Cal sports will not survive as an independent, so not gonna happen. In fact, Cal Sports as we know it (30 sports) can't survive as a mid-major. Major reductions will be coming, to both the men's and women's teams.Strykur said:If Furd ends up independent, so do we, and if they roll all their Olympic sports into another league, that is a bit of a downgrade (Tara Vanderveer will be miffed about playing WCC teams) and our sports would follow suit anyway. It would be an odd arrangement however if Furd is playing Big Ten football and that's it, while the SoCal schools are all Big Ten, so what would be the point of that?BigDaddy said:Stanford would absolutely take a B1G invite. They've already explored rolling their Olympic sports into another Western league to save on travel.MrGPAC said:If UCLA WERE forced to back out of the B1G deal here as a result of the regents, they speculate that The B1G would "Just take Stanford to replace them".movielover said:
Will the Regents REQUIRE UCLA to subsidize Cal Athletics? Awkward.
Bald Faced Truth by John Canzano
https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuam9obmNhbnphbm8uY29tL3AvY2FuemFuby11Y2xhcy1sZWFkZXJzaGlwLXdpbGwtYmU_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpvME5EVTRPRFk1T0N3aWNHOXpkRjlwWkNJNk5qUTJNekl6TkRFc0ltbGhkQ0k2TVRZMU9ERTJNRGMzTXl3aWFYTnpJam9pY0hWaUxUYzVOVEExT1NJc0luTjFZaUk2SW5CdmMzUXRjbVZoWTNScGIyNGlmUS5MLTJ3Ql9MZDdnakE0TmhfUV94bWE4amN6M3B5TFFxVFctZkpvYlVURUpnIiwicCI6NjQ2MzIzNDEsInMiOjc5NTA1OSwiZiI6dHJ1ZSwidSI6NDQ1ODg2OTgsImlhdCI6MTY1ODE2MDc3MywiaXNzIjoicHViLTAiLCJzdWIiOiJsaW5rLXJlZGlyZWN0In0.6ZJb-wWuOxjoTHxt_iaXjhd2piQeIXutNBbOZxHNaYQ?
I wonder how realistic that would be. Would Stanford even buy into that? What happens to USC if UCLA is forced to back out and the B1G can't find a team to partner with USC? The only teams that "make sense" to group with USC are UCLA, Stanford, and Notre Dame. UCLA would be removed from the equation, Stanford may not want to leave Cal behind / join the "big leagues" of paying for players, and Notre Dame is likely to say no thank you at this point.
They definitely would leave Cal behind. They care so much about Cal they ditched us for Notre Dame and have been talking to the Irish throughout the last few weeks as they consider realignment. They are even considering the possibility of going independent, biding their time until B1G expands again.
At the end of the day, it's all moot. I don't think UCLA will be blocked from B1G membership.
USC/UCLA supposedly moving to Big Ten
83,118 Views |
746 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Big Dog
Cal is not going independent.Strykur said:If Furd ends up independent, so do we, and if they roll all their Olympic sports into another league, that is a bit of a downgrade (Tara Vanderveer will be miffed about playing WCC teams) and our sports would follow suit anyway. It would be an odd arrangement however if Furd is playing Big Ten football and that's it, while the SoCal schools are all Big Ten, so what would be the point of that?BigDaddy said:Stanford would absolutely take a B1G invite. They've already explored rolling their Olympic sports into another Western league to save on travel.MrGPAC said:
If UCLA WERE forced to back out of the B1G deal here as a result of the regents, they speculate that The B1G would "Just take Stanford to replace them".
I wonder how realistic that would be. Would Stanford even buy into that? What happens to USC if UCLA is forced to back out and the B1G can't find a team to partner with USC? The only teams that "make sense" to group with USC are UCLA, Stanford, and Notre Dame. UCLA would be removed from the equation, Stanford may not want to leave Cal behind / join the "big leagues" of paying for players, and Notre Dame is likely to say no thank you at this point.
They definitely would leave Cal behind. They care so much about Cal they ditched us for Notre Dame and have been talking to the Irish throughout the last few weeks as they consider realignment. They are even considering the possibility of going independent, biding their time until B1G expands again.
At the end of the day, it's all moot. I don't think UCLA will be blocked from B1G membership.
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
Why not? We would get no money in the Mountain West anyway, and we can put anybody on the schedule, nobody is showing up to Strawbetter Canyon to see us play a MWC schedule.BigDaddy said:Cal is not going independent.Strykur said:If Furd ends up independent, so do we, and if they roll all their Olympic sports into another league, that is a bit of a downgrade (Tara Vanderveer will be miffed about playing WCC teams) and our sports would follow suit anyway. It would be an odd arrangement however if Furd is playing Big Ten football and that's it, while the SoCal schools are all Big Ten, so what would be the point of that?BigDaddy said:Stanford would absolutely take a B1G invite. They've already explored rolling their Olympic sports into another Western league to save on travel.MrGPAC said:
If UCLA WERE forced to back out of the B1G deal here as a result of the regents, they speculate that The B1G would "Just take Stanford to replace them".
I wonder how realistic that would be. Would Stanford even buy into that? What happens to USC if UCLA is forced to back out and the B1G can't find a team to partner with USC? The only teams that "make sense" to group with USC are UCLA, Stanford, and Notre Dame. UCLA would be removed from the equation, Stanford may not want to leave Cal behind / join the "big leagues" of paying for players, and Notre Dame is likely to say no thank you at this point.
They definitely would leave Cal behind. They care so much about Cal they ditched us for Notre Dame and have been talking to the Irish throughout the last few weeks as they consider realignment. They are even considering the possibility of going independent, biding their time until B1G expands again.
At the end of the day, it's all moot. I don't think UCLA will be blocked from B1G membership.
Yes. I disagree. I think you don't know what you're talking about.fat_slice said:
Just want to set people's expectations. Like so many years of Cal football results, we always have high hopes that get burned.
Let me just end all the anxiety for everyone ... We will not have a viable football team after this year. Things are moving at lightening speeding and Cal has No, nada, whatever language you cab say no in, seat at the table in all the realignment talk. People are overestimating the value of the northern California media market where interest in college football (let alone NFL) is subpar. What's more, we don't even have a mediocre history of success and our AD and Chancellor have no clout. Anyone disagree?
Given the above - where do you think we belong? The chickens have finally come to roost and we are getting what our admin deserves ... The end of football and any future success of all other sports on campus.
You think it can't get worse? Of course it will - the best students ...those with both the brain and athletic skills will not choose Cal and longer term this will hit our academic reputation. We are already #2 public uni in the US.
Could get Cal left out in the cold? Sure. I think it's unlikely though, for the many many reasons that I, and others have posted in many many other threads.
If assuming the absolute worst case scenario helps you manage your anxiety, that's cool, but if you invite comment you're going to get it.
Strykur said:Why not? We would get no money in the Mountain West anyway, and we can put anybody on the schedule, nobody is showing up to Strawbetter Canyon to see us play a MWC schedule.BigDaddy said:Cal is not going independent.Strykur said:If Furd ends up independent, so do we, and if they roll all their Olympic sports into another league, that is a bit of a downgrade (Tara Vanderveer will be miffed about playing WCC teams) and our sports would follow suit anyway. It would be an odd arrangement however if Furd is playing Big Ten football and that's it, while the SoCal schools are all Big Ten, so what would be the point of that?BigDaddy said:Stanford would absolutely take a B1G invite. They've already explored rolling their Olympic sports into another Western league to save on travel.MrGPAC said:
If UCLA WERE forced to back out of the B1G deal here as a result of the regents, they speculate that The B1G would "Just take Stanford to replace them".
I wonder how realistic that would be. Would Stanford even buy into that? What happens to USC if UCLA is forced to back out and the B1G can't find a team to partner with USC? The only teams that "make sense" to group with USC are UCLA, Stanford, and Notre Dame. UCLA would be removed from the equation, Stanford may not want to leave Cal behind / join the "big leagues" of paying for players, and Notre Dame is likely to say no thank you at this point.
They definitely would leave Cal behind. They care so much about Cal they ditched us for Notre Dame and have been talking to the Irish throughout the last few weeks as they consider realignment. They are even considering the possibility of going independent, biding their time until B1G expands again.
At the end of the day, it's all moot. I don't think UCLA will be blocked from B1G membership.
Agreed. And to the contrary, if we go independent Cal (and Stanford if not in the B1G) could have a series with Notre Dame. Maybe have a contract with NBC/Peacock? Flexibility to play Big Game when we are ant. I think joining the MWC should be a last resort. With competent leadership our money as an independent would be better than diluted as part of the MWC and it would leave us open to joining the B1G later.
