It's on!

Fyght4Cal said:

---

Goobear said:

---

ESPN, not exactly a conservative based organization being a capitalist. Oh the irony..

---

What? When has ESPN not been capitalist?

---

It is interesting that Fox Sports, now owned by right-wing Sinclair Media, is aligned with the B1G and ESPN is owned by Disney (and Hearst) is so firmly behind the red state based SEC. Sinclair is based in Maryland, but Fox Sports is in LA, while Disney is based in LA but ESPN is in Connecticut.

The PAC-12 really screwed up by not making better use of its media connections. Larry Scott was a disaster.

Interesting...

Big 12’s “cease & desist” to ESPN claims network contacted other conferences "encouraging” them to take Big 12 schools so Big 12 dissolves, eliminating grant of rights, sources told @Stadium. If Big 12 implodes, ESPN not responsible for final 4 years of deal, worth $1.06 billion

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) July 28, 2021

Source tells @Stadium Big 12 has advantage in legal dealings w/Texas & OU because "last thing (UT/OU) wants is to have a (university) president, AD or Board or Regents member testifying on stand with their right hand raised"

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) July 29, 2021

Bruh. I’m screaming 💀 pic.twitter.com/xn3TgVJGZ4

— Sooner4Life (@ThatOneGuy918) July 28, 2021

calumnus said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

Goobear said:

---

ESPN, not exactly a conservative based organization being a capitalist. Oh the irony..

---

What? When has ESPN not been capitalist?

---

It is interesting that Fox Sports, now owned by right-wing Sinclair Media, is aligned with the B1G and ESPN is owned by Disney (and Hearst) is so firmly behind the red state based SEC. Sinclair is based in Maryland, but Fox Sports is in LA, while Disney is based in LA but ESPN is in Connecticut.

The PAC-12 really screwed up by not making better use of its media connections. Larry Scott was a disaster.

---

Fox Sports is a division of Fox Corporation (includes Fox TV Network, TV affiliates across the country, FS1,FS1, etc) which still has Rupert Murdoch as the largest shareholder.

Sinclair Media bought the Fox Sports Regional Networks, which does not include FS1, FS2 or Fox Network which broadcasts the the p12/B12/BT college tier 1 and 2 football games.

The Big Ten Network is 51% Fox corp, 49% Big Ten Conference and also has nothing to do with Sinclair.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Network

ColoradoBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

Goobear said:

---

ESPN, not exactly a conservative based organization being a capitalist. Oh the irony..

---

What? When has ESPN not been capitalist?

---

It is interesting that Fox Sports, now owned by right-wing Sinclair Media, is aligned with the B1G and ESPN is owned by Disney (and Hearst) is so firmly behind the red state based SEC. Sinclair is based in Maryland, but Fox Sports is in LA, while Disney is based in LA but ESPN is in Connecticut.

The PAC-12 really screwed up by not making better use of its media connections. Larry Scott was a disaster.

---

Fox Sports is a division of Fox Corporation (includes Fox TV Network, TV affiliates across the country, FS1,FS1, etc) which is still has Rupert Murdoch as the largest shareholder.

Sinclair Media bought the Fox Sports Regional Networks, which does not include FS1, FS2 or Fox Network which broadcasts the the p12/B12/BT college tier 1 and 2 football games.

The Big Ten Network is 51% Fox corp, 49% Big Ten Conference and also has nothing to do with Sinclair.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Network

---

Thanks for the clarification. Murdoch's and headquartered in New York. Almost owned by Disney too.

calumnus said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

Goobear said:

---

ESPN, not exactly a conservative based organization being a capitalist. Oh the irony..

---

What? When has ESPN not been capitalist?

---

It is interesting that Fox Sports, now owned by right-wing Sinclair Media, is aligned with the B1G and ESPN is owned by Disney (and Hearst) is so firmly behind the red state based SEC. Sinclair is based in Maryland, but Fox Sports is in LA, while Disney is based in LA but ESPN is in Connecticut.

The PAC-12 really screwed up by not making better use of its media connections. Larry Scott was a disaster.

---

Fox Sports is a division of Fox Corporation (includes Fox TV Network, TV affiliates across the country, FS1,FS1, etc) which is still has Rupert Murdoch as the largest shareholder.

Sinclair Media bought the Fox Sports Regional Networks, which does not include FS1, FS2 or Fox Network which broadcasts the the p12/B12/BT college tier 1 and 2 football games.

