dear ucla...

[Liver]

you ****ed up. you trusted usc. and, now, here you are. if you had not dropped your pants and begged to be violated, then the pac might still have been viable. but, now, here you are. every horrible thing that will happen to you from here forward is on you. enjoy being everyone's homecoming game, you deceitful traitorous bitches.

EB could be Knute ****ing Rockne and he wouldn't be able to fix the consequences of the barrel of **** you voluntarily placed yourselves in.

**** all the way off.

 

[MtnBuff]

you ****ed up. you trusted usc. and, now, here you are. if you had not dropped your pants and begged to be violated, then the pac might still have been viable. but, now, here you are. every horrible thing that will happen to you from here forward is on you. enjoy being everyone's homecoming game, you deceitful traitorous bitches.

EB could be Knute ****ing Rockne and he wouldn't be able to fix the consequences of the barrel of **** you voluntarily placed yourselves in.

**** all the way off.

But the Big Ten is such a perfect fit. They have so much in common with Nebraska, Iowa, and Michigan State.

 

[Shambo]

I blame SC more than UCLA. If we'd have gotten that offer to go with SC, we would've taken it in a heart beat.

Jarmond has ****ed their program with the Foster hire. Jarmond didn't want to fire Chip so Chip played it out, stopped recruiting and then bolted late, leaving Jarmond with minimal options (I'm guessing Smith would've gone to UCLA over Sparty if the job was open at the same time). Foster is basically UCLA's Embree hire with a former positional coach alum not qualified to be a HC, who then hired EB as his OC. Foster's buyout is reasonable but Jarmond likely won't be hiring another football coach, I have no clue why Jarmond would've tied himself to Foster unless some higher ups limited his cash to spend on a real coach. Jarmond hired Hafley at BC who was fairly solid, but then left for the GB DC gig.

UCLA will be lucky to win a second game this year. My UCLA buddies are counting down the days until hoops season kicks off...

 

[pmoney52]

My UCLA buddies are counting down the days until hoops season kicks off...

I dunno. Mick Cronin (who btw is one of my favorite coaches) was the perfect antidote for UCLA in the PAC12. But I’m afraid his style with that conference UCLA’s going to turn into another slow, prodding, boring B1G team … and the travel will do them no favors.

 

[DBT]

Yeah, UCLA is SOL. But Washington and Oregon were going to split as well. UCLA was screwed if they’d stayed and are screwed having left. They were left with little choice.

 

[MtnBuff]

If the PAC hadn't screwed it up badly they would have had Texas, Oklahoma, probably Okie State and one other Texas School.

The PAC would be only after the SEC and B1G and the B12 and ACC would be trying to figure out how to stay relevant.

 

[GRM]

you ****ed up. you trusted usc. and, now, here you are. if you had not dropped your pants and begged to be violated, then the pac might still have been viable. but, now, here you are. every horrible thing that will happen to you from here forward is on you. enjoy being everyone's homecoming game, you deceitful traitorous bitches.

EB could be Knute ****ing Rockne and he wouldn't be able to fix the consequences of the barrel of **** you voluntarily placed yourselves in.

**** all the way off.

SC is definitely more to blame on the Pac-12 demise. UCLA had no choice, since their athletic department was bleeding so much red they had no choice to move for the B1G $$$$. I think they were lucky to be included in the 1st round of expansion. Basically, they have no on-campus facilities that generate revenue. For Football, Basketball, and Baseball they essentially rent all the fields and recieve only a pittance from parking and consessions. Here is one article:

UCLA's giant athletic department deficit has some Bruins followers seeing red

The bleak financial outlook raises a question: Have the Bruins invested wisely from an athletic department budget that has grown 209% under AD Dan Guerrero?

www.latimes.com

There are harsher articles out there. They throw in fiscal mismanagement and expand the problems to other sports.

