total of 8. If you subtract the rivalry game between USC and UCLA, that is a total of 7 games from the midwestern BIG.

If there is a west coast pod of the 6 Pacific schools, and assuming the same 8 game schedule. The west coast pod would still need 4 home games from inside the conference for a total of 24 games. However, if you break the west coast pod up into LA, SF, and NW: you play one home and one away against the other West coast regions. Meaning each school has 2 home games from the West Coast, that reduces the total number of games required from 24 to 12. Then if you account for the rivalry games, you would have an additional 3 games per year, reducing the total number of visits from the Midwest down to 9.

That means the total additional travel for the Big Ten schools for football is two extra games over what they currently have. Two games for adding four teams, which is a great trade-off when adding the #10, 12, and 22 media markets.

Not to mention the true benefits were always in the non-revenue sports, and the mid-week match-ups.

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

he didn't write LA to SF. Its LA to Seattle.

To me - a UCLA or an SC have to do a pure East Coast swing (Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State), what, 3 times per year? Maybe 4? Travel isn't an issue. And the UC Regents reviewed this and blessed the move.

The PSU fan's take is a good one and one I've been saying for a while now. The B1G got what they wanted for the West Coast. And expansion has to make sense for Fox. UCLA and SC don't want another west coast team. To me this was always a no brainer. They left the P12 for a reason. Its pretty straightforward that they want to leave the membership behind.

I said once and I'll say again - Its UNC, Virginia and FSU that they want. That would bring in Notre Dame.

---

LA to Seattle and LA to State College or Newark or East Lansing or Columus or Iowa City aren't even close to the same thing. USC and UCLA may think that for now because they're high off the smell of money. But anyone who travels knows that the time zone change is huge. Plus it can take several times longer to get to those places than Seattle.

The PSU post also forgets that SF exists as a possible West Coast add. The rest of the post seems pretty solid,
but that one statement is so absurd it casts doubt on the entire thing.

---

My one other point of contention, (and this is more an acknowledged unknown than a statement of fact) is what USC and UCLA want. The Penn State guy says USC and UCLA want to get away from the Pac-10 schools, but I've also heard USC and UCLA want a West Coast pod. I don't know what is true.

My understanding of events, is that leaving the conference started with the playoff expansion and the fact that USC was for it, but the other Pac-12 schools were against it. USC felt they were being held back from entering the future of college football by the conference. So they left. When they left they brought UCLA with them. I could therefore see them not wanting to be immediately paired up with the Pac-10 schools again. I can also see the huge impact of cross-country travel for every non-football sport, thus wanting the West Coast Pod.

Ultimately, I don't know.

But that would mean that we would be a more attractive program than a UNC, Virginia or FSU. To Fox. Its one thing for the B1G to say they want us. Its another to explain to Fox Sports that we aren't going to dilute the B1G brand.

6956bear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

---

When Kevin Warren was B1G commissioner he was bullish on expansion. He envisioned a 24 team conference. A conference from coast to coast. I think some still share that vision. But will TV pay for that? I do think if the P12 collapses they bring in at least 2 western teams. For 2024. If Notre Dame wants in they will make it happen.

I agree the B1G wants programs like UVa, UNC, Duke and others. But would those schools test the GOR and exit fees in court. They may eventually but for 2024 that seems a stretch. ESPN is the media partner in the ACC, Fox in the B1G with others. They may be able to work out a settlement regarding the GOR but exit fees may be a different story.

---

Notre Dame is bound by the ACC's GOR, just as UVa and UNC and FSU are. If any of them could buy their way out for less than $100 million, it would have already happened.

BearSD said:

---

6956bear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

---

When Kevin Warren was B1G commissioner he was bullish on expansion. He envisioned a 24 team conference. A conference from coast to coast. I think some still share that vision. But will TV pay for that? I do think if the P12 collapses they bring in at least 2 western teams. For 2024. If Notre Dame wants in they will make it happen.

I agree the B1G wants programs like UVa, UNC, Duke and others. But would those schools test the GOR and exit fees in court. They may eventually but for 2024 that seems a stretch. ESPN is the media partner in the ACC, Fox in the B1G with others. They may be able to work out a settlement regarding the GOR but exit fees may be a different story.

