calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

GMP said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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)

---

Really, now you are arguing UW and Stanford are natural rivals/partners?

---

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).

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.

---

You just changed your tune.

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.

BigDaddy said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

it's been stated many places that the BIG doesnt like oregon one bit. their west coast favs are UW and Stanford.

calfanz said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

it's been stated many places that the BIG doesnt like oregon one bit. their west coast favs are UW and Stanford.

---

Dogs do need trees to piss on.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Yes - over the long term sure. It's not just that we would be missing out on amazingly well rounded and talented students, we also lose put on the publicity for Cal that goes with it. Think about Alex Morgan, Natalie coughlin, and the myriad of other Olympic sport athletes that would not come to cal because big time college football is supporting just as academic schools elsewhere.

That's why the admin for all these years have been idiots. A school with too notch athletics and education is far more superior...ask Stanford.

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

GMP said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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)

---

Really, now you are arguing UW and Stanford are natural rivals/partners?

---

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).

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.

---

You just changed your tune.

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.

---

The states of Maryland and New Jersey are separated by about 10 miles of the state of Delaware. It is a 2-3 hour drive from stadium to stadium.

It is 844 miles or a 14 hr drive from UW to Stanford.

UW and Oregon might be a pair, but UW and Stanford are not a pair. USC and Stanford as a pair would make more sense than UW and Stanford, but that didn't happen, and it didn't happen for a reason.

maxer said:

---

If only there was some recent precedent for the Big 10 caring about both school in a market, and not just one...

---

There are so many differences between them and the Bay Area.

USC and UCLA are both much better athletically than Stanford and Cal respectively.

USC most likely vouched for UCLA's inclusion (even if they didn't, UCLA has a more well connected and willing to do his job AD than we have) . We don't have such a partner. Stanford is not going to do anything for us because frankly we've not been much competition for them over the past decade. They are also not as desirable as USC from a football standpoint so their voice matters less.
Well USC and UCLA may have partnered up (e.g. USC strongly voices that UCLA must come with them)

LA is a substantially bigger market

While I already mentioned the athletics at UCLA, their basketball program can stand on its own - another carrot that can be offered to the B1G. We bring nothing unique to the B1G except extremely horrible administration and red tape that they would never want to work with.

fat_slice said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Yes - over the long term sure. It's not just that we would be missing out on amazingly well rounded and talented students, we also lose put on the publicity for Cal that goes with it. Think about Alex Morgan, Natalie coughlin, and the myriad of other Olympic sport athletes that would not come to cal because big time college football is supporting just as academic schools elsewhere.

That's why the admin for all these years have been idiots. A school with too notch athletics and education is far more superior...ask Stanford.

---

I love Cal sports, but Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, Chicago, Oxford, Cambridge? Cal and Stanford are outliers.

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

If only there was some recent precedent for the Big 10 caring about both school in a market, and not just one...

---

There are so many differences between them and the Bay Area.

USC and UCLA are both much better athletically than Stanford and Cal respectively.

USC most likely vouched for UCLA's inclusion (even if they didn't, UCLA has a more well connected and willing to do his job AD than we have) . We don't have such a partner. Stanford is not going to do anything for us because frankly we've not been much competition for them over the past decade. They are also not as desirable as USC from a football standpoint so their voice matters less.
Well USC and UCLA may have partnered up (e.g. USC strongly voices that UCLA must come with them)

LA is a substantially bigger market

While I already mentioned the athletics at UCLA, their basketball program can stand on its own - another carrot that can be offered to the B1G. We bring nothing unique to the B1G except extremely horrible administration and red tape that they would never want to work with.

---

He was responding to Big Dog who keeps trying to come up with ways Stanford gets invited and Cal doesn't.

calumnus said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

If only there was some recent precedent for the Big 10 caring about both school in a market, and not just one...

---

There are so many differences between them and the Bay Area.

USC and UCLA are both much better athletically than Stanford and Cal respectively.

