In Reply to: Two reasons posted by mh on December 06, 2024 at 10:50:19
The real answer is usc demanded it. For whatever reason (recruiting) sc didn’t want Oregon.
Your second point is not correct. You don’t get a “monopoly” by including ucla. UCLA adds next to nothing, if you actually look at the numbers. There are numerous cfb programs that do better in the LA market than ucla. BPD and I got deep in the weeds of these numbers a few years back. USC gives the conference the market. They are the dominant program in the only sport that matters. Some ridiculous people were arguing that Rice was a legit candidate to the Pac because they give the Pac the Houston market or that SDSU gave the pac the So called market. It might sound right to the ignorant, but the data shows otherwise. A media company should have preferred grabbing the LA market and the Seattle market or Oregon market. Of course, they would up with everyone but it’s hilarious, IMO that we got a full draw and Oregon and UW didn’t.
One day we’ll learn why and I’m pretty sure it’s because of SC, but did SC have a legit option to go to the SEC? If not, you tell them to pound sand.