Bigger viewership back east?

movielover said:

---

Bigger viewership back east?

---

When it comes to ratings it is the Big10, SEC, and everyone else.

So it's not just about more viewers back east as the ACC isn't drawing many more viewers than the Pac12.

Maybe it is just cultural. Do people in the Midwest and South still sit glued to the TV and drink beer all weekend?

2021 College Football TV Ratings

dimitrig said:

---

Maybe it is just cultural. Do people in the Midwest and South still sit glued to the TV and drink beer all weekend?

---

Having lived in those areas, yeah it is cultural. And not exactly in the way that you'd think. The big thing in those areas is that state school loyalty extends beyond your alumni group. It's kind of an alien concept to people on the West or East coast. But that is what drives much higher viewer numbers in those areas.

Cal84 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Maybe it is just cultural. Do people in the Midwest and South still sit glued to the TV and drink beer all weekend?

---

Having lived in those areas, yeah it is cultural. And not exactly in the way that you'd think. The big thing in those areas is that state school loyalty extends beyond your alumni group. It's kind of an alien concept to people on the West or East coast. But that is what drives much higher viewer numbers in those areas.

---

More so in states that 1) most people are born there/have few people moving there from elsewhere and 2) do not have the NFL or only recently got the NFL.

The silver lining in this development is that it has brought an end to (hopefully) the great OT Teri MCKeever thread that reached an astounding 440 posts.

pic.twitter.com/NIkrdMTSXj

— Arizona Athletics (@AZATHLETICS) June 30, 2022

The Pac-12 to the Alliance: pic.twitter.com/BtiTUWSCeR

— Stanford Tree (@DaStanfordTree) July 1, 2022

Oski87 said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Bay Area eyeballs don't show up for Cal or Stanford, so what is the need for local representation?

---

Were you at the Cal vs Michigan State, Minnesota, or Ohio State game? The place was jammed up. There are more Big 10 alum here watching football than Cal alum watching football.

---

The Ohio State game was (or should have been) and embarrassment to everyone involved with the program.

Maybe Sonny will put in a good word for us, for old times sake.

Or not.

https://theathletic.com/3393936/2022/07/01/usc-ucla-big-ten-pac-12-explained/

Cal84 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Maybe it is just cultural. Do people in the Midwest and South still sit glued to the TV and drink beer all weekend?

---

Having lived in those areas, yeah it is cultural. And not exactly in the way that you'd think. The big thing in those areas is that state school loyalty extends beyond your alumni group. It's kind of an alien concept to people on the West or East coast. But that is what drives much higher viewer numbers in those areas.

---

I'll echo this. People in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. think of the Buckeyes, Wolverines, and Badgers as their schools even if they didn't go there or attend college at all. My wife went to Bowling Green St. in Ohio, has lived on the west coast for 40 years, but still notices if Ohio St. is playing on TV. I think the same is true in the SEC. I also wonder if the gradual economic decline in many of those states hasn't made them even more possessive about the remaining areas where they do excel - like football. In any case, that ethos doesn't exist on the west coast. Maybe it's the good weather - we're doers, not watchers.

ajm9191 said:

---

I also can't see the Regents having already approved this without being briefed on how "injurious" this would be to Cal Athletics nor without anyone on Cal's side knowing it was going on. Not saying the AD office would have been informed, but the chancellors do talk to each other are very hesitant to create discord between schools. Maybe neither chancellors saw it as being a big deal.

---

I don't know much about the dynamics of the UC regents or the inter-Chancellor politics.

Hopefully Carol Christ called Gene Block and reminded Block that UCLA leaving the Pac-12 will change the identity of the flagship UC university without Berkeley's consent and the move will cost Berkeley tens of millions of dollars each year.

dupe

Big Dog said:

---

Cal84 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Maybe it is just cultural. Do people in the Midwest and South still sit glued to the TV and drink beer all weekend?

---

Having lived in those areas, yeah it is cultural. And not exactly in the way that you'd think. The big thing in those areas is that state school loyalty extends beyond your alumni group. It's kind of an alien concept to people on the West or East coast. But that is what drives much higher viewer numbers in those areas.

---

Exactly. And this is what the majority of Cal fans don't understand (and, IMO, certain BI staff). A typical Bay Area TV viewer is not even close to that of a midwest/southeast viewer. Even non-sports people AND non-alums will keep up on the how their state flagship is doing, just for state pride. We have none of that in CA.