USC most likely vouched for UCLA's inclusion (even if they didn't, UCLA has a more well connected and willing to do his job AD than we have) . We don't have such a partner. Stanford is not going to do anything for us because frankly we've not been much competition for them over the past decade. They are also not as desirable as USC from a football standpoint so their voice matters less.
Well USC and UCLA may have partnered up (e.g. USC strongly voices that UCLA must come with them)

LA is a substantially bigger market

While I already mentioned the athletics at UCLA, their basketball program can stand on its own - another carrot that can be offered to the B1G. We bring nothing unique to the B1G except extremely horrible administration and red tape that they would never want to work with.

---

He was responding to Big Dog who keeps trying to come up with ways Stanford gets invited and Cal doesn't.

---

Right - I am in agreement with Big Dog ... There are so many different ways Stanford gets invited and we don't that simply pointing out the precedent of USC and UCLA doesn't make sense. Given the vast differences between both sets of schools and regions, pointing out that precedence isn't comforting at all.

fat_slice said:

---

calumnus said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

If only there was some recent precedent for the Big 10 caring about both school in a market, and not just one...

---

There are so many differences between them and the Bay Area.

USC and UCLA are both much better athletically than Stanford and Cal respectively.

USC most likely vouched for UCLA's inclusion (even if they didn't, UCLA has a more well connected and willing to do his job AD than we have) . We don't have such a partner. Stanford is not going to do anything for us because frankly we've not been much competition for them over the past decade. They are also not as desirable as USC from a football standpoint so their voice matters less.
Well USC and UCLA may have partnered up (e.g. USC strongly voices that UCLA must come with them)

LA is a substantially bigger market

While I already mentioned the athletics at UCLA, their basketball program can stand on its own - another carrot that can be offered to the B1G. We bring nothing unique to the B1G except extremely horrible administration and red tape that they would never want to work with.

---

He was responding to Big Dog who keeps trying to come up with ways Stanford gets invited and Cal doesn't.

---

Right - I am in agreement with Big Dog ... There are so many different ways Stanford gets invited and we don't that simply pointing out the precedent of USC and UCLA doesn't make sense. Given the vast differences between both sets of schools and regions, pointing out that precedence isn't comforting at all.

---

Exactly. IMO, folks thinking Stanford-Cal are an inexorably linked pair are viewing this with Blue-and-Gold glasses. Yes, there is a business case to be made to link the two schools, but there are "many different ways" to make a business case that they are separate free agents (and Fox Sports knows them all). If Cal wants to remain a P5 (P2, P3?), Cal needs to make its own value-add case, and not assume that we can tag along with Stanford.

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

calumnus said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

If only there was some recent precedent for the Big 10 caring about both school in a market, and not just one...

---

There are so many differences between them and the Bay Area.

USC and UCLA are both much better athletically than Stanford and Cal respectively.

USC most likely vouched for UCLA's inclusion (even if they didn't, UCLA has a more well connected and willing to do his job AD than we have) . We don't have such a partner. Stanford is not going to do anything for us because frankly we've not been much competition for them over the past decade. They are also not as desirable as USC from a football standpoint so their voice matters less.
Well USC and UCLA may have partnered up (e.g. USC strongly voices that UCLA must come with them)

LA is a substantially bigger market

While I already mentioned the athletics at UCLA, their basketball program can stand on its own - another carrot that can be offered to the B1G. We bring nothing unique to the B1G except extremely horrible administration and red tape that they would never want to work with.

---

He was responding to Big Dog who keeps trying to come up with ways Stanford gets invited and Cal doesn't.

---

Right - I am in agreement with Big Dog ... There are so many different ways Stanford gets invited and we don't that simply pointing out the precedent of USC and UCLA doesn't make sense. Given the vast differences between both sets of schools and regions, pointing out that precedence isn't comforting at all.

---

Exactly. IMO, folks thinking Stanford-Cal are an inexorably linked pair are viewing this with Blue-and-Gold glasses. Yes, there is a business case to be made to link the two schools, but there are "many different ways" to make a business case that they are separate free agents (and Fox Sports knows them all). If Cal wants to remain a P5 (P2, P3?), Cal needs to make its own value-add case, and not assume that we can tag along with Stanford.

---

We shouldn't ASSUME that Cal and Stanford are a linked pair, but by the same token I don't think we should ASSUME that Stanford and Notre Dame are a linked pair, as you've been doing in this thread. In fact, I'd argue it's more likely that Stanford-Cal comes as a package deal to any new conference than Stanford-ND. Not guaranteed, of course, just more likely. A conference that wants to invite a school as a way of owning the Bay Area/NorCal market will probably want to own all of it, not leave an opening for a rival conference to compete for their territory.

