Interesting info on the Pac-12 Network: No more football or men's basketball?

YouSayPotato

True Freshman
Jun 4, 2021
871
676
93
Very long read from the San Jose Mercury News which is for subscribers only but I managed to weasel in and copy Section 10. Note the following comment from the article:

“What about the Pac-12 Networks? The Hotline doesn’t expect them to exist in linear form starting in the summer of 2024; nor do we expect them to show any football or men’s basketball content.”

10. The Pac-12 will blow past expectations with its media rights contract.

First, let’s address the timing. The contracts with ESPN and Fox — and the Pac-12 Networks distribution partners — expire in the summer of 2024, which would point to next winter as the start of negotiations for the next contract cycle. However, we believe the process could be expedited.

The networks currently are negotiating with the Big Ten. Once those conclude (in the late spring or early summer), they could quickly pivot to the Pac-12 and wrap everything up by the end of 2022. We wouldn’t bet on that outcome, but it’s possible.

We predict the key pieces for the Pac-12’s next media rights contract will look something like this:

— The terms. Let’s first define the discussion: The annual revenue distributions to each campus — the numbers that get so much media attention — include revenue from March Madness and the College Football Playoff. Our projections are limited to Pac-12 distribution rights for regular-season broadcasts (football and men’s basketball) and the football championship game.

Two factors shape our projections: 1) The sizzling market for live sports (see: the recent NFL and MLB media deals); and 2) the coterminous nature of the Pac-12 rights.

One of the few things former commissioner Larry Scott got right with the media strategy was to ensure that all contracts expired at the same time — in the summer of ’24. That will allow Kliavkoff to saddle to the negotiating table with the football and basketball inventory currently on Fox and ESPN and the 36 football games on the Pac-12 Networks.

With scale comes leverage and flexibility. In our opinion, the Pac-12’s next media rights deal will bring an average annual value of $600 million, which breaks down to $50 million per school over the course of the deal. (The Year One value would be less, assuming an escalator of three or four percent.)

For context, recall that the existing 12-year, $3 billion deal with Fox and ESPN averages $250 million annually ($21 million per school). So yes, we expect the average value to more than double — in part because of market forces, in part because 36 football games will be added to the inventory. (Those games are worth far more to the conference within a package sold to ESPN and Fox than they have been on the Pac-12 Networks.)

The duration of the contract cycle could be eight years, 10 years, perhaps even 12 years — but whatever the length, it will assuredly have an option to reassess midway through.

— The partners. As the current rights-holders, ESPN and Fox have an exclusive negotiating window with the Pac-12. The conference can discuss options with other potential partners, but it cannot engage in formal negotiations with CBS, NBC, Amazon, etc., unless ESPN and Fox are unable (or unwilling) to lock up the Pac-12 during the exclusive window.

We believe they will lock it up, with the end result looking something like this:

* The ‘Game of the Week’ package, featuring late-afternoon kickoffs. Most of these games will be shown over-the-air on FOX and CBS (through a sub-licensing agreement with ESPN and Fox).

* The afternoon array. Most Pac-12 games will be played during daylight and scattered across several networks, from ESPN and ESPN2 to FS1 and perhaps CBS Sports Network. We wouldn’t be surprised if a second sub-licensing deal allows for games on the Turner networks.

* The streaming services. We foresee a handful of games (perhaps one per week) to air on digital platforms like ESPN+ or Paramount+. (There’s no indication Amazon is interested in college football. If it doesn’t want the Big Ten, we can’t envision it nibbling on the Pac-12.)

What about the Pac-12 Networks? The Hotline doesn’t expect them to exist in linear form starting in the summer of 2024; nor do we expect them to show any football or men’s basketball content.

However, as a standalone property, they could serve as a streaming service for Pac-12 Olympic sports. Also, don’t discount the potential for ESPN to buy them as part of the deal that includes football and men’s basketball inventory.

(There are myriad possible outcomes for the Pac-12 Networks and the conference’s media rights in general. This is merely our best guess based on the current landscape. Once the Big Ten negotiations conclude, we’ll have more clarity.)

