They chose to improve their financial position, but "protecting" goes a little far IMO. The reality is that if USC and UCLA had stayed there would still be a Pac-12 and I'm guessing conference members would have a $35-40 mil or so annual stake and SC would have very good shot at being in the CFP year after year (and they potentially coul…
They chose to improve their financial position, but "protecting" goes a little far IMO. The reality is that if USC and UCLA had stayed there would still be a Pac-12 and I'm guessing conference members would have a $35-40 mil or so annual stake and SC would have very good shot at being in the CFP year after year (and they potentially could have negotiated a bigger bite of the pie than the rest of the P12 schools, which had been a bone of contention for them with the previous arrangements). It's not quite B1G or SEC money, but it's also enough to remain highly competitive and maintain stability.
And not having all of the other teams having to spend so much time criss-crossing the nation, especially for those who will not have a pro athletic future
They chose to improve their financial position, but "protecting" goes a little far IMO. The reality is that if USC and UCLA had stayed there would still be a Pac-12 and I'm guessing conference members would have a $35-40 mil or so annual stake and SC would have very good shot at being in the CFP year after year (and they potentially could have negotiated a bigger bite of the pie than the rest of the P12 schools, which had been a bone of contention for them with the previous arrangements). It's not quite B1G or SEC money, but it's also enough to remain highly competitive and maintain stability.
And not having all of the other teams having to spend so much time criss-crossing the nation, especially for those who will not have a pro athletic future