Trojan209

show us the money 🤑 USC & UCLA Full Payout

It’s definitely a complex issue that I think has slowly become addressed over the last few decades. But with every solution to a problem a new one is created. Overall, there are fewer people attending college than before the pandemic. But the largest population affected is men. It’s not a bad thing for physics, math, engineering, etc to hold steady at retaining men, while simultaneously convincing women that they are just as capable at doing the work and getting into the field. But we also need male teachers just as much as female teachers, we need male therapists just as much as female therapists, and male physicians too. It creates diversity in their respective fields and I believe, keeps the wages competitive. Most areas of psychology are seeing a decline in wages and some attribute it to the decline in men pursuing the degree. Not that women are hurting the field, but that there is a lack of competition and thus little reason to increase wages. Although as an 18-year-old I had a lot of fun in my undergrad psych classes.

That is slowly shifting with the exception of math and physics. But the other life sciences are seeing greater percentages of women than men at some universities. There is definitely a shift overall in the perception men have when it comes to thinking about going to college. Whether it’s student loans, wanting to work after high school (high school dropouts are increasing among male students too), or simply the way men are treated in todays society and on university campuses in general. They are slowly seeing the value in doing something else to make a living.

More women are applying to college, and are now graduating at higher rates than men. Some schools are reporting a 60% female population, I believe a few are nearing 70%. Some schools are now lowering admission standards for men specifically to convince them to apply. We'll see what will happen over the next few decades.

Was that with just SDSU or another team as well? I can't see the PAC sitting at 11 teams as it would create weird schedules.

To be fair there would most likely be a bump in the tv audience if they moved up to the PAC-12. Similar to what happened with Utah, TCU, and Louisville. But in terms of recruiting there aren't nearly a large number of recruits out of SD compared to LA. I think the 2022 recruiting class only had 12 recruits with D1 offers and only 7 with P5 offers. But does SDSU suddenly become worth $30M+ simply by joining the PAC-12? I would have my doubts. But it's an interesting point that I'm sure the people at the top are looking into.

I think it's pretty apparent to everyone that this is about football. @Aztecgolferand I were just discussing the impact the move to the B1G will have on Oly sports and whether some will be dropped or not.

I doubt it, but I guess we'll see. Just a quick look at both schools schedules the last few years tells me that their schedule in the B1G won't change other than traveling to the conference championship sites. The MPSF does sponsor men's and women's indoor T&F, I doubt the B1G will mind letting them park their teams there if it came down to it. Like you said, if the Big West is overloaded with 11 schools then why would the B1G want to add 2 more for 16? The MPSF only has 6 men's indoor teams. I doubt they'll mind as they already compete against the LA schools, plus Stanford and Cal in a bunch of other sports. The Triple A vs Yankees reference makes no sense based on the MPSF sports sponsored, you don't really see them complaining about always losing to the bigger funded schools. They sure do like bragging about the hundreds of NCAA titles that the big 4 California schools have from those sports alone.

Both schools already have sports in the MPSF. The Big West and WCC would gladly take any other Oly sports if it really came down to it, heck even the MWC would make exceptions for them like they do for Hawaii in football and Colorado College in soccer. Having athletes compete in sports against two of the most tradition rich schools in the country? The chance to compete against Olympians on a regular basis? No conference other than the PAC-12 to save face would really turn them down, but I guarantee they'll keep scheduling them non-conference because of the Olympic talent that comes out of SoCal for a lot of sports. Personally though outside of basketball, volleyball, and maybe soccer, and lacrosse the travel issue is a bit overblown. Even with basketball it's only 10 road games, 9 really if they keep USC/UCLA as a home & home series. I don't see them increasing the number of conference games as that would just kill RPI/NET down the stretch. All they have to do is load up on Big West, WCC and MWC for non-conference games and then they don't have to leave the state except for a few national games and tournaments until conference play starts. Other Olympic sports like golf, track & field, cross country and swimming & diving are just weird. Some don't even compete against each other until their conference tournaments startup. So the LA schools will have minimal travel in most sports already since they will just compete against local competition as usual. Softball/baseball is 24 conference games total, broken into 3 game series so 4 home and 4 away series. They'll both play each other in baseball at least once, and only UCLA plays softball. Both schools typically already play a lot of in-state competition for non-conference. I doubt the PAC will stop playing them as they recruit SoCal heavily. Men's Tennis only plays 9 soon to possibly be 11 matches and women's tennis plays 11 soon to possibly be 13 matches. So 4 or 5 away men's matches and 5 or 6 in women's really isn't terrible. Again, just load up on in-state teams and play more non-conference tournaments closer to home. Women's soccer currently plays 10 matches possibly soon to be 12 and the B1G already cuts down on travel by having some teams play each other twice so they can just do that for the LA schools and they would only have to travel east 5 times. Only UCLA plays men's soccer which the B1G currently plays 8 matches possibly soon to be either 9 since they play each other once. 4 or 5 times going east again isn't terrible if you just play your non-conference at home. But I can definitely see these sports struggling a bit too. Only USC plays women's lacrosse and the B1G plays 6 possibly soon to be 7 games. I can see USC struggling in this sport heavily as it is new and like its male counterpart is popular on the east coast. I wouldn't be surprised if USC dropped this into another conference or dropped it altogether and finally figuring out a way to field a softball team. Volleyball plays 20 conference matches in a season, so 10 home/away and only 9 would be truly on the road if they keep home & homes for the LA schools. But the B1G is typically the #1 volleyball conference with the PAC-12 a close second and has now solidified itself as the #1 conference for years to come. Expect the conference to figure out some way to create an accommodating schedule for this sport and basketball.