Post Covid, poor attendance killed both USC and UCLA, even when they had some decent seasons. Both the Rose Bowl and Coliseum are so huge, it was an awful look when they were 1/2 full post-Covid: one was a USC/UCLA game that only drew 40K. The Rose bowl is an awesome stadium, but a pain in the ass in terms of accessibility. I think part of both schools thinking in making the move was betting on fans of visiting teams traveling out west and help fill their stadiums.

Did anyone see the Stanford news?? They have not been a good football team for only 6-7 years, but this for a home opener in the ACC:

https://thespun.com/pac-12/stanford/historic-college-football-programs-home-crowd-is-embarrassing

A friend of mine went to the Packers/Chargers game yesterday and said it was 60% Packers fans.

 

[pmoney52]

My mom played volleyball at UCLA in the early 70's, and my mom and uncle grew up with Bill Walton in San Diego. (There's a signed ball that my uncle got from Bill that's sitting next to me in my office: "To [Pmoney], good luck. Bill." ... also, before I get any s*** for being a closeted UCLA fan once my mom moved to CO she basically never talked about her playing days and all i remember as a kid were going to CU games with my dad and uncles - all CU grads - and being mesmerized by Ralphie. It's interesting the things you start to pick apart about your parents lives as you get older, but I think there's some deep seeded resentment my mom has towards the way women's sports were treated back then - if i remember correctly she straddled the years Title IX game into play). Needless to say, I've always taken an interest in UCLA and it sucks that this was the proverbial fork in the road that they came to. I had no idea it was that bad though.

Tangentially related, I was playing basketball with my usual church group in Evanston yesterday, and a few of them had a casual get together with the AD at Northwestern a few days prior. Apparently he is scared sh!tless about getting fvcked by the B!G and left behind. No school is safe (with the exception of a handful). Whether you're a big name like UCLA or in the P2, everyone has their knives right now.

All of this sucks. I'm kind of happy though that Bill Walton isn't alive to see all of it.

 

[leftybuff]

I think it is inevitable schools like Northwestern, Vandy, and others could get the axe from the B1G and $EC. CFB is now getting monetized the same way everything else is, so we might as well make Gordon Gecko the CFB commissioner and be done with it.

 

[Highlander]

I think it is inevitable schools like Northwestern, Vandy, and others could get the axe from the B1G and $EC. CFB is now getting monetized the same way everything else is, so we might as well make Gordon Gecko the CFB commissioner and be done with it.

I don't think the lawsuits are are worth it. Everyone but those schools would have to leave for a new entity. Sort of like OSU/WSU left holding the bag in the P12.

 

[GRM]

My mom played volleyball at UCLA in the early 70's, and my mom and uncle grew up with Bill Walton in San Diego. (There's a signed ball that my uncle got from Bill that's sitting next to me in my office: "To [Pmoney], good luck. Bill." ... also, before I get any s*** for being a closeted UCLA fan once my mom moved to CO she basically never talked about her playing days and all i remember as a kid were going to CU games with my dad and uncles - all CU grads - and being mesmerized by Ralphie. It's interesting the things you start to pick apart about your parents lives as you get older, but I think there's some deep seeded resentment my mom has towards the way women's sports were treated back then - if i remember correctly she straddled the years Title IX game into play). Needless to say, I've always taken an interest in UCLA and it sucks that this was the proverbial fork in the road that they came to. I had no idea it was that bad though.

Tangentially related, I was playing basketball with my usual church group in Evanston yesterday, and a few of them had a casual get together with the AD at Northwestern a few days prior. Apparently he is scared sh!tless about getting fvcked by the B!G and left behind. No school is safe (with the exception of a handful). Whether you're a big name like UCLA or in the P2, everyone has their knives right now.

All of this sucks. I'm kind of happy though that Bill Walton isn't alive to see all of it.

Good story.