So there you have it … the Hotline’s projections, on the field and off, for the Pac-12 in the 2022-23 sports cycle.
 

Indy_Rider

Senior
Feb 10, 2006
3,922
5,143
113
Bargersville, IN
Streaming part is interesting. While leagues look at the one time dollar figure they can get from those services, I think they overlook the long term impact as there are a lot of people who are not going to keep jumping streaming services to chase games. I know if the Big started doing that, I'd probably be done as I am done jumping through hopes to watch stuff and am done signing up for random streaming service.
 

BCfanatic2020

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 5, 2020
9,438
4,325
113
Streaming part is interesting. While leagues look at the one time dollar figure they can get from those services, I think they overlook the long term impact as there are a lot of people who are not going to keep jumping streaming services to chase games. I know if the Big started doing that, I'd probably be done as I am done jumping through hopes to watch stuff and am done signing up for random streaming service.
Good call.. I think the big problem with them is a lack of interest on the west coast in sports and football. No one I know out there (grew up half out there) is signing their kids up for youth football and very few even for high school.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YouSayPotato

Indy_Rider

Senior
Feb 10, 2006
3,922
5,143
113
Bargersville, IN
Good call.. I think the big problem with them is a lack of interest on the west coast in sports and football. No one I know out there (grew up half out there) is signing their kids up for youth football and very few even for high school.
The other issue they always have is time zone, you lose half the country with late game times, where as people I know on the west coast has always commented how awesome it is to get up and be able to just turn on the game and then have their afternoons free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YouSayPotato

YouSayPotato

True Freshman
Jun 4, 2021
871
676
93
I think the big problem with them is a lack of interest on the west coast in sports and football.
The other issue they always have is time zone,
Agree with both comments and a third factor going against the P-12 media rights is that their conference TV network is a train wreck. It doesn't have a Sugar Daddy like the Big Ten (Fox) and the SEC (ESPN) to bundle into a programming package.

The article that I posted above suggests that the P-12 media rights deal in 2024 will piggyback off of the success of the forthcoming Big Ten media deal this summer. I doubt that will happen for the three reasons that we've cited here. I believe we'll see the beginning of the P5 and G5 evolve into the P2, Mid 3 and G5. The Big XII, ACC and Pac-12 simply won't generate the revenue to keep up with the Big Ten and SEC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DAG10

BCfanatic2020

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 5, 2020
9,438
4,325
113
The other issue they always have is time zone, you lose half the country with late game times, where as people I know on the west coast has always commented how awesome it is to get up and be able to just turn on the game and then have their afternoons free.
They’ve said this to me too
 

BCfanatic2020

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 5, 2020
9,438
4,325
113
Agree with both comments and a third factor going against the P-12 media rights is that their conference TV network is a train wreck. It doesn't have a Sugar Daddy like the Big Ten (Fox) and the SEC (ESPN) to bundle into a programming package.

The article that I posted above suggests that the P-12 media rights deal in 2024 will piggyback off of the success of the forthcoming Big Ten media deal this summer. I doubt that will happen for the three reasons that we've cited here. I believe we'll see the beginning of the P5 and G5 evolve into the P2, Mid 3 and G5. The Big XII, ACC and Pac-12 simply won't generate the revenue to keep up with the Big Ten and SEC.
Shows how good Delaney was
 

Indy_Rider

Senior
Feb 10, 2006
3,922
5,143
113
Bargersville, IN
Agree with both comments and a third factor going against the P-12 media rights is that their conference TV network is a train wreck. It doesn't have a Sugar Daddy like the Big Ten (Fox) and the SEC (ESPN) to bundle into a programming package.

The article that I posted above suggests that the P-12 media rights deal in 2024 will piggyback off of the success of the forthcoming Big Ten media deal this summer. I doubt that will happen for the three reasons that we've cited here. I believe we'll see the beginning of the P5 and G5 evolve into the P2, Mid 3 and G5. The Big XII, ACC and Pac-12 simply won't generate the revenue to keep up with the Big Ten and SEC.
I think the ACC has some teams that could allow them to stay close enough to make a case for a P3. The PAC has teams with history and name recognition, it's just time zone kills them from a TV revenue appeal and trying to schedule some more east coast games doesn't help since that would fall to the home teams broadcast agreement.
 