The Big Ten Network is 51% Fox corp, 49% Big Ten Conference and also has nothing to do with Sinclair.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Network

---

Thanks for the clarification. Murdoch's and headquartered in New York. Almost owned by Disney too.

---

Antitrust laws and FCC rules would have prevented Disney from owning both ABC and Fox broadcast stations, and Disney from owning ESPN and all those regional nets.

ColoradoBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

Goobear said:

---

ESPN, not exactly a conservative based organization being a capitalist. Oh the irony..

---

What? When has ESPN not been capitalist?

---

It is interesting that Fox Sports, now owned by right-wing Sinclair Media, is aligned with the B1G and ESPN is owned by Disney (and Hearst) is so firmly behind the red state based SEC. Sinclair is based in Maryland, but Fox Sports is in LA, while Disney is based in LA but ESPN is in Connecticut.

The PAC-12 really screwed up by not making better use of its media connections. Larry Scott was a disaster.

---

Fox Sports is a division of Fox Corporation (includes Fox TV Network, TV affiliates across the country, FS1,FS1, etc) which is still has Rupert Murdoch as the largest shareholder.

Sinclair Media bought the Fox Sports Regional Networks, which does not include FS1, FS2 or Fox Network which broadcasts the the p12/B12/BT college tier 1 and 2 football games.

The Big Ten Network is 51% Fox corp, 49% Big Ten Conference and also has nothing to do with Sinclair.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Network

---

Doesn't matter. Rupert gave up his day to day to his kids who are liberals. Hence, Fox called Arizona for Biden with 2% reporting in the 2020 election.

BearinOC said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

Goobear said:

---

ESPN, not exactly a conservative based organization being a capitalist. Oh the irony..

---

What? When has ESPN not been capitalist?

---

It is interesting that Fox Sports, now owned by right-wing Sinclair Media, is aligned with the B1G and ESPN is owned by Disney (and Hearst) is so firmly behind the red state based SEC. Sinclair is based in Maryland, but Fox Sports is in LA, while Disney is based in LA but ESPN is in Connecticut.

The PAC-12 really screwed up by not making better use of its media connections. Larry Scott was a disaster.

---

Fox Sports is a division of Fox Corporation (includes Fox TV Network, TV affiliates across the country, FS1,FS1, etc) which is still has Rupert Murdoch as the largest shareholder.

Sinclair Media bought the Fox Sports Regional Networks, which does not include FS1, FS2 or Fox Network which broadcasts the the p12/B12/BT college tier 1 and 2 football games.

The Big Ten Network is 51% Fox corp, 49% Big Ten Conference and also has nothing to do with Sinclair.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Network

---

Doesn't matter. Rupert gave up his day to day to his kids who are liberals. Hence, Fox called Arizona for Biden with 2% reporting in the 2020 election.

---

75% of the vote was in with Biden leading by 188,082 votes. Only Maricopa County was left to report and there was no way Trump could make up the difference there. Polling, including exit polling all had Biden winning Arizona comfortably. Fox News was right, Biden did win Arizona, acknowledging reality does not make you "liberal" and Fox News has continued to show they are not liberal.

Trump's personal attacks on Republican and prominent veteran John McCain, even after his death, and Mitt Romney (large LDS population in Arizona) alienated many Republicans in Arizona and is probably what cost him the state.

I wonder if this is going to end up long term killing college football as well. If this end up leading to a super league with a few teams will they eventually be able to compete with the NFL?

For instance I only care about watching SEC or B1G games because I started watching Cal football. If Cal is no longer playing with those big boys or never did I don't think I'll care anymore and will go back to just watching NFL games instead of some super league.

Maybe that's just me and the new super leagues will be able to continue to pull in big and ever growing numbers. Looks like we'll see.

BearinOC said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

Goobear said:

---

ESPN, not exactly a conservative based organization being a capitalist. Oh the irony..

---

What? When has ESPN not been capitalist?

---

It is interesting that Fox Sports, now owned by right-wing Sinclair Media, is aligned with the B1G and ESPN is owned by Disney (and Hearst) is so firmly behind the red state based SEC. Sinclair is based in Maryland, but Fox Sports is in LA, while Disney is based in LA but ESPN is in Connecticut.

The PAC-12 really screwed up by not making better use of its media connections. Larry Scott was a disaster.