---

Notre Dame is bound by the ACC's GOR, just as UVa and UNC and FSU are. If any of them could buy their way out for less than $100 million, it would have already happened.

---

ND's football GOR is with NBC not the ACC/ESPN. But they do have a clause with the ACC that if their football team joins a conference, they will join the ACC. Not sure the cost to break that agreement, but it can't be as high as SU's or Clemson's cost to break their GOR.

6956bear said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

6956bear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

yeah, its longer distance. Agreed. But UCLA and SC must have weighed all the pros and cons about staying or going and thought it better to take the burden of the distance and leave. I'm not saying its not going to hurt, but they're not going to College Station, Piscataway or College Park every year.

They'll be fine.

---

The B1G wants a west coast pod.

---

Says who? Warren may have wanted one, but what evidence is there the current B1G members want one? Why do legacy B1G members want MORE long-distance away games with teams that are even less interesting than USC? Especially when there may be more financially attractive and much closer options hake loose form the ACC before too long.

---

It has been expressed on this board and in other reporting that USC and UCLA were "promised" a western pod when they agreed to join.

---

I've seen that expressed rarely, and honestly, only in places that have a bias towards Cal, Oregon, or Washington. USC wants nothing to do with a western pod - they want west coast dominance (in recruiting) all to themselves. They will actively fight against additions, especially if it includes Oregon (their level of hatred for Nuke U is downright psychotic).

golden sloth said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

6956bear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

yeah, its longer distance. Agreed. But UCLA and SC must have weighed all the pros and cons about staying or going and thought it better to take the burden of the distance and leave. I'm not saying its not going to hurt, but they're not going to College Station, Piscataway or College Park every year.

They'll be fine.

---

The B1G wants a west coast pod.

---

Says who? Warren may have wanted one, but what evidence is there the current B1G members want one? Why do legacy B1G members want MORE long-distance away games with teams that are even less interesting than USC? Especially when there may be more financially attractive and much closer options hake loose form the ACC before too long.

---

Then if you account for the rivalry games, you would have an additional 3 games per year, reducing the total number of visits from the Midwest down to 9.

---

I think that's a problem (unfortunately) for those with power (media). The point of having USC (and to a much lesser degree, UCLA) is to get west coast brands playing more matchups against east coast brands, because while the west coast brands often have surprisingly low TV numbers when playing themselves, they do dramatically better when matched up against eastern schools with massive followings. So a setup that involves USC taking on more west coast/ traditional matchups instead of against more east coast brands is, IMO, actually NOT what TV wants.

MTbear22 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

he didn't write LA to SF. Its LA to Seattle.

To me - a UCLA or an SC have to do a pure East Coast swing (Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State), what, 3 times per year? Maybe 4? Travel isn't an issue. And the UC Regents reviewed this and blessed the move.

The PSU fan's take is a good one and one I've been saying for a while now. The B1G got what they wanted for the West Coast. And expansion has to make sense for Fox. UCLA and SC don't want another west coast team. To me this was always a no brainer. They left the P12 for a reason. Its pretty straightforward that they want to leave the membership behind.

I said once and I'll say again - Its UNC, Virginia and FSU that they want. That would bring in Notre Dame.

---

LA to Seattle and LA to State College or Newark or East Lansing or Columus or Iowa City aren't even close to the same thing. USC and UCLA may think that for now because they're high off the smell of money. But anyone who travels knows that the time zone change is huge. Plus it can take several times longer to get to those places than Seattle.

The PSU post also forgets that SF exists as a possible West Coast add. The rest of the post seems pretty solid,
but that one statement is so absurd it casts doubt on the entire thing.

---

My one other point of contention, (and this is more an acknowledged unknown than a statement of fact) is what USC and UCLA want. The Penn State guy says USC and UCLA want to get away from the Pac-10 schools, but I've also heard USC and UCLA want a West Coast pod. I don't know what is true.

---

Pure anecdote, but all of my interactions with USC alums (including some large donors) is they never want to see another PAC team again. They want as much UM/ OSU/ PSU/ etc. as possible.

---

The exact opposite reaction from all of my USC alum football fans. They all seem to want Stanford/Cal to join them for football and they especially do not want their non-revenue sports competing in the B1G without other West Coast teams.

berserkeley said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

he didn't write LA to SF. Its LA to Seattle.