---

If Cal doesn't make a move, it's because the Big 10 doesn't want us. Football at Cal was pretty much dead.
No move, it will be dead. Personally, (and, I really don't know why) since yesterday's news, until I hear what Cal plans, I've very little interest in attending football games this coming season. I hope we at least apply for admission to the Big 10.

RJABear said:

---

ajm9191 said:

---

I also can't see the Regents having already approved this without being briefed on how "injurious" this would be to Cal Athletics nor without anyone on Cal's side knowing it was going on. Not saying the AD office would have been informed, but the chancellors do talk to each other are very hesitant to create discord between schools. Maybe neither chancellors saw it as being a big deal.

---

I don't know much about the dynamics of the UC regents or the inter-Chancellor politics.

Hopefully Carol Christ called Gene Block and reminded Block that UCLA leaving the Pac-12 will change the identity of the flagship UC university without Berkeley's consent and the move will cost Berkeley tens of millions of dollars each year.

---

Why would Block care about decisions made by Cal? (The Regents will care, as they are ultimately on the hook for the stadium rebuild, but 99% of Block's focus is to make Southern Branch better in all respects.)

Big Dog said:

---

RJABear said:

---

ajm9191 said:

---

I also can't see the Regents having already approved this without being briefed on how "injurious" this would be to Cal Athletics nor without anyone on Cal's side knowing it was going on. Not saying the AD office would have been informed, but the chancellors do talk to each other are very hesitant to create discord between schools. Maybe neither chancellors saw it as being a big deal.

---

I don't know much about the dynamics of the UC regents or the inter-Chancellor politics.

Hopefully Carol Christ called Gene Block and reminded Block that UCLA leaving the Pac-12 will change the identity of the flagship UC university without Berkeley's consent and the move will cost Berkeley tens of millions of dollars each year.

---

Why would Block care about decisions made by Cal? (The Regents will care, as they are ultimately on the hook for the stadium rebuild, but 99% of Block's focus is to make Southern Branch better in all respects.)

---

Going back to ajm's comment that Chancellors try to avoid discord between schools. I would hope that Block at least considered the implication for the remaining PAC-12 schools and the UC flagship.

I don't know whether that is true and whether the Chancellers count on each other's support, say in comparison to active cooperating with Texas or Virginia or other major public universities. Tough to ask for Christ's support after you recently stuck a knife in Berkeley's back.

Big Dog said:

---

RJABear said:

---

ajm9191 said:

---

I also can't see the Regents having already approved this without being briefed on how "injurious" this would be to Cal Athletics nor without anyone on Cal's side knowing it was going on. Not saying the AD office would have been informed, but the chancellors do talk to each other are very hesitant to create discord between schools. Maybe neither chancellors saw it as being a big deal.

---

I don't know much about the dynamics of the UC regents or the inter-Chancellor politics.

Hopefully Carol Christ called Gene Block and reminded Block that UCLA leaving the Pac-12 will change the identity of the flagship UC university without Berkeley's consent and the move will cost Berkeley tens of millions of dollars each year.

---

Why would Block care about decisions made by Cal? (The Regents will care, as they are ultimately on the hook for the stadium rebuild, but 99% of Block's focus is to make Southern Branch better in all respects.)

---

Block is legally an employee of the UC Regents not UCLA, so ultimately that's who he answers to (through the UCOP) - the Universtity as a whole should not tolerate campuses taking actions that benefit themselves at the detriment to the University as a whole. The $$$ involved and threat the UCLA would be left out completely, if they hold up the BT move might actually be the harsh truth, which would cause the President's office or Regents to allow or endorse the move. Make no mistake though, it's not just Cal left holding the bag on the stadium debt, it's the entire UC system and of the Regents/UCOP allow UCLA to leave, they are going to ultimately be responsible for paying it off.

ColoradoBear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

RJABear said:

---

ajm9191 said:

---

I also can't see the Regents having already approved this without being briefed on how "injurious" this would be to Cal Athletics nor without anyone on Cal's side knowing it was going on. Not saying the AD office would have been informed, but the chancellors do talk to each other are very hesitant to create discord between schools. Maybe neither chancellors saw it as being a big deal.

---

I don't know much about the dynamics of the UC regents or the inter-Chancellor politics.

