The PAC-12 could’ve easily survived this latest round of realignment, they didn’t even really need to add other teams if they didn’t want to. Their commissioner held out way too long to get a media deal done and as a result lost USC and UCLA and it spiraled from there

1

USC and UCLA were a package deal. USC was leaving not anticipating the PAC to collapse. They save a lot of money by having UCLA as a travel partner + UCLA gets the Big 10 good exposure and access to the UC system

1

people in LA barely watch either so UCLA isn’t unique in that regard either

1

Oregon staying in the PAC would’ve kept it alive. Oregon and Washington deciding to leave was the killing the blow, even after Colorado leaving it was savable. There are a lot of rumors about USC being directly behind the media deal not getting done, but I don’t really buy into that

1

The PAC-12 was days away from adding San-Diego State, which is actually still in court today from the nonsense behind that. SMU was offering the same deal to join to them that they were to the ACC. Had they added SMU, SDSU, and assuming Colorado still bails early you could replace them with UNLV or Boise State, the PAC would still be here and maybe thriving

1

USC administration balked at the first hint of ESPN money and are now cursed for permanent irrelevance as a result

1

Mountain West. They have a weird buyout policy that depends on when schools tell them they’re leaving. SDSU told the MW leadership kind off the record that they’re planning on it, and the MW was saying that was an official notice while SDSU denies that. Depending on the timing of when they told them, the buyout would be significantly higher, and now all of that was kind of pushed under the rug since the PAC died and is now being reborn

1

There one of the largest football brands in the country. A lot of appeal, but not really a lot of success. The move is only working for them because of money

1

It isn’t, the MW leadership was almost as bad as the PACs

1

Pretty much. Plus being in LA helps with the media deal, making them a great add for anyone

1

Not really, at least not LA teams. For NFL, I bet a lot of it has to do with the revolving door of teams over the last 60 years. For College, really only USC ever manages to fill up the Colosseum. Both the Colosseum and the Rose Bowl are in horrible condition and somewhat outdated, and the Rose Bowl is like an hour an away from their campus

1

The main value of LA is TV media deals. Media deals are always valued on the metric of how many people COULD watch a game, not really how many people actually do. That’s why LA is considered more valuable than Eugene for example, regardless of the team’s popularity

2

Anonymous #1 9w

example - why the B10 added Rutgers and Maryland over Mizzou and KU in 2012

5

Anonymous #1 9w

You are just wrong

1

Anonymous #3 9w

about what

0

Yes, but they don’t adjust fast enough to account for how fast dynamics change in college football. It also doesn’t matter as much to the cable providers, who still mainly sell adspace based on that potential viewership, which if it’s a team like Oklahoma per say, the national brand can account for the lack of media market. But a majority of teams are not in that position

1