Is Pat Haden Planning USC's Independence?
by Paragon SC on Sep 1, 2010 5:17 PM PDT
in USC Football
Email
PrintInteresting take from the OCR...
-- this quote was brought to you by quoteurl
-- this quote was brought to you by quoteurl
I would have no problem if he did but it is a big step. I am sure the OCR will hve more later...
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Sign me up!
USC gives way more than they take, always have too. If the rumors are correct and the Pac10 is going to make revenue concessions to the NW schools, go for it. Teams will be lined up to play USC, just like they do with ND. Don’t really see any drawbacks.
Haden is on target...
…with this one. Even if USC isn’t planning on going independent any time soon, it’s important that the other 11 schools in the conference be aware that this is an option. USC is the biggest brand name in the conference, and it would hurt the Pac-10 immensely to lose it. I have no personal desire to see USC attempt to strong-arm the rest of the conference like Texas does to the Big 12, but there are some critical issues to be decided in the next year regarding Pac-12 divisional alignments and scheduling. As a key figure in the Pac-12, Haden would be remise not to employ USC’s leverage as these issues are decided.
Furthermore, as USC is forced to submit to the COI’s political agenda regarding the sanctions, this is a time when USC’s value to the Pac-12 can be emphasized for political benefit. It’s a good time to find out if any of our Pac-12 “brothers” are willing ot politic on USC’s behalf, behind the scenes, as USC goes through the appeal process. It will certainly help to clarify USC’s position regarding future loyalty to the Pac-12. JMO.
by TrojanJAG on Sep 1, 2010 6:20 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Great post JAG
We’ve been asking for this for years now. Does America give a rat’s behind when Wazzu plays Oregon State? Please.
Regarding your second point. One of the most amazing aspects of Sanctiongate has been the tomb-like silence from Larry Scott. We really have to threaten to pull the plug. The non revenue sports can join the West Coast Conference like BYU just did.
Salve Caesar Augustus Kiffinus!
Ad astra per aspera
Well really USC should have done this back in the 70-80s
So Fight On USC followers and Don’t worry WE Will Still Play on Saturdays and Bowls will come later, for WE ARE SC not That other Softball University. Oh and don’t say you now have a baseball team, it’s not Real Baseball unless you use Wooden Bats
by so.cal.native1952 on Sep 1, 2010 7:02 PM PDT reply actions
Unless negotiations completely went to hell
I’d be stunned to see USC go independent in the near term. But I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to hear that they’re seriously considering it as a plan B to be revisited in a couple years.
If the Trojans demanded changes to the bylaws, the sign would be there for the future
Texas got the Big12 to allow rules which allowed them to stay but they could still set up their own network. Things like that would say a lot. That said, even a veiled threat needs to be real or it’s worthless. Pat didn’t say what he did unless he is willing to take the next step.
by ev on Sep 1, 2010 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions
i'd guess
that he really hadn’t done any serious thinking or planning for going independent, as he said. But, IMO the veiled threat of “you guys really don’t want us to start seriously looking into it” is strong enough to make the point, even if there is little to no intention of actually following through.
And given that the bylaws only appear to require 2 years + 90 days notice w/o any buyout or penalty (though I could be misreading wrt the $$), I’m not sure there’s really much of a penalty to keep USC in the league if they ever decide they want to go independent or someone (cough, cough, Texas & friends) ever makes a better offer.
Moreover, I think this language (from the bylaws – compliance.pac-10.org):
Each member of the Conference at all times pertinent herein shall have been deemed to have entered into agreements for nine annual football games with the other members of the Conference and shall be guaranteed that those games will be played as scheduled under such schedules as may be adopted by the Conference from time to time and shall continue for the two football seasons after the date of official notification to or from any such member that it shall resign from or its membership shall be otherwise terminated in the Conference, provided the institution maintains its NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision classification
looks like they could maybe even bail sooner. Schools break scheduling agreements all the time, frequently without enormous penalties. Unless there’s meaningful $$ penalties that I haven’t seen, or the rules subsequently change to make it tougher to leave (almost certainly something that some of the schools, especially the smallest ones, would likely try to push for), the league appears (to me) to largely be at the mercy of the LA schools.