Hopefully Carol Christ called Gene Block and reminded Block that UCLA leaving the Pac-12 will change the identity of the flagship UC university without Berkeley's consent and the move will cost Berkeley tens of millions of dollars each year.

---

Why would Block care about decisions made by Cal? (The Regents will care, as they are ultimately on the hook for the stadium rebuild, but 99% of Block's focus is to make Southern Branch better in all respects.)

---

Block is legally an employee of the UC Regents not UCLA, so ultimately that's who he answers to (through the UCOP) - the Universtity as a whole should not tolerate campuses taking actions that benefit themselves at the detriment to the University as a whole. The $$$ involved and threat the UCLA would be left out completely, if they hold up the BT move might actually be the harsh truth, which would cause the President's office or Regents to allow or endorse the move. Make no mistake though, it's not just Cal left holding the bag on the stadium debt, it's the entire UC system and of the Regents/UCOP allow UCLA to leave, they are going to ultimately be responsible for paying it off.

---

I don't disagree with any of that, but look at teh sum-of-the-parts.....as long as UCLA's marginal financial gain is more than Cal's debt service, UC in total wins. So what if Cal drops to 1-AA and/or eliminates some sports? I'm guessing the Regents would whole heartedly support that move long term.

Big Dog said:

---

I don't disagree with any of that, but look at teh sum-of-the-parts.....as long as UCLA's marginal financial gain is more than Cal's debt service, UC in total wins. So what if Cal drops to 1-AA and/or eliminates some sports? I'm guessing the Regents would whole heartedly support that move long term.

---

I'm sure that Block has all of his ducks lined up in a row.
Why would he not given the stakes?

He's probably already on his second mock presentation to the Regents with all kinds of pie-charts and spreadsheets showing projected cash-flow.... while Knowlton is just sitting down to have his first cup of coffee and read the newspaper.

This feels like a long process of correction that is an attempt to wrest control of college football from the NCAA and freeing TV money for already rich coaches, as well as male football and basketball players from Olympic and Title 9 support requirements. Is it a good thing to allow Disney and TV to control college football - h@ll no!

Will there be a counter-correction? In the long-term, there will be legal challenges and enforced funding for Women's and Olympic sports (not by today's SCOTUS, but a future one). And there will be corrections by us - the viewer and ticket purchaser, when we decide to not pay more blood money to the bunch of mercenary coaches, ADs, and players who will make college football into an NFL g-league. We will get sick of the $ payoffs in recruitment, the repeated transfers of players, and the PEDs that will run rampant without any NCAA governance.

I would like to see Cal rise above and help form a refuge for the scholar-athlete who will remain interested in getting educated and holding marketable degrees after playing years. Maybe that will be in a new league, maybe in a newly formed Pacific conference. Maybe Cal will join the Big10 to be Westcoast equivalents to Northwestern and Rutgers.

UCLA was always a poser UC school while USC will remain the University for Spoiled Children.

Regardless, Cal will be fine. Fiat Lux!

I posted above that I think the BIG10 Presidents will want the academic prestige of Cal and Stanford to be included in their league and in their related peer associations. But money talks, and Fox will probably have the greatest influence on these future decisions.

BearGreg said:

---

Golden One said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Any chance California pulls a Texas Legislature and demands other two California teams be taken along?

---

Good concept.
The CA legislature controls the UC System and can preempt the Regents as evidenced by the Legislature's efforts to compel Cal to increase the number of entering Freshmen .
It can probably take steps to prevent UCLA from joining the BIG10 by playing hard ball.

---

The California legislature doesn't give a damn about football, basketball, or any other athletic program. Don't look for them to help Cal at all.

---

I'm pretty sure they do care about money and the notion that California's taxpayers will have to assume what could be as much as $750M in debt and commitments. All while witnessing the end of 2/3 of the sports at California's flagship university and the PR fall out from that. My representative in Sacramento says they are aware and very concerned.

---

If the legislature tells the UC system, "You figure it out within the current funding level", then there is no direct incremental impact to taxpayers. No legislator will admit to bailing out Cal's $750M stadium debt. I suspect only a minority of state legislators are alumni of any of the campuses, so even the emotional ties are tenuous. The assemblyman from our district is a twit with degrees from Harvard and Yale, so he's not going to stick his neck out.