It would look terrible on tv as they only average 35K fans a game. I'm sure they'll sell out a lot now. Better to wait for the invite and then expand. Maybe even have a promise in place to do so as a stipulation for joining the league.

The Big12 strategically marketed the round robin schedule in a 10 team league with the top 2 teams playing in the championship game. I don't really see a good reason the PAC-10 couldn't do the same. I doubt SDSU, Boise or UNLV will increase the money for everyone else.

Geographically this move doesn't even make sense. They're not even from the same universe. Batman fighting against Dr. Doom? He'll get his teeth kicked in. Nobody wants to see that. This is all about the money.

I think it also hinges on what the B1G decides to do with divisions and the number of games. If they go to 10 conference games you're guaranteed to play everyone at least twice (home & away) every 2 years. But even at 9, you should still get everyone every 3 years. So far the PAC is technically scraping divisions beginning this year and having the 2 best teams play in the CCG, and the ACC is going to a 3-5-5 model starting in 2023. The SEC was initially thinking of a 1-7-7 or a 3-6-6 model but now that the ACC is keeping 8 games I could see the SEC doing the same as well. In a conference with divisions, those high-profile games definitely happen less as we saw in the SEC where some schools haven't played each other in years. Georgia has still not played @TAMU. Before last season Bama/UF last played in the regular season in 2014. They went a whole 10 years before finally playing in Gainesville again. But scraping divisions and going to pods or block scheduling should allow for more high-profile games to occur. Adding more teams could dilute that however so it's a catch-22. Do the networks care more about preserving USC/UCLA/Wash/Oregon every year or having USC/UCLA play home & home games with Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, etc every 2 years and deal with some of the less meaningful matchups as well?

The MPSF has had a bunch of sports from the 4 California schools since the early 90's without any issues. If it really came down to it they would probably consider sponsoring even more sports to help out USC and UCLA. The MPSF sure does like bragging about all of the national championships that teams win.

I would take it a step further and say they would probably go independent in football and drop their Olympic sports in the Big West/MW instead of being completely aligned with them.

If this move is really about the LA market then USC/UCLA won't play too many away games in November to ensure ratings remain high. When the PAC expanded USC never once played Utah in SLC in November except during the COVID year. They averaged about 1 "cold weather" away game a year in November with CU/Oregon/WSU/Oregon St/Washington. UCLA had unlucky draws with Utah 3 times in November. But out of 12 of their November games, only 5 were played the 2nd week or later and 1 was the PAC-12 championship game with Oregon in 2011 when it was held on campus. Rivalry week will consist of USC/ND in LA in even years as I can't see the B1G letting that game die whether they join the conference or not. Then in odd years, it will be USC/UCLA at the end of the year. If UCLA is smart they would just try to schedule Cal/Stanford for rivalry weeks in even years which may end up what will happen because the other 14 B1G teams will be playing each other. So late-season cold-weather games most likely won't occur that often if at all.

I think a lot hinges on ND. I wonder what the B1G will do if ND turns down an invite. Will they expand further west and take 2-6 teams? Or a mix of PAC/ACC teams. Some have suggested ISU and KU as well from the Big-12 but those seem like long shots. The PAC brand still holds a lot of cache even without USC and UCLA. The Big-12 brand still held a lot of cache over the AAC and Mountain West even while losing Texas and OU and everyone thought the Big-12 was DOA. Assuming a core of schools remain intact backfilling with a few MW and possibly some Big-12 schools will solidify the conference. The B1G can always go scorched earth and take all the remaining PAC AAU schools which would leave behind ASU, WSU and OSU. Those three could either stick together and cripple the Mountain West. Again the name brand still has marketing value over the MWC. Still schools have to decide if they want to go all in on sports in the current NIL landscape we have today, Either compete at the highest levels in the new Power 2 (B1G/SEC) or choose to remain in watered down leagues like the future PAC, Big-12 and ACC with a bunch of the smaller schools from the group of 5 conferences.

We landed Domani. Looks like he was all set to go to Bama until Riley kept Donte on staff. Sometimes it just takes that one recruiter to keep a kid. Domani Jackson to USC

It looks like it's the story that's being run with though. He did miss a radio show and press conference earlier this month and said it was a personal matter. I did notice that when he was leaving on his early flight out to LA that some people taking video of the whole thing his assistants looked like they barely had time to pack and some were still wearing OU gear to the airport, not that it means much. But the whole thing seemed hastily put together. At least in past hiring situations, there was some small prep-work before a final decision was made public. I'm just glad he got to address the team before leaving. It seems like the Brian Kelly news broke before he could let anyone know. I heard someone was visiting a recruits home and when he left he found out that Kelly was leaving for LSU. LA Times