I disagree. The collapse of the conference was due to the departure of USC and ineptitude of George Kliavkoff. According to the UC Regents, UCLA is only valued at around $65-$75 million annually. That means their departure only represents a $3.3-$4 million impact on remaining PAC-12 schools. The same report estimated USC’s value at $150 million. Granted, they never cited a source for UCLA’s value and that figure may have been supplied by UCLA itself but nevertheless that’s what the Regents believe. In other words, you’d have to believe $3-4 million a year is the reason the PAC-12 collapsed to put the blame on UCLA.
As was reported, USC would not have left without UCLA. The departure of the LA schools 100% was the death blow here. And blaming conference leadership is lame - if UCLA had wanted to replace the commissioner it would have happened overnight.
UCLA’s decision to bolt to the midwest is the proximate cause of the conference collapsing though
I disagree. The collapse of the conference was due to the departure of USC and ineptitude of George Kliavkoff. According to the UC Regents, UCLA is only valued at around $65-$75 million annually. That means their departure only represents a $3.3-$4 million impact on remaining PAC-12 schools. The same report estimated USC’s value at $150 million. Granted, they never cited a source for UCLA’s value and that figure may have been supplied by UCLA itself but nevertheless that’s what the Regents believe. In other words, you’d have to believe $3-4 million a year is the reason the PAC-12 collapsed to put the blame on UCLA.
As was reported, USC would not have left without UCLA. The departure of the LA schools 100% was the death blow here. And blaming conference leadership is lame - if UCLA had wanted to replace the commissioner it would have happened overnight.
Yes, the PAC 12’s mortal wound was UCLA leaving. The unkindest cut of all.
Losing the LA market made the conference a dead man walking.