To me - a UCLA or an SC have to do a pure East Coast swing (Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State), what, 3 times per year? Maybe 4? Travel isn't an issue. And the UC Regents reviewed this and blessed the move.

The PSU fan's take is a good one and one I've been saying for a while now. The B1G got what they wanted for the West Coast. And expansion has to make sense for Fox. UCLA and SC don't want another west coast team. To me this was always a no brainer. They left the P12 for a reason. Its pretty straightforward that they want to leave the membership behind.

I said once and I'll say again - Its UNC, Virginia and FSU that they want. That would bring in Notre Dame.

---

LA to Seattle and LA to State College or Newark or East Lansing or Columus or Iowa City aren't even close to the same thing. USC and UCLA may think that for now because they're high off the smell of money. But anyone who travels knows that the time zone change is huge. Plus it can take several times longer to get to those places than Seattle.

The PSU post also forgets that SF exists as a possible West Coast add. The rest of the post seems pretty solid,
but that one statement is so absurd it casts doubt on the entire thing.

---

My one other point of contention, (and this is more an acknowledged unknown than a statement of fact) is what USC and UCLA want. The Penn State guy says USC and UCLA want to get away from the Pac-10 schools, but I've also heard USC and UCLA want a West Coast pod. I don't know what is true.

---

Pure anecdote, but all of my interactions with USC alums (including some large donors) is they never want to see another PAC team again. They want as much UM/ OSU/ PSU/ etc. as possible.

---

The exact opposite reaction from all of my USC alum football fans. They all seem to want Stanford/Cal to join them for football and they especially do not want their non-revenue sports competing in the B1G without other West Coast teams.

---

In that case I'll hope you have more and richer USC friends.

MTbear22 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

he didn't write LA to SF. Its LA to Seattle.

To me - a UCLA or an SC have to do a pure East Coast swing (Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State), what, 3 times per year? Maybe 4? Travel isn't an issue. And the UC Regents reviewed this and blessed the move.

The PSU fan's take is a good one and one I've been saying for a while now. The B1G got what they wanted for the West Coast. And expansion has to make sense for Fox. UCLA and SC don't want another west coast team. To me this was always a no brainer. They left the P12 for a reason. Its pretty straightforward that they want to leave the membership behind.

I said once and I'll say again - Its UNC, Virginia and FSU that they want. That would bring in Notre Dame.

---

LA to Seattle and LA to State College or Newark or East Lansing or Columus or Iowa City aren't even close to the same thing. USC and UCLA may think that for now because they're high off the smell of money. But anyone who travels knows that the time zone change is huge. Plus it can take several times longer to get to those places than Seattle.

The PSU post also forgets that SF exists as a possible West Coast add. The rest of the post seems pretty solid,
but that one statement is so absurd it casts doubt on the entire thing.

---

My one other point of contention, (and this is more an acknowledged unknown than a statement of fact) is what USC and UCLA want. The Penn State guy says USC and UCLA want to get away from the Pac-10 schools, but I've also heard USC and UCLA want a West Coast pod. I don't know what is true.

---

Pure anecdote, but all of my interactions with USC alums (including some large donors) is they never want to see another PAC team again. They want as much UM/ OSU/ PSU/ etc. as possible.

---

The exact opposite reaction from all of my USC alum football fans. They all seem to want Stanford/Cal to join them for football and they especially do not want their non-revenue sports competing in the B1G without other West Coast teams.

---

In that case I'll hope you have more and richer USC friends.

---

It's probably more like my SC friends are less insufferable than most SC fans. Plus they really care about the non-revenue sports as well.

berserkeley said:

---

BearSD said:

---

6956bear said:

---

When Kevin Warren was B1G commissioner he was bullish on expansion. He envisioned a 24 team conference. A conference from coast to coast. I think some still share that vision. But will TV pay for that? I do think if the P12 collapses they bring in at least 2 western teams. For 2024. If Notre Dame wants in they will make it happen.

I agree the B1G wants programs like UVa, UNC, Duke and others. But would those schools test the GOR and exit fees in court. They may eventually but for 2024 that seems a stretch. ESPN is the media partner in the ACC, Fox in the B1G with others. They may be able to work out a settlement regarding the GOR but exit fees may be a different story.

