Somewhere in the Great Beyond, Ira Heyman is watching this and smiling. My recollection was that he would have been happy if sports were eliminated entirely.LunchTime said:wifeisafurd said:Won't likely be Furd. Either Utah or Udub.BigDaddy said:The B1G isn't going to 21 teams. If they add Notre Dame, I'd expect Oregon to follow, along with Washington and probably Stanford. That's 20 teams.62bear said:Just with the figures from this thread and some rounding, if ND is getting $35mm right now from their deal with NBC and they're looking at $100mm by jumping to the Big 10, whatever figure their contract with the ACC spells out as their exit fee (even if it's something as ridiculous to us 5-10 years ago like... $100mm?) doesn't seem to be the poison pill they intended it to be. If I were ND I'd do what it takes to join the Big 10. I'm thinking Cal worms its way into the Big 10 along with UW, Oregon, and furd as well and becomes the Rutgers for the western division. Would it make a huge difference if one division has 11 teams and the other has 10 if there isn't a full round-robin for the divisions every year?Alkiadt said:eastcoastcal said:Hearing there's confidence in Big Ten circles about Notre Dame and Oregon eventually jumping on board.
— Jeff Ermann (@Jeff_Ermann) July 1, 2022
FYI, same dude who broke news of Maryland to BIG 10
It will cost ND as they are contractually tied to the ACC if they want to join a football conference. Part of their agreement for all their other teams who play in the ACC
One problem with Cal: literally the lowest TV numbers of any Pac team
This reminds me of something a guy who's name sounds like Milner once told a buddy of mine (paraphrasing, and it was early in the commenting on articles phase of the internet):
Cal fans are delusional about how much support Cal has. They think because they understand the internet and harass people about how big a footprint Cal has that Cal has a big footprint. They complain when Cal doesn't get press, but no one cares. No one reads it. It doesn't sell papers or get clicks.
The conversation started with how obnoxiously delusional Iowa fans were.
That's a reality. We don't have the Bay Area market. We are in the Bay Area market and draw being three teams in our own region. That's the truth.
Cal is OSU level. The list of teams that are better brands to have on board is long. And Cal's draw is purely "good teams have played them for 100 years."
It's the cost of accepting less than mediocrity in hopes that an offensive or defensive coordinators could be picked up, or that "he built this program." It's the cost of allowing Academia to dictate how athletics was run at the campus level (because it certainly isn't a system problem).
For a LONG time it's been embarrassing to be away from home and force people to watch Cal football as though we were some program worthy of 4 hours of attention.
This is who we wanted to be, and this is who we are. A bad program with fans who think we deserve more because 85 years ago we won a rose bowl.
USC/UCLA supposedly moving to Big Ten
83,113 Views |
746 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Big Dog
maxer said:LunchTime said:ducky23 said:philly1121 said:LunchTime said:absolutely ridiculous take.Alkiadt said:fat_slice said:
I feel bad for Wilcox - turned the Oregon job down and now he's stuck in piddly-dink pac-10 (or 8). He will def leave after this year.
Oregon is no better off than Cal at this point.
Oregon is a high value program. Cal can't win 6 games can't get fans to watch, let alone casuals, and has almost no funding.
Oregon is in a massively better position right now.
Exactly. Why would the B1G want us? Academics? Who cares. Rivalries? Against USC? Puhleez. UCLA? From UCLA's perspective - I doubt they even care. Frankly all this talk about a package deal of "if you take ucLa, you have to take us" is absurd. It's like the uglier sister crying to mommy demanding the older hot sister take her to the dance with her. B1G doesn't want us.
This is absolutely all true. However, it's in both the regents and the state's best interest to have cal tag along. And they probably have more leverage in this situation than they care to realise. Whether they exert that leverage, however, is doubtful
If the big10 had its choice, they probably have no interest taking cal. But if there was even a little pressure on them that they had to take cal, i honestly don't think they'd care that much. The big10 presidents would like it and it doesn't hurt adding the Bay Area media market.
The more I think about it, I don't think furd is gojng to do it. They aren't under the same financial gun that cal is under. And it just doesn't seem like a furd thing to do. They believe they don't have to kowtow to big money interests. And I just don't see them sending their prized Olympic sport athletes to Timbuktu every week
It's only in the regents interest the way it's in the regents interest that they take Davis, too.
The regents would be absolutely working against UCs best interest to risk killing a deal that puts a UC team in a premier conference so it's older brother can tag along, even though the older brother has consistently told mom and dad they don't want to play big time football anymore, and like the JV team.
Imagine if Cal didn't join the pac8 because some kind of "well, you didn't take Olympic club" nonsense.
Davis doesn't have $700m of stadium bonds that taxpayers will have to pay for if they default, nor do they have an athletic department with 30 sports, many of them womens sports, that would have to be cut without bigtime football revenue.
I really wish you can say "I told you so" in 5 years.
But I think stadium debt will be paid. Women's sports aren't at risk, men's sport are.
I think people are grasping at anything, but Cal was a drowning program before this. We already moved stadium debt out of Athletics because football can't pay it's bills. And the regents don't care that Davis doesn't have 30 teams, why would they cling to Cal keeping 30 teams?
It's just such a self important arrogant stance to assume Cal athletics matter to anyone when they don't even matter to Cal.
Hopefully it's a defeatist self important stance to see it the way I do.
Such a miserable time, TBH. Maybe I'm too harsh because my Cal experience went from 100 to 0 in like 6 months.
LunchTime said:maxer said:LunchTime said:ducky23 said:philly1121 said:LunchTime said:absolutely ridiculous take.Alkiadt said:fat_slice said:
I feel bad for Wilcox - turned the Oregon job down and now he's stuck in piddly-dink pac-10 (or 8). He will def leave after this year.
Oregon is no better off than Cal at this point.
Oregon is a high value program. Cal can't win 6 games can't get fans to watch, let alone casuals, and has almost no funding.
Oregon is in a massively better position right now.