Order of preference:
1. B1G as part of Pacific pod
2. Own the PAC, Alliance with B12 and ACC
3. B12 or ACC West Coast Pod
4. Independent
5. MWC
maxer said:Yes. I disagree. I think you don't know what you're talking about.fat_slice said:
Just want to set people's expectations. Like so many years of Cal football results, we always have high hopes that get burned.
Let me just end all the anxiety for everyone ... We will not have a viable football team after this year. Things are moving at lightening speeding and Cal has No, nada, whatever language you cab say no in, seat at the table in all the realignment talk. People are overestimating the value of the northern California media market where interest in college football (let alone NFL) is subpar. What's more, we don't even have a mediocre history of success and our AD and Chancellor have no clout. Anyone disagree?
Given the above - where do you think we belong? The chickens have finally come to roost and we are getting what our admin deserves ... The end of football and any future success of all other sports on campus.
You think it can't get worse? Of course it will - the best students ...those with both the brain and athletic skills will not choose Cal and longer term this will hit our academic reputation. We are already #2 public uni in the US.
Could get Cal left out in the cold? Sure. I think it's unlikely though, for the many many reasons that I, and others have posted in many many other threads.
If assuming the absolute worst case scenario helps you manage your anxiety, that's cool, but if you invite comment you're going to get it.
The only part I agree with in his rant is we have the wrong AD for our university and for this period in history (in particular)
lolwut? You think Cal is in danger of losing athletic students and that will hurt our reputation? I think you might be overvaluing the impact or intramural sports.fat_slice said:
You think it can't get worse? Of course it will - the best students ...those with both the brain and athletic skills will not choose Cal and longer term this will hit our academic reputation. We are already #2 public uni in the US.
maxer said:Yes. I disagree. I think you don't know what you're talking about.fat_slice said:
Just want to set people's expectations. Like so many years of Cal football results, we always have high hopes that get burned.
Let me just end all the anxiety for everyone ... We will not have a viable football team after this year. Things are moving at lightening speeding and Cal has No, nada, whatever language you cab say no in, seat at the table in all the realignment talk. People are overestimating the value of the northern California media market where interest in college football (let alone NFL) is subpar. What's more, we don't even have a mediocre history of success and our AD and Chancellor have no clout. Anyone disagree?
Given the above - where do you think we belong? The chickens have finally come to roost and we are getting what our admin deserves ... The end of football and any future success of all other sports on campus.
You think it can't get worse? Of course it will - the best students ...those with both the brain and athletic skills will not choose Cal and longer term this will hit our academic reputation. We are already #2 public uni in the US.
Could get Cal left out in the cold? Sure. I think it's unlikely though, for the many many reasons that I, and others have posted in many many other threads.
If assuming the absolute worst case scenario helps you manage your anxiety, that's cool, but if you invite comment you're going to get it.
I feel like I've read every article out there including the comments/perceptions plus everything on this board and what I have seen from cal football over the 30 years I've been following. I have not seen one post, let alone an actual news article that provides a viable/sensible ray of hope.
Can you summarize your thought on the most likely outcome and why? Any deal with Big 12 was just squashed, ACC loose partnership seems not financially viable (per ESPN article), B1G is going to take Oregon, UW, and Stanford if ND comes ... What makes you think we will land even in a semi-OK spot? The media market we are in? If that is what you're banking on my personal feeling is that it is not enough. In fact if that is all that matters than any conference that is doing the poaching will just take Stanford. You don't need Cal ...
I am just calling it as I see it - if you have any basis why it's unlikely we get left out, I'd love to hear it.
calumnus said:Strykur said:Why not? We would get no money in the Mountain West anyway, and we can put anybody on the schedule, nobody is showing up to Strawbetter Canyon to see us play a MWC schedule.BigDaddy said:Cal is not going independent.Strykur said:If Furd ends up independent, so do we, and if they roll all their Olympic sports into another league, that is a bit of a downgrade (Tara Vanderveer will be miffed about playing WCC teams) and our sports would follow suit anyway. It would be an odd arrangement however if Furd is playing Big Ten football and that's it, while the SoCal schools are all Big Ten, so what would be the point of that?BigDaddy said:Stanford would absolutely take a B1G invite. They've already explored rolling their Olympic sports into another Western league to save on travel.MrGPAC said:
If UCLA WERE forced to back out of the B1G deal here as a result of the regents, they speculate that The B1G would "Just take Stanford to replace them".
I wonder how realistic that would be. Would Stanford even buy into that? What happens to USC if UCLA is forced to back out and the B1G can't find a team to partner with USC? The only teams that "make sense" to group with USC are UCLA, Stanford, and Notre Dame. UCLA would be removed from the equation, Stanford may not want to leave Cal behind / join the "big leagues" of paying for players, and Notre Dame is likely to say no thank you at this point.
They definitely would leave Cal behind. They care so much about Cal they ditched us for Notre Dame and have been talking to the Irish throughout the last few weeks as they consider realignment. They are even considering the possibility of going independent, biding their time until B1G expands again.
At the end of the day, it's all moot. I don't think UCLA will be blocked from B1G membership.
Agreed. And to the contrary, if we go independent Cal (and Stanford if not in the B1G) could have a series with Notre Dame. Maybe have a contract with NBC/Peacock? Flexibility to play Big Game when we are ant. I think joining the MWC should be a last resort. With competent leadership our money as an independent would be better than diluted as part of the MWC and it would leave us open to joining the B1G later.
Order of preference:
1. B1G as part of Pacific pod
2. Own the PAC, Alliance with B12 and ACC
3. B12 or ACC West Coast Pod
4. Independent
5. MWC
The problem with going independent is that I doubt any network would be interested in a deal for Cal. It's not even the money, which I don't think we'd get much of. It would be the network being required to put us on their programming. MWC is not great and the money would be bad. But at least there would be a deal to be had
Even if they did make a deal to televise our home games, you can bet your bottom dollar it would be all night games. Or maybe 9am games. And Thursday night games. Maybe Wednesday. Or Tuesday. Friday if you're lucky. The worst time slots? Those would be ours.
On top of that, you've now got to find 12 games per year. It's not easy. Not everyone is Cal. I think we'd end up playing a lot of MWC schools, anyways (although we'd have the freedom to avoid the really awful ones).
GMP said:calumnus said:Strykur said:Why not? We would get no money in the Mountain West anyway, and we can put anybody on the schedule, nobody is showing up to Strawbetter Canyon to see us play a MWC schedule.BigDaddy said:Cal is not going independent.Strykur said:If Furd ends up independent, so do we, and if they roll all their Olympic sports into another league, that is a bit of a downgrade (Tara Vanderveer will be miffed about playing WCC teams) and our sports would follow suit anyway. It would be an odd arrangement however if Furd is playing Big Ten football and that's it, while the SoCal schools are all Big Ten, so what would be the point of that?BigDaddy said:Stanford would absolutely take a B1G invite. They've already explored rolling their Olympic sports into another Western league to save on travel.MrGPAC said:
If UCLA WERE forced to back out of the B1G deal here as a result of the regents, they speculate that The B1G would "Just take Stanford to replace them".
I wonder how realistic that would be. Would Stanford even buy into that? What happens to USC if UCLA is forced to back out and the B1G can't find a team to partner with USC? The only teams that "make sense" to group with USC are UCLA, Stanford, and Notre Dame. UCLA would be removed from the equation, Stanford may not want to leave Cal behind / join the "big leagues" of paying for players, and Notre Dame is likely to say no thank you at this point.
They definitely would leave Cal behind. They care so much about Cal they ditched us for Notre Dame and have been talking to the Irish throughout the last few weeks as they consider realignment. They are even considering the possibility of going independent, biding their time until B1G expands again.
At the end of the day, it's all moot. I don't think UCLA will be blocked from B1G membership.
Agreed. And to the contrary, if we go independent Cal (and Stanford if not in the B1G) could have a series with Notre Dame. Maybe have a contract with NBC/Peacock? Flexibility to play Big Game when we are ant. I think joining the MWC should be a last resort. With competent leadership our money as an independent would be better than diluted as part of the MWC and it would leave us open to joining the B1G later.
Order of preference:
1. B1G as part of Pacific pod
2. Own the PAC, Alliance with B12 and ACC
3. B12 or ACC West Coast Pod
4. Independent
5. MWC
The problem with going independent is that I doubt any network would be interested in a deal for Cal. It's not even the money, which I don't think we'd get much of. It would be the network being required to put us on their programming. MWC is not great and the money would be bad. But at least there would be a deal to be had
Even if they did make a deal to televise our home games, you can bet your bottom dollar it would be all night games. Or maybe 9am games. And Thursday night games. Maybe Wednesday. Or Tuesday. Friday if you're lucky. The worst time slots? Those would be ours.
On top of that, you've now got to find 12 games per year. It's not easy. Not everyone is Cal. I think we'd end up playing a lot of MWC schools, anyways (although we'd have the freedom to avoid the really awful ones).