BCfanatic2020

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 5, 2020
9,438
4,325
113
I think the ACC has some teams that could allow them to stay close enough to make a case for a P3. The PAC has teams with history and name recognition, it's just time zone kills them from a TV revenue appeal and trying to schedule some more east coast games doesn't help since that would fall to the home teams broadcast agreement.
I don’t get it.. why can’t they just have more games earlier? I mean are other conferences really gonna be like “oh Oregon state and Washington state playing at 1 pacific? That just kills our viewership.”
 

YouSayPotato

True Freshman
Jun 4, 2021
871
676
93
I think the ACC has some teams that could allow them to stay close enough to make a case for a P3.
Actually, I think the ACC is in the worst position among the five P5 conferences. The ACC is stuck in a deal with ESPN that pays $17 million per school per year through 2036. It's easy to imagine that by 2034 that the schools of the Big Ten and SEC will be pulling in ten times that amount and perhaps more than that if the networks get into some bidding wars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DAG10

Indy_Rider

Senior
Feb 10, 2006
3,922
5,143
113
Bargersville, IN
Actually, I think the ACC is in the worst position among the five P5 conferences. The ACC is stuck in a deal with ESPN that pays $17 million per school per year through 2036. It's easy to imagine that by 2034 that the schools of the Big Ten and SEC will be pulling in ten times that amount and perhaps more than that if the networks get into some bidding wars.
Wasn't aware of their TV deal. Was just thinking the schools and brand recognition they've got. Plus haven't done to bad in the football playoffs. Yeah, that deal is definitely going to have them hamstrung. Not good.
 

YouSayPotato

True Freshman
Jun 4, 2021
871
676
93
Yeah, that deal is definitely going to have them hamstrung. Not good.
Commish John Swofford promised the schools he would develop a conference TV network waaay back around 2010 after the BTN got started. However Fox et al were not interested because they didn't think it would be profitable. Also, the Pac-12 experience proved that it wasn't smart to try to go it alone. Years went by, no ACC network.

So Swoffie cooked up a devil's deal with ESPN that the ACC would sign a long-term media rights deal for chump change if they came in and set up the ACC Network. That's what happened and they are stuck with it for another 14 years.
 

Tommaker

Senior
Dec 11, 2002
2,590
1,760
113
Very long read from the San Jose Mercury News which is for subscribers only but I managed to weasel in and copy Section 10. Note the following comment from the article:

“What about the Pac-12 Networks? The Hotline doesn’t expect them to exist in linear form starting in the summer of 2024; nor do we expect them to show any football or men’s basketball content.”

10. The Pac-12 will blow past expectations with its media rights contract.

First, let’s address the timing. The contracts with ESPN and Fox — and the Pac-12 Networks distribution partners — expire in the summer of 2024, which would point to next winter as the start of negotiations for the next contract cycle. However, we believe the process could be expedited.

The networks currently are negotiating with the Big Ten. Once those conclude (in the late spring or early summer), they could quickly pivot to the Pac-12 and wrap everything up by the end of 2022. We wouldn’t bet on that outcome, but it’s possible.

We predict the key pieces for the Pac-12’s next media rights contract will look something like this:

— The terms. Let’s first define the discussion: The annual revenue distributions to each campus — the numbers that get so much media attention — include revenue from March Madness and the College Football Playoff. Our projections are limited to Pac-12 distribution rights for regular-season broadcasts (football and men’s basketball) and the football championship game.

Two factors shape our projections: 1) The sizzling market for live sports (see: the recent NFL and MLB media deals); and 2) the coterminous nature of the Pac-12 rights.

One of the few things former commissioner Larry Scott got right with the media strategy was to ensure that all contracts expired at the same time — in the summer of ’24. That will allow Kliavkoff to saddle to the negotiating table with the football and basketball inventory currently on Fox and ESPN and the 36 football games on the Pac-12 Networks.

