Realignment wouldn’t benefit USC in long run

At approximately 4:37 p.m. Saturday, either USC placekicker Andre Heidari or his Utah counterpart Nick Marsh will send a commemorative football soaring high into the late afternoon Los Angeles sky, officially beginning the first game in Pac-12 history.

By that time, however, the Pac-12 might already be a thing of the past.

Rumors are swirling that Texas and Oklahoma, along with Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, could be heading west to form the nation’s first super-conference.

University of Oklahoma President David Boren stirred the conference realignment pot again this weekend.

“I don’t think OU is going to be a wallflower when all is said and done,” he said before reports surfaced that Oklahoma and Texas officials have been talking with Pac-12 brass about joining the league.

Boren was reacting to Texas A&M’s announcement last week that it’s leaving the Big 12 contingent upon acceptance into another conference, which threatened to start a domino effect that could reorganize major college football into four, 16-team leagues.

The already numerically confused Big 12 is expected to be left with nine teams going forward and is seemingly being held together by a mixture of Scotch tape and the romances of what college football tradition once was.

The possible addition of Oklahoma and Texas, two of the sport’s most storied programs with 11 national titles and seven Heisman trophies among them, would certainly boost the Pac-whatever’s profile.

Oklahoma State and Texas Tech are no slouches, having both been ranked in the nation’s top five at one point in the last four seasons.

The added star power and depth of the new Pac-16 would turn the conference into the premier league in college football.

But would it be a good thing for USC?

Just a few years ago, the answer would have been a resounding yes.

Back then, things were much simpler in the land of Troy. USC owned college football in the Pacific time zone, winning at least a share of seven straight conference championships between 2002 and 2008. The Trojans’ 38 Pac-10 titles, more than double any other school’s total (UCLA is second with 17), and their 33 Rose Bowl appearances are far and away the conference’s most (Washington is second with 14).

Only three years ago, USC’s biggest hurdle was its in-conference schedule strength. The Trojans missed out on playing for the BCS title in 2007 and 2008, despite finishing the season with the same amount of losses as the eventual national champions.

Fans and media reasoned the Trojans really needed a college football playoff to just prove it was just as good as LSU and Florida, which won the BCS title those seasons. On the biggest stage under the brightest lights, no one could compete with USC’s NFL-factory talent. It was just those darn Beavers, Bruins and Cardinals that would unexpectedly trip up USC each year, preventing another national title trophy from being dollied into the Heritage Hall lobby.

The situation now, however, is different.

The West Coast college football power began to change hands even before the conference plates began shifting during summer 2010.

The NCAA effectively sanctioned USC out of national title contention for at least the better part of five years (and quite possibly longer) with a postseason ban and scholarship reductions.

Oregon’s historically average football program was transformed into a neon juggernaut by a combination of Phil Knight’s Nike money and Chip Kelly’s spread offense.

Utah’s rise as a BCS-buster and its subsequent move to the Pac-12 has added another nationally respected opponent to USC’s yearly schedule.

It’s unlikely the Trojans will ever again win seven straight conference titles playing in a league with Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Stanford and Utah.

USC’s goal would go from dominating rivals to earn points with voters to being the last team standing in a Pac-16 battle royal that would even outstrip what goes on each fall in the SEC.

The decision on whether to expand the conference will not ultimately be about what is best for USC’s national championship hopes. Like most decisions in college football these days, it will be about money.

Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott has proven he has a strong business sense by bringing in more than a few dollars into the conference’s coffers. The 12-year, $3-billion television rights deal Scott signed with ESPN and Fox made the Trojans (along with every other school in the conference) a whole lot richer.

The main hurdle to this deal is Texas’ ownership of the Longhorn Network, to which ESPN will pay $300 million for 20 years. The first network dedicated solely to one school’s athletic program, Texas’ revenue advantage over other Big-12 schools is one of the principal reasons Texas A&M wants out.

Scott would need a way in which Texas could keep its network without angering the current Pac-12 schools, all of which share TV money equally.

The bottom line is that USC is never going to back down from a challenge — that attitude is not in the nature of the football program or the fans that support it.

One thing is certain: If the Pac-16 comes to fruition, college football will never be the same. For a program that has dominated the sport for decades out west, that change might not work in USC’s favor.

“Sellin’ the Sizzle” runs Wednesdays. To comment on this article, visit dailytrojan.com or email Jonathan at [email protected].