---

Fox Sports is a division of Fox Corporation (includes Fox TV Network, TV affiliates across the country, FS1,FS1, etc) which is still has Rupert Murdoch as the largest shareholder.

Sinclair Media bought the Fox Sports Regional Networks, which does not include FS1, FS2 or Fox Network which broadcasts the the p12/B12/BT college tier 1 and 2 football games.

The Big Ten Network is 51% Fox corp, 49% Big Ten Conference and also has nothing to do with Sinclair.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Network

---

Doesn't matter. Rupert gave up his day to day to his kids who are liberals. Hence, Fox called Arizona for Biden with 2% reporting in the 2020 election.

---

So much wrong here.

LegoBear said:

---

I wonder if this is going to end up long term killing college football as well. If this end up leading to a super league with a few teams will they eventually be able to compete with the NFL?

For instance I only care about watching SEC or B1G games because I started watching Cal football. If Cal is no longer playing with those big boys or never did I don't think I'll care anymore and will go back to just watching NFL games instead of some super league.

Maybe that's just me and the new super leagues will be able to continue to pull in big and ever growing numbers. Looks like we'll see.

---

Agree. I said much the same in my post way back when.

By eliminating the relevance of more and more colleges, TV is eating away at the national viewership that has made college football so popular on TV. That's not a good (viable) long term strategy.
Most successful businesses seek to increase their customer base not decrease that base.

But the same is true about many other recent fan-unfriendly changes brought about by TV: moving games away from Saturday, Late night or early morning games, (worst of all) non-disclosure of the starting times of games until a few days before the scheduled game day.

When we die hard fans move on to the "great stadium in the sky", there will be no more fans to take our place here on earth.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

LegoBear said:

---

I wonder if this is going to end up long term killing college football as well. If this end up leading to a super league with a few teams will they eventually be able to compete with the NFL?

For instance I only care about watching SEC or B1G games because I started watching Cal football. If Cal is no longer playing with those big boys or never did I don't think I'll care anymore and will go back to just watching NFL games instead of some super league.

Maybe that's just me and the new super leagues will be able to continue to pull in big and ever growing numbers. Looks like we'll see.

---

Agree. I said much the same in my post way back when.

By eliminating the relevance of more and more colleges, TV is eating away at the national viewership that has made college football so popular on TV. That's not a good (viable) long term strategy.
Most successful businesses seek to increase their customer base not decrease that base.

But the same is true about many other recent fan-unfriendly changes brought about by TV: moving games away from Saturday, Late night or early morning games, (worst of all) non-disclosure of the starting times of games until a few days before the scheduled game day.

When we die hard fans move on to the "great stadium in the sky", there will be no more fans to take our place here on earth.

---

I think what many Cal fans forget is they are not the intended audience. The focus of the college athletics industry is the Midwest and South. They are the people who live and die every Saturday. They are the intended audience. For every Cal fan who says, "no thanks", there are a thousands in other parts of the country who say, "more, please".

A guiding principle: never base anything regarding the US as a whole on the observations of people who live in Coastal California. We are an outlier. And, quite frankly, that is why I like living here.

LegoBear said:

---

I wonder if this is going to end up long term killing college football as well. If this end up leading to a super league with a few teams will they eventually be able to compete with the NFL?

For instance I only care about watching SEC or B1G games because I started watching Cal football. If Cal is no longer playing with those big boys or never did I don't think I'll care anymore and will go back to just watching NFL games instead of some super league.

Maybe that's just me and the new super leagues will be able to continue to pull in big and ever growing numbers. Looks like we'll see.

---

I would not watch a 20-team SEC super league. It would just seem like NFL triple-A teams. Players will be well paid and on the path to NFL contracts. The TV production will be slick and well produced, but the games will be divorced from most college connections.

As an analogy, the G-league is the NBAs development league. The teams in the G-league are full of former college basketball stars who are not quite good enough for the NBA. The G league has terrible ratings. Better basketball, but no connection to most fans. The only time I watch a G league game is when a former Golden Bear is playing.

Hopefully the second division regional college football between the Pac-10, Big-8, and Mountain West left behind schools.will retain the traditions and passion of college football.

71Bear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

LegoBear said:

---

I wonder if this is going to end up long term killing college football as well. If this end up leading to a super league with a few teams will they eventually be able to compete with the NFL?

