USC Should Leave the PAC-10… Now!
by Locoweed 1.1 on Jul 12, 2009 7:36 PM PDT
Email
PrintBumped - This is an interesting take...P
OK, maybe I’m exaggerating a bit but it’s worth discussing. A few weeks ago, in the latest of his series of brilliant posts (here, here, and here), anh_sc79 reviewed how the PAC-10’s scheduling philosophy guarantees more losses conference-wide, reduces opportunities for OOC play, decreases the conference's chances for a second BCS Bowl bid, and shackles the Pac-10 Champion to the Rose Bowl Game while shutting it out of the BCS National Title game.
Again this year, unless USC (or some other Pac-10 team) goes undefeated, the SEC and Big 12 will have a lock on the BCS National Title Game. The fact that Florida plays home games against creampuffs like Charleston Southern, Troy and Florida International, or that Texas plays only five away games and home games against powerhouses Louisiana Monroe, UTEP, and Central Florida does not matter to the poll voters or computers since it’s all about W’s and perceived conference strength.
This is blatantly unfair, but more importantly it shows that Tom Hansen and the Pac-10 had absolutely no interest in moving the Conference into the BCS era or the 21st century, preferring to remain rigidly attached to the past. In a manner of speaking, Hansen is guilty of malpractice, yet there is little chance that incoming commissioner Larry Scott will do much to change things.
USC should divorce the Pac-10 because of irreconcilable differences. Similar to the dissolution of a bad marriage, both parties would benefit; the most salient benefits to USC would be freedom to develop a far more interesting schedule and the ability to negotiate an exclusive television contract and BCS deal similar Notre Dame’s. At the same time the PAC-10 would be able to crown an out of town champion more frequently (no disrespect to UCLA), thus providing huge financial benefits to the Rose Bowl and Tournament of Roses as well as the City of Pasadena and greater Los Angeles.
These are high times for USC, and things are bound to change in the future, but USC does not need the Pac-10 to prosper in the future. Our friends at Notre Dame have demonstrated that independence can be extremely beneficial in good times and bad. USC should maintain its traditional rivalries with Notre Dame, UCLA and Stanford, as well as the founding members of the Pacific Coast Conference: Cal, Washington, Oregon, and Oregon State, or other rivalries could be nurtured. The remaining five games would permit home-and-home series games against SEC, Big 12, Big 10, ACC, MWC and Big East teams; plus three home games against WAC, MAC and Conference USA teams to round out the body of work.
This is how you stay relevant in the National Championship discussion even if you are proven human by losing a game; and if you lose two, an at-large bid would still beckon. The current sorry state of affairs doesn’t make sense for USC or for the BCS, or even for the Pac-10.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Conquest Chronicles' writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Conquest Chronicles' writers or editors.
11 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't think the pac-10 would let USC keep other sports
Going independent would be beneficial in that no split of moneys in post season games in all sports, they could pick their schualal and play at least 6 better games than pac-10.
Paul D. Kelley
by so.cal.native1952 on Jul 13, 2009 5:30 AM PDT reply actions
Pac10 charter
doesn’t allow for USC to leave for only football. It works for ND because their basketball program is in the Big East, the premier BB conference in the nation. The USC other sports would probably be forced to move to the WAC.
USC brings in way more than they take out in football revenue sharing to the conference. Maybe the football revenue would increase more than is lost from Pac10 revenue sharing in other sports (read basketball).
You never know, maybe if USC just threaten to leave unless changes were made. It wouldn’t be the first time, the Trojans were willing to leave if the Pac8 didn’t take the AZ schools. Of course the difference was McKay wasn’t just threatening, he was willing to back it up.
The Big West Conference
is very good at baseball (we used to play that!) and basketball. They have just nine teams and USC would elevate the conference tremendously.
Does USC need the Pac-10 or is it the other way around?
by Locoweed 1.1 on Jul 13, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Basketball
It’s not just competition, it’s revenue. Last year the Big West got one share while the Pac10 got 12 from the March Madness pool of cash. Huge difference.
Still the fact is the Pac10 needs USC much more than the other way around. If USC could make more money overall as an independent, then it might be worth threatening the Pac10 over changes. However this isn’t the 70s anymore, they might just call it.
Both of you guys . . . .
. . . .are hilarious!
Comer4tide to Nico2.0: "How come I've never heard of any of your random songs?"
Todd to Comer: "Because if you had, he wouldn't listen to it. BOOM. Roasted."
Nico to Todd: "Shouldn't you be off voguing somewhere?"
While I totally agree with your frustration
I think Pac-10 would be really pissed if USC tried to leave the conference for football only.
If SC is pissed about not playing in NCs, MG should be more vocal. They need to re-examine the whole Pac-10 environment, what’s holding the conference from realizing its full potential and tackle the issues one at a time.
For God’s sake, no other conference has the size of the media market that Pac-10 has. LA, SF, Phoenix, Seattle, Portland… Yet Pac-10 continues to be a sucker in this whole BCS game.
sometimes change is good and sometimes not
But seriously the pac-10 administration sucks, tv deals don’t aren’t enough in all sports. Besides FB I see more sports from other conferences than ours, heck we are the top west of rockies very little coverage. Whoever is involved in marketing doesn’t no what they are doing period, even UCLA BB doesn’t get some games televised.
Paul D. Kelley
by so.cal.native1952 on Jul 13, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Since last year I was saying they should leave the ncaa
But it would never happen, but could it work if they get some other schools to go. But the Ncaa is every college though so it would like leaving itself, but independent is the best idea. They could play Cal, Oregon, Arizona, Washington, Stanford, ASU, all the time then pick up who they want like LSU, OSU, Mich, Texas, than some local teams like SDSU, FSU (fresno).
I don’t feel we should help out Weasel State they seem to have all the money they need. With all the extra rev they could buy and renovate the Coliseum.
Paul D. Kelley
by so.cal.native1952 on Jul 13, 2009 9:16 AM PDT reply actions
It makes far more sense than what we're doing now
What’s the point of traveling up to Corvallis or Pullman when those places are considered backwater by the national media and voters? When we lost to Oregon State last year they treated us like we lost to Pomona College, yet Florida can lose AT HOME and still get voted in to the NC.
It’s even more foolhardy (not to mention expensive) to keep sending non-revenue athletes on junkets to the Pacific Northwest, when similar (or better) Big West Conference teams are nearby. Heck, whatever revenue doled to USC by the Pac-10 is probably consumed by travel expenses.
by Locoweed 1.1 on Jul 13, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Fresno and San diego are a bus ride away
Why not start a new conference call it Desert 7 Fsu, Sdsu, USC, ASU, ZONA, Unlv, Utah, then play 5-6 OOC games
Paul D. Kelley
by so.cal.native1952 on Jul 13, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Conquest Chronicles
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