Eventually, it will be dog eat dog. Overall, other than a fear of public backlash, a lawsuit or political tumult, the B1G and SEC have no reason not to eventually turn on their own. The athletic landscape will be who is making money (i.e. at this juncture it is tv ratings, as this seems where most of the revenue is derived) and who is not. Except for a few schools (Ore, SMU, Okie State, maybe Stanford--endowments) the current business model is all based on TV. Football is the only real revenue producer floating most schools entire ADs. Academics, regionalism, tradition, rivalries have all taken a back seat to the mighty dollar. NIL is just another financial aspect of schools having enough to truly compete.

An interesting inflection point will be whether certain schools themselves can even make it work financially to compete in the upper tier of college football. At some point won't a few schools just decide to back out if they are bleeding $$$. In five years will Cal, Stanford, UCLA, NW, Vandy, Purdue etc... want to financially float just being in the upper CFP tier, if they cannot truly compete in football? IMO, overall AD travel costs will eventually nut some of the have nots... For others, they may be perpetual cellar dwellers. Some ADs may need to cut sports just to keep in football's upper tier.

Another question for the Upper Tier schools is how long and how much will a superconfernce (for argument sake, let's just say the B1G and SEC make up the "Superconference") want to subsidize their bottom feeder schools, staying as fodder for their teams to beat?? How far/much will they want revenue sharing to go??

 

[josef]

What will be interesting is when the big 2 conferences do start trimming the fat. Will teams left out still play them? If they dont how are those blue bloods who usually stack the deck in terms of schedules fill them? What does that do to ratings? Could start looking more and more like the NFL in terms of parity.

 

[slider]

Foster was a really bad hire

 

[Buffnik]

What will be interesting is when the big 2 conferences do start trimming the fat. Will teams left out still play them? If they dont how are those blue bloods who usually stack the deck in terms of schedules fill them? What does that do to ratings? Could start looking more and more like the NFL in terms of parity.

Parity is not achievable in CFB. We can't get to where any program is capable of winning a national championship. There are about 30-40 in that group and maybe 15 that have the capability of being a threat most years when running things right.

 

[josef]

Parity is not achievable in CFB. We can't get to where any program is capable of winning a national championship. There are about 30-40 in that group and maybe 15 that have the capability of being a threat most years when running things right.

Yah I was talking about whatever these 2 conferences become when they trim the fat.

 

[pmoney52]

Yah I was talking about whatever these 2 conferences become when they trim the fat.

We were having this exact discussion (re: parity in CFB) yesterday. Someone made the point that's why baseball is unwatchable. (I'm not getting into b/c I don't care and I don't know if that holds up.) But I agree that even if you trim the fat you're not likely going to see parity. (1) Recruiting 18 y/o (or 20 y/o transfers) is way different than drafting; and (2) the consistency of these kids at this age can be all over the place - just look at Saturday.

Personally, I think the chaos of college sports is its hallmark and what makes it great ... that you get a Vandy beating Alabama. Now, playing my own devil's advocate, a lot of people have pointed out that the 'chaos' in the recent NCAA Tourneys is the result of mid-majors achieving a greater level parity with the power conferences - and so maybe it is a good thing ... and maybe I'm just making sh!t up.

 

[leftybuff]

We were having this exact discussion (re: parity in CFB) yesterday. Someone made the point that's why baseball is unwatchable. (I'm not getting into b/c I don't care and I don't know if that holds up.) But I agree that even if you trim the fat you're not likely going to see parity. (1) Recruiting 18 y/o (or 20 y/o transfers) is way different than drafting; and (2) the consistency of these kids at this age can be all over the place - just look at Saturday.

Personally, I think the chaos of college sports is its hallmark and what makes it great ... that you get a Vandy beating Alabama. Now, playing my own devil's advocate, a lot of people have pointed out that the 'chaos' in the recent NCAA Tourneys is the result of mid-majors achieving a greater level parity with the power conferences - and so maybe it is a good thing ... and maybe I'm just making sh!t up.

College sports were different than pro. Each has their pros and cons. The more college morphs into pro, the less reason there will be for college sports.