For instance I only care about watching SEC or B1G games because I started watching Cal football. If Cal is no longer playing with those big boys or never did I don't think I'll care anymore and will go back to just watching NFL games instead of some super league.

Maybe that's just me and the new super leagues will be able to continue to pull in big and ever growing numbers. Looks like we'll see.

---

Agree. I said much the same in my post way back when.

By eliminating the relevance of more and more colleges, TV is eating away at the national viewership that has made college football so popular on TV. That's not a good (viable) long term strategy.
Most successful businesses seek to increase their customer base not decrease that base.

But the same is true about many other recent fan-unfriendly changes brought about by TV: moving games away from Saturday, Late night or early morning games, (worst of all) non-disclosure of the starting times of games until a few days before the scheduled game day.

When we die hard fans move on to the "great stadium in the sky", there will be no more fans to take our place here on earth.

---

I think what many Cal fans forget is they are not the intended audience. The focus of the college athletics industry is the Midwest and South. They are the people who live and die every Saturday. They are the intended audience. For every Cal fan who says, "no thanks", there are a thousands in other parts of the country who say, "more, please".

A guiding principle: never base anything regarding the US as a whole on the observations of people who live in Coastal California. We are an outlier. And, quite frankly, that is why I like living here.

---

I generally agree with you, but the question becomes is the gain of south and midwest audience enough to offset the loss of coastal CA audience, particularly once you factor in typical spending of each population? I have no idea, and I don't know if anyone does. It's an interesting thing to consider though.

sketchy9 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

LegoBear said:

---

I wonder if this is going to end up long term killing college football as well. If this end up leading to a super league with a few teams will they eventually be able to compete with the NFL?

For instance I only care about watching SEC or B1G games because I started watching Cal football. If Cal is no longer playing with those big boys or never did I don't think I'll care anymore and will go back to just watching NFL games instead of some super league.

Maybe that's just me and the new super leagues will be able to continue to pull in big and ever growing numbers. Looks like we'll see.

---

Agree. I said much the same in my post way back when.

By eliminating the relevance of more and more colleges, TV is eating away at the national viewership that has made college football so popular on TV. That's not a good (viable) long term strategy.
Most successful businesses seek to increase their customer base not decrease that base.

But the same is true about many other recent fan-unfriendly changes brought about by TV: moving games away from Saturday, Late night or early morning games, (worst of all) non-disclosure of the starting times of games until a few days before the scheduled game day.

When we die hard fans move on to the "great stadium in the sky", there will be no more fans to take our place here on earth.

---

I think what many Cal fans forget is they are not the intended audience. The focus of the college athletics industry is the Midwest and South. They are the people who live and die every Saturday. They are the intended audience. For every Cal fan who says, "no thanks", there are a thousands in other parts of the country who say, "more, please".

A guiding principle: never base anything regarding the US as a whole on the observations of people who live in Coastal California. We are an outlier. And, quite frankly, that is why I like living here.

---

I generally agree with you, but the question becomes is the gain of south and midwest audience enough to offset the loss of coastal CA audience, particularly once you factor in typical spending of each population? I have no idea, and I don't know if anyone does. It's an interesting thing to consider though.

---

Depends on what you are selling.

Per this link, college football attendance is on the decline and not just on the West Coast:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-must-innovate-as-fbs-attendance-dips-for-sixth-straight-year-to-lowest-since-1996/

Based on observing my two west coast millennial kids and their friends, they have absolutely no interest in college football. They rarely went to a football game in high school or college because they were busy with their own activities. They'd rather play a sport or do something else outdoors than watch a game in person or on TV. My guys will go to one Cal game a year with me just to relive our family trips when they were little, but that's all. I don't think this is just a west coast trend (although maybe faster here). These 20-30 somethings have been focused on their own activities since high school and watching a bunch of guys audition for the NFL/NBA is not on their radar.

Don't believe me? This link shows that TV viewers for nearly all sports are aging: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-sports-with-the-oldest-and-youngest-tv-audiences-2017-06-30
and those states in the SEC and B1G, their populations have life expectancies 3-5 years shorter than the west coast, so their older viewers will die off sooner. I just got back from a week in NE Ohio and I can testify that this is the case - the number of overweight people of all ages is shocking. They are ticking time bombs.
In short, they can realign conferences all they want, but they're fighting demographic trends - basically rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

So, what if Cal gets screwed in this realignment? It won't change my life much. I started going to Cal games when I was a little kid and didn't understand or care what the then-PCC was. I barely remember when it changed to the Pac-8 and I didn't care then. When I go to a game now, I still feel like that 10 year-old walking to the game with buddies and why would I give that up?

sketchy9 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

LegoBear said:

---

I wonder if this is going to end up long term killing college football as well. If this end up leading to a super league with a few teams will they eventually be able to compete with the NFL?

