UCLA IS In $103 Million Debt

Conspiracy theory…

The Big Ten wants Notre Dame bad, they wanted to get one of if not the biggest rival of Notre Dame, USC. That lets ND get annual or much more consistent games with MSU and UM (historic rivals) as well as Indiana and Purdue (in state rivals). USC knowing that California legislature would fight them spinning off solo they insisted on bringing in UCLA to allow them to keep that “rivalry” game going. Notre Dame can go with Stanford and Army as two of their non-conference games.
 
Huskers4me said:
I don’t know why the B1G is so dumb (Keven Warren) but UCLA has been running at a $30 million athletics budget deficit per year and now the B1G swoops in and gives them immediate 100% share of Conference tv money hand out in 2024.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing USC dictated that UCLA was the chosen one go along.

UCLA has always been their chief PAC rival.
 
7samurai13 said:
Conspiracy theory…

The Big Ten wants Notre Dame bad so they wanted to get one of if not the biggest rival of Notre Dame, USC. That lets ND get annual or much more consistent games with MSU and UM (historic rivals) as well as Indiana and Purdue (in state rivals). USC knowing that California legislature would fight them spinning off solo they insisted on bringing in UCLA to allow them to keep that “rivalry” game going. Notre Dame can go with Stanford and Army as two of their non-conference games.
Click to expand...

I think this is common sense TBH
 
Red_Alert said:
I'm guessing USC dictated that UCLA was the chosen one go along.

UCLA has always been their chief PAC rival.
Click to expand...
Makes Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers, & Maryland look stupid for not getting the same deal of an instant 100% cut. But then again look what Mizzou got from the B1G.
 
7samurai13 said:
Conspiracy theory…

The Big Ten wants Notre Dame bad, they wanted to get one of if not the biggest rival of Notre Dame, USC. That lets ND get annual or much more consistent games with MSU and UM (historic rivals) as well as Indiana and Purdue (in state rivals). USC knowing that California legislature would fight them spinning off solo they insisted on bringing in UCLA to allow them to keep that “rivalry” game going. Notre Dame can go with Stanford and Army as two of their non-conference games.
Click to expand...
Isn’t USC a private school? If so do they still get some sort of funding from the California Lege?
 
7samurai13 said:
Conspiracy theory…

The Big Ten wants Notre Dame bad, they wanted to get one of if not the biggest rival of Notre Dame, USC. That lets ND get annual or much more consistent games with MSU and UM (historic rivals) as well as Indiana and Purdue (in state rivals). USC knowing that California legislature would fight them spinning off solo they insisted on bringing in UCLA to allow them to keep that “rivalry” game going. Notre Dame can go with Stanford and Army as two of their non-conference games.
Click to expand...

USC is USC

Along with Notre Dame, they were one of only two crown jewel bluebloods remaining that were not in (or headed) to the Big 10 or SEC.

When opportunity arises to get one of the two (USC/ND), you take it.
 
7samurai13 said:
Conspiracy theory…

The Big Ten wants Notre Dame bad, they wanted to get one of if not the biggest rival of Notre Dame, USC. That lets ND get annual or much more consistent games with MSU and UM (historic rivals) as well as Indiana and Purdue (in state rivals). USC knowing that California legislature would fight them spinning off solo they insisted on bringing in UCLA to allow them to keep that “rivalry” game going. Notre Dame can go with Stanford and Army as two of their non-conference games.
Click to expand...
USC is a private school so the legislature had nothing to do with it. Also, UCLA and Cal are controlled by totally different school systems. So, UCLA, USC, Cal, and Stanford all have different governing entities.

I think the rivalries has something to do with it for sure. Also, USC had to have a travel partner of sorts.
 
Top 20 winningest programs

1. Michigan (976) - Big 10
T-2. Ohio State (942) - Big 10
T-2. Alabama (942) - SEC
4. Notre Dame (929) - IND/ACC
T-5. Oklahoma (928) - SEC
T-5. Texas (928) - SEC
7. Penn State (909) - Big 10
8. Nebraska (908) - Big 10
9. USC (856) - Big 10
10. Tennessee (856) - SEC
11. Georgia (853) - SEC
12. LSU (823) - SEC
13. Auburn (788) - SEC
14. Clemson (778) - ACC
15. West Virginia (769) - Big 12
16. Texas A&M (766) - SEC
17. Virginia Tech (763) - ACC
T-18. Washington (749) - PAC 12
T-18. Florida (749) - SEC
T-18. Pittsburgh (749) - ACC

SEC - 9 teams
Big 10 - 5 teams
ACC - 3 teams
Big 12 - 1 team
Pac 12 - 1 team
IND - 1 team (Bound to ACC)

If you're making a league of 'winningest programs' based on availability, then West Virginia and Washington are the nearest availabilities for 2025.