 

[MtnBuff]

We were having this exact discussion (re: parity in CFB) yesterday. Someone made the point that's why baseball is unwatchable. (I'm not getting into b/c I don't care and I don't know if that holds up.) But I agree that even if you trim the fat you're not likely going to see parity. (1) Recruiting 18 y/o (or 20 y/o transfers) is way different than drafting; and (2) the consistency of these kids at this age can be all over the place - just look at Saturday.

Personally, I think the chaos of college sports is its hallmark and what makes it great ... that you get a Vandy beating Alabama. Now, playing my own devil's advocate, a lot of people have pointed out that the 'chaos' in the recent NCAA Tourneys is the result of mid-majors achieving a greater level parity with the power conferences - and so maybe it is a good thing ... and maybe I'm just making sh!t up.

The top schools, and by top I mean the ones that generate and want to control the lions share of the money, don't care about the chaos. They would rather generate interest by matching big names week after week.

They don't need the Northwesterns, Vandys, etc. and have no interest in paying those schools $100 million a year just to be on their schedule each year.

The NFL has proven that you don't need undefeated teams or even 90% winners to have fan interest, they put teams that are barely over .500 in the playoffs each year and the ratings are still through the roof.

Wit pay to play, coaches salaries, and all the rest of what goes into it the cost of running a successful college football program is going to be if it isn't already, prohibitive for schools that aren't receiving big media rights checks. At the same time the schools that are responsible for the television eyeballs would much rather make more than share with those that don't generate the viewer interest.

Sooner than later there will be a massive shakeout (and shakedown) of college football and we will see a much smaller number of schools remaining in the elite level, my guess is 30-45. The rest will be kicked to the curb and left to form a second (and third) level of college football that doesn't have the payrolls, the $10 million per year head coaches and $4 million per year coordinators.

Some schools will be very angry about being left out leading to litigation, threats in congress, and more but in the end they will end up out. Just like their mega-corporate bretheren, the programs that are the huge dollar generators will decide that the cost of fighting their former conference partners and even making some large payouts will in the long run be justified by the extra income they make in the long term, and they will be right.

 

[Bread]

Foster was a really bad hire

Impressive that they hired someone worse than we did when we hired Dorrell. At least Dorrell had some previous HC experience.

 

[skibum]

College sports were different than pro. Each has their pros and cons. The more college morphs into pro, the less reason there will be for college sports.

Even within the pros, there's a distinction between the major leagues and the development leagues.

I really enjoy minor league hockey, often for many of the same reasons that I enjoy college football. It's weird that one is organized around universities, but that part is what it is.

Young athletes, putting their all into it, sometimes showing sparks of greatness, but mostly just great attitudes and effort.

I don't think that part goes away with college football moving to more a "professional" model. I mean the kids playing minor league hockey are "professionals" too, and I have a blast going to their games and watching them play. Outside of watching the few NHL teams I care about, if I'm in a random city and you offer me a choice between an NHL and an AHL or ECHL game, absent some compelling reason (never seen <future hall of famer> play in person, never been to classic arena, etc) I'll pick the minor league game most of the time - they're just more fun.

The same is true of college vs NFL. If I'm in a random city and you give me the choice between going to an NFL game and a college game, I'll almost always pick the college game. Even without any ties to the universities playing. That level of football is just more fun to watch.

I don't think that goes away, even with a full "professional" model.

 

[Bread]

Even within the pros, there's a distinction between the major leagues and the development leagues.

I really enjoy minor league hockey, often for many of the same reasons that I enjoy college football. It's weird that one is organized around universities, but that part is what it is.

Young athletes, putting their all into it, sometimes showing sparks of greatness, but mostly just great attitudes and effort.

I don't think that part goes away with college football moving to more a "professional" model. I mean the kids playing minor league hockey are "professionals" too, and I have a blast going to their games and watching them play. Outside of watching the few NHL teams I care about, if I'm in a random city and you offer me a choice between an NHL and an AHL or ECHL game, absent some compelling reason (never seen <future hall of famer> play in person, never been to classic arena, etc) I'll pick the minor league game most of the time - they're just more fun.