For instance I only care about watching SEC or B1G games because I started watching Cal football. If Cal is no longer playing with those big boys or never did I don't think I'll care anymore and will go back to just watching NFL games instead of some super league.

Maybe that's just me and the new super leagues will be able to continue to pull in big and ever growing numbers. Looks like we'll see.

---

Agree. I said much the same in my post way back when.

By eliminating the relevance of more and more colleges, TV is eating away at the national viewership that has made college football so popular on TV. That's not a good (viable) long term strategy.
Most successful businesses seek to increase their customer base not decrease that base.

But the same is true about many other recent fan-unfriendly changes brought about by TV: moving games away from Saturday, Late night or early morning games, (worst of all) non-disclosure of the starting times of games until a few days before the scheduled game day.

When we die hard fans move on to the "great stadium in the sky", there will be no more fans to take our place here on earth.

---

I think what many Cal fans forget is they are not the intended audience. The focus of the college athletics industry is the Midwest and South. They are the people who live and die every Saturday. They are the intended audience. For every Cal fan who says, "no thanks", there are a thousands in other parts of the country who say, "more, please".

A guiding principle: never base anything regarding the US as a whole on the observations of people who live in Coastal California. We are an outlier. And, quite frankly, that is why I like living here.

---

I generally agree with you, but the question becomes is the gain of south and midwest audience enough to offset the loss of coastal CA audience, particularly once you factor in typical spending of each population? I have no idea, and I don't know if anyone does. It's an interesting thing to consider though.

---

It is not just California, the SEC excludes the major centers of population and wealth in the US, most of both coasts and the Midwest. There is a reason the Confederacy lost the Civil War and that was before the massive growth of the West and Midwest.

State and % of US GPD:
Texas 8.4%
Florida 5.2%
Georgia 3.0%'
Tennessee 1.7%
Missouri 1.5%
Louisiana 1.2%
South Carolina 1.1%
Alabama 1.1%
Kentucky 1.0%
Oklahoma 0.9%
Arkansas 0.6%
Mississippi 0.5%

Together that is about 25% of US GDP

How does it make sense for ESPN to focus on the 25% to the extent it would crowd out and exclude 75%? Why would ESPN pay big bucks for the CFP if it is only going to be a rehash of the SEC season? Why watch the SEC regular season if it only determines seeding in the CFP?

I feel it should be noted that one of the main reasons why college football thrived in certain parts of the country more than others is because they did not have competition from professional sports teams for the local audience. Places like Alabama and Omaha did not have a local nfl team, therefore the local rooting interest was for the college team.

That is the reason why New York, boston, sf, and the other big cities typically dont have passionate local fan bases supporting the college teams. That is why the networks can focus on that 25% rather than the other 75%.

golden sloth said:

---

I feel it should be noted that one of the main reasons why college football thrived in certain parts of the country more than others is because they did not have competition from professional sports teams for the local audience. Places like Alabama and Omaha did not have a local nfl team, therefore the local rooting interest was for the college team.

That is the reason why New York, boston, sf, and the other big cities typically dont have passionate local fan bases supporting the college teams. That is why the networks can focus on that 25% rather than the other 75%.

---

For the longest time, Cal, Stanford, Rutgers, and Maryland were within approximately 30 miles of 2 NFL and 2 MLB franchises. After the Raiders moved to Vegas and the Rams and Chargers moved to LA, UCLA and USC replaced Cal and Stanford on that list of P5 schools.

golden sloth said:

---

I feel it should be noted that one of the main reasons why college football thrived in certain parts of the country more than others is because they did not have competition from professional sports teams for the local audience. Places like Alabama and Omaha did not have a local nfl team, therefore the local rooting interest was for the college team.

That is the reason why New York, boston, sf, and the other big cities typically dont have passionate local fan bases supporting the college teams. That is why the networks can focus on that 25% rather than the other 75%.