I'd rather play ND, Stanford, UCLA, USC plus some ACC schools and our choice of MWC schools and see how much we can sell the rights to televise that schedule. In the streaming era, there are some who do not want ESPN and Fox to control everything. We make $20 million now. I'm pretty sure we could get at least that, which is probably more than we would make as one of 20 in the MWC.
calumnus said:GMP said:calumnus said:Strykur said:Why not? We would get no money in the Mountain West anyway, and we can put anybody on the schedule, nobody is showing up to Strawbetter Canyon to see us play a MWC schedule.BigDaddy said:Cal is not going independent.Strykur said:If Furd ends up independent, so do we, and if they roll all their Olympic sports into another league, that is a bit of a downgrade (Tara Vanderveer will be miffed about playing WCC teams) and our sports would follow suit anyway. It would be an odd arrangement however if Furd is playing Big Ten football and that's it, while the SoCal schools are all Big Ten, so what would be the point of that?BigDaddy said:Stanford would absolutely take a B1G invite. They've already explored rolling their Olympic sports into another Western league to save on travel.MrGPAC said:
If UCLA WERE forced to back out of the B1G deal here as a result of the regents, they speculate that The B1G would "Just take Stanford to replace them".
I wonder how realistic that would be. Would Stanford even buy into that? What happens to USC if UCLA is forced to back out and the B1G can't find a team to partner with USC? The only teams that "make sense" to group with USC are UCLA, Stanford, and Notre Dame. UCLA would be removed from the equation, Stanford may not want to leave Cal behind / join the "big leagues" of paying for players, and Notre Dame is likely to say no thank you at this point.
They definitely would leave Cal behind. They care so much about Cal they ditched us for Notre Dame and have been talking to the Irish throughout the last few weeks as they consider realignment. They are even considering the possibility of going independent, biding their time until B1G expands again.
At the end of the day, it's all moot. I don't think UCLA will be blocked from B1G membership.
Agreed. And to the contrary, if we go independent Cal (and Stanford if not in the B1G) could have a series with Notre Dame. Maybe have a contract with NBC/Peacock? Flexibility to play Big Game when we are ant. I think joining the MWC should be a last resort. With competent leadership our money as an independent would be better than diluted as part of the MWC and it would leave us open to joining the B1G later.
Order of preference:
1. B1G as part of Pacific pod
2. Own the PAC, Alliance with B12 and ACC
3. B12 or ACC West Coast Pod
4. Independent
5. MWC
The problem with going independent is that I doubt any network would be interested in a deal for Cal. It's not even the money, which I don't think we'd get much of. It would be the network being required to put us on their programming. MWC is not great and the money would be bad. But at least there would be a deal to be had
Even if they did make a deal to televise our home games, you can bet your bottom dollar it would be all night games. Or maybe 9am games. And Thursday night games. Maybe Wednesday. Or Tuesday. Friday if you're lucky. The worst time slots? Those would be ours.
On top of that, you've now got to find 12 games per year. It's not easy. Not everyone is Cal. I think we'd end up playing a lot of MWC schools, anyways (although we'd have the freedom to avoid the really awful ones).
I'd rather play ND, Stanford, UCLA, USC plus some ACC schools and our choice of MWC schools and see how much we can sell the rights to televise that schedule. In the streaming era, there are some who do not want ESPN and Fox to control everything. We make $20 million now. I'm pretty sure we could get at least that, which is probably more than we would make as one of 20 in the MWC.
How are you going to get those schools every year? How are you going to guarantee to the network that you will get those schools every year? I just don't see it.
I really doubt independence is an option for Cal. We would need to find our way into one of the power conferences. I'm not as pessimistic about this as some in this thread, but that's basically a necessity for sustaining the program.
The Pac-12 is in a precarious position, but imo not due to Oregon, Washington and Stanford landing in the B1G. I think Notre Dame's entry into the B1G has cooled a bit, which jams the rest of it up for other programs waiting in line. ACC Grant of Rights part of that, ESPN is part of it, plus the Irish have always slow played joining a league and will do so only at the last possible moment and only on their terms.fat_slice said:maxer said:Yes. I disagree. I think you don't know what you're talking about.fat_slice said:
Just want to set people's expectations. Like so many years of Cal football results, we always have high hopes that get burned.
Let me just end all the anxiety for everyone ... We will not have a viable football team after this year. Things are moving at lightening speeding and Cal has No, nada, whatever language you cab say no in, seat at the table in all the realignment talk. People are overestimating the value of the northern California media market where interest in college football (let alone NFL) is subpar. What's more, we don't even have a mediocre history of success and our AD and Chancellor have no clout. Anyone disagree?
Given the above - where do you think we belong? The chickens have finally come to roost and we are getting what our admin deserves ... The end of football and any future success of all other sports on campus.
You think it can't get worse? Of course it will - the best students ...those with both the brain and athletic skills will not choose Cal and longer term this will hit our academic reputation. We are already #2 public uni in the US.
Could get Cal left out in the cold? Sure. I think it's unlikely though, for the many many reasons that I, and others have posted in many many other threads.
If assuming the absolute worst case scenario helps you manage your anxiety, that's cool, but if you invite comment you're going to get it.
I feel like I've read every article out there including the comments/perceptions plus everything on this board and what I have seen from cal football over the 30 years I've been following. I have not seen one post, let alone an actual news article that provides a viable/sensible ray of hope.
Can you summarize your thought on the most likely outcome and why? Any deal with Big 12 was just squashed, ACC loose partnership seems not financially viable (per ESPN article), B1G is going to take Oregon, UW, and Stanford if ND comes ... What makes you think we will land even in a semi-OK spot? The media market we are in? If that is what you're banking on my personal feeling is that it is not enough. In fact if that is all that matters than any conference that is doing the poaching will just take Stanford. You don't need Cal ...
I am just calling it as I see it - if you have any basis why it's unlikely we get left out, I'd love to hear it.
The real danger for the Pac-12 in the near term will be the Arizonas, Utah and Colorado breaking away to the Big XII when they decide they've had enough of the league where they are seen as second class citizens.
One big problem for Cal imo is that they've been forced to navigate realignment alone. They are isolated, without any significant partners. USC paired with rival UCLA. Oregon and Washington are working together.
Stanford has thrown their lot in with Notre Dame, the program they see that provides them a passport into the B1G.
As mentioned, the "four corner" schools are also allied. It even appears that Wazzu and Oregon St have partnered, hoping to find themselves a soft landing in the Mountain West if they can't get Big XII membership.
Cal has no partners here, and no real leverage with the any of the networks or the B1G.All in all, it's a pretty bad hand.
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
You're not. USC wasn't able to go independent, to think Cal could do it, or would even want to do it, is crazy.GMP said:calumnus said:GMP said:calumnus said:Strykur said:Why not? We would get no money in the Mountain West anyway, and we can put anybody on the schedule, nobody is showing up to Strawbetter Canyon to see us play a MWC schedule.BigDaddy said:Cal is not going independent.Strykur said:If Furd ends up independent, so do we, and if they roll all their Olympic sports into another league, that is a bit of a downgrade (Tara Vanderveer will be miffed about playing WCC teams) and our sports would follow suit anyway. It would be an odd arrangement however if Furd is playing Big Ten football and that's it, while the SoCal schools are all Big Ten, so what would be the point of that?BigDaddy said:Stanford would absolutely take a B1G invite. They've already explored rolling their Olympic sports into another Western league to save on travel.MrGPAC said:
If UCLA WERE forced to back out of the B1G deal here as a result of the regents, they speculate that The B1G would "Just take Stanford to replace them".
I wonder how realistic that would be. Would Stanford even buy into that? What happens to USC if UCLA is forced to back out and the B1G can't find a team to partner with USC? The only teams that "make sense" to group with USC are UCLA, Stanford, and Notre Dame. UCLA would be removed from the equation, Stanford may not want to leave Cal behind / join the "big leagues" of paying for players, and Notre Dame is likely to say no thank you at this point.
They definitely would leave Cal behind. They care so much about Cal they ditched us for Notre Dame and have been talking to the Irish throughout the last few weeks as they consider realignment. They are even considering the possibility of going independent, biding their time until B1G expands again.
At the end of the day, it's all moot. I don't think UCLA will be blocked from B1G membership.
Agreed. And to the contrary, if we go independent Cal (and Stanford if not in the B1G) could have a series with Notre Dame. Maybe have a contract with NBC/Peacock? Flexibility to play Big Game when we are ant. I think joining the MWC should be a last resort. With competent leadership our money as an independent would be better than diluted as part of the MWC and it would leave us open to joining the B1G later.