If UCLA and USC left (IMO substantially more likely than USC dealing with the risks and hassles of going independent), presumably Cal would have to get an invite (since Cal and UCLA are UC schools, not to mention the shared history), and then it’s highly likely Stanford would as well (though probably more like 98-99% than 100% there). And at that point, the league gets wiped out as a power player, and everyone wants to get on board the departing train.
To be honest, I really don’t like this scenario. I like the Pac-10, I like Colorado, and I’m slowly warming up to Utah. I’d hate to see the thing blow up. But I suspect that the possibility is there, unfortunately. :(
but I like the Pac 10
so much that next year I might keep my current name as an ironic/curmudgeonly gesture. unless the whole thing blows up. then i have no idea what the hell i’d do.
George Washington considered himself a loyal British Subject, until...
Salve Caesar Augustus Kiffinus!
Ad astra per aspera
Maybe you should reserve the name MrWCC?
The Mormons are leading the way here. You’ve got to admit they have real balls.
Salve Caesar Augustus Kiffinus!
Ad astra per aspera
they've got balls
but they’ve also swallowed a 1:2 contract with Texas and probably a 2:4 with Notre Dame. Not to mention that they basically had to do home and homes with a few WAC teams.
It’s tough to be an independent in this day and age; in their case it was mainly b/c the MWC TV deal was horrible and their channel basically buried BYU in terms of exposure because no one bought the channel (probably because they demanded WAY more than the channel was actually worth from the cable companies, who basically told them to buzz off).
If the Big 12 gave them an invite tomorrow, they’d jump on it. In fact, I would guess that a big part of their reasoning is to try and angle for either a Big 12 invite when the next round of TV negotiations happens, or to be unencumbered and free to join with whoever wants them when the next series of league blowups happens.
Given that the Big Ten may wnat to go to 14 or 16 teams, that Texas may decide to go independent or join any of the other AQ leagues, that A&M may yet jump to the SEC, etc. , there’s a very real chance that more chaos is coming, and if so, then not having to worry about exit fees, backroom dealings, etc. is a real plus for any team not currently in an AQ league. Of all of the non-AQ’s, BYU has the best chance to land on their feet (and I’d say their odds are probably higher than a few of the AQ’s, especially the ones at the bottom end of the Big 12).
All excelent points Indie
However, BYU thinks its academics have a natural home in the Pac-10. They smell blood in the water and are positioned for a move if USC bolts.
Salve Caesar Augustus Kiffinus!
Ad astra per aspera
isn't BYU
still really unpopular in a lot of CA circles (especially the political and university cirlces) after Prop 8? Given that 2 of the CA schools are public, that might be a tough sell. Of course, in another couple years it may be that no one cares anymore. Short term, though, I think it’d be a big problem.
plus
I recall hearing that a number of Pac-10 coaches weren’t happy with the idea of playing against a bunch of guys who were a couple years older due to mission. Though that might have just been an excuse to add to the list of reasons to say no rather than an actual driver of the decision.
I think BYUs ultimate goal is the Big12
not the Pac12 when the Big12 finally gets around to expanding again (and they will). USC leaving with UCLA isn’t far fetched (if the bruins actually thought about it) since they get screwed almost as bad as USC. And as you point out the other two Cali school might follow suit. Sticking around in the Pac10 for two years wouldn’t be bad, it would take at least that long to set up a network.
by ev on Sep 2, 2010 2:09 AM PDT up reply actions
another point
I’ve mentioned it in other places, but not sure if I have here.
IMO, the logical endgame of all the realignment / expansion / etc. moves is for the top 40 – 80 teams to either establish a super-1-A or simply walk away from the NCAA. It’s really the only way that you can see a sensible playoff system, because right now there are just too many teams and too many leagues. If you want (for example) a 12-team playoff, you need to do some auto-bids to create stability (especially since so many teams never play each other), but that creates the problem of the crap leagues demanding a seat at the table. it’s idiotic for CMU, Troy, etc. to be in a playoff, but if they’re part of the same division and theoretically supposed to be “equals”, then it’s a legal / political nightmare to exclude them.