---

It's much deeper than that. The midwest and the south just have a culture that embraces sports; its almost a religion. Read Friday Night Lights for an example of Texas' love of football. (The Cowboys have been around for years. Other towns with pro sports where college FB thrives: Ohio has the Browns and Bengals;. Detroit Lions in MI. Packers in Wisconsin, Atlanta, Chiefs in MO....)

Many people on the west coast & NE -- including many Cal students -- believe big time college sports is a waste of money, and hate that athletes "take" admission spots.

Big Dog said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I feel it should be noted that one of the main reasons why college football thrived in certain parts of the country more than others is because they did not have competition from professional sports teams for the local audience. Places like Alabama and Omaha did not have a local nfl team, therefore the local rooting interest was for the college team.

That is the reason why New York, boston, sf, and the other big cities typically dont have passionate local fan bases supporting the college teams. That is why the networks can focus on that 25% rather than the other 75%.

---

It's much deeper than that. The midwest and the south just have a culture that embraces sports; its almost a religion. Read Friday Night Lights for an example of Texas' love of football. (The Cowboys have been around for years. Other towns with pro sports where college FB thrives: Ohio has the Browns and Bengals;. Detroit Lions in MI. Packers in Wisconsin, Atlanta, Chiefs in MO....)

Many people on the west coast & NE -- including many Cal students -- believe big time college sports is a waste of money, and hate that athletes "take" admission spots.

---

P12 schools on the west coast are selective, they're not typical state schools in the midwest or south where the state's residents identify the school with the state itself. Cal or UCLA is not the state of California to the average Californian. I can't think of any large state schools north of PA, a region dominated by many private schools.

If the Packers, Cowboys, Astros, and Cubs relocated to within 30 miles of Tuscaloosa, Austin, or Columbus, the religious fervor surrounding college football in those places would mellow out too.

Big Dog said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I feel it should be noted that one of the main reasons why college football thrived in certain parts of the country more than others is because they did not have competition from professional sports teams for the local audience. Places like Alabama and Omaha did not have a local nfl team, therefore the local rooting interest was for the college team.

That is the reason why New York, boston, sf, and the other big cities typically dont have passionate local fan bases supporting the college teams. That is why the networks can focus on that 25% rather than the other 75%.

---

It's much deeper than that. The midwest and the south just have a culture that embraces sports; its almost a religion. Read Friday Night Lights for an example of Texas' love of football. (The Cowboys have been around for years. Other towns with pro sports where college FB thrives: Ohio has the Browns and Bengals;. Detroit Lions in MI. Packers in Wisconsin, Atlanta, Chiefs in MO....)

Many people on the west coast & NE -- including many Cal students -- believe big time college sports is a waste of money, and hate that athletes "take" admission spots.

---

The 49ers have been around longer than the Cowboys have.

Breaking news: Big 12 rule change for this year will award teams 9 points for a TD if school displays “Horns Down” signal after reaching end zone. New rule passed 9-1

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) July 30, 2021

BearForce2 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I feel it should be noted that one of the main reasons why college football thrived in certain parts of the country more than others is because they did not have competition from professional sports teams for the local audience. Places like Alabama and Omaha did not have a local nfl team, therefore the local rooting interest was for the college team.

That is the reason why New York, boston, sf, and the other big cities typically dont have passionate local fan bases supporting the college teams. That is why the networks can focus on that 25% rather than the other 75%.

---

It's much deeper than that. The midwest and the south just have a culture that embraces sports; its almost a religion. Read Friday Night Lights for an example of Texas' love of football. (The Cowboys have been around for years. Other towns with pro sports where college FB thrives: Ohio has the Browns and Bengals;. Detroit Lions in MI. Packers in Wisconsin, Atlanta, Chiefs in MO....)

Many people on the west coast & NE -- including many Cal students -- believe big time college sports is a waste of money, and hate that athletes "take" admission spots.

---

P12 schools on the west coast are selective, they're not typical state schools in the midwest or south where the state's residents identify the school with the state itself. Cal or UCLA is not the state of California to the average Californian. I can't think of any large state schools north of PA, a region dominated by many private schools.

If the Packers, Cowboys, Astros, and Cubs relocated to within 30 miles of Tuscaloosa, Austin, or Columbus, the religious fervor surrounding college football in those places would mellow out too.

---

we can agree to disagree on the reason(s), but I think we both agree that fan passion for college sports on the Left Coast is much less than that in the south (and midwest). And that is the big reason why the P12 network was always a pipe dream. Common sense would say that it would never work. Larry sold the Uni Presidents on a pig in a poke while trying to earn himself millions (to be paid like a media mogul).