Exactly. Why would the B1G want us? Academics? Who cares. Rivalries? Against USC? Puhleez. UCLA? From UCLA's perspective - I doubt they even care. Frankly all this talk about a package deal of "if you take ucLa, you have to take us" is absurd. It's like the uglier sister crying to mommy demanding the older hot sister take her to the dance with her. B1G doesn't want us.
This is absolutely all true. However, it's in both the regents and the state's best interest to have cal tag along. And they probably have more leverage in this situation than they care to realise. Whether they exert that leverage, however, is doubtful
If the big10 had its choice, they probably have no interest taking cal. But if there was even a little pressure on them that they had to take cal, i honestly don't think they'd care that much. The big10 presidents would like it and it doesn't hurt adding the Bay Area media market.
The more I think about it, I don't think furd is gojng to do it. They aren't under the same financial gun that cal is under. And it just doesn't seem like a furd thing to do. They believe they don't have to kowtow to big money interests. And I just don't see them sending their prized Olympic sport athletes to Timbuktu every week
It's only in the regents interest the way it's in the regents interest that they take Davis, too.
The regents would be absolutely working against UCs best interest to risk killing a deal that puts a UC team in a premier conference so it's older brother can tag along, even though the older brother has consistently told mom and dad they don't want to play big time football anymore, and like the JV team.
Imagine if Cal didn't join the pac8 because some kind of "well, you didn't take Olympic club" nonsense.
Davis doesn't have $700m of stadium bonds that taxpayers will have to pay for if they default, nor do they have an athletic department with 30 sports, many of them womens sports, that would have to be cut without bigtime football revenue.
I really wish you can say "I told you so" in 5 years.
But I think stadium debt will be paid. Women's sports aren't at risk, men's sport are.
I think people are grasping at anything, but Cal was a drowning program before this. We already moved stadium debt out of Athletics because football can't pay it's bills. And the regents don't care that Davis doesn't have 30 teams, why would they cling to Cal keeping 30 teams?
It's just such a self important arrogant stance to assume Cal athletics matter to anyone when they don't even matter to Cal.
You're yada-yada-ing some huge issues and I'm done going around and around with you. If you're so sure no one cares, then you should follow your own advice and not care if that helps you manage your anxiety or whatever.
LunchTime said:maxer said:LunchTime said:ducky23 said:philly1121 said:LunchTime said:absolutely ridiculous take.Alkiadt said:fat_slice said:
I feel bad for Wilcox - turned the Oregon job down and now he's stuck in piddly-dink pac-10 (or 8). He will def leave after this year.
Oregon is no better off than Cal at this point.
Oregon is a high value program. Cal can't win 6 games can't get fans to watch, let alone casuals, and has almost no funding.
Oregon is in a massively better position right now.
Exactly. Why would the B1G want us? Academics? Who cares. Rivalries? Against USC? Puhleez. UCLA? From UCLA's perspective - I doubt they even care. Frankly all this talk about a package deal of "if you take ucLa, you have to take us" is absurd. It's like the uglier sister crying to mommy demanding the older hot sister take her to the dance with her. B1G doesn't want us.
This is absolutely all true. However, it's in both the regents and the state's best interest to have cal tag along. And they probably have more leverage in this situation than they care to realise. Whether they exert that leverage, however, is doubtful
If the big10 had its choice, they probably have no interest taking cal. But if there was even a little pressure on them that they had to take cal, i honestly don't think they'd care that much. The big10 presidents would like it and it doesn't hurt adding the Bay Area media market.
The more I think about it, I don't think furd is gojng to do it. They aren't under the same financial gun that cal is under. And it just doesn't seem like a furd thing to do. They believe they don't have to kowtow to big money interests. And I just don't see them sending their prized Olympic sport athletes to Timbuktu every week
It's only in the regents interest the way it's in the regents interest that they take Davis, too.
The regents would be absolutely working against UCs best interest to risk killing a deal that puts a UC team in a premier conference so it's older brother can tag along, even though the older brother has consistently told mom and dad they don't want to play big time football anymore, and like the JV team.
Imagine if Cal didn't join the pac8 because some kind of "well, you didn't take Olympic club" nonsense.
Davis doesn't have $700m of stadium bonds that taxpayers will have to pay for if they default, nor do they have an athletic department with 30 sports, many of them womens sports, that would have to be cut without bigtime football revenue.
I really wish you can say "I told you so" in 5 years.
But I think stadium debt will be paid. Women's sports aren't at risk, men's sport are.
I think people are grasping at anything, but Cal was a drowning program before this. We already moved stadium debt out of Athletics because football can't pay it's bills. And the regents don't care that Davis doesn't have 30 teams, why would they cling to Cal keeping 30 teams?
.
Huh? What?
FTR, the Aggies field a robust lineup of teams ... 25 or 26 at last count.
The Big West has a solid lineup of UC schools.
The Big West has a solid lineup of UC schools.
I'm willing to bet the B1G wanted USC and Notre Dame and was looking to add just those two teams.
Notre Dame refused to commit, and USC likely hinted they wouldn't go without UCLA (whether or not they were willing to make good on that requirement is another story). UCLA wasn't the prize here. The fact they have history in Basketball and other athletics is a bonus and made it easier to say yes...but this is about Football and UCLA is getting dragged along with USC much like Cal is dreaming it will be dragged along with UCLA.
As was noted elsewhere, the B1G found a contract loophole with the TV providers that they would get paid for everyone in the *state* where they have a member. Rutgers got them all of New Jersey. USC gets them all of California. Oregon may have a large following nationwide...but it only gets them the Oregon state viewers dollars which likely isn't worth the money. On that front Washington is likely more attractive to them.
All of this is moot to me. Super conferences are going to kill the golden goose. The draw/value of college football is how passionate people are about it. People are passionate about it because they are connected to the schools. Yes, its true, in much of the center part of the country (where populations are relatively low for whatever its worth), people feel strong connections to schools even if they didn't attend them. There is pride in all of Ohio State for THE Ohio State University (there is a reason they are so passionate about THE). All of Alabama takes pride in Alabama's success.
We don't see that on the coasts. But the sum of all of the fans of the schools that are passionate does add up. It adds up in viewers and value...and it has made College football the valuable asset it is today. I will say this, if Cal does hang it up there is zero chance I will be following future college athletics.
