So I get an email whenever anyone comments on this article, and I'm starting to get annoyed at the general tenor of conversation here. So I'm going to issue a general warning: if you cannot have a conversation without resorting to name calling or taking pot shots at other users, then maybe you should consider refraining from posting here until you go outside and touch some grass. This is not Twitter, no matter how much you might want to treat it that way.
I think the ACC will probably break up. Clemson, Florida State and Notre Dame will be absorbed into either the SEC or Big Ten. Not sure how it works but I'd assume bottom feeder schools like Maryland and Rutgers would be kicked out of their league for not pulling their weight. So basically a two-power conference system which would also mean that the playoff system would be changed.
IMO, moving to the Big 10 is a poor outcome for our non-revenue sports. For most of these sports, joining the Big 10 is a genuine step down in quality of competition. This applies particularly to sports like softball and baseball, tennis (men's and women's), golf (men's and women's), and soccer (men's and women's).
I do not believe that our non-revenue sports will see any substantial funding benefit from a move to the Big Ten. There is nothing in recent history at UCLA (or elsewhere, frankly) to suggest that revenue boosts significantly benefit non-revenue sports. However, I might be convinced otherwise if UCLA promptly reinstates the men's swimming and men's gymnastics programs that were eliminated in the mid-90s. That said, given the reality of the financial malpractice in the UCLA Athletic Department, it's unlikely that any programs will be revived any time soon.
It appears the interests of the majority of our student-athletes are not clearly well-served by this decision. As expected, UCLA Athletics sets revenue as its priority and largely disregards the principles of its mission statement.
I see lots of bitching in these threads about "tradition" and oh no the student athletes are going to have to fly another few hours and get less sleep. How sad. And can we stop with the feeling bad for Bay Area alumni? Guaranteed we are going to continue playing most of the pac 12 schools, and DEFINITELY the ones that we have a "rivalry" with. It's just going to be a conference game. Just like USC plays Notre Dame every year, we'll be playing most of these cupcakes in basketball and probably have Stanford or Cal on our football schedule more often than not.
In addition to the other major advantages of this move (1: ditching the SPTRs. 2: the pipe dream of women's hockey at UCLA is still alive), giving Dimitri something more to write about is another unanticipated great benefit from this move. I'm starting to warm up to the move.
But seriously, as I read more information and opinions and input from other people here and around the socials and take these things into consideration, I am coming around to the realization that this was sadly a necessary move. Although the current evidence for this is really more circular and self fulfilling (UCLA and *$c leave the Pac12, therefore the Pac12 will collapse, therefore UCLA and *$c must leave the Pac12 because it will collapse), I do think it represents the eventual pathway of college football in the country. This move has accelerated that path for sure, but I believe the direction of college football was going to get us to this point one day anyway. I hate the effects of TV contracts and ginormous money on college football. I hated it when the Rose Bowl quit being dedicated to the Pac10 and Big10 champs and the other traditional bowl matchups were sold out. But all my hate won't change reality. My heart wants to take the higher road, but if the Titanic is gonna sink, my mind says grabbing a lifeboat, if there is any intention of survival, is a prudent move. And at least you live to fight the fight another day.
I definitely share Bruinette's dismay that this will not necessarily help the majority of our Bruin athletes who compete in non revenue sports and I think that is tragic. Despite some of the small minds and fake fans that can't be bothered to cross a street, the health and diversity of all college athletics is critical to a place like UCLA. I sincerely hope and will advocate to our Athletic Department that this move needs to not just be to keep football relevant on a national perspective but needs to be spread thorough Morgan Center to benefit every single athlete at our University. Yes football rules the roost from a financial standpoint but UCLA is not UCLA without the entirety of the athletic programs and the students who dedicate themselves to them, and AD Jarmond better honor and foster this aspect.
So here are my initial thoughts on logistics, we are looking at 4 to 5 conference road games per season. Assuming the Big Ten schedulers are not stupid, the 5th road game will be the cross town rival game. So that means four long road trips per season. With 16 teams and no divisions, that's one road trip to each of the other 14 schools every 4 years.
This takes into account that there will be 9 conferences games per season. If the Big Ten's goal is to get more teams into the CFP, they will copy the SEC and drop down to 8 conference games. That could mean 3 to 4 long road games per season.
As for basketball, if they stick to a 20 game schedule, that means 9 long road trip games (assuming a home and home with USC). So that's 5 long road trip weekends per season (4 with a 3 game trip). With 14 long road trip schools, we would visit the other 14 teams approximately every 2 of 3 seasons.
So I get an email whenever anyone comments on this article, and I'm starting to get annoyed at the general tenor of conversation here. So I'm going to issue a general warning: if you cannot have a conversation without resorting to name calling or taking pot shots at other users, then maybe you should consider refraining from posting here until you go outside and touch some grass. This is not Twitter, no matter how much you might want to treat it that way.