---

Notre Dame is bound by the ACC's GOR, just as UVa and UNC and FSU are. If any of them could buy their way out for less than $100 million, it would have already happened.

---

ND's football GOR is with NBC not the ACC/ESPN. But they do have a clause with the ACC that if their football team joins a conference, they will join the ACC. Not sure the cost to break that agreement, but it can't be as high as SU's or Clemson's cost to break their GOR.

---

Notre Dame can stay indy in football, or they can join the ACC for football, but can't join another league in any way during the ACC's GOR period. ND's agreement with the ACC requires them to play at least 5 football games a year vs. ACC opponents.

It would cost at least $100 million for ND or any ACC team to get out. And even that would require a legal battle to get there, because no one who doesn't leave would willingly accept that deal. The money isn't nearly enough to compensate the teams that couldn't find a better conference. Take Wake Forest as an example: If the ACC collapses, they're joining something like the Sun Belt or Conference USA. Wake's share of the fees for others breaking the GOR would be just a fraction of the long-term damage they would incur from that move.

BearSD said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

BearSD said:

---

6956bear said:

---

When Kevin Warren was B1G commissioner he was bullish on expansion. He envisioned a 24 team conference. A conference from coast to coast. I think some still share that vision. But will TV pay for that? I do think if the P12 collapses they bring in at least 2 western teams. For 2024. If Notre Dame wants in they will make it happen.

I agree the B1G wants programs like UVa, UNC, Duke and others. But would those schools test the GOR and exit fees in court. They may eventually but for 2024 that seems a stretch. ESPN is the media partner in the ACC, Fox in the B1G with others. They may be able to work out a settlement regarding the GOR but exit fees may be a different story.

---

Notre Dame is bound by the ACC's GOR, just as UVa and UNC and FSU are. If any of them could buy their way out for less than $100 million, it would have already happened.

---

ND's football GOR is with NBC not the ACC/ESPN. But they do have a clause with the ACC that if their football team joins a conference, they will join the ACC. Not sure the cost to break that agreement, but it can't be as high as SU's or Clemson's cost to break their GOR.

---

Notre Dame can stay indy in football, or they can join the ACC for football, but can't join another league in any way during the ACC's GOR period. ND's agreement with the ACC requires them to play at least 5 football games a year vs. ACC opponents.

It would cost at least $100 million for ND or any ACC team to get out. And even that would require a legal battle to get there, because no one who doesn't leave would willingly accept that deal. The money isn't nearly enough to compensate the teams that couldn't find a better conference. Take Wake Forest as an example: If the ACC collapses, they're joining something like the Sun Belt or Conference USA. Wake's share of the fees for others breaking the GOR would be just a fraction of the long-term damage they would incur from that move.

---

IACC teams have to pay way more than $100M to leave the ACC. They lose the media rights to all of their home games. ND would not. That's why I said it would cost ND something, but not as much as the others.

BearSD said:

---

6956bear said:

---

When Kevin Warren was B1G commissioner he was bullish on expansion. He envisioned a 24 team conference. A conference from coast to coast. I think some still share that vision. But will TV pay for that? I do think if the P12 collapses they bring in at least 2 western teams. For 2024. If Notre Dame wants in they will make it happen.

I agree the B1G wants programs like UVa, UNC, Duke and others. But would those schools test the GOR and exit fees in court. They may eventually but for 2024 that seems a stretch. ESPN is the media partner in the ACC, Fox in the B1G with others. They may be able to work out a settlement regarding the GOR but exit fees may be a different story.

---

Notre Dame is bound by the ACC's GOR, just as UVa and UNC and FSU are. If any of them could buy their way out for less than $100 million, it would have already happened.

---

*

Notre Dame has a contract to play 5 ACC games a year, presumably until 2036, the length of the ACC media deal. But they are not bound by the ACC GOR and while there would be an exit fee, it wouldn't be $100 million dollars.

MTbear22 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

6956bear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

yeah, its longer distance. Agreed. But UCLA and SC must have weighed all the pros and cons about staying or going and thought it better to take the burden of the distance and leave. I'm not saying its not going to hurt, but they're not going to College Station, Piscataway or College Park every year.

They'll be fine.

---

The B1G wants a west coast pod.