We get down to two super conferences with ~40 teams and popularity of the sport is going to start drying up. The value is going to go away and these tv contracts are going to shrink and die. Without attachment to the teams why would anyone follow college athletics over professional sports? How much money are tv contracts for G league games making in the NBA? How about minor league games in the MLB? If all that is happening here is a minor league being made for the NFL, people will start losing interest.
Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but there will be a day of reckoning.
I almost think for the survival of collegiate sports as they exist today, the best path forward for everyone would be for what's left of the big12 and what's left of the pac12 to merge into a conference with a new name (and pac8/big8 divisions). Of course, the only way that happens successfully is if a media outlet throws a lot of money at it, but it just might be a worthy investment in the future of collegiate athletics, if anyone cares.
Notre Dame refused to commit, and USC likely hinted they wouldn't go without UCLA (whether or not they were willing to make good on that requirement is another story). UCLA wasn't the prize here. The fact they have history in Basketball and other athletics is a bonus and made it easier to say yes...but this is about Football and UCLA is getting dragged along with USC much like Cal is dreaming it will be dragged along with UCLA.
As was noted elsewhere, the B1G found a contract loophole with the TV providers that they would get paid for everyone in the *state* where they have a member. Rutgers got them all of New Jersey. USC gets them all of California. Oregon may have a large following nationwide...but it only gets them the Oregon state viewers dollars which likely isn't worth the money. On that front Washington is likely more attractive to them.
All of this is moot to me. Super conferences are going to kill the golden goose. The draw/value of college football is how passionate people are about it. People are passionate about it because they are connected to the schools. Yes, its true, in much of the center part of the country (where populations are relatively low for whatever its worth), people feel strong connections to schools even if they didn't attend them. There is pride in all of Ohio State for THE Ohio State University (there is a reason they are so passionate about THE). All of Alabama takes pride in Alabama's success.
We don't see that on the coasts. But the sum of all of the fans of the schools that are passionate does add up. It adds up in viewers and value...and it has made College football the valuable asset it is today. I will say this, if Cal does hang it up there is zero chance I will be following future college athletics.
We get down to two super conferences with ~40 teams and popularity of the sport is going to start drying up. The value is going to go away and these tv contracts are going to shrink and die. Without attachment to the teams why would anyone follow college athletics over professional sports? How much money are tv contracts for G league games making in the NBA? How about minor league games in the MLB? If all that is happening here is a minor league being made for the NFL, people will start losing interest.
Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but there will be a day of reckoning.
I almost think for the survival of collegiate sports as they exist today, the best path forward for everyone would be for what's left of the big12 and what's left of the pac12 to merge into a conference with a new name (and pac8/big8 divisions). Of course, the only way that happens successfully is if a media outlet throws a lot of money at it, but it just might be a worthy investment in the future of collegiate athletics, if anyone cares.
maxer said:LunchTime said:maxer said:LunchTime said:ducky23 said:philly1121 said:LunchTime said:absolutely ridiculous take.Alkiadt said:fat_slice said:
I feel bad for Wilcox - turned the Oregon job down and now he's stuck in piddly-dink pac-10 (or 8). He will def leave after this year.
Oregon is no better off than Cal at this point.
Oregon is a high value program. Cal can't win 6 games can't get fans to watch, let alone casuals, and has almost no funding.
Oregon is in a massively better position right now.
Exactly. Why would the B1G want us? Academics? Who cares. Rivalries? Against USC? Puhleez. UCLA? From UCLA's perspective - I doubt they even care. Frankly all this talk about a package deal of "if you take ucLa, you have to take us" is absurd. It's like the uglier sister crying to mommy demanding the older hot sister take her to the dance with her. B1G doesn't want us.
This is absolutely all true. However, it's in both the regents and the state's best interest to have cal tag along. And they probably have more leverage in this situation than they care to realise. Whether they exert that leverage, however, is doubtful
If the big10 had its choice, they probably have no interest taking cal. But if there was even a little pressure on them that they had to take cal, i honestly don't think they'd care that much. The big10 presidents would like it and it doesn't hurt adding the Bay Area media market.
The more I think about it, I don't think furd is gojng to do it. They aren't under the same financial gun that cal is under. And it just doesn't seem like a furd thing to do. They believe they don't have to kowtow to big money interests. And I just don't see them sending their prized Olympic sport athletes to Timbuktu every week
It's only in the regents interest the way it's in the regents interest that they take Davis, too.
The regents would be absolutely working against UCs best interest to risk killing a deal that puts a UC team in a premier conference so it's older brother can tag along, even though the older brother has consistently told mom and dad they don't want to play big time football anymore, and like the JV team.
Imagine if Cal didn't join the pac8 because some kind of "well, you didn't take Olympic club" nonsense.
Davis doesn't have $700m of stadium bonds that taxpayers will have to pay for if they default, nor do they have an athletic department with 30 sports, many of them womens sports, that would have to be cut without bigtime football revenue.
I really wish you can say "I told you so" in 5 years.
But I think stadium debt will be paid. Women's sports aren't at risk, men's sport are.
I think people are grasping at anything, but Cal was a drowning program before this. We already moved stadium debt out of Athletics because football can't pay it's bills. And the regents don't care that Davis doesn't have 30 teams, why would they cling to Cal keeping 30 teams?
It's just such a self important arrogant stance to assume Cal athletics matter to anyone when they don't even matter to Cal.
You're yada-yada-ing some huge issues and I'm done going around and around with you. If you're so sure no one cares, then you should follow your own advice and not care if that helps you manage your anxiety or whatever.
I'm not tired of going around and around with you.
If you're tired, stop posting your delusions.
ducky23 said:LunchTime said:maxer said:LunchTime said:ducky23 said:philly1121 said:LunchTime said:absolutely ridiculous take.Alkiadt said:fat_slice said:
I feel bad for Wilcox - turned the Oregon job down and now he's stuck in piddly-dink pac-10 (or 8). He will def leave after this year.
Oregon is no better off than Cal at this point.
Oregon is a high value program. Cal can't win 6 games can't get fans to watch, let alone casuals, and has almost no funding.
