• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

USC UCLA to the Big 10?

i've been trying to read and listen to different takes. I forget who said what but here's just the highlights of interesting takes and tidbits i came across

This started with COVID. When the PAC shut down, USC said we need to get the bleep out of here. This conference is not serious.

Some are saying this only happened because the ncaa decided not to expand the playoffs. If they expanded it USC would have stayed put because they'd get into the playoffs easier. It has nothing to do with that. USC looked at Rutgers making more money than them and knew they had to make a move. This was about money. Period.

As soon as this news broke, Apple announced they want back in on negotiations for the BIG TV rights. This made the BIG a true national conference.

The BIG wants Notre Dame or nobody. The major teams in the conference are already getting a big miffed that they have to split revenues evenly with insignificant teams like rutgers, maryland and michigan. They want USC and UCLA because it expands the cash, as would ND but they aren't going to vote to add more teams and split their checks with them unless they pull their weight. They may not think adding Oregon adds more money because they already got the west with USC.

Reasons why we are headed toward a NFL like league of maybe 40 teams with conferences and regional divisions. (I have said i agree with this thinking as well. It almost has to happen now.)

The powerful teams are starting to get tired of splitting money with low level conference teams. They will bounce some of them eventually.

Right now there aren't enough great games each week. ( I mean PSU can only play once each week). TV will also push for fewer teams so that there are a full day's worth of great matchups every single week just like the NFL.
 
SteelBuckeye said:
Since the B1G decided to make this overreaching move to gobble up USC and UCLA, they'd better have a plan to add some more West Coast/SouthWest teams to the conference to lessen the overall travel load on those teams. I'm at a loss as to why they told Washington and Oregon to pump their brakes. They should have snapped them up along with offering a team like Baylor and/or Houston. Could you imagine Baylor joining a conference where they'd actually have to play defense?
Click to expand...
Baylor has already been playing good defense. In fact, they finished 12th in the nation last season in yards per rush allowed at 3.34.
 
topseed said:
Baylor has already been playing good defense. In fact, they finished 12th in the nation last season in yards per rush allowed at 3.34.
Click to expand...
Good point. My question to that would be "Can they do it consistently?". Historically (if you consider the last decade or two "historically"), Baylor has not been known as a team that plays great, or even good, defense.
 
If you want to understand how NIL works, watch this video. This is the guy behind Penn state’s "collective" that is basically the 3rd party that pays the players. It sounds like PSU is ahead of the curve of most teams but I’m guessing most teams have or will have something like this set up very soon So this video applies no matter what school you root for. It also shows why small schools will not be able to compete for long.

It’s amazing how quickly we came from not being able to pay players at all, to a guy openly talking about a salary cap and how much a player gets for an autograph session. College football as we knew it is dead.

 
tapeANaspirin2it said:
If you want to understand how NIL works, watch this video. This is the guy behind Penn state’s "collective" that is basically the 3rd party that pays the players. It sounds like PSU is ahead of the curve of most teams but I’m guessing most teams have or will have something like this set up very soon So this video applies no matter what school you root for. It also shows why small schools will not be able to compete for long.

It’s amazing how quickly we came from not being able to pay players at all, to a guy openly talking about a salary cap and how much a player gets for an autograph session. College football as we knew it is dead.

Click to expand...

Penn State may be ahead of most teams in college but probably none of the ones that matter--the top football programs. Some of these schools aren't even hiding behind "NIL" and flat out paying for play and there is nothing that can be done. I just wonder how long this can be sustainable with no return on investment for donors. Then again, suppose rather than donor money going toward facilities it will go to paying players. What I want to know is what happens to the 5-star QB getting $2 million who wants to sit out a bowl game to "prepare for the NFL draft." Somehow I don't think the donors or whoever is paying that salary is going to like that.
 
SteelBuckeye said:
Good point. My question to that would be "Can they do it consistently?". Historically (if you consider the last decade or two "historically"), Baylor has not been known as a team that plays great, or even good, defense.
Click to expand...
Dave Aranda, their head coach for the last couple of years, is a defensive-minded guy who had much success at both Wisconsin and LSU as a DC, so it looks like he's on his way to changing Baylor's culture.
 
No doubt PSU is behind the teams who have already been paying guys for years in terms of cash ready to be paid out. What they are ahead in is setting up an infrastructure to handle the payments going forward. I don't know if you watched the video but it talks about them setting up subscriptions with businesses. A car dealership may pay $10,000 and for that they are guaranteed to have PSU athletes to use in ads or show up at an event.

Penn State and others have been handicapped by not paying guys. They could do well in recruiting but couldn't consistently crack the top 5. I'm not expecting them to immediately jump up to the top but now they're at least able to play by the same rules.

The question is how many teams can afford these new rules?

Every school has some rich alumni that will buy a player or 2 but that's not sustainable. Rich people don't get rich by wasting money. Sure as a fan they may get something out of buying a player and seeing his team win a few more games but how much money will they keep paying to win 9 or 10 games? That's why there needs to be an infrastructure with a mix of businesses, rich donors and regular fans who all contribute regularly and spread out the burden.

I do expect that the crazy spending on facilities will die down. Programs will now spend that money on "salary" rather than a remodeled locker room every 5 years.
 
Time to regulate the ncaa tv contracts ruining college sports
 
SteelerFan448 said:
What I want to know is what happens to the 5-star QB getting $2 million who wants to sit out a bowl game to "prepare for the NFL draft." Somehow I don't think the donors or whoever is paying that salary is going to like that.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting scenario. If folks are paying these players there has to be an expectation they play out their "contract". I would imagine there would not be too many happy boosters paying for these guys and 4 or 5 of them sit out a National Championship game. Do we end up with an NFL playoff format?
 
Just my opinion. I can see college football breaking away from the ncaa as a governing entity.

Maybe college football just becomes it’s own league. Most of the money is drawn from the tv network exposure these schools get.
 
tapeANaspirin2it said:
No doubt PSU is behind the teams who have already been paying guys for years in terms of cash ready to be paid out. What they are ahead in is setting up an infrastructure to handle the payments going forward. I don't know if you watched the video but it talks about them setting up subscriptions with businesses. A car dealership may pay $10,000 and for that they are guaranteed to have PSU athletes to use in ads or show up at an event.

Penn State and others have been handicapped by not paying guys. They could do well in recruiting but couldn't consistently crack the top 5. I'm not expecting them to immediately jump up to the top but now they're at least able to play by the same rules.

The question is how many teams can afford these new rules?

Every school has some rich alumni that will buy a player or 2 but that's not sustainable. Rich people don't get rich by wasting money. Sure as a fan they may get something out of buying a player and seeing his team win a few more games but how much money will they keep paying to win 9 or 10 games? That's why there needs to be an infrastructure with a mix of businesses, rich donors and regular fans who all contribute regularly and spread out the burden.

I do expect that the crazy spending on facilities will die down. Programs will now spend that money on "salary" rather than a remodeled locker room every 5 years.
Click to expand...
A lot of big schools have multiple rich alumni who pay. I was a booster for UGA often through athletic reach outs via e-mail or phone call. No doubt under the table boosters happen. But schools do ask for donations that I usually send yearly.


This year? Eh. Not so much
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top