I'd guess the Big 10 would rather have had Washington instead of UCLA, but USC said "Not Today".
 
Red_Alert said:
Top 20 winningest programs

1. Michigan (976) - Big 10
T-2. Ohio State (942) - Big 10
T-2. Alabama (942) - SEC
4. Notre Dame (929) - IND/ACC
T-5. Oklahoma (928) - SEC
T-5. Texas (928) - SEC
7. Penn State (909) - Big 10
8. Nebraska (908) - Big 10
9. USC (856) - Big 10
10. Tennessee (856) - SEC
11. Georgia (853) - SEC
12. LSU (823) - SEC
13. Auburn (788) - SEC
14. Clemson (778) - ACC
15. West Virginia (769) - Big 12
16. Texas A&M (766) - SEC
17. Virginia Tech (763) - ACC
T-18. Washington (749) - PAC 12
T-18. Florida (749) - SEC
T-18. Pittsburgh (749) - ACC

SEC - 9 teams
Big 10 - 5 teams
ACC - 3 teams
Big 12 - 1 team
Pac 12 - 1 team
IND - 1 team (Bound to ACC)

If you're making a league of 'winningest programs' based on availability, then West Virginia and Washington are the nearest availabilities for 2025.

I'd guess the Big 10 would rather have had Washington instead of UCLA, but USC said "Not Today".
Click to expand...
all time wins are nice and all but college football is also about lately. getting a bunch of wins 100 years ago doesnt mean as much as maybe last 25 years
 
OlyDuck said:
all time wins are nice and all but college football is also about lately. getting a bunch of wins 100 years ago doesnt mean as much as maybe last 25 years
Click to expand...

The majority of either Washington or West Virginia's wins weren't 100 years ago.

Exaggerate much?

I know it hurts yourn webbed feet, but accept reality that overall Washington is a better get than Oregon or any other PAC program for that matter.

Colorado would be a better get than Oregon.
 
7samurai13 said:
Conspiracy theory…

The Big Ten wants Notre Dame bad, they wanted to get one of if not the biggest rival of Notre Dame, USC. That lets ND get annual or much more consistent games with MSU and UM (historic rivals) as well as Indiana and Purdue (in state rivals). USC knowing that California legislature would fight them spinning off solo they insisted on bringing in UCLA to allow them to keep that “rivalry” game going. Notre Dame can go with Stanford and Army as two of their non-conference games.
Click to expand...

Red_Alert said:
I'm guessing USC dictated that UCLA was the chosen one go along.

UCLA has always been their chief PAC rival.
Click to expand...
From what I read USC preferred To go alone but I guess the B1G needed two and that made the most sense.

I don’t think USC have a rats behind about politics and being a private school they don’t answer to the state.

My best guess is they are hurting bad from COVID as well and this was their best out.
 
Had Oregon won a couple natties the past 15 years or so then things would possibly be different, but that's not the case here.
 
Red_Alert said:
The majority of either Washington or West Virginia's wins weren't 100 years ago.

Exaggerate much?

I know it hurts yourn webbed feet, but accept reality that overall Washington is a better get than Oregon or any other PAC program for that matter.

Colorado would be a better get than Oregon.
Click to expand...
I love the ding of Oregon but I wouldn’t go that far. Colorado is a long way away from their shared natty but at least they have one.
 
Wild Turkey said:
From what I read USC preferred To go alone but I guess the B1G needed two and that made the most sense.

I don’t think USC have a rats behind about politics and being a private school they don’t answer to the state.

My best guess is they are hurting bad from COVID as well and this was their best out.
Click to expand...

Is that official from USC, or is that from "A source with knowledge"?

If you're a 15 year old pimple face kid in his momma's basement looking for clicks on tweeter, just say "A source with knowledge" on every post. It'll find it's way to Hoopla's college football forum.
 
Red_Alert said:
Is that official from USC, or is that from "A source with knowledge"?

If you're a 15 year old pimple face kid in his momma's basement looking for clicks on tweeter, just say "A source with knowledge" on every post. It'll find it's way to Hoopla's college football forum.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that @droider lied to us?
 
Wild Turkey said:
I love the ding of Oregon but I wouldn’t go that far. Colorado is a long way away from their shared natty but at least they have one.
Click to expand...

Not to mention Colorado is a better regional fit.

Also

1971 AP Final Poll

1. Nebraska (13-0)
2. Oklahoma (11-1)
3. Colorado (10-2)

Colorado's only two losses were Nebraska and Oklahoma.

Colorado is better than the one season they won a share of the natty in 1990.
 
Red_Alert said:
Not to mention Colorado is a better regional fit.

Also

1971 AP Final Poll

1. Nebraska (13-0)
2. Oklahoma (11-1)
3. Colorado (10-2)

Colorado's only two losses were Nebraska and Oklahoma.
Click to expand...

And then something happened


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top