Oregon is in a massively better position right now.
Exactly. Why would the B1G want us? Academics? Who cares. Rivalries? Against USC? Puhleez. UCLA? From UCLA's perspective - I doubt they even care. Frankly all this talk about a package deal of "if you take ucLa, you have to take us" is absurd. It's like the uglier sister crying to mommy demanding the older hot sister take her to the dance with her. B1G doesn't want us.
This is absolutely all true. However, it's in both the regents and the state's best interest to have cal tag along. And they probably have more leverage in this situation than they care to realise. Whether they exert that leverage, however, is doubtful
If the big10 had its choice, they probably have no interest taking cal. But if there was even a little pressure on them that they had to take cal, i honestly don't think they'd care that much. The big10 presidents would like it and it doesn't hurt adding the Bay Area media market.
The more I think about it, I don't think furd is gojng to do it. They aren't under the same financial gun that cal is under. And it just doesn't seem like a furd thing to do. They believe they don't have to kowtow to big money interests. And I just don't see them sending their prized Olympic sport athletes to Timbuktu every week
It's only in the regents interest the way it's in the regents interest that they take Davis, too.
The regents would be absolutely working against UCs best interest to risk killing a deal that puts a UC team in a premier conference so it's older brother can tag along, even though the older brother has consistently told mom and dad they don't want to play big time football anymore, and like the JV team.
Imagine if Cal didn't join the pac8 because some kind of "well, you didn't take Olympic club" nonsense.
Davis doesn't have $700m of stadium bonds that taxpayers will have to pay for if they default, nor do they have an athletic department with 30 sports, many of them womens sports, that would have to be cut without bigtime football revenue.
I really wish you can say "I told you so" in 5 years.
But I think stadium debt will be paid. Women's sports aren't at risk, men's sport are.
I think people are grasping at anything, but Cal was a drowning program before this. We already moved stadium debt out of Athletics because football can't pay it's bills. And the regents don't care that Davis doesn't have 30 teams, why would they cling to Cal keeping 30 teams?
.
Huh? What?
The things people are hoping will force the UC system or State to demand UCLA bring Cal along or stay in the Pac12 don't actually exist.
Stadium debt was being moved off of the Athletic books before this. The UC system has 7 schools that don't play D1 FBS football. Why would they be so attached to saving a program that has languished for 50 years with only very short sparks of success, and no internal drive to maintain it?
The regents don't care that Cal has 30 sports. Davis has nearly as many, with a few less men's teams. He said women's teams were at risk. They are not. Men's teams are, and honestly too few people care about the men's teams that would be cut.
These people stuck on the stadium debt issue are ignoring that before this, Cal was in the process of offloading the debt from the AD.
They ignore that the UC system is more than 2 campuses. They ignore that if the UC systems regents care about sports, they would WANT a team in a mega conference if they could get it, and risking that position to drag along a team that doesn't have support from campus is a silly gamble.
The stadium debt will be paid, regardless of Cal having a team that can pay for it. We saw that when they moved a portion of the debt. If they have to move more, they move more.
Maybe I am confused, and someone can show me where the stadium debt has caused the regents to insist Cal football move up a tier within the Pac12?
A half billion of debt in a system this large doesn't seem like the savior y'all hope it is.
LunchTime said:ducky23 said:LunchTime said:maxer said:LunchTime said:ducky23 said:philly1121 said:LunchTime said:absolutely ridiculous take.Alkiadt said:fat_slice said:
I feel bad for Wilcox - turned the Oregon job down and now he's stuck in piddly-dink pac-10 (or 8). He will def leave after this year.
Oregon is no better off than Cal at this point.
Oregon is a high value program. Cal can't win 6 games can't get fans to watch, let alone casuals, and has almost no funding.
Oregon is in a massively better position right now.
Exactly. Why would the B1G want us? Academics? Who cares. Rivalries? Against USC? Puhleez. UCLA? From UCLA's perspective - I doubt they even care. Frankly all this talk about a package deal of "if you take ucLa, you have to take us" is absurd. It's like the uglier sister crying to mommy demanding the older hot sister take her to the dance with her. B1G doesn't want us.
This is absolutely all true. However, it's in both the regents and the state's best interest to have cal tag along. And they probably have more leverage in this situation than they care to realise. Whether they exert that leverage, however, is doubtful
If the big10 had its choice, they probably have no interest taking cal. But if there was even a little pressure on them that they had to take cal, i honestly don't think they'd care that much. The big10 presidents would like it and it doesn't hurt adding the Bay Area media market.
The more I think about it, I don't think furd is gojng to do it. They aren't under the same financial gun that cal is under. And it just doesn't seem like a furd thing to do. They believe they don't have to kowtow to big money interests. And I just don't see them sending their prized Olympic sport athletes to Timbuktu every week
It's only in the regents interest the way it's in the regents interest that they take Davis, too.
The regents would be absolutely working against UCs best interest to risk killing a deal that puts a UC team in a premier conference so it's older brother can tag along, even though the older brother has consistently told mom and dad they don't want to play big time football anymore, and like the JV team.
Imagine if Cal didn't join the pac8 because some kind of "well, you didn't take Olympic club" nonsense.
Davis doesn't have $700m of stadium bonds that taxpayers will have to pay for if they default, nor do they have an athletic department with 30 sports, many of them womens sports, that would have to be cut without bigtime football revenue.
I really wish you can say "I told you so" in 5 years.
But I think stadium debt will be paid. Women's sports aren't at risk, men's sport are.
I think people are grasping at anything, but Cal was a drowning program before this. We already moved stadium debt out of Athletics because football can't pay it's bills. And the regents don't care that Davis doesn't have 30 teams, why would they cling to Cal keeping 30 teams?
.
Huh? What?
The things people are hoping will force the UC system or State to demand UCLA bring Cal along or stay in the Pac12 don't actually exist.
Stadium debt was being moved off of the Athletic books before this. The UC system has 7 schools that don't play D1 FBS football. Why would they be so attached to saving a program that has languished for 50 years with only very short sparks of success, and no internal drive to maintain it?