Big Dog said:

---

Many people on the west coast & NE -- including many Cal students -- believe big time college sports is a waste of money, and hate that athletes "take" admission spots.

---

Not all athletes. The ones on scholarships for Olympic sports which, along with legacy admissions, are essentially affirmative action for white students that is funded for mostly by black students who play FB and BB.

A lot of talk regarding SC and Washington joining the Big 10. I've only found a favorable for Cal here.

https://www.hawkcentral.com/story/sports/college/columnists/chad-leistikow/2021/07/29/how-18-team-big-ten-conference-could-work-college-football-realignment-big-12-sec-pac-12-ncaa/5413254001/

As the guy said above, this is off topic. Let it rest and I shall do same.

BearinOC said:

---

As the guy said above, this is off topic. Let it rest and I shall do same.

---

Agreed. And it is doubtful that the political leanings of the two major media players play a role in this. It is all about the money and their desire to dominate the other. I just thought it was interesting aspect of this whole situation that Bob Igor lead Disney is aligned with the "red state" SEC (Igor was a major backer of Hillary Clinton) and Rupert Murdoch's Fox (I thought Sinclair, but same difference) who was a big backer of Donald Trump, is aligned with the B1G (and may be the new home of the "liberal" West Coast schools). Again, I thought it was interesting and I honestly thought the irony was equal from either side, but I don't have a need to debate any of the above.

Moreover, there is no reason to debate the fact that you consider Fox News to be "liberal" from where you sit on the political spectrum. That is a fact we can all accept as true mostly because it says more about you than it does about Fox.

Too true. Just biddness men doing biddness.

calumnus said:

---

BearinOC said:

---

As the guy said above, this is off topic. Let it rest and I shall do same.

---

Agreed. And it is doubtful that the political leanings of the two major media players play a role in this. It is all about the money and their desire to dominate the other. I just thought it was interesting aspect of this whole situation that Bob Igor lead Disney is aligned with the "red state" SEC (Igor was a major backer of Hillary Clinton) and Rupert Murdoch's Fox (I thought Sinclair, but same difference) who was a big backer of Donald Trump, is aligned with the B1G (and may be the new home of the "liberal" West Coast schools). Again, I thought it was interesting and I honestly thought the irony was equal from either side, but I don't have a need to debate any of the above.

Moreover, there is no reason to debate the fact that you consider Fox News to be "liberal" from where you sit on the political spectrum. That is a fact we can all accept as true.

---

I actually have stopped watching Fox. I no longer know where they stand. All I want is reporting without opinions. I watched them to counter ABC, NBC, and CNN, etc. I just try to read and watch news source from an apolitical channel. Small independents do a better job of reporting without opinions. Here in SoCal, KTLA can't afford to lose one group of viewers over the other. They seem less leaning to the left.

BearinOC said:

---

Bozodeluxe, you have been blocked so I can't read what you said but give it a rest, Boomer

---

Forum tip: If you have someone blocked, you can still read an individual post from them without unblocking them by clicking on the icon in the upper left corner of the post. In Bobodeluxe's case, it would be the diamond. I have one poster blocked but I still occasionally check posts from him when I feel it might be on topic and not trolling. I've even replied once or twice.

calumnus said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

LegoBear said:

---

I wonder if this is going to end up long term killing college football as well. If this end up leading to a super league with a few teams will they eventually be able to compete with the NFL?

For instance I only care about watching SEC or B1G games because I started watching Cal football. If Cal is no longer playing with those big boys or never did I don't think I'll care anymore and will go back to just watching NFL games instead of some super league.

Maybe that's just me and the new super leagues will be able to continue to pull in big and ever growing numbers. Looks like we'll see.

---

Agree. I said much the same in my post way back when.

By eliminating the relevance of more and more colleges, TV is eating away at the national viewership that has made college football so popular on TV. That's not a good (viable) long term strategy.
Most successful businesses seek to increase their customer base not decrease that base.

But the same is true about many other recent fan-unfriendly changes brought about by TV: moving games away from Saturday, Late night or early morning games, (worst of all) non-disclosure of the starting times of games until a few days before the scheduled game day.

When we die hard fans move on to the "great stadium in the sky", there will be no more fans to take our place here on earth.