The same is true of college vs NFL. If I'm in a random city and you give me the choice between going to an NFL game and a college game, I'll almost always pick the college game. Even without any ties to the universities playing. That level of football is just more fun to watch.

I don't think that goes away, even with a full "professional" model.

Bingo. Even as a full professional model, these kids will still be wearing the uniform of a university that means the absolute world to me. And the play style will always be more chaotic and prone to upsets because they aren’t the best of the best. The only thing that could maybe turn me personally away, is if CU doesn’t get the invite to the eventual super league and is the equivalent of current G6. Even then, I’d still watch CU every day. And who knows, I might still watch the super league. I’ve watched more football the last three years than any previous year because games are just more competitive. I don’t have a reason to turn the game off and do something else because in pretty much every time slot, there’s a close game. I fully believe the transfer portal and NIL are the reasons for that.

 

[MtnBuff]

Even within the pros, there's a distinction between the major leagues and the development leagues.

I really enjoy minor league hockey, often for many of the same reasons that I enjoy college football. It's weird that one is organized around universities, but that part is what it is.

Young athletes, putting their all into it, sometimes showing sparks of greatness, but mostly just great attitudes and effort.

I don't think that part goes away with college football moving to more a "professional" model. I mean the kids playing minor league hockey are "professionals" too, and I have a blast going to their games and watching them play. Outside of watching the few NHL teams I care about, if I'm in a random city and you offer me a choice between an NHL and an AHL or ECHL game, absent some compelling reason (never seen <future hall of famer> play in person, never been to classic arena, etc) I'll pick the minor league game most of the time - they're just more fun.

The same is true of college vs NFL. If I'm in a random city and you give me the choice between going to an NFL game and a college game, I'll almost always pick the college game. Even without any ties to the universities playing. That level of football is just more fun to watch.

I don't think that goes away, even with a full "professional" model.

Agree with all of this.

To extend this conversation further this is why I find the small colleges interesting.

The last couple of years Colorado Mines was in solid contention for a national championship. With that none of the players were significant NFL propects, a couple of them got training camp looks but none of them were the super athletes you would see in a P4 game.

Most of the athletes are a step or two slower or a couple of inches shorter and 20-30 pounds but the quality of play is very high. Teams run a wider variety of systems to make better use of the variety of talents they have (or lack.)

Growing up my Dad took me to a ton of college and minor league hockey games. They were always a good time and as a kid I loved it because we could always get good seats, sometimes right along the boards or a couple rows up behind the benches.

If anyone here hasn't been out to an RMAC game they are missing something worth seeing. Mines has a relatively new stadium and plays excellent football. Most of their players are ridiculously smart and it shows on the field.

Pueblo is a great place to catch a game as well. The community is behind them and the energy in the stadium is great. Their crowds are a lot more fun than you would find in Canvas where the crowd is larger (though after losing to CU not that much larger) but lost in the big empty stadium.

I haven't been to a game in Gunnison or Grand Junction but would like to. For football they are the only game in town.

 

[Not Sure]

I really enjoy minor league hockey, often for many of the same reasons that I enjoy college football. It's weird that one is organized around universities, but that part is what it is.

Yeah, but college hockey is way, way better than minor league hockey.

 

[MtnBuff]

Yeah, but college hockey is way, way better than minor league hockey.

Different games, I enjoy both.

The minor league game is more physical, the college game is more open and faster. College rosters are also more stable so you can get more familiar and involved in them.

 

[skibum]

Yeah, but college hockey is way, way better than minor league hockey.

Different games, I enjoy both.

The minor league game is more physical, the college game is more open and faster. College rosters are also more stable so you can get more familiar and involved in them.

You're both wrong.

Stability of the roster depends on the league and team, I've seen minor league rosters more stable than some colleges. It goes the other way too.

How fast the game is again depends on the team and the arena - not necessarily the league. With college teams (now) (mostly) playing on standard international size ice, the extra space naturally opens the game up.

