UCLA is valuable in its own right. They were approached at the same time because big 10 wanted both schools to corner the whole LA market. UCLA was not an afterthought like many would like to believe.
I find a hard time believing USC is a hard no on Cal and Furd. Makes no sense. They are a hard no on Oregon and big 10 didn’t care what they thought.
USC was never going to say no to double the money. It was UCLA the big 10 had to convince, not SC. They could have easily taken just SC if that’s what they wanted.
You danced around the hard question.
Would UCLA have been invited without $C?
And the rumor is that $C, without a vote, but clout similar to ND, is a hard "no" on Furd and Cal.
UCLA is valuable in its own right. They were approached at the same time because big 10 wanted both schools to corner the whole LA market. UCLA was not an afterthought like many would like to believe.
I find a hard time believing USC is a hard no on Cal and Furd. Makes no sense. They are a hard no on Oregon and big 10 didn’t care what they thought.
Sounds like you harbor doubts.
Would they have invited UCLA, if USC said "no"?
I think maybe, but, like you yourself say, it was about the L.A. market.
USC was never going to say no to double the money. It was UCLA the big 10 had to convince, not SC. They could have easily taken just SC if that’s what they wanted.
Now, that sounds like the $C we all know.
But they needed "to corner the market..."
"Throw me in Hell,
As long as it pays."