With scale comes leverage and flexibility. In our opinion, the Pac-12’s next media rights deal will bring an average annual value of $600 million, which breaks down to $50 million per school over the course of the deal. (The Year One value would be less, assuming an escalator of three or four percent.)

For context, recall that the existing 12-year, $3 billion deal with Fox and ESPN averages $250 million annually ($21 million per school). So yes, we expect the average value to more than double — in part because of market forces, in part because 36 football games will be added to the inventory. (Those games are worth far more to the conference within a package sold to ESPN and Fox than they have been on the Pac-12 Networks.)

The duration of the contract cycle could be eight years, 10 years, perhaps even 12 years — but whatever the length, it will assuredly have an option to reassess midway through.

— The partners. As the current rights-holders, ESPN and Fox have an exclusive negotiating window with the Pac-12. The conference can discuss options with other potential partners, but it cannot engage in formal negotiations with CBS, NBC, Amazon, etc., unless ESPN and Fox are unable (or unwilling) to lock up the Pac-12 during the exclusive window.

We believe they will lock it up, with the end result looking something like this:

* The ‘Game of the Week’ package, featuring late-afternoon kickoffs. Most of these games will be shown over-the-air on FOX and CBS (through a sub-licensing agreement with ESPN and Fox).

* The afternoon array. Most Pac-12 games will be played during daylight and scattered across several networks, from ESPN and ESPN2 to FS1 and perhaps CBS Sports Network. We wouldn’t be surprised if a second sub-licensing deal allows for games on the Turner networks.

* The streaming services. We foresee a handful of games (perhaps one per week) to air on digital platforms like ESPN+ or Paramount+. (There’s no indication Amazon is interested in college football. If it doesn’t want the Big Ten, we can’t envision it nibbling on the Pac-12.)

What about the Pac-12 Networks? The Hotline doesn’t expect them to exist in linear form starting in the summer of 2024; nor do we expect them to show any football or men’s basketball content.

However, as a standalone property, they could serve as a streaming service for Pac-12 Olympic sports. Also, don’t discount the potential for ESPN to buy them as part of the deal that includes football and men’s basketball inventory.

(There are myriad possible outcomes for the Pac-12 Networks and the conference’s media rights in general. This is merely our best guess based on the current landscape. Once the Big Ten negotiations conclude, we’ll have more clarity.)

So there you have it … the Hotline’s projections, on the field and off, for the Pac-12 in the 2022-23 sports cycle.
Saw an interesting "what if" YouTube that speculated USC and Oregon looking around, seeing that the other teams weren't holding their end of the PAC 12 deal and decide to take a powder ala Texas and Oklahoma. Destination, BT?
 

BCfanatic2020

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 5, 2020
9,438
4,325
113
Saw an interesting "what if" YouTube that speculated USC and Oregon looking around, seeing that the other teams weren't holding their end of the PAC 12 deal and decide to take a powder ala Texas and Oklahoma. Destination, BT?
We don’t need a more too heavy conference .. do you want a great year to be a 7-5 season??
 

arcb102000

All-American
Aug 27, 2006
7,303
2,496
113
Too heavy? Do you think the SEC is getting "too heavy" by adding UT and OU? Cripes , you get strong by adding the A&Ms and the UTs and the OUs. You get weaker by adding the Rutgers' and the Marylands.
Rutgers and Maryland were added for the metro areas' tv cable exposure. The B1G wanted an East Coast footprint. They got it. Those schools were not about adding athletic program heavyweights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mobes

YouSayPotato

True Freshman
Jun 4, 2021
871
676
93
Rutgers and Maryland were added for the metro areas' tv cable exposure. The B1G wanted an East Coast footprint. They got it. Those schools were not about adding athletic program heavyweights.
Thank You Einstein. We dumb hicks out here in the redneck boondocks didn't know nothin' 'bout that before your enlightenment.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Indy_Rider

