You just changed your tune.calumnus said: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.
btw: I've always posted that the BiG would expand in pairs. But the 2 don't have to be rivals and don't have to be in the same state or even neighboring states.