Does it mean more success vs getting $40 mil in PAC. Big ten teams have been getting close to double the PAC for last ten years. So what? Is Indiana Rutgers, Purdue, NU etc any better? Still seem shitty to me. Will the Bruins get better? seems to me all that extra dough is going to Girls sports
looks like PAC teams will be getting $30 mil a year. Is that enough? It is if you cut some minor sports. Good donors make up any short fall.
SC is spending 10 mil a year on just one coach . Who’s the first 15 mil/ yr coach?
I read the goal is for SEC and big 16 to break away and have their own playoffs. ACC, big12, PAC have their own version. Of course, that can’t happen unti
I've been to Big Ten schools on college trips with kids. Moo U, Purdue, IU, Ohio State and Michigan as I recall. Maybe another. Every one of them had better intramural facilities than what USC and most PAC-12 schools have for their varsity. In some cases it was astounding. Purdue has some sci fi draining system for their field that keeps it playable even in a downpour. Ohio State has rows upon rows of glass encased squash, racquetball and handball courts. Looks like all these people are playing in a trophy case. Moo U has the most weight facilities I've ever seen, and oh, they have like 4 of them. Not just one campus workout center. Multiples. Indiana has this whole sports complex area. Stadium, Hoops arena, coaching offices, all of it. All to the west of campus. And on it goes. So I don't know if USC has the room to do any of that but those are the schools they are competing against. In fairness, one could argue they have to have great facilities because the humidty sucks when it's warm and when it's not warm it is really cold and ugly. However, the facilities exist and they are really impressive.
Yeah, maybe the Bruins and Trojans should have turned down the Big 10 and opted for half the TV revenue and a shitty schedule in a dying conference that nobody watches. Then they could have felt better about themselves.
How do you know what the Indiana's, Rutgers's, etc of the Big10 would be without the money? My assumption is they are better with the dollars then they would be without them. This question sounds like asked by someone who is a fan or alum of a school that is being left out.
Love the question re 'what does money buy you' coming from a Duck. How about redirecting your post to Uncle Phil?
CFB is an arms race at the moment. In this arms race three things are essential, money for staff and facilities, top-media exposure for national recruiting, and NIL strength. Direct money to the schools is clearly important to help with staff expenses, promotional efforts, media staff, top-notch facilities, recruiting costs etc etc. No team can stay in the top echelon for long without top media and TV exposure.
The P12 utterly failed at getting itself on TV with good times. In NIL terms, small exposure like the mini-P10 will attract small value. In the Big16 coverage will now include national coverage like "NBC Saturday Night Football" instead of 11:00 PM "PAC12 After bedtime". So the bigger stage broadens recruiting efforts nationwide and enhances NIL value to endorsees. To attract players like M. Nelson schools will need to demonstrate top media exposure.
Oregon has some time and money right now to make a jump or fix the P10, but to stay in the game it has to find a way to get eyes on its product. A strong on the field product can solve, to some major extent, the exposure issue. Any cyclical down years in the mini-P10 however will consign Oregon to oblivion.
😎
As much as I dislike Oregon, its dedication to football over academics is helpful to the PAC. Leaches like Cal that self-sabotage drains money away form schools with strong programs. Money makes things work.
https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1560283498589609990
Well at USC it probably means something different than say It would at Oregon
USC's athletic department has always been financially independent from the other University departments.
They MUST pay their own bills. They can't work on a loss like say, ucla.
USC's athletic department also makes money in it's athletic department independent of tv contracts, though ticket sales, bookstore crap, and donations including endowments.
All the football team's support staff will now be just as good as every other big name team in the country, and because of a tight budget, that hasn't been the case. sc
The monetary gains will allow USC to build better support for the program overall from a staffing/logistics personnel standpoint to a facilities standpoint along with expanding the sports USC has not been able to do with Title IX in place without major cash outlays. Increased scholarships in other sports will also benefit from the amount of cash that USC gains from moving to the Big 10. It's also been reported the amount of cash USC will receive could be greater then $100M a year and the last thing I heard on the PAC was around $24M a year. The PAC is a joke.
Classic line when you have your very own Uncle Phil. "Good donors make up any shortfall."
I think you are right about the bruins, not much change, just a better balance sheet.
When the money is fairly equal, the schools revert to their mean. Ohio State and Michigan have always (in my lifetime) emphasized football, Indiana, Rutgers, Purdue, NU, etc. do not. I assume they concentrate on other sports and/or kick the money back to the general fund.