BCfanatic2020

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 5, 2020
9,438
4,325
113
Too heavy? Do you think the SEC is getting "too heavy" by adding UT and OU? Cripes , you get strong by adding the A&Ms and the UTs and the OUs. You get weaker by adding the Rutgers' and the Marylands.
Yeah man I do! That’s what you don’t get. If you’re alabama OR IN THE BIG TEN OHIO STATE, MICHIGAN OR MAYBE PENN STATE, adding a program like USC and Oregon is awesome. If you’re missouri in the SEC or Arkansas or name another middle of the pack school that isn’t buying players big time (we don’t even have a NIL pool) then having a 7-5 season is gonna take what 8-4/9-3 seasons used to take.

And that 6-6 season in a down year, or with a new coach.. that helps you get 15 practices and build or maintain momentum, thats 5-7 now. So you just beat IU for nothing in 2018, because now you’re both 4-8 instead of 5-7 going into the bucket.

a lot of seasons or groups of seasons where that decent coach who may become more if he can just break even now.. starts 5-7 and 5-7, not 7-6 and 6-7.. doesn’t get those extra practices… very potentially DOESNT CONVINCE GEORGE KARLAFTIS AND DAVID BELL THAT THE TURNAROUND HAS ALREADY STARTED.

And why? So Ohio state can make a better playoff case? So we can get more money JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE despite 6-6 becoming a grueling proposition in rebuilding years and even more so when brohm moves on and a new guy comes in?

here.. here’s the 2017 schedule … I fixed it for you.

#16 Louisville
Vs Ohio
At Missouri
Vs #8 Michigan
Vs Nebraska
at #7 Wisconsin
At Rutgers
Vs #12 USC
Vs Illinois
At northwestern
At Iowa
Vs Indiana

NOT VS Arizona

how’s that look? Still seem neat if you’re PURDUE?
 

pboiler18

Senior
May 13, 2014
3,428
2,359
113
Yeah man I do! That’s what you don’t get. If you’re alabama OR IN THE BIG TEN OHIO STATE, MICHIGAN OR MAYBE PENN STATE, adding a program like USC and Oregon is awesome. If you’re missouri in the SEC or Arkansas or name another middle of the pack school that isn’t buying players big time (we don’t even have a NIL pool) then having a 7-5 season is gonna take what 8-4/9-3 seasons used to take.

And that 6-6 season in a down year, or with a new coach.. that helps you get 15 practices and build or maintain momentum, thats 5-7 now. So you just beat IU for nothing in 2018, because now you’re both 4-8 instead of 5-7 going into the bucket.

a lot of seasons or groups of seasons where that decent coach who may become more if he can just break even now.. starts 5-7 and 5-7, not 7-6 and 6-7.. doesn’t get those extra practices… very potentially DOESNT CONVINCE GEORGE KARLAFTIS AND DAVID BELL THAT THE TURNAROUND HAS ALREADY STARTED.

And why? So Ohio state can make a better playoff case? So we can get more money JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE despite 6-6 becoming a grueling proposition in rebuilding years and even more so when brohm moves on and a new guy comes in?

here.. here’s the 2017 schedule … I fixed it for you.

#16 Louisville
Vs Ohio
At Missouri
Vs #8 Michigan
Vs Nebraska
at #7 Wisconsin
At Rutgers
Vs #12 USC
Vs Illinois
At northwestern
At Iowa
Vs Indiana

NOT VS Arizona

how’s that look? Still seem neat if you’re PURDUE?
First off….RELAX!

Secondly…I’d rather play and try to beat good teams than watch us beat up on the sisters of the poor. I’d rather miss a bowl 1/4 years when we aren’t good, lose key players to injury/transfer, etc. but still have our guys get experience vs good teams.

I’ve said it before…realistic expectations for the program should be in a 4 year stretch, 1 missed bowl, 2 6-7 win years and 1 season where we do better and win 8 or 9. I’d love for Purdue to be the next national powerhouse but we lack a lot of what’s needed to get there.
Would you be unhappy with a NYD level bowl every 4 years?