On the other hand, even with as many as 84 teams (7 leagues of 12), you could give auto-bids to the champs, have five wild-cards, and live with a reasonably sensible playoff structure. Of course, it’s even more so with fewer teams (and you get less dilution of talent as well, another plus), which is why I’m citing a VERY wide range of about 40 – 80 (I’d say 84 is really the absolute limit of reasonableness).
Moreover, in such a scenario, you can make real progress towards other useful goals, such as:
-giving more financial resources to the players (which either means paying them OR giving them extra free scholarship years, lifetime medical insurance subsidies [since football is so damaging to the human body] etc.); MAC teams can’t afford this sort of thing, but if you slice out the minnows, maybe it can happen
-fewer cupcake games. if you require all games to be within the new association (maybe you give everyone a freebie preseason game against any warm body they can find, and it doesn’t count even if you actually lose), then suddenly the public gets a LOT more interesting games
There are other logical endpoints as well, but my ultimate impression is that we’re going to move in this direction sooner or later. And, for the record, I’m in favor of taking college athletics in this direction. I car ea lot about giving the players a legitimately fair deal. I care a lot about getting more good games to watch and fewer massive time-wasters.
And I don’t give a crap about whether Eastern Michigan’s athletic department gets to keep pretending that they’re “competing on the highest level” when everyone knows they’re really not. Plus, maybe if they’re no longer trying to compete with the Michigans and Ohio St’s of the world, maybe they can give their own players a better deal, starting with meaningful practice restrictions and generally treating them like amateur student-athletes (which they really are, since pretty much none of them will ever see an NFL scout team, much less NFL playing time).
All true if it was just about football
But USC, Cal, Stanford, and Ucla will never enter a league populated by most of the SEC. They’d sooner go it alone.
Salve Caesar Augustus Kiffinus!
Ad astra per aspera
that probably depends
on just how tightly managed it was. If it was more like an association of fairly independent conferences (for instance, the six existing AQ leagues, plus MWC, then fill them all in to 12 each), I wouldn’t think it should be a problem.
I would agree that the CA schools would strongly hesitate to enter into something where they’re really tightly bound w/ the SEC group, but I don’t think that’s really the likely scenario. And I definitely couldn’t see the CA schools signing up to be in the same direct group as Bama, Florida, etc. Simiarly, the “USC is going to join the Big Ten” rumors I’ve seen in a couple places are also ridiculous, though perhaps a bit less so than the SEC idea (since culturally they’re at least a bit more similar, though travel and weather would be a nightmare).
Another clear possibility would be four 16-team leagues, that jointly walk (SEC, Big Ten each add four, and then the other two being some combination of everyone left). In such a scenario, doubtless the CA schools and SEC schools would see more of each other than they do now (including in postseason play), but other than some high-level rules (roster size / scholarship limits, recruiting rules, budget rules, etc.), similar to the sorts of rules currently provided by the NCAA, I would think that the leagues would be run pretty independently of each others
Also worth noting is that if there’s a groundswell of support among the big schools to walk (i.e. the Big Ten and SEC, plus Texas, Notre Dame and a few others all are going in that direction), I would presume the CA schools (and in fact everyone in the Pac-12) would want to join the party, even if by cutting down the number of teams they’d be in a closer relationship with the other schools that would be left.
Will never happen
he said there are no plans. standard response, “always keep your options open.” yada, yada, yada.
Hey, quoteurl is cool!
Death to the NCAA!!!
actually
I’d say that a more standard response would be “we are extremely happy here and that path really isn’t something we think we’d be interested in.” by adding the bit about considering it at some point, he’s making the point that it’s on the table to some degree. that said, it easily could have just been careless use of language and not a veiled threat. Hard to say one way or the other.
Good point future MrIndie. Let's see what the national media does with this.