Order of preference:
1. B1G as part of Pacific pod
2. Own the PAC, Alliance with B12 and ACC
3. B12 or ACC West Coast Pod
4. Independent
5. MWC
The problem with going independent is that I doubt any network would be interested in a deal for Cal. It's not even the money, which I don't think we'd get much of. It would be the network being required to put us on their programming. MWC is not great and the money would be bad. But at least there would be a deal to be had
Even if they did make a deal to televise our home games, you can bet your bottom dollar it would be all night games. Or maybe 9am games. And Thursday night games. Maybe Wednesday. Or Tuesday. Friday if you're lucky. The worst time slots? Those would be ours.
On top of that, you've now got to find 12 games per year. It's not easy. Not everyone is Cal. I think we'd end up playing a lot of MWC schools, anyways (although we'd have the freedom to avoid the really awful ones).
I'd rather play ND, Stanford, UCLA, USC plus some ACC schools and our choice of MWC schools and see how much we can sell the rights to televise that schedule. In the streaming era, there are some who do not want ESPN and Fox to control everything. We make $20 million now. I'm pretty sure we could get at least that, which is probably more than we would make as one of 20 in the MWC.
How are you going to get those schools every year? How are you going to guarantee to the network that you will get those schools every year? I just don't see it.
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
BigDaddy said:The Pac-12 is in a precarious position, but imo not due to Oregon, Washington and Stanford landing in the B1G. I think Notre Dame's entry into the B1G has cooled a bit, which jams the rest of it up for other programs waiting in line. ACC Grant of Rights part of that, ESPN is part of it, plus the Irish have always slow played joining a league and will do so only at the last possible moment and only on their terms.fat_slice said:maxer said:Yes. I disagree. I think you don't know what you're talking about.fat_slice said:
Just want to set people's expectations. Like so many years of Cal football results, we always have high hopes that get burned.
Let me just end all the anxiety for everyone ... We will not have a viable football team after this year. Things are moving at lightening speeding and Cal has No, nada, whatever language you cab say no in, seat at the table in all the realignment talk. People are overestimating the value of the northern California media market where interest in college football (let alone NFL) is subpar. What's more, we don't even have a mediocre history of success and our AD and Chancellor have no clout. Anyone disagree?
Given the above - where do you think we belong? The chickens have finally come to roost and we are getting what our admin deserves ... The end of football and any future success of all other sports on campus.
You think it can't get worse? Of course it will - the best students ...those with both the brain and athletic skills will not choose Cal and longer term this will hit our academic reputation. We are already #2 public uni in the US.
Could get Cal left out in the cold? Sure. I think it's unlikely though, for the many many reasons that I, and others have posted in many many other threads.
If assuming the absolute worst case scenario helps you manage your anxiety, that's cool, but if you invite comment you're going to get it.
I feel like I've read every article out there including the comments/perceptions plus everything on this board and what I have seen from cal football over the 30 years I've been following. I have not seen one post, let alone an actual news article that provides a viable/sensible ray of hope.
Can you summarize your thought on the most likely outcome and why? Any deal with Big 12 was just squashed, ACC loose partnership seems not financially viable (per ESPN article), B1G is going to take Oregon, UW, and Stanford if ND comes ... What makes you think we will land even in a semi-OK spot? The media market we are in? If that is what you're banking on my personal feeling is that it is not enough. In fact if that is all that matters than any conference that is doing the poaching will just take Stanford. You don't need Cal ...
I am just calling it as I see it - if you have any basis why it's unlikely we get left out, I'd love to hear it.
The real danger for the Pac-12 in the near term will be the Arizonas, Utah and Colorado breaking away to the Big XII when they decide they've had enough of the league where they are seen as second class citizens.
One big problem for Cal imo is that they've been forced to navigate realignment alone. They are isolated, without any significant partners. USC paired with rival UCLA. Oregon and Washington are working together.
Stanford has thrown their lot in with Notre Dame, a school that they've established a relationship with through football, and the program they see providing a passport into the B1G.
As mentioned, the "four corner" schools are also allied. It even appears that Wazzu and Oregon St have partnered, hoping to find themselves a soft landing in the Mountain West if they can't get Big XII membership.
Cal has no partners here, and no real leverage with the any of the networks or the B1G.All in all, it's a pretty bad hand.
Exactly right - further underscoring my effort to get us Cal fans prepared for what we know deep down inside .... We are out of football after this year and no one else but us will care.
I've said this in a lot of threads but I'll try to provide a cliffs notes version here:fat_slice said:maxer said:Yes. I disagree. I think you don't know what you're talking about.fat_slice said:
Just want to set people's expectations. Like so many years of Cal football results, we always have high hopes that get burned.
Let me just end all the anxiety for everyone ... We will not have a viable football team after this year. Things are moving at lightening speeding and Cal has No, nada, whatever language you cab say no in, seat at the table in all the realignment talk. People are overestimating the value of the northern California media market where interest in college football (let alone NFL) is subpar. What's more, we don't even have a mediocre history of success and our AD and Chancellor have no clout. Anyone disagree?
Given the above - where do you think we belong? The chickens have finally come to roost and we are getting what our admin deserves ... The end of football and any future success of all other sports on campus.
You think it can't get worse? Of course it will - the best students ...those with both the brain and athletic skills will not choose Cal and longer term this will hit our academic reputation. We are already #2 public uni in the US.
Could get Cal left out in the cold? Sure. I think it's unlikely though, for the many many reasons that I, and others have posted in many many other threads.
If assuming the absolute worst case scenario helps you manage your anxiety, that's cool, but if you invite comment you're going to get it.
I feel like I've read every article out there including the comments/perceptions plus everything on this board and what I have seen from cal football over the 30 years I've been following. I have not seen one post, let alone an actual news article that provides a viable/sensible ray of hope.
Can you summarize your thought on the most likely outcome and why? Any deal with Big 12 was just squashed, ACC loose partnership seems not financially viable (per ESPN article), B1G is going to take Oregon, UW, and Stanford if ND comes ... What makes you think we will land even in a semi-OK spot? The media market we are in? If that is what you're banking on my personal feeling is that it is not enough. In fact if that is all that matters than any conference that is doing the poaching will just take Stanford. You don't need Cal ...
I am just calling it as I see it - if you have any basis why it's unlikely we get left out, I'd love to hear it.
1. You arbitrarily dismiss the size of the market. This is very important. A stat that I quoted elsewhere is that the rate that cable providers (and OTT distributors) pay for the Big10 Network in LA right now is 10 cents per household, per month.. With the addition of USC and UCLA, that will go up to $1.50 per month. That is big, serious money (if you extrapolate the value for the Bay Area media market, that's about $45m/year right there)
2. California (the Bay Area especially) has the most Big 10 graduates of any area outside of Chicago, I believe. This is also important.
3. Northern California has a lot of very highly rated recruits
4. Conference like to admit academically strong schools
5. The size of the alumni base (the total addressable market) for Cal is big -- much much bigger than Stanford or Oregon, certainly.
6. The Big10 will need to admit more schools west of the Mississippi logistically now that they have the LA schools.
There are more reasons, but I think I've hit the high points.
I agree in parts and disagree in parts.maxer said:I've said this in a lot of threads but I'll try to provide a cliffs notes version here:fat_slice said:maxer said:Yes. I disagree. I think you don't know what you're talking about.fat_slice said:
Just want to set people's expectations. Like so many years of Cal football results, we always have high hopes that get burned.
Let me just end all the anxiety for everyone ... We will not have a viable football team after this year. Things are moving at lightening speeding and Cal has No, nada, whatever language you cab say no in, seat at the table in all the realignment talk. People are overestimating the value of the northern California media market where interest in college football (let alone NFL) is subpar. What's more, we don't even have a mediocre history of success and our AD and Chancellor have no clout. Anyone disagree?
Given the above - where do you think we belong? The chickens have finally come to roost and we are getting what our admin deserves ... The end of football and any future success of all other sports on campus.
You think it can't get worse? Of course it will - the best students ...those with both the brain and athletic skills will not choose Cal and longer term this will hit our academic reputation. We are already #2 public uni in the US.
Could get Cal left out in the cold? Sure. I think it's unlikely though, for the many many reasons that I, and others have posted in many many other threads.
If assuming the absolute worst case scenario helps you manage your anxiety, that's cool, but if you invite comment you're going to get it.
I feel like I've read every article out there including the comments/perceptions plus everything on this board and what I have seen from cal football over the 30 years I've been following. I have not seen one post, let alone an actual news article that provides a viable/sensible ray of hope.
Can you summarize your thought on the most likely outcome and why? Any deal with Big 12 was just squashed, ACC loose partnership seems not financially viable (per ESPN article), B1G is going to take Oregon, UW, and Stanford if ND comes ... What makes you think we will land even in a semi-OK spot? The media market we are in? If that is what you're banking on my personal feeling is that it is not enough. In fact if that is all that matters than any conference that is doing the poaching will just take Stanford. You don't need Cal ...