The regents don't care that Cal has 30 sports. Davis has nearly as many, with a few less men's teams. He said women's teams were at risk. They are not. Men's teams are, and honestly too few people care about the men's teams that would be cut.
These people stuck on the stadium debt issue are ignoring that before this, Cal was in the process of offloading the debt from the AD.
They ignore that the UC system is more than 2 campuses. They ignore that if the UC systems regents care about sports, they would WANT a team in a mega conference if they could get it, and risking that position to drag along a team that doesn't have support from campus is a silly gamble.
The stadium debt will be paid, regardless of Cal having a team that can pay for it. We saw that when they moved a portion of the debt. If they have to move more, they move more.
Maybe I am confused, and someone can show me where the stadium debt has caused the regents to insist Cal football move up a tier within the Pac12?
A half billion of debt in a system this large doesn't seem like the savior y'all hope it is.
Agree, in part. If the Pac loses any more schools, then it's done as a conference. Can't see it surviving, without becoming the Pacific Division of the Mountain West. If so, what's the point? Might as well go all U-Chicago and drop football. At that point, only the fully-funded and endowed sports are safe, as long as that endowment covers the women's team too. (Rugby? Crew?) Under LIFO, women's lax could be cut for example. With the SoCal schools going BiG, Cal's women teams have fewer instate competitors, requiring greater travel expense.
"A half a Billion" barely covers one year of sexual deviancy settlements.
I've wondered about the long term viability of viewership for UCLA and USC in a similar vein. If they go off to the Big 10 and there's a loss of the traditional rivalries with the California schools and no longer having those Pac-12 matchups, what does that do to fandom? I know teams like USC drew fans who didn't even go to the school because LA didn't have an NFL team for many years. But I wonder what it looks like now with SC underperforming and the Rams being an exciting team to watch. Similarly UCLA hasn't been particularly exciting in recent history and there's another pro team in the Chargers.
Monroe doctrine. Bay area is not Mexico. Notre Dame is Alaska.
I think novelty will be interesting for them. And then when they see how mediocre those teams typically are it will be like playing any random team. Without the history and proximity, how often would they be interesting to Cal fans? I'm not sure. Oregon is a draw because they are good. Before they were good, they were just another team.freshfunk said:
I've wondered about the long term viability of viewership for UCLA and USC in a similar vein. If they go off to the Big 10 and there's a loss of the traditional rivalries with the California schools and no longer having those Pac-12 matchups, what does that do to fandom? I know teams like USC drew fans who didn't even go to the school because LA didn't have an NFL team for many years. But I wonder what it looks like now with SC underperforming and the Rams being an exciting team to watch. Similarly UCLA hasn't been particularly exciting in recent history and there's another pro team in the Chargers.
At least the B1G seems to care about real rivalry. Not like bringing in Colorado and Utah with rivals out of conference.
BiG fan rivalry means fans of the visiting team can (and do) travel to the home team for the game and weekend. They're within spitting distance, in most cases. How many SC or UCLA fans do you see traveling to Ann Arbor, say, for a game there? They're spoiled - the Michiganders will go to LA because of its attraction.LunchTime said:I think novelty will be interesting for them. And then when they see how mediocre those teams typically are it will be like playing any random team. Without the history and proximity, how often would they be interesting to Cal fans? I'm not sure. Oregon is a draw because they are good. Before they were good, they were just another team.freshfunk said:
I've wondered about the long term viability of viewership for UCLA and USC in a similar vein. If they go off to the Big 10 and there's a loss of the traditional rivalries with the California schools and no longer having those Pac-12 matchups, what does that do to fandom? I know teams like USC drew fans who didn't even go to the school because LA didn't have an NFL team for many years. But I wonder what it looks like now with SC underperforming and the Rams being an exciting team to watch. Similarly UCLA hasn't been particularly exciting in recent history and there's another pro team in the Chargers.
At least the B1G seems to care about real rivalry. Not like bringing in Colorado and Utah with rivals out of conference.
This is not going to work, but do they listen? You know the answer to that one.
John Feinstein perspective in WaPo
Pretty much already written, but a national voice.
Paywall, I assume.
Pretty much already written, but a national voice.
Paywall, I assume.
I don't think this is true at all. A lot of kids from California go to the Oregon schools which is a big driver of rivalries. That's been true since at least the 90's and Cal Oregon games have been for at least that long. Same is true of the Arizona and Washington schools. But like UCLA playing Purdue? Snoozefest.LunchTime said:I think novelty will be interesting for them. And then when they see how mediocre those teams typically are it will be like playing any random team. Without the history and proximity, how often would they be interesting to Cal fans? I'm not sure. Oregon is a draw because they are good. Before they were good, they were just another team.freshfunk said:
I've wondered about the long term viability of viewership for UCLA and USC in a similar vein. If they go off to the Big 10 and there's a loss of the traditional rivalries with the California schools and no longer having those Pac-12 matchups, what does that do to fandom? I know teams like USC drew fans who didn't even go to the school because LA didn't have an NFL team for many years. But I wonder what it looks like now with SC underperforming and the Rams being an exciting team to watch. Similarly UCLA hasn't been particularly exciting in recent history and there's another pro team in the Chargers.
A lot of chatter that Utah, Colorado, ASU and Arizona are already in discussions with the Big XII.
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
Unit2Sucks said:I don't think this is true at all. A lot of kids from California go to the Oregon schools which is a big driver of rivalries. That's been true since at least the 90's and Cal Oregon games have been for at least that long. Same is true of the Arizona and Washington schools. But like UCLA playing Purdue? Snoozefest.LunchTime said:I think novelty will be interesting for them. And then when they see how mediocre those teams typically are it will be like playing any random team. Without the history and proximity, how often would they be interesting to Cal fans? I'm not sure. Oregon is a draw because they are good. Before they were good, they were just another team.freshfunk said:
I've wondered about the long term viability of viewership for UCLA and USC in a similar vein. If they go off to the Big 10 and there's a loss of the traditional rivalries with the California schools and no longer having those Pac-12 matchups, what does that do to fandom? I know teams like USC drew fans who didn't even go to the school because LA didn't have an NFL team for many years. But I wonder what it looks like now with SC underperforming and the Rams being an exciting team to watch. Similarly UCLA hasn't been particularly exciting in recent history and there's another pro team in the Chargers.
