5 Thoughts on USC and UCLA’s move to the Big Ten

The traveling and logistics are going to be crazy

Can you even imagine the craziness that has just happened?

The Rose Bowl is probably dead, along with many other West Coast bowl games, as the decision to move USC and UCLA puts tremendous stress on other bowl games to find new partnerships and agreements.

You know that Maize Out game that Michigan played against Washington last year in primetime at the Big House? You do! Well, let me tell you something.

Games like those are going to be much more common down the stretch, except we will also get some really wacky game times for the Big Ten starting in 2024.

USC and UCLA wanted to bring a wider audience to see their games for once (because two-thirds of the country don’t want to stay up until 2 a.m. on a Sunday to see a PAC-12 game) so this move makes sense for them.

It’s exciting because now, Michigan football will get to host a West Coast school in the cold in the winter, and in turn, gets to go to a warm environment out West some years. I’d say Michigan has the advantage with that one.

Michigan also has a huge alumni base out West, so it will give them added incentive to travel to Michigan Stadium, or come out in droves and fill up the West Coast stadiums when Michigan plays out there.

Future West Coast athletes can’t be too happy about having to travel as much as they do for meets and tournaments, and games, but they’ll just have to deal with it for the future.

Side note: By the way, USC and UCLA approached the Big Ten first about this expansion, so I guess technically, you can’t actually fault Kevin Warren and the 14 Big Ten presidents for accepting their bid, as they just took the opportunity that was there.

If the Big Ten didn’t accept them, USC and UCLA would’ve just gone somewhere else, maybe to the SEC or ACC, so it was a “crime” of opportunity for the Big Ten (poaching the schools).