I am just calling it as I see it - if you have any basis why it's unlikely we get left out, I'd love to hear it.
1. You arbitrarily dismiss the size of the market. This is very important. A stat that I quoted elsewhere is that the rate that cable providers (and OTT distributors) pay for the Big10 Network in LA right now is 10 cents per household, per month.. With the addition of USC and UCLA, that will go up to $1.50 per month. That is big, serious money (if you extrapolate the value for the Bay Area media market, that's about $45m/year right there)
2. California (the Bay Area especially) has the most Big 10 graduates of any area outside of Chicago, I believe. This is also important.
3. Northern California has a lot of very highly rated recruits
4. Conference like to admit academically strong schools
5. The size of the alumni base (the total addressable market) for Cal is big -- much much bigger than Stanford or Oregon, certainly.
6. The Big10 will need to admit more schools west of the Mississippi logistically now that they have the LA schools.
There are more reasons, but I think I've hit the high points.
1. The BiG gets teh Bay Area carriage fees if they can snag Stanford. (Don't need Cal.)
2. See above.
3-5. Concur.
6. Maybe. If the BiG can get ND, Stanford, U-Dub and Oregon, they'd have 5 schools in the Pacific region, and might be finished growing, at least until the ACC blows up, at which time they'd be looking at two of Carolina, Virginia and perhaps Duke. Nevertheless, don't need Cal.
maxer said:I've said this in a lot of threads but I'll try to provide a cliffs notes version here:fat_slice said:maxer said:Yes. I disagree. I think you don't know what you're talking about.fat_slice said:
Just want to set people's expectations. Like so many years of Cal football results, we always have high hopes that get burned.
Let me just end all the anxiety for everyone ... We will not have a viable football team after this year. Things are moving at lightening speeding and Cal has No, nada, whatever language you cab say no in, seat at the table in all the realignment talk. People are overestimating the value of the northern California media market where interest in college football (let alone NFL) is subpar. What's more, we don't even have a mediocre history of success and our AD and Chancellor have no clout. Anyone disagree?
Given the above - where do you think we belong? The chickens have finally come to roost and we are getting what our admin deserves ... The end of football and any future success of all other sports on campus.
You think it can't get worse? Of course it will - the best students ...those with both the brain and athletic skills will not choose Cal and longer term this will hit our academic reputation. We are already #2 public uni in the US.
Could get Cal left out in the cold? Sure. I think it's unlikely though, for the many many reasons that I, and others have posted in many many other threads.
If assuming the absolute worst case scenario helps you manage your anxiety, that's cool, but if you invite comment you're going to get it.
I feel like I've read every article out there including the comments/perceptions plus everything on this board and what I have seen from cal football over the 30 years I've been following. I have not seen one post, let alone an actual news article that provides a viable/sensible ray of hope.
Can you summarize your thought on the most likely outcome and why? Any deal with Big 12 was just squashed, ACC loose partnership seems not financially viable (per ESPN article), B1G is going to take Oregon, UW, and Stanford if ND comes ... What makes you think we will land even in a semi-OK spot? The media market we are in? If that is what you're banking on my personal feeling is that it is not enough. In fact if that is all that matters than any conference that is doing the poaching will just take Stanford. You don't need Cal ...
I am just calling it as I see it - if you have any basis why it's unlikely we get left out, I'd love to hear it.
1. You arbitrarily dismiss the size of the market. This is very important. A stat that I quoted elsewhere is that the rate that cable providers (and OTT distributors) pay for the Big10 Network in LA right now is 10 cents per household, per month.. With the addition of USC and UCLA, that will go up to $1.50 per month. That is big, serious money (if you extrapolate the value for the Bay Area media market, that's about $45m/year right there)
2. California (the Bay Area especially) has the most Big 10 graduates of any area outside of Chicago, I believe. This is also important.
3. Northern California has a lot of very highly rated recruits
4. Conference like to admit academically strong schools
5. The size of the alumni base (the total addressable market) for Cal is big -- much much bigger than Stanford or Oregon, certainly.
6. The Big10 will need to admit more schools west of the Mississippi logistically now that they have the LA schools.
There are more reasons, but I think I've hit the high points.
Excellent summary thank you ... And while I agreed with most of this in the early shocking days, the latest developments have me highly downgrading points 1, 3, and 6 substantially.
Points #3 and #6 don't require Cal to be involved. Simply adding Stanford will give access to NorCal recruits and wouldn't UCLA/USC have enough teams in the west to play if the more likely teams Oregon, Washington, and Stanford are taken? Especially if Stanford comes along with ND then we'd just be the odd numbered team. So do they really need another bay area team for USC/UCLA to play and access recruits here?
We all know point #1 is all about money and the most important ... You bring in the numbers which is great but again, does Cal really add that much if say the B1G were to just take Stanford? That is really the checkmate on Cal football...if they go to the big league without us (and as someone above mentioned - they have a partner in ND whereas we have none) then they will get all the eyes of the bay area. The bay area will be their team!! A lot of interest will just vanish from Cal on a lesser league including many of our fans.
The math doesn't add up for Cal. B1G realignment is happening in pairs. USC & UCLA grow the league to 16. If they manage to land Notre Dame, they will need an additional team and if they chose to go with a West Coast team, that is Stanford, who is currently working with ND.fat_slice said:
We all know point #1 is all about money and the most important ... You bring in the numbers which is great but again, does Cal really add that much if say the B1G were to just take Stanford? That is really the checkmate on Cal football...if they go to the big league without us (and as someone above mentioned - they have a partner in ND whereas we have none) then they will get all the eyes of the bay area. The bay area will be their team!! A lot of interest will just vanish from Cal on a lesser league including many of our fans.
If they chose to add more West Coast teams, again it would be likely they would do it in pairs. That would mean Oregon and Washington, who again are partnered and working together. And remember, there are other teams in the mix for B1G expansion, including UNC, UVA, Ga Tech, Duke maybe even Kansas and Missouri.
In almost any scenario, Cal is the odd team out. The arithmetic does work in their favor.
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
BigDaddy said:The math doesn't add up for Cal. B1G realignment is happening in pairs. USC & UCLA grow the league to 16. If they manage to land Notre Dame, they will need an additional team and if they chose to go with a West Coast team, that is Stanford, who is currently working with ND.fat_slice said:
We all know point #1 is all about money and the most important ... You bring in the numbers which is great but again, does Cal really add that much if say the B1G were to just take Stanford? That is really the checkmate on Cal football...if they go to the big league without us (and as someone above mentioned - they have a partner in ND whereas we have none) then they will get all the eyes of the bay area. The bay area will be their team!! A lot of interest will just vanish from Cal on a lesser league including many of our fans.
If they chose to add more West Coast teams, again it would be likely they would do it in pairs. That would mean Oregon and Washington, who again are partnered and working together. And remember, there are other teams in the mix for B1G expansion, including UNC, UVA, Ga Tech, Duke maybe even Kansas and Missouri.
In almost any scenario, Cal is the odd team out. The arithmetic does work in their favor.
In all of your scenarios, you are assuming that
1) ND wants to go to the big 10; and
2) They'd pair with the Furd.
It takes two major assumptions to state that almost any scenario excludes Cal.
BigDaddy said:The math doesn't add up for Cal. B1G realignment is happening in pairs. USC & UCLA grow the league to 16. If they manage to land Notre Dame, they will need an additional team and if they chose to go with a West Coast team, that is Stanford, who is currently working with ND.fat_slice said:
We all know point #1 is all about money and the most important ... You bring in the numbers which is great but again, does Cal really add that much if say the B1G were to just take Stanford? That is really the checkmate on Cal football...if they go to the big league without us (and as someone above mentioned - they have a partner in ND whereas we have none) then they will get all the eyes of the bay area. The bay area will be their team!! A lot of interest will just vanish from Cal on a lesser league including many of our fans.
If they chose to add more West Coast teams, again it would be likely they would do it in pairs. That would mean Oregon and Washington, who again are partnered and working together. And remember, there are other teams in the mix for B1G expansion, including UNC, UVA, Ga Tech, Duke maybe even Kansas and Missouri.
In almost any scenario, Cal is the odd team out. The arithmetic does work in their favor.
BigDaddy, has there been some recent news about Stanford working with Notre Dame? Or what are you basing this on? (I'm not refuting your statement, just asking, I don't know. I had heard that the two had "communicated", but I'm assuming everybody is communicating with everybody else lately, exploring options.)