---

Furd lusts to be thought of in conjunction with ND. But, ND? Who's Furd? They have a tree for a mascot...and a color? Just another opponent.A private school that we will beat 90% of the time...especially without their "glove".

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

If only there was some recent precedent for the Big 10 caring about both school in a market, and not just one...

---

There are so many differences between them and the Bay Area.

USC and UCLA are both much better athletically than Stanford and Cal respectively.

USC most likely vouched for UCLA's inclusion (even if they didn't, UCLA has a more well connected and willing to do his job AD than we have) . We don't have such a partner. Stanford is not going to do anything for us because frankly we've not been much competition for them over the past decade. They are also not as desirable as USC from a football standpoint so their voice matters less.
Well USC and UCLA may have partnered up (e.g. USC strongly voices that UCLA must come with them)

LA is a substantially bigger market

While I already mentioned the athletics at UCLA, their basketball program can stand on its own - another carrot that can be offered to the B1G. We bring nothing unique to the B1G except extremely horrible administration and red tape that they would never want to work with.

---

I suspect the reason USC and UCLA were both included was for geographical reasons. Big 10 wants the entire LA market, and leaving one and taking the other does not accomplish that goal. In addition, including both schools removes some of the travel concerns.

The Bay Area market is much less desirable than the LA market from both commercial and recruiting perspective. However, if they want the entire Bay Area, including commercial and recruiting, it would be beneficial to take both Stanford and Cal. The question is, is the Bay Area worth taking on both schools? That is also the main reason I think taking Oregon and Washington as a pair doesn't make a lot of sense for the Big 10. Big 10 is more about academic prestige than the SEC, they care more about regional rivalries, and they care about recruiting outside their existing regions. I get it that WA and Oregon are still prestigious programs relative to Cal and Stanford, but Washington hasn't been good in a long time, the recruiting market is not great in either region, and Big 10 is not suffering from a prestige perspective that Washington and Oregon would fill a need.

calbear93 said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

If only there was some recent precedent for the Big 10 caring about both school in a market, and not just one...

---

There are so many differences between them and the Bay Area.

USC and UCLA are both much better athletically than Stanford and Cal respectively.

USC most likely vouched for UCLA's inclusion (even if they didn't, UCLA has a more well connected and willing to do his job AD than we have) . We don't have such a partner. Stanford is not going to do anything for us because frankly we've not been much competition for them over the past decade. They are also not as desirable as USC from a football standpoint so their voice matters less.
Well USC and UCLA may have partnered up (e.g. USC strongly voices that UCLA must come with them)

LA is a substantially bigger market

While I already mentioned the athletics at UCLA, their basketball program can stand on its own - another carrot that can be offered to the B1G. We bring nothing unique to the B1G except extremely horrible administration and red tape that they would never want to work with.

---

I suspect the reason USC and UCLA were both included was for geographical reasons. Big 10 wants the entire LA market, and leaving one and taking the other does not accomplish that goal. In addition, including both schools removes some of the travel concerns.

The Bay Area market is much less desirable than the LA market from both commercial and recruiting perspective. However, if they want the entire Bay Area, including commercial and recruiting, it would be beneficial to take both Stanford and Cal. The question is, is the Bay Area worth taking on both schools? That is also the main reason I think taking Oregon and Washington as a pair doesn't make a lot of sense for the Big 10. Big 10 is more about academic prestige than the SEC, they care more about regional rivalries, and they care about recruiting outside their existing regions. I get it that WA and Oregon are still prestigious programs relative to Cal and Stanford, but Washington hasn't been good in a long time, the recruiting market is not great in either region, and Big 10 is not suffering from a prestige perspective that Washington and Oregon would fill a need.

---

I agree with your general thesis, but to say Washington "has not been good in a long time" is not accurate -- they went 12-1 and were in the College Football Playoff in the 2016 season, and were 10-2 and in the Rose Bowl as recently as 2018.

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

calumnus said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

If only there was some recent precedent for the Big 10 caring about both school in a market, and not just one...