Sorry man but I think that’s our ceiling…especially with the infusion of NIL money to college athletics which will further stratify the top tier teams away from the middle of the pack teams. Somebody said it in a different thread…Bob Rhoarman money can only go so far!
 

BCfanatic2020

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 5, 2020
9,438
4,325
113
First off….RELAX!

Secondly…I’d rather play and try to beat good teams than watch us beat up on the sisters of the poor. I’d rather miss a bowl 1/4 years when we aren’t good, lose key players to injury/transfer, etc. but still have our guys get experience vs good teams.

I’ve said it before…realistic expectations for the program should be in a 4 year stretch, 1 missed bowl, 2 6-7 win years and 1 season where we do better and win 8 or 9. I’d love for Purdue to be the next national powerhouse but we lack a lot of what’s needed to get there.
Would you be unhappy with a NYD level bowl every 4 years?

Sorry man but I think that’s our ceiling…especially with the infusion of NIL money to college athletics which will further stratify the top tier teams away from the middle of the pack teams. Somebody said it in a different thread…Bob Rhoarman money can only go so far!
I’m not talking about being a power house. I’m talking about maintaining where we are?!

you’ve had some good counter arguments and I’ve always given you that. “Relax” is not one

we already play and have to beat good teams. Replace Nebraska with USC last year and a banner year with two guys who performed like first round picks is 7-5? Man… whew. This is people thinking that what’s good for the king is good for them. This is good if you’re Ohio state and you hometown the newcomers
 

pboiler18

Senior
May 13, 2014
3,428
2,359
113
I’m not talking about being a power house. I’m talking about maintaining where we are?!

you’ve had some good counter arguments and I’ve always given you that. “Relax” is not one

we already play and have to beat good teams. Replace Nebraska with USC last year and a banner year with two guys who performed like first round picks is 7-5? Man… whew. This is people thinking that what’s good for the king is good for them. This is good if you’re Ohio state and you hometown the newcomers
USC sucked last year. We would have beaten them so I think that’s an incredibly shitty arguement. We had a legitimate top 20 team. Just a shame the polls didn’t see it that way.

We blew the Minny game in horrid weather, then got beat by 3 teams that were vastly better than us(top 10). Hard to pine for much better than that. I think Brohm could get us over the hump eventually to where we are consistently an 8 win team but that takes time in CFB now. How many teams have fired 8-10 win coaches only to hire and endure multiple guys worse? We basically already played your “nightmare” scenerio of a schedule with 5 top 10 teams and faired pretty well. That’s why I think you should relax. It’s not going to get worse for us…but can acknowledge schedule wise it might not get better either.

I get that you want better…but you also have to realize you’re a Purdue fan. Last year is basically almost as good as it gets. Not a crime to want better but I think it’s unrealistic to expect better…at least in a year in and year out consistent basis.

Re-Take the advice I gave you last year just before the season…let it play out. We lost 2 AA players and IMO have a chance to be even better this year. Is that not growth to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tommaker

BCfanatic2020

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 5, 2020
9,438
4,325
113
USC sucked last year. We would have beaten them so I think that’s an incredibly shitty arguement. We had a legitimate top 20 team. Just a shame the polls didn’t see it that way.

We blew the Minny game in horrid weather, then got beat by 3 teams that were vastly better than us(top 10). Hard to pine for much better than that. I think Brohm could get us over the hump eventually to where we are consistently an 8 win team but that takes time in CFB now. How many teams have fired 8-10 win coaches only to hire and endure multiple guys worse? We basically already played your “nightmare” scenerio of a schedule with 5 top 10 teams and faired pretty well. That’s why I think you should relax. It’s not going to get worse for us…but can acknowledge schedule wise it might not get better either.

I get that you want better…but you also have to realize you’re a Purdue fan. Last year is basically almost as good as it gets. Not a crime to want better but I think it’s unrealistic to expect better…at least in a year in and year out consistent basis.