---

Says who? Warren may have wanted one, but what evidence is there the current B1G members want one? Why do legacy B1G members want MORE long-distance away games with teams that are even less interesting than USC? Especially when there may be more financially attractive and much closer options hake loose form the ACC before too long.

---

Then if you account for the rivalry games, you would have an additional 3 games per year, reducing the total number of visits from the Midwest down to 9.

---

I think that's a problem (unfortunately) for those with power (media). The point of having USC (and to a much lesser degree, UCLA) is to get west coast brands playing more matchups against east coast brands, because while the west coast brands often have surprisingly low TV numbers when playing themselves, they do dramatically better when matched up against eastern schools with massive followings. So a setup that involves USC taking on more west coast/ traditional matchups instead of against more east coast brands is, IMO, actually NOT what TV wants.

---

I agree the networks want to maximize the number of 'must see matchups' because the whole world seems to be moving to only wanting 'peak' events, but they want USC - Michigan, or Ohio state - UCLA, not USC - Northwestern or Rutgers - UCLA, which wont be achieved without some sort of unbalanced scheduling. I also believe that Washington - Michigan or Ohio state - Oregon draws only a slightly less number of viewers.

I also think the networks still want that 7:00 pm pst time slot, as any P5 college football game will do better than the alternative. I cant imagine the eastern and central time zone schools wanting to watch their team play games kicking off at 9 or 10. Therefore, the networks can schedule an undercard west coast pod game for the late night slot, not irritate the bread and butter in the midwest and still have a game with reasonable interest to show.

berserkeley said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

he didn't write LA to SF. Its LA to Seattle.

To me - a UCLA or an SC have to do a pure East Coast swing (Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State), what, 3 times per year? Maybe 4? Travel isn't an issue. And the UC Regents reviewed this and blessed the move.

The PSU fan's take is a good one and one I've been saying for a while now. The B1G got what they wanted for the West Coast. And expansion has to make sense for Fox. UCLA and SC don't want another west coast team. To me this was always a no brainer. They left the P12 for a reason. Its pretty straightforward that they want to leave the membership behind.

I said once and I'll say again - Its UNC, Virginia and FSU that they want. That would bring in Notre Dame.

---

LA to Seattle and LA to State College or Newark or East Lansing or Columus or Iowa City aren't even close to the same thing. USC and UCLA may think that for now because they're high off the smell of money. But anyone who travels knows that the time zone change is huge. Plus it can take several times longer to get to those places than Seattle.

The PSU post also forgets that SF exists as a possible West Coast add. The rest of the post seems pretty solid,
but that one statement is so absurd it casts doubt on the entire thing.

---

My one other point of contention, (and this is more an acknowledged unknown than a statement of fact) is what USC and UCLA want. The Penn State guy says USC and UCLA want to get away from the Pac-10 schools, but I've also heard USC and UCLA want a West Coast pod. I don't know what is true.

---

Pure anecdote, but all of my interactions with USC alums (including some large donors) is they never want to see another PAC team again. They want as much UM/ OSU/ PSU/ etc. as possible.

---

The exact opposite reaction from all of my USC alum football fans. They all seem to want Stanford/Cal to join them for football and they especially do not want their non-revenue sports competing in the B1G without other West Coast teams.

---

Yeah most my SC friends love playing Cal, especially at Berkeley. It's a fun day at an in state college town with a guaranteed win. SC has a good tailgate scene but no college town atmosphere so they really appreciate games at Berkeley.

berserkeley said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

he didn't write LA to SF. Its LA to Seattle.

To me - a UCLA or an SC have to do a pure East Coast swing (Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State), what, 3 times per year? Maybe 4? Travel isn't an issue. And the UC Regents reviewed this and blessed the move.

The PSU fan's take is a good one and one I've been saying for a while now. The B1G got what they wanted for the West Coast. And expansion has to make sense for Fox. UCLA and SC don't want another west coast team. To me this was always a no brainer. They left the P12 for a reason. Its pretty straightforward that they want to leave the membership behind.

I said once and I'll say again - Its UNC, Virginia and FSU that they want. That would bring in Notre Dame.

---

LA to Seattle and LA to State College or Newark or East Lansing or Columus or Iowa City aren't even close to the same thing. USC and UCLA may think that for now because they're high off the smell of money. But anyone who travels knows that the time zone change is huge. Plus it can take several times longer to get to those places than Seattle.