BigDaddy said:The math doesn't add up for Cal. B1G realignment is happening in pairs. USC & UCLA grow the league to 16. If they manage to land Notre Dame, they will need an additional team and if they chose to go with a West Coast team, that is Stanford, who is currently working with ND.fat_slice said:
We all know point #1 is all about money and the most important ... You bring in the numbers which is great but again, does Cal really add that much if say the B1G were to just take Stanford? That is really the checkmate on Cal football...if they go to the big league without us (and as someone above mentioned - they have a partner in ND whereas we have none) then they will get all the eyes of the bay area. The bay area will be their team!! A lot of interest will just vanish from Cal on a lesser league including many of our fans.
If they chose to add more West Coast teams, again it would be likely they would do it in pairs. That would mean Oregon and Washington, who again are partnered and working together. And remember, there are other teams in the mix for B1G expansion, including UNC, UVA, Ga Tech, Duke maybe even Kansas and Missouri.
In almost any scenario, Cal is the odd team out. The arithmetic does work in their favor.
That is my read as well. And then you factor in Carol Christ and Jim Knowlton just sitting on their hands, you now know why I am saying we all should just realize that this is for all intent and purpose, the last year of competitive Cal football. Super sad.
BigDaddy said:The math doesn't add up for Cal. B1G realignment is happening in pairs. USC & UCLA grow the league to 16. If they manage to land Notre Dame, they will need an additional team and if they chose to go with a West Coast team, that is Stanford, who is currently working with ND.fat_slice said:
We all know point #1 is all about money and the most important ... You bring in the numbers which is great but again, does Cal really add that much if say the B1G were to just take Stanford? That is really the checkmate on Cal football...if they go to the big league without us (and as someone above mentioned - they have a partner in ND whereas we have none) then they will get all the eyes of the bay area. The bay area will be their team!! A lot of interest will just vanish from Cal on a lesser league including many of our fans.
If they chose to add more West Coast teams, again it would be likely they would do it in pairs. That would mean Oregon and Washington, who again are partnered and working together. And remember, there are other teams in the mix for B1G expansion, including UNC, UVA, Ga Tech, Duke maybe even Kansas and Missouri.
In almost any scenario, Cal is the odd team out. The arithmetic does work in their favor.
Even accepting your premises, what you conclude is false. There's a very likely scenario that Notre Dame doesn't want to or can't join the Big Ten. In that scenario, Cal is a natural partner for Stanford.
Rejecting some of your premises, it really falls apart. For example you state as fact that Stanford is working with Notre Dame. Says who? Moreover, there are a lot of reasons Cal is more attractive (and less attractive) to the Big Ten than Stanford. You do not know Stanford is the first choice west coast school.
Big C said:BigDaddy said:The math doesn't add up for Cal. B1G realignment is happening in pairs. USC & UCLA grow the league to 16. If they manage to land Notre Dame, they will need an additional team and if they chose to go with a West Coast team, that is Stanford, who is currently working with ND.fat_slice said:
We all know point #1 is all about money and the most important ... You bring in the numbers which is great but again, does Cal really add that much if say the B1G were to just take Stanford? That is really the checkmate on Cal football...if they go to the big league without us (and as someone above mentioned - they have a partner in ND whereas we have none) then they will get all the eyes of the bay area. The bay area will be their team!! A lot of interest will just vanish from Cal on a lesser league including many of our fans.
If they chose to add more West Coast teams, again it would be likely they would do it in pairs. That would mean Oregon and Washington, who again are partnered and working together. And remember, there are other teams in the mix for B1G expansion, including UNC, UVA, Ga Tech, Duke maybe even Kansas and Missouri.
In almost any scenario, Cal is the odd team out. The arithmetic does work in their favor.
BigDaddy, has there been some recent news about Stanford working with Notre Dame? Or what are you basing this on. (I'm not refuting your statement, just asking, I don't know. I had heard that the two had "communicated", but I'm assuming everybody is communicating with everybody else lately, exploring options.)
Wishful thinking? Isn't he a Stanford fan? Trolling us?
The pairing isn't really needed for football. Notre Dame already has traditional rivals USC and the Michigan schools in the B1G.
3 or 5 west Coast schools might work for football, but how does that work for basketball and every other sport? All the Midwest teams fly to the Bay Area for a single game? Stanford and Notre Dame both only have one home game in the weeks they have home games?
Unless the B1G decides the West Cost schools are in only for football (which would actually be smart), then the pairs need to be geographic pairs. If they take Stanford they need to take Cal.
Agree, that ND is iffy. If they can con NBC into millions, they might choose to remain independent. But disagree that Cal is the natural partner to add with Stanford. U-Dub brings in even more geography (and is AAU), and they'd leave Oregon out in a heartbeat. (and vice versa)GMP said:BigDaddy said:The math doesn't add up for Cal. B1G realignment is happening in pairs. USC & UCLA grow the league to 16. If they manage to land Notre Dame, they will need an additional team and if they chose to go with a West Coast team, that is Stanford, who is currently working with ND.fat_slice said:
We all know point #1 is all about money and the most important ... You bring in the numbers which is great but again, does Cal really add that much if say the B1G were to just take Stanford? That is really the checkmate on Cal football...if they go to the big league without us (and as someone above mentioned - they have a partner in ND whereas we have none) then they will get all the eyes of the bay area. The bay area will be their team!! A lot of interest will just vanish from Cal on a lesser league including many of our fans.
If they chose to add more West Coast teams, again it would be likely they would do it in pairs. That would mean Oregon and Washington, who again are partnered and working together. And remember, there are other teams in the mix for B1G expansion, including UNC, UVA, Ga Tech, Duke maybe even Kansas and Missouri.
In almost any scenario, Cal is the odd team out. The arithmetic does work in their favor.
Even accepting your premises, what you conclude is false. There's a very likely scenario that Notre Dame doesn't want to or can't join the Big Ten. In that scenario, Cal is a natural partner for Stanford.
Rejecting some of your premises, it really falls apart. For example you state as fact that Stanford is working with Notre Dame. Says who? Moreover, there are a lot of reasons Cal is more attractive (and less attractive) to the Big Ten than Stanford. You do not know Stanford is the first choice west coast school.
Big Dog said:Agree, that ND is iffy. If they can con NBC into millions, they might choose to remain independent. But disagree that Cal is the natural partner to add with Stanford. U-Dub brings in even more geography, and they'd leave Oregon out in a heartbeat. (and vice versa)GMP said:BigDaddy said:The math doesn't add up for Cal. B1G realignment is happening in pairs. USC & UCLA grow the league to 16. If they manage to land Notre Dame, they will need an additional team and if they chose to go with a West Coast team, that is Stanford, who is currently working with ND.fat_slice said:
We all know point #1 is all about money and the most important ... You bring in the numbers which is great but again, does Cal really add that much if say the B1G were to just take Stanford? That is really the checkmate on Cal football...if they go to the big league without us (and as someone above mentioned - they have a partner in ND whereas we have none) then they will get all the eyes of the bay area. The bay area will be their team!! A lot of interest will just vanish from Cal on a lesser league including many of our fans.
If they chose to add more West Coast teams, again it would be likely they would do it in pairs. That would mean Oregon and Washington, who again are partnered and working together. And remember, there are other teams in the mix for B1G expansion, including UNC, UVA, Ga Tech, Duke maybe even Kansas and Missouri.
In almost any scenario, Cal is the odd team out. The arithmetic does work in their favor.
Even accepting your premises, what you conclude is false. There's a very likely scenario that Notre Dame doesn't want to or can't join the Big Ten. In that scenario, Cal is a natural partner for Stanford.
Rejecting some of your premises, it really falls apart. For example you state as fact that Stanford is working with Notre Dame. Says who? Moreover, there are a lot of reasons Cal is more attractive (and less attractive) to the Big Ten than Stanford. You do not know Stanford is the first choice west coast school.
Really, now you are arguing UW and Stanford are natural rivals/partners?
GMP said:BigDaddy said:The math doesn't add up for Cal. B1G realignment is happening in pairs. USC & UCLA grow the league to 16. If they manage to land Notre Dame, they will need an additional team and if they chose to go with a West Coast team, that is Stanford, who is currently working with ND.fat_slice said:
We all know point #1 is all about money and the most important ... You bring in the numbers which is great but again, does Cal really add that much if say the B1G were to just take Stanford? That is really the checkmate on Cal football...if they go to the big league without us (and as someone above mentioned - they have a partner in ND whereas we have none) then they will get all the eyes of the bay area. The bay area will be their team!! A lot of interest will just vanish from Cal on a lesser league including many of our fans.
If they chose to add more West Coast teams, again it would be likely they would do it in pairs. That would mean Oregon and Washington, who again are partnered and working together. And remember, there are other teams in the mix for B1G expansion, including UNC, UVA, Ga Tech, Duke maybe even Kansas and Missouri.
In almost any scenario, Cal is the odd team out. The arithmetic does work in their favor.
For example you state as fact that Stanford is working with Notre Dame. .