Re-Take the advice I gave you last year just before the season…let it play out. We lost 2 AA players and IMO have a chance to be even better this year. Is that not growth to you?
Hold on.. in a typical season they won’t suck. Especially with NIL.

no.. I don’t want better. I mean we could do better with continuity and if that happens great. Last year was thrilling for me. I want to maintain where we already are. If you take a typical Nebraska or Rutgers or Illinois team off our schedule and add a typical USC or Oregon team, we will need northwestern like continuity that they had built under fitz JUST to maintain where we are.

And why? Because people think adding USC would be neat?
 

YouSayPotato

True Freshman
Jun 4, 2021
871
676
93
And why? Because people think adding USC would be neat?
Sorry but USC football is now LESS appealing than a game vs Rutgers or Illinois. Those West Coast colleges simply do not have the fan base that the SEC and Big Ten do. This is a picture of the USC home crowd ten minutes before kickoff vs archrival UCLA, Nov 20, 2021:

FEqk8sRUYAAX-EE


Announced attendance was 19,068 people Here's the article from which that photo was taken:

USC-UCLA
 
  • Like
Reactions: pboiler18

BCfanatic2020

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 5, 2020
9,438
4,325
113
Sorry but USC football is now LESS appealing than a game vs Rutgers or Illinois. Those West Coast colleges simply do not have the fan base that the SEC and Big Ten do. This is a picture of the USC home crowd ten minutes before kickoff vs archrival UCLA, Nov 20, 2021:

FEqk8sRUYAAX-EE


Announced attendance was 19,068 people Here's the article from which that photo was taken:

USC-UCLA
What you say may be true, but they will be buying the players to beat us more often than easy big ten games that we frankly need JUST to keep up with @pboiler18 standard, which is a reasonable standard by the way
 

Indy_Rider

Senior
Feb 10, 2006
3,922
5,143
113
Bargersville, IN
Sorry but USC football is now LESS appealing than a game vs Rutgers or Illinois. Those West Coast colleges simply do not have the fan base that the SEC and Big Ten do. This is a picture of the USC home crowd ten minutes before kickoff vs archrival UCLA, Nov 20, 2021:

FEqk8sRUYAAX-EE


Announced attendance was 19,068 people Here's the article from which that photo was taken:

USC-UCLA

1PM kick off and California traffic means if you live more than a mile from the stadium you had to get up an leave at 6AM to make the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pboiler18

BCfanatic2020

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 5, 2020
9,438
4,325
113
USC sucked last year. We would have beaten them so I think that’s an incredibly shitty arguement. We had a legitimate top 20 team. Just a shame the polls didn’t see it that way.

We blew the Minny game in horrid weather, then got beat by 3 teams that were vastly better than us(top 10). Hard to pine for much better than that. I think Brohm could get us over the hump eventually to where we are consistently an 8 win team but that takes time in CFB now. How many teams have fired 8-10 win coaches only to hire and endure multiple guys worse? We basically already played your “nightmare” scenerio of a schedule with 5 top 10 teams and faired pretty well. That’s why I think you should relax. It’s not going to get worse for us…but can acknowledge schedule wise it might not get better either.

I get that you want better…but you also have to realize you’re a Purdue fan. Last year is basically almost as good as it gets. Not a crime to want better but I think it’s unrealistic to expect better…at least in a year in and year out consistent basis.

Re-Take the advice I gave you last year just before the season…let it play out. We lost 2 AA players and IMO have a chance to be even better this year. Is that not growth to you?
You get what I’m saying and that I’m joy trying to be shitty. You were right about last year and I give you your due. Your standard is realistic and a good one. I just wanna stay there..
 
Oct 14, 2001
220
176
43
Sorry but USC football is now LESS appealing than a game vs Rutgers or Illinois. Those West Coast colleges simply do not have the fan base that the SEC and Big Ten do. This is a picture of the USC home crowd ten minutes before kickoff vs archrival UCLA, Nov 20, 2021:

FEqk8sRUYAAX-EE


Announced attendance was 19,068 people Here's the article from which that photo was taken:

USC-UCLA
Were Covid restrictions still in place in the Peoples Republic of California at this time? This is a serious question…

If they were, that might explain the sparse crowd.