Darren Perkins

Good stuff. And FSU and Miami are in the USC of the 2010's mode, meaning that they are underachieving. They could get back to greatness with the right coach. Though Miami won't get back to greatness under MC, he will absorb alot of quality recruits, while the verdict is still out on Mike Norvell at FSU, but he could be the guy.

Agree with this. Clemson won two Natty's over Bama, that puts to bed any "but they come from a weak conference" talk. And, obviously, they had to beat a quality opponent to even get to the championship game.

More likely a neutral site one-off. Preferably in Vegas. ☺

Jon, if you can guarantee me that the annual payout per school will increase, I'd jump on your side in a split second, but I still don't see it, and the SEC didn't see it. It doesn't matter what the rest of the country is doing, we can't make a move that will lower our per school payout. If there are jumbo conferences of 20-24, they are really two conferences under one hat. I think The Alliance plan takes precedence and if that doesn't work out we can possibly look at expansion later if that makes sense.

I agree with that, but i'm trusting they would have sense enough to limit Pac-12 teams like Oregon to one "marqee" matchup and one low-middling matchup.

From a Wilner article the other Day, George Kliakov said this, and I gotta' say, I like it: “My nirvana in football is eight conference games, one game against the Big Ten, one game against the ACC every year — each of those being either home or away — and the last two games to make the 12-game season would be up to the athletic director and the football coach to decide who they want to play. It will take a while to get to that eight-plus-one-plus-one because of existing contractual commitments.”

I still respectfully disagree. There's a reason the SEC stopped at Texas and Oklahoma, and that's because the rest of the schools didn't move the needle enough to invite in. None of the rest of the schools have a national brand, so they weren't invited. Simply increading revenue is not enough, you have to increase the overall annual payout per school. If it did make good business sense, I have no doubt the SEC would have invited more schools in, because as has been said here, the SEC makes smart decisions. And keep in mind, the BIG 12, minus Texas and Oklahoma, are not going to be able to demand nearly as much in their next tv deal, those current numbers above include Texas and Oklahoma. Plus, George can still invite teams in down the road if does make financial sense. We haven't seen the end of realignment. I read an Andy Staples article a few months ago, the big money generator in the eyes of the networks are football games that have at least 4 million viewers, The likes of Texas and Oklahoma will increase the number of these games for the SEC, the likes of Baylor and Kansas? Not so much. But, foregoing expansion for The Alliance, will generate more "4 million club" (i.e. Clemsion vs USC, Oregon vs Michigan) type games for the Pac-12 than playing Big-12 leftovers. From Staples article from last summer: " … if the plan includes a scheduling alliance to create more games in the Four Million Club for each league, then it could be a valuable partnership for all of them. It also could benefit the viewers by giving us more interesting games to watch. What’s the Four Million Club? It’s the group of football games that draw more than four million viewers. These are the games networks are willing to pay premium prices for, and they’re also the type of games the SEC’s addition of Oklahoma and Texas will add to that league’s inventory. In conversations with television executives and consultants, conference officials and athletic directors, it has become clear that the hunt for premium television product will drive this round of realignment (or, in the case of the alliance, rearranging)."

Yeah, no doubt I think USC will keep more blue-chips in the PAc-12. I mentioned, for example, Stroud, a guy like that and others may have stayed home in socal if USC was any good.

Yeah, and it is college, if kids wanna' do a little rebellin', they will fnd a way whether in the bright lights of LA or a cornfield in Nebraska. I know at that age I never let location or environment get in the way of having a good time. ; )

That's right! It is going to Oregon, so we gotta be prepared to beat a good USC for years to come.

The PAc-12 had been down for several years now, so it can really only get better, this is going to happen sooner or later, so it'll push the Ducks to up their game.

We can't count on them not ever getting that talent, maybe they'll be a little thin on the lines for a year or two.

Which makes it all the more painful that Oregon couldn't maintain being at the top of the Pac-12 in the 2010's while USC was down. But, overall, we're stronger now, we know we can recruit at a high level and have a great staff to hopefully get most out its players, unlike what we saw with MC.

All true. Best we accept it now and then enjoy the upcoming big-time rivalry with USC.

Good for AZ though, hopefully they'll get good, can only help the conference, at least until their coach gets poached away.

True. But is can also be what draws more talent. Fingers crossed we still recruit great in SoCal.

Yup, having a good USC can only mean more money for all!

It will makes things for exciting for sure. Fun times ahead.

Totally. I mean, it's not like Riley went to the SEC, if the Trojans can rise up against Utah, they just might be playing in Las Vegas next December.

Thank Jon, from some of your past comments in the forum I knew you were also very aware of the danger that USC now presents. And as Ducks, we have to be ready!!! I cooled my jets in saying they will win the South in 2022, but it could happen. They are going to be very dangerous offensively, and if they can get past the Utes, watch out!

Totally agree, it make things more scary as Ducks fans, but having a great rivalry make things very exciting. For example, As much as I like destroying UW, it is also very fun when the Huskies are competitive and the stakes are high. Same with SC.

Very good point. Yes, a bad USC makes it easier to reach the CFP, but if you don't have what it takes you're gonna get soundly beaten in the CFP. That's pretty much what happend to Riley at Oklahoma, but those teams would have been good enought to win the Pac-12, which is our fist concern.

Agree, and while it does blow on one hand having to play a very good USC, it does make life more exciting. And, that undefeated UW in 2016, there were some serious doubts if they were going to make the CFP based on their weak schedule, so definitely benefits the schedule strength.

Nobody is being crowned here. I wrote this for the sake of awareness. Don't underestimate the enemy. USC has been a sleeping giant and we know what they are capable of when they have the right coach in place. I've just seen so many people being dismissive of them, sure, Riley could suck at USC, but I wouldn't make that bet. And sure, you can poke holes in his success, but if he can win the Big 12 and make the CFP, there's no reason to think he can't do the same in the Pac-12.

Agree, on one hand it does suck that we will have a good USC to have to compete with, but it does make things more exciting. I think George has it in the cards to go to 8 conference games. And really, the conference championship game is a playoff game, so bring it.