But there's a ton of variation across both teams and arenas in the minors.

The minor leagues don't tend to have super standardized ice sheets (hell, it wasn't until 1994 that the NHL actually had a standard ice rink in all of its arenas - I'm pretty sure colleges are now much more uniform in the size of their ice sheets than are the minor leagues), and how open and fast of a game you get often depends on the ice as much as the players.

One thing I do think that college gets right is its zero tolerance for fighting. I wish they would add a second ref though, as the lack of fighting can lead to some old school cheap shots going completely unpoliced.

 

[Not Sure]

You're both wrong.

Stability of the roster depends on the league and team, I've seen minor league rosters more stable than some colleges. It goes the other way too.

How fast the game is again depends on the team and the arena - not necessarily the league. With college teams (now) (mostly) playing on standard international size ice, the extra space naturally opens the game up.

But there's a ton of variation across both teams and arenas in the minors.

The minor leagues don't tend to have super standardized ice sheets (hell, it wasn't until 1994 that the NHL actually had a standard ice rink in all of its arenas - I'm pretty sure colleges are now much more uniform in the size of their ice sheets than are the minor leagues), and how open and fast of a game you get often depends on the ice as much as the players.

One thing I do think that college gets right is its zero tolerance for fighting. I wish they would add a second ref though, as the lack of fighting can lead to some old school cheap shots going completely unpoliced.

They do have two refs in college hockey.

I’ve seen a lot of college hockey and a reasonable amount of minor league hockey. The top end of college hockey is a superior product, IMO. Minor league hockey tends to spawn a lot of hero ball.

 

[skibum]

They do have two refs in college hockey.

I’ve seen a lot of college hockey and a reasonable amount of minor league hockey. The top end of college hockey is a superior product, IMO. Minor league hockey tends to spawn a lot of hero ball.

When did they add the second ref?

I haven't been to a college game since I moved away from Colorado (now that I've moved back, at least part time, I haven't been to one). Last time it was the old school two linesmen and one ref. Leads to asshole plays from a few players.


[Side note: In the days before the NHL added the second ref, Patrick Roy was the king of hacking a player when the ref was looking the other way. He'd slash them pretty hard if he thought they were spending too much time in his crease. As soon as the puck was cleared from the zone, he'd look right at the ref and if the ref was looking the other way and the guy was still in his crease, he'd slash them. I remember one time when the player was about to skate away that he put his stick between the dude's legs and brough the stick up *hard*. Crook of the stick right in the crotch. Dude went down fast, meanwhile Roy is calmly standing there looking the other way acting like he has no idea why the dude went down.]

 

[Not Sure]

When did they add the second ref?

I haven't been to a college game since I moved away from Colorado (now that I've moved back, at least part time, I haven't been to one). Last time it was the old school two linesmen and one ref. Leads to asshole plays from a few players.


[Side note: In the days before the NHL added the second ref, Patrick Roy was the king of hacking a player when the ref was looking the other way. He'd slash them pretty hard if he thought they were spending too much time in his crease. As soon as the puck was cleared from the zone, he'd look right at the ref and if the ref was looking the other way and the guy was still in his crease, he'd slash them. I remember one time when the player was about to skate away that he put his stick between the dude's legs and brough the stick up *hard*. Crook of the stick right in the crotch. Dude went down fast, meanwhile Roy is calmly standing there looking the other way acting like he has no idea why the dude went down.]

12 years ago.

 

[MtnBuff]

They do have two refs in college hockey.

I’ve seen a lot of college hockey and a reasonable amount of minor league hockey. The top end of college hockey is a superior product, IMO. Minor league hockey tends to spawn a lot of hero ball.

Both you and ski touch on factors that make make the college game better.

The emphasis on hitting and contact in the minor leagues takes away from the skill level, the college game is more on playmaking, passing, stick handling. In the minors you get the young players who are focused on trying to get to the next level, and right now, not at the end of a season. This is where your hero ball comes from and you get guys trying to catch the eye of somebody who will move them up.