This is basically the guys MO. He states a lot of stuff as definitive fact and makes faulty arguments based on that. I've stopped reading his posts for awhile now.
Just the opposite: it's all about viewers, not natural partners/rivals. In the case of SoCal, Fox Sports made sure ESPN was locked out of the second largest TV market --and Fox' home base -- by getting UCLA to come along with USC (my opinion, of course).calumnus said:Big Dog said:Agree, that ND is iffy. If they can con NBC into millions, they might choose to remain independent. But disagree that Cal is the natural partner to add with Stanford. U-Dub brings in even more geography, and they'd leave Oregon out in a heartbeat. (and vice versa)GMP said:BigDaddy said:The math doesn't add up for Cal. B1G realignment is happening in pairs. USC & UCLA grow the league to 16. If they manage to land Notre Dame, they will need an additional team and if they chose to go with a West Coast team, that is Stanford, who is currently working with ND.fat_slice said:
We all know point #1 is all about money and the most important ... You bring in the numbers which is great but again, does Cal really add that much if say the B1G were to just take Stanford? That is really the checkmate on Cal football...if they go to the big league without us (and as someone above mentioned - they have a partner in ND whereas we have none) then they will get all the eyes of the bay area. The bay area will be their team!! A lot of interest will just vanish from Cal on a lesser league including many of our fans.
If they chose to add more West Coast teams, again it would be likely they would do it in pairs. That would mean Oregon and Washington, who again are partnered and working together. And remember, there are other teams in the mix for B1G expansion, including UNC, UVA, Ga Tech, Duke maybe even Kansas and Missouri.
In almost any scenario, Cal is the odd team out. The arithmetic does work in their favor.
Even accepting your premises, what you conclude is false. There's a very likely scenario that Notre Dame doesn't want to or can't join the Big Ten. In that scenario, Cal is a natural partner for Stanford.
Rejecting some of your premises, it really falls apart. For example you state as fact that Stanford is working with Notre Dame. Says who? Moreover, there are a lot of reasons Cal is more attractive (and less attractive) to the Big Ten than Stanford. You do not know Stanford is the first choice west coast school.
Really, now you are arguing UW and Stanford are natural rivals/partners?
Regardless, all will stand pat until ND makes a decision.
btw: Before the SoCal schools, the BiG added Maryland, Rutgers and Nebraska, none of which were rival/partners.
Big Dog said:Just the opposite: it's all about viewers, not natural partners/rivals. In the case of SoCal, Fox Sports made sure ESPN was locked out of the second largest TV market --and Fox' home base -- by getting UCLA to come along with USC (my opinion, of course).calumnus said:Big Dog said:Agree, that ND is iffy. If they can con NBC into millions, they might choose to remain independent. But disagree that Cal is the natural partner to add with Stanford. U-Dub brings in even more geography, and they'd leave Oregon out in a heartbeat. (and vice versa)GMP said:BigDaddy said:The math doesn't add up for Cal. B1G realignment is happening in pairs. USC & UCLA grow the league to 16. If they manage to land Notre Dame, they will need an additional team and if they chose to go with a West Coast team, that is Stanford, who is currently working with ND.fat_slice said:
We all know point #1 is all about money and the most important ... You bring in the numbers which is great but again, does Cal really add that much if say the B1G were to just take Stanford? That is really the checkmate on Cal football...if they go to the big league without us (and as someone above mentioned - they have a partner in ND whereas we have none) then they will get all the eyes of the bay area. The bay area will be their team!! A lot of interest will just vanish from Cal on a lesser league including many of our fans.
If they chose to add more West Coast teams, again it would be likely they would do it in pairs. That would mean Oregon and Washington, who again are partnered and working together. And remember, there are other teams in the mix for B1G expansion, including UNC, UVA, Ga Tech, Duke maybe even Kansas and Missouri.
In almost any scenario, Cal is the odd team out. The arithmetic does work in their favor.
Even accepting your premises, what you conclude is false. There's a very likely scenario that Notre Dame doesn't want to or can't join the Big Ten. In that scenario, Cal is a natural partner for Stanford.
Rejecting some of your premises, it really falls apart. For example you state as fact that Stanford is working with Notre Dame. Says who? Moreover, there are a lot of reasons Cal is more attractive (and less attractive) to the Big Ten than Stanford. You do not know Stanford is the first choice west coast school.
Really, now you are arguing UW and Stanford are natural rivals/partners?
btw: Before the SoCal schools, the BiG added Maryland, Rutgers and Nebraska, none of which were rival/partners.
Does Stanfurd have more than a dozen viewers?
If Notre Dame does not join the B1G in the near future, then Stanford does not get into that conference which will hold at 16 teams, including USC and UCLA. Stanford's knows that their B1G passport is with ND.GMP said:BigDaddy said:The math doesn't add up for Cal. B1G realignment is happening in pairs. USC & UCLA grow the league to 16. If they manage to land Notre Dame, they will need an additional team and if they chose to go with a West Coast team, that is Stanford, who is currently working with ND.fat_slice said:
We all know point #1 is all about money and the most important ... You bring in the numbers which is great but again, does Cal really add that much if say the B1G were to just take Stanford? That is really the checkmate on Cal football...if they go to the big league without us (and as someone above mentioned - they have a partner in ND whereas we have none) then they will get all the eyes of the bay area. The bay area will be their team!! A lot of interest will just vanish from Cal on a lesser league including many of our fans.
If they chose to add more West Coast teams, again it would be likely they would do it in pairs. That would mean Oregon and Washington, who again are partnered and working together. And remember, there are other teams in the mix for B1G expansion, including UNC, UVA, Ga Tech, Duke maybe even Kansas and Missouri.
In almost any scenario, Cal is the odd team out. The arithmetic does work in their favor.
Even accepting your premises, what you conclude is false. There's a very likely scenario that Notre Dame doesn't want to or can't join the Big Ten. In that scenario, Cal is a natural partner for Stanford.
Rejecting some of your premises, it really falls apart. For example you state as fact that Stanford is working with Notre Dame. Says who? Moreover, there are a lot of reasons Cal is more attractive (and less attractive) to the Big Ten than Stanford. You do not know Stanford is the first choice west coast school.
The B1G will wait on the Irish. They're the biggest prize out there.
The B1G is not scrambling to add additional teams just because Notre Dame hits the pause button. There is no rush. FOX and the B1G are in control here.
When ND eventually does accept a B1G invite, Stanford could still be left out in the cold depending on what happens with the ACC and their Grant of Rights. Could very well lose their spot to UNC or another ACC school.
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
Big Dog said:Just the opposite: it's all about viewers, not natural partners/rivals. In the case of SoCal, Fox Sports made sure ESPN was locked out of the second largest TV market --and Fox' home base -- by getting UCLA to come along with USC (my opinion, of course).calumnus said:Big Dog said:Agree, that ND is iffy. If they can con NBC into millions, they might choose to remain independent. But disagree that Cal is the natural partner to add with Stanford. U-Dub brings in even more geography, and they'd leave Oregon out in a heartbeat. (and vice versa)GMP said:BigDaddy said:The math doesn't add up for Cal. B1G realignment is happening in pairs. USC & UCLA grow the league to 16. If they manage to land Notre Dame, they will need an additional team and if they chose to go with a West Coast team, that is Stanford, who is currently working with ND.fat_slice said:
We all know point #1 is all about money and the most important ... You bring in the numbers which is great but again, does Cal really add that much if say the B1G were to just take Stanford? That is really the checkmate on Cal football...if they go to the big league without us (and as someone above mentioned - they have a partner in ND whereas we have none) then they will get all the eyes of the bay area. The bay area will be their team!! A lot of interest will just vanish from Cal on a lesser league including many of our fans.
If they chose to add more West Coast teams, again it would be likely they would do it in pairs. That would mean Oregon and Washington, who again are partnered and working together. And remember, there are other teams in the mix for B1G expansion, including UNC, UVA, Ga Tech, Duke maybe even Kansas and Missouri.
In almost any scenario, Cal is the odd team out. The arithmetic does work in their favor.
Even accepting your premises, what you conclude is false. There's a very likely scenario that Notre Dame doesn't want to or can't join the Big Ten. In that scenario, Cal is a natural partner for Stanford.
Rejecting some of your premises, it really falls apart. For example you state as fact that Stanford is working with Notre Dame. Says who? Moreover, there are a lot of reasons Cal is more attractive (and less attractive) to the Big Ten than Stanford. You do not know Stanford is the first choice west coast school.
Really, now you are arguing UW and Stanford are natural rivals/partners?
Regardless, all will stand pat until ND makes a decision.
btw: Before the SoCal schools, the BiG added Maryland, Rutgers and Nebraska, none of which were rival/partners.
Nebraska was already a long time rival of Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota and brought the conference to 12. Maryland and Rutgers came in as a pair, we're rivals and consider Penn State a rival.
