I'll never forgive SC for being the chief culprit in the implosion of the Pac-12. That said, we need money, and they'll likely draw better than whatever substitute nonconference game we could have come up with.
I dont understand why the Pac 12 could not offer SC and UCLA tv rights to have their own shows within the greater LA area and a portion of the proceeds to go back to Pac12 conference? In order to get you got to give a little.
Given that $c greed ruined the Conference of Champions and created substantial travel hardship across a broad array of NCAA sports with true student-athletes, my preference would be never playing them in regular season in any NCAA sport for the rest of this century. University of California Los Angeles is different as they felt they had to go along and will be providing some revenue support to Cal Athletics. Would prefer to play them or any other former Pac-12 team or teams like SD State and UNLV. For $c to be the first announcement if true is more than disappointing.
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
This should not be.
Not now nor in the foreseeable future.
*spits
I'll never forgive SC for being the chief culprit in the implosion of the Pac-12. That said, we need money, and they'll likely draw better than whatever substitute nonconference game we could have come up with.
I dont understand why the Pac 12 could not offer SC and UCLA tv rights to have their own shows within the greater LA area and a portion of the proceeds to go back to Pac12 conference? In order to get you got to give a little.
Given that $c greed ruined the Conference of Champions and created substantial travel hardship across a broad array of NCAA sports with true student-athletes, my preference would be never playing them in regular season in any NCAA sport for the rest of this century. University of California Los Angeles is different as they felt they had to go along and will be providing some revenue support to Cal Athletics. Would prefer to play them or any other former Pac-12 team or teams like SD State and UNLV. For $c to be the first announcement if true is more than disappointing.
^^^THIS
The conference was ruined by incompetent management and leadership. SC was protecting their sports programs and school investments.
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
True.
But no individual school damaged the Conference more over the years than USC.
F-them. Hoping Carol Folt gets the shingles.
And their band, too.