Agree 100%, I just go sit in a tree while they play anymore. Time to start winning a lot of games. I'd think we'd get to #9-7 range if so.Imagine how high we would be if we had something to watch.
Agree 100%, I just go sit in a tree while they play anymore. Time to start winning a lot of games. I'd think we'd get to #9-7 range if so.Imagine how high we would be if we had something to watch.
I think you'll see something happen in the next 25-30 years or so. A developmental NFL league will form and the best will go there instead of college. College will go back to how it was years ago. Worse play than now but local kids.Kinda bums me out we're talking market share and cable channel subscriptions on a football board. Not bashing those who are; I get it. It's the topic du jour. I just think it's sad the greatest game ever invented has been reduced to kowtowing to network executives who don't give a wit about the game other than its profit potential.
It does seem that college football (all college athletics?) has less and less to do with college anymore. How much longer before student/athlete doesn't include "student" anymore?I think you'll see something happen in the next 25-30 years or so. A developmental NFL league will form and the best will go there instead of college. College will go back to how it was years ago. Worse play than now but local kids.
Wonder if they would not schedule conference night games in California?I don't know that the gap itself matters that much. But what does matter is USC and UCLA being 2-3 time zones away from all other Big Ten teams, the closest being Lincoln, which is about 1,300 miles as the crow flies.
So you'd ideally like to have at least a couple more teams out West, to reduce USC's and UCLA's travel at least some. Washington, Oregon, and Stanford would suffice as well.
It's really much more an issue for USC and UCLA than the other Big Ten teams. Those other teams would have to make the long trip to California somewhere between 0 and 2 times per year (0 or 1 would be most common). But USC and UCLA will have to travel well over 1,000 miles (x2) for roughly half their conference games -- 4 or 5 times per year (and a lot more than that for other sports).
That has been true for a very long time.Its all about the money.
Just going by a map I saw of whose in what market.I'd like to know how many people in NorCal are watching college football on Saturdays. Very few compared to other markets I bet. To the extent it's even a sports market it's a pro sports market.
I'd like to know how many people in NorCal are watching college football on Saturdays. Very few compared to other markets I bet. To the extent it's even a sports market it's a pro sports market.
I was watching a show from the pac-12? They had a map of this huge gap between Lincoln and LA. They were saying this is why Utah, BYU or CU makes sense.
The stadium expansion with new, value-added amenities will help draw additional revenue - especially when you consider what should be a bump in excitement with the USC and UCLA (and likely other schools) joining the conference.JMHO but football is going to need to bring in a ton of cash to cover travel costs for non-revenue sports. Imagine cost to fly the soccer or softball teams, staff, equipment to Rutgers and then to UCLA during the season. Those sports should play more within a region to save money.
Wasn’t Osborne … he was involved but there were others beyond him who were key figures.Osborne was a genius to make the move when he did.