---

I think what many Cal fans forget is they are not the intended audience. The focus of the college athletics industry is the Midwest and South. They are the people who live and die every Saturday. They are the intended audience. For every Cal fan who says, "no thanks", there are a thousands in other parts of the country who say, "more, please".

A guiding principle: never base anything regarding the US as a whole on the observations of people who live in Coastal California. We are an outlier. And, quite frankly, that is why I like living here.

---

I generally agree with you, but the question becomes is the gain of south and midwest audience enough to offset the loss of coastal CA audience, particularly once you factor in typical spending of each population? I have no idea, and I don't know if anyone does. It's an interesting thing to consider though.

---

It is not just California, the SEC excludes the major centers of population and wealth in the US, most of both coasts and the Midwest. There is a reason the Confederacy lost the Civil War and that was before the massive growth of the West and Midwest.

State and % of US GPD:
Texas 8.4%
Florida 5.2%
Georgia 3.0%'
Tennessee 1.7%
Missouri 1.5%
Louisiana 1.2%
South Carolina 1.1%
Alabama 1.1%
Kentucky 1.0%
Oklahoma 0.9%
Arkansas 0.6%
Mississippi 0.5%

Together that is about 25% of US GDP

How does it make sense for ESPN to focus on the 25% to the extent it would crowd out and exclude 75%? Why would ESPN pay big bucks for the CFP if it is only going to be a rehash of the SEC season? Why watch the SEC regular season if it only determines seeding in the CFP?

---

The concern is the SEC is trying to create a super conference so that if you add California (SC and UCLA), Oregon, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, etc. to the equation, it starts looking very different.

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

LegoBear said:

---

I wonder if this is going to end up long term killing college football as well. If this end up leading to a super league with a few teams will they eventually be able to compete with the NFL?

For instance I only care about watching SEC or B1G games because I started watching Cal football. If Cal is no longer playing with those big boys or never did I don't think I'll care anymore and will go back to just watching NFL games instead of some super league.

Maybe that's just me and the new super leagues will be able to continue to pull in big and ever growing numbers. Looks like we'll see.

---

Agree. I said much the same in my post way back when.

By eliminating the relevance of more and more colleges, TV is eating away at the national viewership that has made college football so popular on TV. That's not a good (viable) long term strategy.
Most successful businesses seek to increase their customer base not decrease that base.

But the same is true about many other recent fan-unfriendly changes brought about by TV: moving games away from Saturday, Late night or early morning games, (worst of all) non-disclosure of the starting times of games until a few days before the scheduled game day.

When we die hard fans move on to the "great stadium in the sky", there will be no more fans to take our place here on earth.

---

I think what many Cal fans forget is they are not the intended audience. The focus of the college athletics industry is the Midwest and South. They are the people who live and die every Saturday. They are the intended audience. For every Cal fan who says, "no thanks", there are a thousands in other parts of the country who say, "more, please".

A guiding principle: never base anything regarding the US as a whole on the observations of people who live in Coastal California. We are an outlier. And, quite frankly, that is why I like living here.

---

I generally agree with you, but the question becomes is the gain of south and midwest audience enough to offset the loss of coastal CA audience, particularly once you factor in typical spending of each population? I have no idea, and I don't know if anyone does. It's an interesting thing to consider though.

---

It is not just California, the SEC excludes the major centers of population and wealth in the US, most of both coasts and the Midwest. There is a reason the Confederacy lost the Civil War and that was before the massive growth of the West and Midwest.

State and % of US GPD:
Texas 8.4%
Florida 5.2%
Georgia 3.0%'
Tennessee 1.7%
Missouri 1.5%
Louisiana 1.2%
South Carolina 1.1%
Alabama 1.1%
Kentucky 1.0%
Oklahoma 0.9%
Arkansas 0.6%
Mississippi 0.5%

Together that is about 25% of US GDP

How does it make sense for ESPN to focus on the 25% to the extent it would crowd out and exclude 75%? Why would ESPN pay big bucks for the CFP if it is only going to be a rehash of the SEC season? Why watch the SEC regular season if it only determines seeding in the CFP?

---

The concern is the SEC is trying to create a super conference so that if you add California (SC and UCLA), Oregon, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, etc. to the equation, it starts looking very different.

---

Then what would be the point of college football playoffs? The league champ could be crowned college football champ. Either that, or the SEC would split into regional divisions that look a lot like the current conferences