Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Zero26 wrote:but I don't recall any big Pac 12 basketball schools?

UCLA and Arizona, for sure. Other than those two - none, really. UCLA is the only (former) Pac-12 school that's considered (more or less) top-notch in both football and men's basketball. Getting them is a real coup for the B1G.

Zero26 wrote:If anything NIL and a playoff expansion might make it slightly more fair.

I was thinking the same thing about NIL but the way it's shaking out I'm not so sure, now. Playoff expansion would (in theory) give "smaller" schools/teams from "lesser" conferences more of a shot but the problem is that the bigger/more important conferences don't give playoff spots up easily. For example, my understanding as to why there's now a "First Four" in the NCAA men's basketball tournament is that the "big" conferences were loathe to give up a tournament spot to a "mid-major" conference, even if said "big" conference was already routinely getting 8, 9, or 10 teams in the tournament. To me, that's just them being greedy but maybe I'm in the minority view on that.

racepug wrote:

Zero26 wrote:but I don't recall any big Pac 12 basketball schools?

UCLA and Arizona, for sure. Other than those two - none, really. UCLA is the only (former) Pac-12 school that's considered (more or less) top-notch in both football and men's basketball. Getting them is a real coup for the B1G.

Zero26 wrote:If anything NIL and a playoff expansion might make it slightly more fair.

I was thinking the same thing about NIL but the way it's shaking out I'm not so sure, now. Playoff expansion would (in theory) give "smaller" schools/teams from "lesser" conferences more of a shot but the problem is that the bigger/more important conferences don't give playoff spots up easily. For example, my understanding as to why there's now a "First Four" in the NCAA men's basketball tournament is that the "big" conferences were loathe to give up a tournament spot to a "mid-major" conference, even if said "big" conference was already routinely getting 8, 9, or 10 teams in the tournament. To me, that's just them being greedy but maybe I'm in the minority view on that.

UCLA top notch in football? They've averaged 6 wins a year in the last decade.

Washington has averaged more than 6 wins a season since 2009.

sluggermatt15 wrote:UCLA top notch in football? They've averaged 6 wins a year in the last decade.

Really? That's the "hill you're gonna die on?" I typed (more or less) top-notch. They have a respectable football team and they've been awarded at least one national championship in football. I didn't say they were "great." But no other school in the Pac-12 is/was respectable in both football AND men's basketball. Not that I know of.

racepug wrote:

sluggermatt15 wrote:UCLA top notch in football? They've averaged 6 wins a year in the last decade.

Really? That's the "hill you're gonna die on?" I typed (more or less) top-notch. They have a respectable football team and they've been awarded at least one national championship in football. I didn't say they were "great." But no other school in the Pac-12 is/was respectable in both football AND men's basketball. Not that I know of.

No it's not. But average of 6 wins a season the last decade is a fact.

Oregon has a more respectable football history in the last decade than UCLA. Men's basketball team has qualified for a post-season tournament every year since 2009-2010.

Also, UCLA football has not finished ranked in the Top 25 since the 2014 season, and only reached that feat three times since 2000.

sluggermatt15 wrote:

racepug wrote:

sluggermatt15 wrote:UCLA top notch in football? They've averaged 6 wins a year in the last decade.

Really? That's the "hill you're gonna die on?" I typed (more or less) top-notch. They have a respectable football team and they've been awarded at least one national championship in football. I didn't say they were "great." But no other school in the Pac-12 is/was respectable in both football AND men's basketball. Not that I know of.

No it's not. But average of 6 wins a season the last decade is a fact.

Oregon has a more respectable football history in the last decade than UCLA. Men's basketball team has qualified for a post-season tournament every year since 2009-2010.

Also, UCLA football has not finished ranked in the Top 25 since the 2014 season, and only reached that feat three times since 2000.

Yeah, and we all know that football history encompasses no more than the last 6 years, right?

^Of course not, but it's not the point. The point is UCLA is not going to bring what everyone thinks it will for football to the B1G. They will probably be middle of the league. They won't contend every year. USC has a better chance at contending. Their program is in a better state right now.

RichardBak wrote:Meh.

Everything's a money grab in this freaking world.

It's harder and harder to find one true thing anywhere.

Again, we need a “Like” button here.

It’s not even just about making money. It’s about maximizing profit above all else even if that means sacrificing the good (or great), stable and/or long-term product/service for more return, even if it something with a limited life and/or inferior.

RyanChristiansen wrote:USC has played in the Rose Bowl 35 times and UCLA has played in the Rose Bowl 12 times. There's a lot of history with these teams playing against Big Ten opponents, so I think it's a great move in that respect. As for chasing the money, that animal was let out of the barn a long time ago, so I kind of shrug about it. I appreciate the fact my Gophers will get the chance to play on a bigger stage.

Sure, it's great for them! (at least from certain points-of-view) but what about the teams being left behind?

One example of what I'm talkin' about: when the Pac-10 became the Pac-12 and went to two divisions it said that it was no longer going to have teams in the north division play both USC and UCLA every season. Instead, teams in the Pac-12 North, in any given season, would play either UCLA or USC and would be guaranteed the trip to L.A. every other year (as an aid in recruiting).

So what's going to happen to "that game in L.A. - as an aid in recruiting" once USC and UCLA defect to the B1G, hm?