DiabloWags said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

I don't disagree with any of that, but look at teh sum-of-the-parts.....as long as UCLA's marginal financial gain is more than Cal's debt service, UC in total wins. So what if Cal drops to 1-AA and/or eliminates some sports? I'm guessing the Regents would whole heartedly support that move long term.

---

I'm sure that Block has all of his ducks lined up in a row.
Why would he not given the stakes?

He's probably already on his second mock presentation to the Regents with all kinds of pie-charts and spreadsheets showing projected cash-flow.... while Knowlton is just sitting down to have his first cup of coffee and read the newspaper.

---

I wouldn't assume that. I think they they looked at the tv rights deal, and got essentially pressured by Fox to be in or out, and he was worried about missing out on the USC train.

I'm guessing they announced and Regent approval and all that is on the "we're figure it out later" list.

"USC and UCLA will leave the Pac-12 and join the Big Ten in 2024, the schools announced Thursday a bombshell that caught the sports world completely off-guard.

Why it matters: The future of college athletics seems clear: Two "super leagues" built from the foundations of the SEC, which will soon add Texas and Oklahoma, and the Big Ten, which now spans coast to coast.

The Pac-12, which has become something of a laughingstock among the Power 5 football conferences, faces an uncertain future without the Los Angeles schools.

Plus: This is expected to trigger more realignment. Could other Pac-12 schools join the Big Ten? What about Notre Dame? What will the ACC and Big 12 do now? Nothing is off the table.

What they're saying: "This move offers greater certainty in rapidly changing times and ensures that we remain a leader in college athletics for generations to come," said UCLA chancellor Gene Block and athletic director Martin Jarmond.


By the numbers: The Big Ten and SEC had already separated themselves from the pack financially. Now, armed with the biggest brands in college sports, it won't even be close.

SEC schools will receive roughly $66 million per year starting in 2024, when ESPN's $3 billion deal kicks in. The new-look Big Ten, which is currently negotiating a new TV deal, should pay out even more.

By comparison, payouts for Pac-12 and Big 12 schools are roughly $21 million and $20 million, respectively, under their current deals. ACC payouts are even lower at roughly $14 million.

The big picture: Major college sports, especially football, are increasingly about one thing: cashing checks. What was once "amateur athletics" is now a TV show and one of the few that still drive ratings.

Millions watch Power 5 football games on Saturdays, and the money trickles down to schools, athletic departments, coaches and now indirectly through NIL players.
By that token, Thursday's shocking sequel to last year's SEC blockbuster probably shouldn't have been shocking at all. Big schools, big matchups, Big Noon it's all there.
Yes, but: At what cost?

The century-old USC-Stanford rivalry has been thrown in the garbage. UCLA being in the same league as Rutgers is absurd and means huge travel demands and 9am PT kickoffs. The list goes on.

Plus, this doesn't just impact football and basketball. USC and UCLA have hundreds of athletes and are two of the three schools with more than 100 NCAA championships.

Zoom out: The Big Sixteen (or is it The Bigger Ten?) may seem strange, but it's part of a larger shift. As the NCAA cedes power to the richest leagues, who may eventually breakaway, membership is a golden ticket.

Conferences were built on culture and geography, and benefited from the framework and cash provided by the NCAA, which governs all schools from the elites to the minnows in Division III.
Now, the biggest conferences have enough brand name member schools to thrive without having to split money with the NCAA's smaller schools.
Rodger Sherman, The Ringer

Looking ahead: We'll soon have two 16-team mega-conferences, but why stop there? Some believe the Big Ten and SEC will end up with 20 schools each, forming the "Power 2."

Axios

maxer said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I'm sure that Block has all of his ducks lined up in a row.
Why would he not given the stakes?

He's probably already on his second mock presentation to the Regents with all kinds of pie-charts and spreadsheets showing projected cash-flow.... while Knowlton is just sitting down to have his first cup of coffee and read the newspaper.

---

I wouldn't assume that. I think they they looked at the tv rights deal, and got essentially pressured by Fox to be in or out, and he was worried about missing out on the USC train.

I'm guessing they announced and Regent approval and all that is on the "we're figure it out later" list.

---

And as I said, I'm pretty sure Block has been practicing his presentation for the Regents and is already on his second mock go through. Everyone else is simply in "reactive" mode.

HearstMining said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Golden One said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Any chance California pulls a Texas Legislature and demands other two California teams be taken along?