BigDaddy said:If Notre Dame does not join the B1G in the near future, then Stanford does not get into that conference which will hold at 16 teams, including USC and UCLA. Stanford's knows that their B1G passport is with ND.GMP said:BigDaddy said:The math doesn't add up for Cal. B1G realignment is happening in pairs. USC & UCLA grow the league to 16. If they manage to land Notre Dame, they will need an additional team and if they chose to go with a West Coast team, that is Stanford, who is currently working with ND.fat_slice said:
We all know point #1 is all about money and the most important ... You bring in the numbers which is great but again, does Cal really add that much if say the B1G were to just take Stanford? That is really the checkmate on Cal football...if they go to the big league without us (and as someone above mentioned - they have a partner in ND whereas we have none) then they will get all the eyes of the bay area. The bay area will be their team!! A lot of interest will just vanish from Cal on a lesser league including many of our fans.
If they chose to add more West Coast teams, again it would be likely they would do it in pairs. That would mean Oregon and Washington, who again are partnered and working together. And remember, there are other teams in the mix for B1G expansion, including UNC, UVA, Ga Tech, Duke maybe even Kansas and Missouri.
In almost any scenario, Cal is the odd team out. The arithmetic does work in their favor.
Even accepting your premises, what you conclude is false. There's a very likely scenario that Notre Dame doesn't want to or can't join the Big Ten. In that scenario, Cal is a natural partner for Stanford.
Rejecting some of your premises, it really falls apart. For example you state as fact that Stanford is working with Notre Dame. Says who? Moreover, there are a lot of reasons Cal is more attractive (and less attractive) to the Big Ten than Stanford. You do not know Stanford is the first choice west coast school.
The B1G will wait on the Irish. They're the biggest prize out there.
The B1G is not scrambling to add additional teams just because Notre Dame hits the pause button. There is no rush. FOX and the B1G are in control here.
When ND eventually does accept a B1G invite, Stanford could still be left out in the cold depending on what happens with the ACC and their Grant of Rights. Could very well lose their spot to UNC or another ACC school.
ND is under contract to join the ACC if they join a conference for football. The fines to join the B1G would be *huge* as ESPN would fight tooth and nail to keep that ND team as long as the ACC exists and is under contract with ESPN. The B1G would have to not only offer more money than ND can get from NBC, they'd have to cover the fees to not join the ACC.
Therefore, the only way ND is joining the B1G any time soon is if the ACC falls apart / their ESPN contract is voided. Under that scenario SEC and B1G are picking through the wreckage of the ACC and the question becomes do the two mega-conferences becomes 20 team conferences, or 24 team conferences, or even higher.
At 20 team conferences it comes down to Cal vs Stanford, as they would likely split it up into 4 5 team pods with USC/UCLA/Washington/Oregon/1 bay are team being the "West Coast" pod. At 24 its likely both (4 6 team pods would want 6 west coast teams, and no matter how bad Cal is off now, they are in a better situation than WSU/OSU). More than 24 would only increase the likelihood Cal gets taken.
At this point it 100% comes down to the ACC's contract with ESPN. The moment any of those schools find a way out the whole house of cards is going to collapse. Until then I would suspect that things limp along more or less as is.
calumnus said:Big Dog said:Just the opposite: it's all about viewers, not natural partners/rivals. In the case of SoCal, Fox Sports made sure ESPN was locked out of the second largest TV market --and Fox' home base -- by getting UCLA to come along with USC (my opinion, of course).calumnus said:Big Dog said:Agree, that ND is iffy. If they can con NBC into millions, they might choose to remain independent. But disagree that Cal is the natural partner to add with Stanford. U-Dub brings in even more geography, and they'd leave Oregon out in a heartbeat. (and vice versa)GMP said:BigDaddy said:The math doesn't add up for Cal. B1G realignment is happening in pairs. USC & UCLA grow the league to 16. If they manage to land Notre Dame, they will need an additional team and if they chose to go with a West Coast team, that is Stanford, who is currently working with ND.fat_slice said:
We all know point #1 is all about money and the most important ... You bring in the numbers which is great but again, does Cal really add that much if say the B1G were to just take Stanford? That is really the checkmate on Cal football...if they go to the big league without us (and as someone above mentioned - they have a partner in ND whereas we have none) then they will get all the eyes of the bay area. The bay area will be their team!! A lot of interest will just vanish from Cal on a lesser league including many of our fans.
If they chose to add more West Coast teams, again it would be likely they would do it in pairs. That would mean Oregon and Washington, who again are partnered and working together. And remember, there are other teams in the mix for B1G expansion, including UNC, UVA, Ga Tech, Duke maybe even Kansas and Missouri.
In almost any scenario, Cal is the odd team out. The arithmetic does work in their favor.
Even accepting your premises, what you conclude is false. There's a very likely scenario that Notre Dame doesn't want to or can't join the Big Ten. In that scenario, Cal is a natural partner for Stanford.
Rejecting some of your premises, it really falls apart. For example you state as fact that Stanford is working with Notre Dame. Says who? Moreover, there are a lot of reasons Cal is more attractive (and less attractive) to the Big Ten than Stanford. You do not know Stanford is the first choice west coast school.
Really, now you are arguing UW and Stanford are natural rivals/partners?
Regardless, all will stand pat until ND makes a decision.
btw: Before the SoCal schools, the BiG added Maryland, Rutgers and Nebraska, none of which were rival/partners.
Nebraska was already a long time rival of Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota and brought the conference to 12. Maryland and Rutgers came in as a pair, we're rivals and consider Penn State a rival.
Say what? Maryland was a founding member of the basketball focused-ACC. They played Rutgers in football ~10 times over 90 years, and only 2x (home-and-home) in the 50 years, prior to joining the BiG. If that a rival makes....
https://umterps.com/sports/football/opponent-history/rutgers-university/170
If only there was some recent precedent for the Big 10 caring about both school in a market, and not just one...
Big Dog said:calumnus said:Big Dog said:Just the opposite: it's all about viewers, not natural partners/rivals. In the case of SoCal, Fox Sports made sure ESPN was locked out of the second largest TV market --and Fox' home base -- by getting UCLA to come along with USC (my opinion, of course).calumnus said:Big Dog said:Agree, that ND is iffy. If they can con NBC into millions, they might choose to remain independent. But disagree that Cal is the natural partner to add with Stanford. U-Dub brings in even more geography, and they'd leave Oregon out in a heartbeat. (and vice versa)GMP said:BigDaddy said:The math doesn't add up for Cal. B1G realignment is happening in pairs. USC & UCLA grow the league to 16. If they manage to land Notre Dame, they will need an additional team and if they chose to go with a West Coast team, that is Stanford, who is currently working with ND.fat_slice said:
We all know point #1 is all about money and the most important ... You bring in the numbers which is great but again, does Cal really add that much if say the B1G were to just take Stanford? That is really the checkmate on Cal football...if they go to the big league without us (and as someone above mentioned - they have a partner in ND whereas we have none) then they will get all the eyes of the bay area. The bay area will be their team!! A lot of interest will just vanish from Cal on a lesser league including many of our fans.
If they chose to add more West Coast teams, again it would be likely they would do it in pairs. That would mean Oregon and Washington, who again are partnered and working together. And remember, there are other teams in the mix for B1G expansion, including UNC, UVA, Ga Tech, Duke maybe even Kansas and Missouri.
In almost any scenario, Cal is the odd team out. The arithmetic does work in their favor.
Even accepting your premises, what you conclude is false. There's a very likely scenario that Notre Dame doesn't want to or can't join the Big Ten. In that scenario, Cal is a natural partner for Stanford.
Rejecting some of your premises, it really falls apart. For example you state as fact that Stanford is working with Notre Dame. Says who? Moreover, there are a lot of reasons Cal is more attractive (and less attractive) to the Big Ten than Stanford. You do not know Stanford is the first choice west coast school.
Really, now you are arguing UW and Stanford are natural rivals/partners?
Regardless, all will stand pat until ND makes a decision.
btw: Before the SoCal schools, the BiG added Maryland, Rutgers and Nebraska, none of which were rival/partners.
Nebraska was already a long time rival of Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota and brought the conference to 12. Maryland and Rutgers came in as a pair, we're rivals and consider Penn State a rival.
Say what? Maryland was a founding member of the basketball focused-ACC. They played Rutgers in football ~10 times over 90 years, and only 2x (home-and-home) in the 50 years, prior to joining the BiG. If that a rival makes....
https://umterps.com/sports/football/opponent-history/rutgers-university/170
Rutgers also considers Princeton to be a rival even though though Princeton is in the Ivy League.
The B1G brought in Rutgers and Maryland at the same time, as a pair.
Just like Utah and Colorado were not rivals either, but they came into the PAC-12 as a geographic pair.
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