Remember also that ucla is already howling over the prospect of revenue sharing. If USC and ucla move, so will Cal and Stanford. The big question is what would the Rose Bowl do?
Salve Caesar Augustus Kiffinus!
Ad astra per aspera
probably not much
until they’re done roasting the big ten for their wacky alignment strategy (or until actual news happens regarding Pac-12 divisions, instead of the anonymous sources and the various “leans” that keep changing every couple weeks it seems)
but the big 10 was kind of a weird situation, from what I can tell, it was driven largely by the “big four” (OSU, MI, NEB, PSU) wanting to not have three to a division (I doubt that everyone else cared enormously about “competitive balance”), and everyone else kind of went along, with only the details (which rivalries to protect, how to fill out the rest of the division cards, etc.) negotiated together.
Here, it’s more of a clear case of conflicting interests (mainly NW vs CA), with this showing up in most public comments even on the speculation of structure possibilities. Unfortunately, I think it’s gotten to the point where there will be clear winners and losers, and that doesn’t bode well for things going forward (unless we soon see a Pac-16, though if I’m Texas why do I sign up when I can wait and see whether the whole thing implodes first and keep working on Bevo TV in the meantime).
As far as the Rose Bowl goes, I REALLY am not an expert on its politics, but I would presume that the logical outcome would be for them to stay with the Pac-X for the duration of their contract (barring league dissolution, which is conceivable but I think fairly unlikely, unless 9 or so of the 12 get taken with the LA schools), and then move to wherever the LA schoosl sign up afterwards.
As a side note, I’d say the Rose Bowl is one of the top few reasons why it’s HIGHLY unlikely that USC and UCLA ever split up. Presuming one spot stays w/ the Big Ten, having the two in different leagues means a big fight over Rose Bowl rights, and I don’t think either one of them wants to open up that can of worms. Independence would demand that USC basically stop caring about the Rose Bowl. Maybe they make that decision… but it seems like a reach to me.
This is why the four California schools would act as a unit. Ucla has always cared about money, and now that Stanford and Cal (soon) have new stadiums they will be loathe to allow the NW and lesser Pac-10 schools impose revenue sharing on them. If worse comes to worse, they could form a new 8 team league with the Cal States and save a bundle on travel. Does anyone ever really want to go to Pullman? I’ll take Fresno any old day, and you can bet they’ll fill their stadium.
Salve Caesar Augustus Kiffinus!
Ad astra per aspera
that one
is probably not realistic. Ask Texas how much fun it was extricating themselves from the lesser in-state programs in the SWC (and, for that matter, from Baylor in the Big 12). Agreeing to treat lesser in-state programs as equals opens up a can of worms that is VERY hard to put away.
Plus, at some point you still need new markets and a greater footprint. If CA ever bails it’ll be for greener pastures, not a downgrade.
Amusing that a couple of people have gotten all worked up about this
But you are totally delusional. No way this is going to happen and you don’t understand USC very will if you think it is likely.
Los Angeles is like Manchester. There is a red team that wins championships and a blue team that doesn't.
Not likely but a possibility. And btw, the reason this board exists is for these discussions. If instead of insults and platitudes, you want to contribute something of value to the conversation that’s fine, otherwise STFU.
Salve Caesar Augustus Kiffinus!
Ad astra per aspera
+1
This is exactly the discussion that you should expect from an entry entitled, Is Haden Planning USC’s Independence.
It’s been an interesting read, even if some of the scenarios are far-fetched. However, given the recent pace of change, anyone who proclaims that they know exactly what the landscape of CFB will look like 5 years from now is equally delusional.
Yeap...
I didn’t see BYU coming did anyone else?
What about Larry Scott trying to steal half of the big 12? Change is out there you never know where it come from next…
I am just a new boy...A stranger in this town
Where are all the good times...Who's gonna show this stranger around?
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
Ok, let's take this a bit further
1) USC loves it’s association with fellow academic elites.
2) USC fits like a glove with the PacX’s non-rev sports. Volleyball, golf, water polo, track, tennis.