---

Good concept.
The CA legislature controls the UC System and can preempt the Regents as evidenced by the Legislature's efforts to compel Cal to increase the number of entering Freshmen .
It can probably take steps to prevent UCLA from joining the BIG10 by playing hard ball.

---

The California legislature doesn't give a damn about football, basketball, or any other athletic program. Don't look for them to help Cal at all.

---

I'm pretty sure they do care about money and the notion that California's taxpayers will have to assume what could be as much as $750M in debt and commitments. All while witnessing the end of 2/3 of the sports at California's flagship university and the PR fall out from that. My representative in Sacramento says they are aware and very concerned.

---

If the legislature tells the UC system, "You figure it out within the current funding level", then there is no direct incremental impact to taxpayers. No legislator will admit to bailing out Cal's $750M stadium debt. I suspect only a minority of state legislators are alumni of any of the campuses, so even the emotional ties are tenuous. The assemblyman from our district is a twit with degrees from Harvard and Yale, so he's not going to stick his neck out.

---

"ok we figured it out. We're dropping football, defaulting on the stadium debt and cutting 2/3rds of women's sports"

They will care about that.

BearoutEast67 said:

---

This feels like a long process of correction that is an attempt to wrest control of college football from the NCAA and freeing TV money for already rich coaches, as well as male football and basketball players from Olympic and Title 9 support requirements. Is it a good thing to allow Disney and TV to control college football - h@ll no!

Will there be a counter-correction? In the long-term, there will be legal challenges and enforced funding for Women's and Olympic sports (not by today's SCOTUS, but a future one). And there will be corrections by us - the viewer and ticket purchaser, when we decide to not pay more blood money to the bunch of mercenary coaches, ADs, and players who will make college football into an NFL g-league. We will get sick of the $ payoffs in recruitment, the repeated transfers of players, and the PEDs that will run rampant without any NCAA governance.

I would like to see Cal rise above and help form a refuge for the scholar-athlete who will remain interested in getting educated and holding marketable degrees after playing years. Maybe that will be in a new league, maybe in a newly formed Pacific conference. Maybe Cal will join the Big10 to be Westcoast equivalents to Northwestern and Rutgers.

UCLA was always a poser UC school while USC will remain the University for Spoiled Children.

Regardless, Cal will be fine. Fiat Lux!

---

The current lineup of SCOTUS will be around for decades. Protection of womens sports will come from state legislatures - if that.

The NCAA is one of the most corrupt athletic associations akin to FIFA. Is their control over college football any better than if Fox or Disney had control? I doubt it.

The P12 will only survive if it merged with the Big12. I wouldn't be surprised if they were already talking.

RJABear said:

---

I don't know much about the dynamics of the UC regents or the inter-Chancellor politics.

Hopefully Carol Christ called Gene Block and reminded Block that UCLA leaving the Pac-12 will change the identity of the flagship UC university without Berkeley's consent and the move will cost Berkeley tens of millions of dollars each year.

---

Actually, I would imagine that Carol Christ is having a meeting with Knowlton right about now and has made it clear in no uncertain terms, if you cant put together a deal for Cal that puts it into a revenue raising conference of significance, Plan B is going to be getting your hatchet ready to cut sports and rosters.

DiabloWags said:

---

RJABear said:

---

I don't know much about the dynamics of the UC regents or the inter-Chancellor politics.

Hopefully Carol Christ called Gene Block and reminded Block that UCLA leaving the Pac-12 will change the identity of the flagship UC university without Berkeley's consent and the move will cost Berkeley tens of millions of dollars each year.

---

Actually, I would imagine that Carol Christ is having a meeting with Knowlton right about now and has made it clear in no uncertain terms, if you cant put together a deal for Cal that puts it into a revenue raising conference of significance, Plan B is going to be getting your hatchet ready to cut sports and rosters.

---

Knowlton will immediately spring into action . . . and hire consultants.

fat_slice said:

---

Update: Knowlton and Christ just got wind of the pending moves. They blame COVID and will hire a search firm to find a conference they can join. They are holding out hope for joining the WAC.

---

It's been 24 hours…any inside word from the administration…*********anyone heard anything from Stanford?

Bear_Territory said:

---

It's been 24 hours…any inside word from the administration…*********anyone heard anything from Stanford?

---

I would imagine that Furd has more options than us.
They actually have a national brand.