You might know better, but I always thought the obsession with going to Oregon was casual with Nikes infusion into athletics.
I don't remember kids having Oregon at the top of their list before that, but I also am a little young to have a solid memory of the application distribution before that inflection.
I'm not talking about the players, I'm talking about the students. Thousands of Oregon students are from California and have friends at Cal. There is a lot of this at all of the PAC schools due to proximity and far less overlap with the B1G schools.LunchTime said:Unit2Sucks said:I don't think this is true at all. A lot of kids from California go to the Oregon schools which is a big driver of rivalries. That's been true since at least the 90's and Cal Oregon games have been for at least that long. Same is true of the Arizona and Washington schools. But like UCLA playing Purdue? Snoozefest.LunchTime said:I think novelty will be interesting for them. And then when they see how mediocre those teams typically are it will be like playing any random team. Without the history and proximity, how often would they be interesting to Cal fans? I'm not sure. Oregon is a draw because they are good. Before they were good, they were just another team.freshfunk said:
I've wondered about the long term viability of viewership for UCLA and USC in a similar vein. If they go off to the Big 10 and there's a loss of the traditional rivalries with the California schools and no longer having those Pac-12 matchups, what does that do to fandom? I know teams like USC drew fans who didn't even go to the school because LA didn't have an NFL team for many years. But I wonder what it looks like now with SC underperforming and the Rams being an exciting team to watch. Similarly UCLA hasn't been particularly exciting in recent history and there's another pro team in the Chargers.
You might know better, but I always thought the obsession with going to Oregon was casual with Nikes infusion into athletics.
I don't remember kids having Oregon at the top of their list before that, but I also am a little young to have a solid memory of the application distribution before that inflection.
Would Cal fans tune in if the P12 looked like this after 2024:
North Div
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
Washington
Wazzu
Cal
Fresno State (keep in mind Jeffy is head coach)
South
ASU
UA
Utah
Colorado
San Diego State (Aztecs have a brand new stadium and are now the only D1 football team in South)
Potential candidates from the Big 12:
BYU - natural rivalry for Utah
Texas Tech - establishes a presence in Texas. Public school
Oklahoma State - they may lose Bedlam after OU moves. Public university.
New TV deal would drop all night games starting at 7pm or later. Would this be enough to keep the P12 afloat?
North Div
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
Washington
Wazzu
Cal
Fresno State (keep in mind Jeffy is head coach)
South
ASU
UA
Utah
Colorado
San Diego State (Aztecs have a brand new stadium and are now the only D1 football team in South)
Potential candidates from the Big 12:
BYU - natural rivalry for Utah
Texas Tech - establishes a presence in Texas. Public school
Oklahoma State - they may lose Bedlam after OU moves. Public university.
New TV deal would drop all night games starting at 7pm or later. Would this be enough to keep the P12 afloat?
If Cal and Stanford are not a part of the Big 10, Cal is pretty much doomed. Being a part of the Big 12 or a new PAC 12??? still dooms Cal because it diminishes the interest in Cal sports. I bet season tickets to this upcoming season will slide quite a bit. Membership in the Big10 would revitalize a moribund program, IMO.
All depends on tv money, I guess. I don't see big enough markets or appealing enough talent.philly1121 said:
Would Cal fans tune in if the P12 looked like this after 2024:
North Div
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
Washington
Wazzu
Cal
Fresno State (keep in mind Jeffy is head coach)
South
ASU
UA
Utah
Colorado
San Diego State (Aztecs have a brand new stadium and are now the only D1 football team in South)
Potential candidates from the Big 12:
BYU - natural rivalry for Utah
Texas Tech - establishes a presence in Texas. Public school
Oklahoma State - they may lose Bedlam after OU moves. Public university.
New TV deal would drop all night games starting at 7pm or later. Would this be enough to keep the P12 afloat?
The one thing we're overlooking is that SC and UCLA will have to recruit nation-wide - there's not enough talent on the Coast to keep them competitive in the B1G. That would leave plenty of low 4* and high 3* kids to divvy up.
BTW, FSU would go in the South.
Bobodeluxe said:
John Feinstein perspective in WaPo
Pretty much already written, but a national voice.
Paywall, I assume.
This podcast segment got at why this feels so bad for the sport. This guy is a Texas fan, so his school will be fine and it's not necessarily sour grapes for him.
Here’s @bryancurtis wondering if college football has lost its way. pic.twitter.com/bvTsyOrmm7
— Bill Simmons (@BillSimmons) July 1, 2022
Sure, realignment had happened a lot recently. There was at least some level of logic to Texas being in the SEC, as they are a neighboring state. But two Los Angeles schools joining a Midwestern conference? It's so obviously absurd and only about money. And it kills the things that made college football unique: the traditions, long histories, and rivalries that came from regional conferences. Without those it's just a worse version of the NFL.
The "Winners" will be in the same situation in a decade I promise. Because if USC/UCLA can leave for 100 million..whats to stop USC, Bama, Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin combining with Bama, Auburn, Alabama, Florida, Georgia leaving for 200 million.
These teams have just declared that tradition will not hold more importance than money.
These teams have just declared that tradition will not hold more importance than money.
LunchTime said:Unit2Sucks said:I don't think this is true at all. A lot of kids from California go to the Oregon schools which is a big driver of rivalries. That's been true since at least the 90's and Cal Oregon games have been for at least that long. Same is true of the Arizona and Washington schools. But like UCLA playing Purdue? Snoozefest.LunchTime said:I think novelty will be interesting for them. And then when they see how mediocre those teams typically are it will be like playing any random team. Without the history and proximity, how often would they be interesting to Cal fans? I'm not sure. Oregon is a draw because they are good. Before they were good, they were just another team.freshfunk said:
I've wondered about the long term viability of viewership for UCLA and USC in a similar vein. If they go off to the Big 10 and there's a loss of the traditional rivalries with the California schools and no longer having those Pac-12 matchups, what does that do to fandom? I know teams like USC drew fans who didn't even go to the school because LA didn't have an NFL team for many years. But I wonder what it looks like now with SC underperforming and the Rams being an exciting team to watch. Similarly UCLA hasn't been particularly exciting in recent history and there's another pro team in the Chargers.