I went to a game at Lambeau and froze my ass off. I am not sure the $1000000000000 is worth it…
I think the ACC will probably break up. Clemson, Florida State and Notre Dame will be absorbed into either the SEC or Big Ten. Not sure how it works but I'd assume bottom feeder schools like Maryland and Rutgers would be kicked out of their league for not pulling their weight. So basically a two-power conference system which would also mean that the playoff system would be changed.
So Trump wannabe Caruso is claiming this was his idea. Curious to see how this got rolling.
OT The Tour starts today! I wonder, could UCLA field a bicycle team? That would be pretty cool. Does the NCAA even offer that?
Will the officiating improve?
IMO, moving to the Big 10 is a poor outcome for our non-revenue sports. For most of these sports, joining the Big 10 is a genuine step down in quality of competition. This applies particularly to sports like softball and baseball, tennis (men's and women's), golf (men's and women's), and soccer (men's and women's).
I do not believe that our non-revenue sports will see any substantial funding benefit from a move to the Big Ten. There is nothing in recent history at UCLA (or elsewhere, frankly) to suggest that revenue boosts significantly benefit non-revenue sports. However, I might be convinced otherwise if UCLA promptly reinstates the men's swimming and men's gymnastics programs that were eliminated in the mid-90s. That said, given the reality of the financial malpractice in the UCLA Athletic Department, it's unlikely that any programs will be revived any time soon.
It appears the interests of the majority of our student-athletes are not clearly well-served by this decision. As expected, UCLA Athletics sets revenue as its priority and largely disregards the principles of its mission statement.
I see lots of bitching in these threads about "tradition" and oh no the student athletes are going to have to fly another few hours and get less sleep. How sad. And can we stop with the feeling bad for Bay Area alumni? Guaranteed we are going to continue playing most of the pac 12 schools, and DEFINITELY the ones that we have a "rivalry" with. It's just going to be a conference game. Just like USC plays Notre Dame every year, we'll be playing most of these cupcakes in basketball and probably have Stanford or Cal on our football schedule more often than not.
Great week to be a UCLA alum!
In addition to the other major advantages of this move (1: ditching the SPTRs. 2: the pipe dream of women's hockey at UCLA is still alive), giving Dimitri something more to write about is another unanticipated great benefit from this move. I'm starting to warm up to the move.
But seriously, as I read more information and opinions and input from other people here and around the socials and take these things into consideration, I am coming around to the realization that this was sadly a necessary move. Although the current evidence for this is really more circular and self fulfilling (UCLA and *$c leave the Pac12, therefore the Pac12 will collapse, therefore UCLA and *$c must leave the Pac12 because it will collapse), I do think it represents the eventual pathway of college football in the country. This move has accelerated that path for sure, but I believe the direction of college football was going to get us to this point one day anyway. I hate the effects of TV contracts and ginormous money on college football. I hated it when the Rose Bowl quit being dedicated to the Pac10 and Big10 champs and the other traditional bowl matchups were sold out. But all my hate won't change reality. My heart wants to take the higher road, but if the Titanic is gonna sink, my mind says grabbing a lifeboat, if there is any intention of survival, is a prudent move. And at least you live to fight the fight another day.
I definitely share Bruinette's dismay that this will not necessarily help the majority of our Bruin athletes who compete in non revenue sports and I think that is tragic. Despite some of the small minds and fake fans that can't be bothered to cross a street, the health and diversity of all college athletics is critical to a place like UCLA. I sincerely hope and will advocate to our Athletic Department that this move needs to not just be to keep football relevant on a national perspective but needs to be spread thorough Morgan Center to benefit every single athlete at our University. Yes football rules the roost from a financial standpoint but UCLA is not UCLA without the entirety of the athletic programs and the students who dedicate themselves to them, and AD Jarmond better honor and foster this aspect.
So here are my initial thoughts on logistics, we are looking at 4 to 5 conference road games per season. Assuming the Big Ten schedulers are not stupid, the 5th road game will be the cross town rival game. So that means four long road trips per season. With 16 teams and no divisions, that's one road trip to each of the other 14 schools every 4 years.
This takes into account that there will be 9 conferences games per season. If the Big Ten's goal is to get more teams into the CFP, they will copy the SEC and drop down to 8 conference games. That could mean 3 to 4 long road games per season.
As for basketball, if they stick to a 20 game schedule, that means 9 long road trip games (assuming a home and home with USC). So that's 5 long road trip weekends per season (4 with a 3 game trip). With 14 long road trip schools, we would visit the other 14 teams approximately every 2 of 3 seasons.