3) The PacX is the greatest conference in the country. Best academics/sports combo. Best academics among major sports conferences. MOST NCAA titles of any conference. And, it ain’t all USC….‘Furd and WestWeird JC have won their share too. Oregon in track. ASU in baseball. Zona in hoops. UW in lumberjacking. Kal in tree climing. It’s a wonderful conference. It is the best conference.
Ok, ok, it’s all about football. So, let’s exclude the myriad of reasons re: academics and other sports. We go independent in football.
Think about the logistics. Who do we play? There simply are not ANY good teams West of TX that are not PacX teams. Ok, there are a few….Boise, BYU. But, assume that the other PacX teams shun us.
Who do we play? Geographically, it doesn’t make sense. Are we going to travel +1,000 for 6 games per year to get decent games? Who are we going to get to come to LA? We sure aren’t going to get 6 good teams. Will the fans settle for a home schedule of Hawaii, Nevada, Fresno St, SDSU, BYU, and Texas? I don’t think so. Georgraphically and from a competition standpoint, it makes no sense to me for USC to go independent in football.
Plus, I don’t think it will happen in a million years. We like rubbing elbows with ’Furd, and Kal. The USC/UCLA rivalry is sacred. USC independence will not happen within the foreseeable future. Counter-points?
Death to the NCAA!!!
I actually don't think it will hapen either
But it is an interesting discussion.
This all about leverage…Texas and OU will end up either independent or in the Pac-10. the big 12 (-2) will collapse under its own weight when they can’t come up with the money to pay Texas first then OU…
I am just a new boy...A stranger in this town
Where are all the good times...Who's gonna show this stranger around?
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
Very true on both fronts Chief, I don't think it happens either, but it could!
Tex is also correct except a bit pessimistic about who would want to play us. You can bet most Pac-10 teams would want to continue the relationship, if nothing just to come down to LA for recruiting purposes. Now, Texas is the promised land, with TCU, SMU, ATM, and UT already on the books, it’s wide open over there. Do you think June Jones wouldn’t give his left nut to have us visit?
Football season is here
U feeling Loco?
Both water polo teams and men's volleyball are not Pac10 sports
They are member of the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation. I’m not even sure if women’s golf belongs to a conference, I think the Pac10 only supports men’s golf. Teams would be lined up to play USC, there wouldn’t be a problem scheduling games. The problem wouldn’t be Pac10 teams shunning USC but the other way around. USC is their draw and card into LA. USC is the only conference member they can charge a premium for the ticket and still sell out their stadium. This is one of the huge reasons behind the zipper, they want USC. The USC vs UCLA rivalry isn’t sacred, the USC vs ND one is. Unless it’s a credible threat, it won’t work as leverage.
by ev on Sep 2, 2010 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Bingo.
Well said.
Plus losing access to the Rose Bowl game would be a massive deal. Many of the people who have influence with the university have ties in Pasadena and with the rest of the Pac 10. It would take something huge to break those bonds.
And the people making the decisions have been around long enough to see the cycles in football before. They remember both the 70’s when USC was on top and dominant as well as the down times in the 80’s and 90’s.
Los Angeles is like Manchester. There is a red team that wins championships and a blue team that doesn't.
I am shocked that you would take this stance..................NOT!
I am just a new boy...A stranger in this town
Where are all the good times...Who's gonna show this stranger around?
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
I know hah, Paragon!
When I read his stuff over at other blogs, the dude sounds halfway engaging. Over here, . . . . .nothing but condescension. (i know i can be a prick, but I try never to be THAT RUDE to fellow Trojans. and when I am rude, you can be sure it’s my contention that they deserve it. this guy’s just a drive-by artist)
"Fun fact: My grandma actually had 7 carries for 79 yards and one TD last year against Stanford. The (Oregon Ducks) spread option just works like that, but it helped that she’s pretty scrappy" (JShufelt- Addicted to Quack)
by BixBeiderbecke on Sep 2, 2010 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Meh
It is what it is
I am just a new boy...A stranger in this town
Where are all the good times...Who's gonna show this stranger around?
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
by Paragon SC on Sep 2, 2010 10:50 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