You might know better, but I always thought the obsession with going to Oregon was casual with Nikes infusion into athletics.
I don't remember kids having Oregon at the top of their list before that, but I also am a little young to have a solid memory of the application distribution before that inflection.
Im not sure where you are located, but UNIT2 is right about this. You'd be surprised by how many high school females in the Lamorinda and Danville/San Ramon suburbs of the TriValley have headed to Oregon over the past two decades. And it really had very little to do with Nike or D1 athletics.
As so often is the case, high school girls want to get away from Mom and Dad and feel a sense of independence. Hence, they'll head out of state first chance, if they and their parents can swing it financially.
The guys?
They couldnt care any less.
If they live closer to home, it means that Mom can still do their laundry once a week.
Hopefully a west coast pod will emerge within the B1G which includes Cal. That would minimize some of the travel issues and create the alliance that has been bandied about. Cal brings nothing to the table athletically currently so the ADs wouldn't recommend us but perhaps the B1G presidents value the academic component. It's not clear if adding the a team in the SF media market even adds any incremental value because the local viewership is already focused on the national brands.
Given the demographic issues on the west coast, SC had to leave the conference because there is no way the current P12 membership could land a media deal even remotely close to what is needed to stay in the top tier. If ND accepts the B1G overtures, furd is a logical partner to join with them or perhaps one of the ACC schools. It's much easier to see a scenario where Cal ends up being left behind and at that point the program is dead.
Given the demographic issues on the west coast, SC had to leave the conference because there is no way the current P12 membership could land a media deal even remotely close to what is needed to stay in the top tier. If ND accepts the B1G overtures, furd is a logical partner to join with them or perhaps one of the ACC schools. It's much easier to see a scenario where Cal ends up being left behind and at that point the program is dead.
Just an FYI about Cal cutting Sports.
Currently, Cal does not comply with Title IX from a strict numbers sense.. The only reason they are deemed to be in compliance is because the surveys taken by the undergrad female population shows that "they" believe that Cal continues to "strive" towards compliance by offering sports and recreational facilities to Cal Women.
For the people that flippantly think that Women's LAX would be the first to get cut, think again.
Once a School cuts a women's sport, they must comply on a strict male/female ratio of representation in Athletics.
And that's not good for men's sports.
Currently, Cal does not comply with Title IX from a strict numbers sense.. The only reason they are deemed to be in compliance is because the surveys taken by the undergrad female population shows that "they" believe that Cal continues to "strive" towards compliance by offering sports and recreational facilities to Cal Women.
For the people that flippantly think that Women's LAX would be the first to get cut, think again.
Once a School cuts a women's sport, they must comply on a strict male/female ratio of representation in Athletics.
And that's not good for men's sports.
DiabloWags said:LunchTime said:Unit2Sucks said:I don't think this is true at all. A lot of kids from California go to the Oregon schools which is a big driver of rivalries. That's been true since at least the 90's and Cal Oregon games have been for at least that long. Same is true of the Arizona and Washington schools. But like UCLA playing Purdue? Snoozefest.LunchTime said:I think novelty will be interesting for them. And then when they see how mediocre those teams typically are it will be like playing any random team. Without the history and proximity, how often would they be interesting to Cal fans? I'm not sure. Oregon is a draw because they are good. Before they were good, they were just another team.freshfunk said:
I've wondered about the long term viability of viewership for UCLA and USC in a similar vein. If they go off to the Big 10 and there's a loss of the traditional rivalries with the California schools and no longer having those Pac-12 matchups, what does that do to fandom? I know teams like USC drew fans who didn't even go to the school because LA didn't have an NFL team for many years. But I wonder what it looks like now with SC underperforming and the Rams being an exciting team to watch. Similarly UCLA hasn't been particularly exciting in recent history and there's another pro team in the Chargers.
You might know better, but I always thought the obsession with going to Oregon was casual with Nikes infusion into athletics.
I don't remember kids having Oregon at the top of their list before that, but I also am a little young to have a solid memory of the application distribution before that inflection.
Im not sure where you are located, but UNIT2 is right about this. You'd be surprised by how many high school females in the Lamorinda and Danville/San Ramon suburbs of the TriValley have headed to Oregon over the past two decades. And it really had very little to do with Nike or D1 athletics.
Tons of California kids go to Oregon (and Colorado) and it's because at least in part UC's are so difficult to get into now.
Did Governor Newsom play a role in this?
The Ringer: "This is unsustainable, and that's probably because it's not intended to be sustained. Things in college sports are changing at an impossibly rapid pace. Less than three years ago, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced his state would allow college athletes to make money off their name, image, and likeness rights starting on January 1, 2023. We didn't have to wait that long, because dozens of other states (and Congress!) implemented rules that accelerated that timeline. ..."
https://www.theringer.com/college-football/2022/6/30/23190599/usc-ucla-big-ten-pac-12-conference-realignment-ncaa-future
The Ringer: "This is unsustainable, and that's probably because it's not intended to be sustained. Things in college sports are changing at an impossibly rapid pace. Less than three years ago, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced his state would allow college athletes to make money off their name, image, and likeness rights starting on January 1, 2023. We didn't have to wait that long, because dozens of other states (and Congress!) implemented rules that accelerated that timeline. ..."
https://www.theringer.com/college-football/2022/6/30/23190599/usc-ucla-big-ten-pac-12-conference-realignment-ncaa-future
maxer said:
Tons of California kids go to Oregon (and Colorado) and it's because at least in part UC's are so difficult to get into now.
Thats certainly part of it.
So is how those schools dont have very high admissions standards and make money off of charging absurd amounts for out of state tuition that subsidizes their own state population.
movielover said:
Did Governor Newsom play a role in this?