The PSU post also forgets that SF exists as a possible West Coast add. The rest of the post seems pretty solid,
but that one statement is so absurd it casts doubt on the entire thing.

---

My one other point of contention, (and this is more an acknowledged unknown than a statement of fact) is what USC and UCLA want. The Penn State guy says USC and UCLA want to get away from the Pac-10 schools, but I've also heard USC and UCLA want a West Coast pod. I don't know what is true.

---

Pure anecdote, but all of my interactions with USC alums (including some large donors) is they never want to see another PAC team again. They want as much UM/ OSU/ PSU/ etc. as possible.

---

The exact opposite reaction from all of my USC alum football fans. They all seem to want Stanford/Cal to join them for football and they especially do not want their non-revenue sports competing in the B1G without other West Coast teams.

---

Doesn't matter. USC as a program and an athletoic department does not want a West Coast pod or other Pac-12 teams joining them in the B1G.

berserkeley said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

he didn't write LA to SF. Its LA to Seattle.

To me - a UCLA or an SC have to do a pure East Coast swing (Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State), what, 3 times per year? Maybe 4? Travel isn't an issue. And the UC Regents reviewed this and blessed the move.

The PSU fan's take is a good one and one I've been saying for a while now. The B1G got what they wanted for the West Coast. And expansion has to make sense for Fox. UCLA and SC don't want another west coast team. To me this was always a no brainer. They left the P12 for a reason. Its pretty straightforward that they want to leave the membership behind.

I said once and I'll say again - Its UNC, Virginia and FSU that they want. That would bring in Notre Dame.

---

LA to Seattle and LA to State College or Newark or East Lansing or Columus or Iowa City aren't even close to the same thing. USC and UCLA may think that for now because they're high off the smell of money. But anyone who travels knows that the time zone change is huge. Plus it can take several times longer to get to those places than Seattle.

The PSU post also forgets that SF exists as a possible West Coast add. The rest of the post seems pretty solid,
but that one statement is so absurd it casts doubt on the entire thing.

---

My one other point of contention, (and this is more an acknowledged unknown than a statement of fact) is what USC and UCLA want. The Penn State guy says USC and UCLA want to get away from the Pac-10 schools, but I've also heard USC and UCLA want a West Coast pod. I don't know what is true.

---

Pure anecdote, but all of my interactions with USC alums (including some large donors) is they never want to see another PAC team again. They want as much UM/ OSU/ PSU/ etc. as possible.

---

The exact opposite reaction from all of my USC alum football fans. They all seem to want Stanford/Cal to join them for football and they especially do not want their non-revenue sports competing in the B1G without other West Coast teams.

---

In that case I'll hope you have more and richer USC friends.

---

It's probably more like my SC friends are less insufferable than most SC fans. Plus they really care about the non-revenue sports as well.

---

Something else not mentioned much: there is a lot of antipathy from SC regarding Oregon, and would prefer a scenario where they do not share SoCal recruiting with them longer term.

BigDaddy said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

he didn't write LA to SF. Its LA to Seattle.

To me - a UCLA or an SC have to do a pure East Coast swing (Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State), what, 3 times per year? Maybe 4? Travel isn't an issue. And the UC Regents reviewed this and blessed the move.

The PSU fan's take is a good one and one I've been saying for a while now. The B1G got what they wanted for the West Coast. And expansion has to make sense for Fox. UCLA and SC don't want another west coast team. To me this was always a no brainer. They left the P12 for a reason. Its pretty straightforward that they want to leave the membership behind.

I said once and I'll say again - Its UNC, Virginia and FSU that they want. That would bring in Notre Dame.

---

LA to Seattle and LA to State College or Newark or East Lansing or Columus or Iowa City aren't even close to the same thing. USC and UCLA may think that for now because they're high off the smell of money. But anyone who travels knows that the time zone change is huge. Plus it can take several times longer to get to those places than Seattle.

The PSU post also forgets that SF exists as a possible West Coast add. The rest of the post seems pretty solid,
but that one statement is so absurd it casts doubt on the entire thing.

---

My one other point of contention, (and this is more an acknowledged unknown than a statement of fact) is what USC and UCLA want. The Penn State guy says USC and UCLA want to get away from the Pac-10 schools, but I've also heard USC and UCLA want a West Coast pod. I don't know what is true.

