mbBear said:
southseasbear said:
mbBear said:
MrGPAC said:
BearSD said:
SonomanA1 said:
USC & UCLA deserve the blame for starting the downfall of the Pac-12, but I feel WA deserves a lost of the blame for putting the knife in and twisting it on the Pac-12. From the Seattle Times, "It was Aug. 8, four days after the University of Washington president's momentous decision to move to the Big Ten Conference had killed the 108-year-old Pac-12." That is not competent leadership. That is a rat starting a fire that finally sinks the ship. The UC Regents and President could have stopped UCLA leaving but chose not to, so they share some of the blame too.
I will not support WA nor watch the game because I don't like MI either.
My view is: What would you have wanted Cal to do if it had these opportunities?
USC did the dirty deed. They started shopping themselves to the Big Ten two years before they got the invitation, and their friends at Fox pushed the deal over the line because Fox wanted to retaliate for ESPN/SEC nabbing Texas and Oklahoma.
UCLA was invited to go along with USC. If Cal, instead of UCLA, had been invited to join USC in this move, I would have wanted Cal to say yes.
Washington and Oregon were faced with not only the USC/UCLA departure, but Kliavkoff's failure and his many months of not disclosing how badly he was botching negotiations. UW and UO ultimately had a choice between signing on to Georgie's supposed deal with Apple (which for all we know might have been worse than he made it out to be) or taking half-shares from the Big Ten. If Cal had the offer that UW and UO had in front of them, I would have wanted Cal to take it.
So IMO, it's F USC, F Fox, and F the Big Ten. Every other Pac member just made the best they could out of what was in front of them.
I'm not rooting for UW; as far as I'm concerned it's a Big Ten vs. Big Ten game. But I don't blame them, either.
What teams did is not nearly as important as how they did it.
That UCLA left isn't as important as how they did it. They didn't talk to the regents until after or give Cal a heads up. There is also zero evidence they made any attempt whatsoever to include Cal.
That UW left isn't as important as how they did it. If they had given all their reasons for leaving up front and told everyone "If its streaming only we are out" I'd have a lot more sympathy for them. Instead they assured everyone repeatedly they were on board and wanted to keep the Pac together then bailed at the last second.
I don't care how they left... that's just click bait.
The conference was doomed the moment $C and Fucla left. The big "what if" would have been if UCLA had somehow stayed...we will never know.
No, the big "what if" would have been Southern Branch lobbying (at least trying to lobby) for Cal and Stanford to be included (even at a lower rate of revenue) in the B1G.
If they gave a **** about Cal-Furd, they would have worked harder to stay.
What would have been the rational of us over Oregon -Washington?
But whatever, this is the whole point of what if .
They went to B1G for the money. That is why they didn't stay in the PAC. Rivalries are important, but money is more important.
The question was, which schools did they want in the B1G with them?
They were the ones who worked to maintain the rivalry games with Cal and Stanford when the PAC-12 was split into North and South. That decreased the amount they would play Oregon and UW.
"The Weekend" was a huge tradition for the LA schools. Outside of SoCal, the Bay Area is where they have the most alums. They know that outside of UCLA and USC, Cal has the most alums in SoCal and brings the most fans to games.
Travel to the Bay Area from SoCal is far cheaper, easier and faster with far more flights than to Seattle or Eugene. It is also a relatively easy drive.
Both USC and UCLA like the academic prestige of being associated with Cal and Stanford. They also like that they can usually beat us in football and basketball.
USC in particular was against Oregon in the B1G. Oregon recruits the top talent in SoCal well. Cal and Stanford not so much.
So yes, USC and UCLA were potential allies for us in getting into the B1G over UW and Oregon. We could have used our political leverage toward that end. Instead we squandered it in a failed attempt to block UCLA from going, alienated everyone we needed to say "yes" or even help us when we later sought admission.
Fortunately Stanford had allies that were able to pull us into the ACC with them. Apart from the money and the longer travel, I like the ACC better.