The Ringer: "This is unsustainable, and that's probably because it's not intended to be sustained. Things in college sports are changing at an impossibly rapid pace. Less than three years ago, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced his state would allow college athletes to make money off their name, image, and likeness rights starting on January 1, 2023. We didn't have to wait that long, because dozens of other states (and Congress!) implemented rules that accelerated that timeline. ..."
https://www.theringer.com/college-football/2022/6/30/23190599/usc-ucla-big-ten-pac-12-conference-realignment-ncaa-future
Not really. This NIL stuff has been on track towards happening for a while.
MinotStateBeav said:
The "Winners" will be in the same situation in a decade I promise. Because if USC/UCLA can leave for 100 million..whats to stop USC, Bama, Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin combining with Bama, Auburn, Alabama, Florida, Georgia leaving for 200 million.
These teams have just declared that tradition will not hold more importance than money.
I think this is true.
However, there is another take which is that part of the reason it made sense for a school like USC to remain in the Pac-12 was because they could be a big fish in a small pond. The Rose Bowl had one of the highest payouts and our champion was guaranteed to go. This all ended with the BCS.
Is it really in the best interests of the top programs to play each other more often in conference instead of winning a conference full of patsies and then being invited to a playoff?
I am not so sure.
Part of the problem here is that there is no real plan other than to follow the TV dollars. However, those TV dollars are not guaranteed. If the product suffers the viewership might also dwindle.
tOSU, Michigan, Penn State, and USC can't all win the conference. Is it better to be an also-ran in a powerful conference? In terms of dollars, yes, but I am not sure it helps a team like Cal (or UCLA) who can't even win in the Pac-12.
It's not really clear what the end game is here. Is it a true college football playoff? Maybe the teams with a chance at winning one should just focus on a playoff with a tuneup against some patsies as a regular season. Well, isn't that what we already had? Oh, that's right. That paid less so we had to blow it up. However, it is not clear the path we are on will grow overall college football revenue.
I have to imagine that lots of schools - even some currently in the Big10 and SEC - might be forced out as dollars rather than geography or tradition drive realignment.
There were a lot better way to grow college football such as an expanded playoff and more out-of-conference games. It would have been great to have more SEC schools come out West to play instead of beating up on patsies. We could have done that without conference realignment but the major powers liked the way things were.
These conference realignments are artificial constructs chasing dollars. However, part of the reason the TV deals were what they were was because the conferences were what they were. Will adding, say, Cal and Stanford to the Big10 just dilute the brand? At some point if you add the top teams in every conference to these super conferences there isn't more value-added and there may be less as interest wanes with the lack of traditional rivalries and the novelty wears off.
If viewers in the Midwest didn't tune in to watch UCLA before then why would they now other than to see their own team play them. Substitute UCLA with Southeast Directional State and the result would be much the same. On the other hand, will the viewers who used to watch UCLA really want to see them playing Michigan State instead of Washington?
It seems like it will be a push when all is said and done which is a really bad reason to break up existing conferences.
Since I was the one who mentioned Lax it was not an idle thought. If the Pac dies, and Cal continues football as a mid-major, Cal will no longer be able to afford to support 30 sports. The TV money will not be there. No question men's teams will have to be cut, but once we go down that path, might as well right size (using the appropriate T9 prong) and cut some expensive(?), non-diverse(?) women's sports, too. This aint' rocket science, which any Haas Finance major could figure out.DiabloWags said:
Just an FYI about Cal cutting Sports.
Currently, Cal does not comply with Title IX from a strict numbers sense.. The only reason they are deemed to be in compliance is because the surveys taken by the undergrad female population shows that "they" believe that Cal continues to "strive" towards compliance by offering sports and recreational facilities to Cal Women.
For the people that flippantly think that Women's LAX would be the first to get cut, think again.
Once a School cuts a women's sport, they must comply on a strict male/female ratio of representation in Athletics. And that's not good for men's sports.
Good friend of mine was a Berkeley kid and son of a professor. He ended up at ASU and said there were a lot of California kids there).DiabloWags said:LunchTime said:Unit2Sucks said:I don't think this is true at all. A lot of kids from California go to the Oregon schools which is a big driver of rivalries. That's been true since at least the 90's and Cal Oregon games have been for at least that long. Same is true of the Arizona and Washington schools. But like UCLA playing Purdue? Snoozefest.LunchTime said:I think novelty will be interesting for them. And then when they see how mediocre those teams typically are it will be like playing any random team. Without the history and proximity, how often would they be interesting to Cal fans? I'm not sure. Oregon is a draw because they are good. Before they were good, they were just another team.freshfunk said:
I've wondered about the long term viability of viewership for UCLA and USC in a similar vein. If they go off to the Big 10 and there's a loss of the traditional rivalries with the California schools and no longer having those Pac-12 matchups, what does that do to fandom? I know teams like USC drew fans who didn't even go to the school because LA didn't have an NFL team for many years. But I wonder what it looks like now with SC underperforming and the Rams being an exciting team to watch. Similarly UCLA hasn't been particularly exciting in recent history and there's another pro team in the Chargers.
You might know better, but I always thought the obsession with going to Oregon was casual with Nikes infusion into athletics.
I don't remember kids having Oregon at the top of their list before that, but I also am a little young to have a solid memory of the application distribution before that inflection.
Im not sure where you are located, but UNIT2 is right about this. You'd be surprised by how many high school females in the Lamorinda and Danville/San Ramon suburbs of the TriValley have headed to Oregon over the past two decades. And it really had very little to do with Nike or D1 athletics.
As so often is the case, high school girls want to get away from Mom and Dad and feel a sense of independence. Hence, they'll head out of state first chance, if they and their parents can swing it financially.
The guys?
They couldnt care any less.
If they live closer to home, it means that Mom can still do their laundry once a week.
I think there are a combination of reasons that this is happening including how difficult it's been to get into UCs and also a decent amount of xenophobia (eg white people who don't want to go to majority minority schools). That was a common lament decades ago and I would be surprised if it's changed. It never bothered me at Cal but my parents were immigrants so maybe the xenophobes were trying to get away from me too!
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Add Portal Edge Defender Deamontae Diggs
by Jim McGill
NFL Draft results and their relation to Collegiate success
by Bear Insider