---

Pure anecdote, but all of my interactions with USC alums (including some large donors) is they never want to see another PAC team again. They want as much UM/ OSU/ PSU/ etc. as possible.

---

The exact opposite reaction from all of my USC alum football fans. They all seem to want Stanford/Cal to join them for football and they especially do not want their non-revenue sports competing in the B1G without other West Coast teams.

---

Doesn't matter. USC as a program and an athletoic department does not want a West Coast pod or other Pac-12 teams joining them in the B1G.

---

Is this just speculation or is there some tangible evidence of this?

The first post in this thread shows how badly Empty Suit George has bungled his job. He visited SMU on February 7 -- almost 6 months ago. He still has no media deal for the Pac.

golden sloth said:

---

Is this just speculation or is there some tangible evidence of this?

---

This has been discussed intermittently on the premium board... There are a fair number of folks that know influential SC donors. UO's combination of Nike money/recruiting cache and their recent SEC-like recruiting tactics since Cristobal really hit a nerve with that crowd and they don't want to be in a conference with Oregon ever again. It's been cited along with revenue sharing and blocking CFP expansion as the primary reasons they left. Their move was to regain their status as the dominant West Coast football brand.

BearSD said:

---

6956bear said:

---

When Kevin Warren was B1G commissioner he was bullish on expansion. He envisioned a 24 team conference. A conference from coast to coast. I think some still share that vision. But will TV pay for that? I do think if the P12 collapses they bring in at least 2 western teams. For 2024. If Notre Dame wants in they will make it happen.

I agree the B1G wants programs like UVa, UNC, Duke and others. But would those schools test the GOR and exit fees in court. They may eventually but for 2024 that seems a stretch. ESPN is the media partner in the ACC, Fox in the B1G with others. They may be able to work out a settlement regarding the GOR but exit fees may be a different story.

---

Notre Dame is bound by the ACC's GOR, just as UVa and UNC and FSU are. If any of them could buy their way out for less than $100 million, it would have already happened.

---

Right now FSU and perhaps Clemson are trying to find a way out of the GOR They are trying to find a settlement amount.I have seen $300M over 10 years floated. If you make it to the B1G or SEC then that would work. Both conferences pay over double that amount.

6956bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

6956bear said:

---

When Kevin Warren was B1G commissioner he was bullish on expansion. He envisioned a 24 team conference. A conference from coast to coast. I think some still share that vision. But will TV pay for that? I do think if the P12 collapses they bring in at least 2 western teams. For 2024. If Notre Dame wants in they will make it happen.

I agree the B1G wants programs like UVa, UNC, Duke and others. But would those schools test the GOR and exit fees in court. They may eventually but for 2024 that seems a stretch. ESPN is the media partner in the ACC, Fox in the B1G with others. They may be able to work out a settlement regarding the GOR but exit fees may be a different story.

---

Notre Dame is bound by the ACC's GOR, just as UVa and UNC and FSU are. If any of them could buy their way out for less than $100 million, it would have already happened.

---

Right now FSU and perhaps Clemson are trying to find a way out of the GOR They are trying to find a settlement amount.I have seen $300M over 10 years floated. If you make it to the B1G or SEC then that would work. Both conferences pay over double that amount.

---

So ESPN, who is "too broke" to pay us anything and currently has the rights to FSU and Clemson as part of their ACC contract,, will pay $2 billion MORE over 10 years just to have them play in the SEC which they also own the broadcast rights to?

95bears said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Is this just speculation or is there some tangible evidence of this?

---

This has been discussed intermittently on the premium board... There are a fair number of folks that know influential SC donors. UO's combination of Nike money/recruiting cache and their recent SEC-like recruiting tactics since Cristobal really hit a nerve with that crowd and they don't want to be in a conference with Oregon ever again. It's been cited along with revenue sharing and blocking CFP expansion as the primary reasons they left. Their move was to regain their status as the dominant West Coast football brand.

---

The reason people argue that USC doesn't want a West Coast pod is that USC doesn't want to be in a conference with Oregon. Do people realize that Cal, Stanford, and Washington can make up a West Coast pod and none of those teams are Oregon?