---

There are so many differences between them and the Bay Area.

USC and UCLA are both much better athletically than Stanford and Cal respectively.

USC most likely vouched for UCLA's inclusion (even if they didn't, UCLA has a more well connected and willing to do his job AD than we have) . We don't have such a partner. Stanford is not going to do anything for us because frankly we've not been much competition for them over the past decade. They are also not as desirable as USC from a football standpoint so their voice matters less.
Well USC and UCLA may have partnered up (e.g. USC strongly voices that UCLA must come with them)

LA is a substantially bigger market

While I already mentioned the athletics at UCLA, their basketball program can stand on its own - another carrot that can be offered to the B1G. We bring nothing unique to the B1G except extremely horrible administration and red tape that they would never want to work with.

---

He was responding to Big Dog who keeps trying to come up with ways Stanford gets invited and Cal doesn't.

---

Right - I am in agreement with Big Dog ... There are so many different ways Stanford gets invited and we don't that simply pointing out the precedent of USC and UCLA doesn't make sense. Given the vast differences between both sets of schools and regions, pointing out that precedence isn't comforting at all.

---

Exactly. IMO, folks thinking Stanford-Cal are an inexorably linked pair are viewing this with Blue-and-Gold glasses. Yes, there is a business case to be made to link the two schools, but there are "many different ways" to make a business case that they are separate free agents (and Fox Sports knows them all). If Cal wants to remain a P5 (P2, P3?), Cal needs to make its own value-add case, and not assume that we can tag along with Stanford.

---

We shouldn't ASSUME that Cal and Stanford are a linked pair, but by the same token I don't think we should ASSUME that Stanford and Notre Dame are a linked pair, as you've been doing in this thread. In fact, I'd argue it's more likely that Stanford-Cal comes as a package deal to any new conference than Stanford-ND. Not guaranteed, of course, just more likely. A conference that wants to invite a school as a way of owning the Bay Area/NorCal market will probably want to own all of it, not leave an opening for a rival conference to compete for their territory.

---

I've made no such assumption or at least didn't mean to. In fact, I've been trying to suggest that there are no linked pairs per se, just league expansion in even numbers. Let's put ND aside, by assuming that NBC offers them $100m for football only rights to stay independent. Then, what does teh BiG do? Waiting is alway a choice, but if they want to expand westward, which markets make the most business sense for the current teams (incl. USC/UCLA)?

If each BiG team is expected to earn $100m under a new TV deal, the existing schools may not be to interested in adding additional teams that bring in less than that number, otherwise their own $$ declines (assumes equal sharing). Sure, a new team could grovel and say, we'll only take $50m, but then that means the groveler is way behind and will become a FB patsy in short order. (And that would really hurt the Olympic sports who would have to travel commercial.)

Regardless, back to the Big Boys and their westward expansion: do they add one team from the Bay Area and one from Seattle; or two from the Bay; or, one from Seattle and one from Eugene; or other combos? But don't forget, it's more than just eyeballs in the local market, it's national interest as well. For example, would Oregon-Minn playing a night game in Eugene have more interest to midwest (national?) viewers than say, Cal-Minn? And this is exactly teh analysis that Fox Sports is giving the BiG.

And finally, if I'm the BiG poobahs, I'd be considering which teams have demonstrated a willingness to compete at the highest levels, with active alumni, and will therefore play the NIL game. (After all, gotta compete with the SEC/ESPN for Saturday viewers.)

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

GMP said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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)

---

Really, now you are arguing UW and Stanford are natural rivals/partners?

---

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).

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.

---

Wow, lot of mess to unpack here:

• Nebraska's historic rivals were Oklahoma and Colorado in the Big-8/12, Iowa/Wisconsin/Minnesota do not see Nebraska as one of their major rivals, plus Nebraska came to the Big Ten solo anyway.
• Media markets and TV deals are why Maryland and Rutgers got Big Ten invites, they also have no conference connections or rivalry history with each other.
• Colorado gets a lot of students from California and wanted to increase its exposure to the West Coast, so it saw the PAC-12 as a great opportunity once Nebraska was gone from the Big-12, and Utah was brought in to accompany them, although it is still odd that both those schools are in the South instead of the North.

Geography and rivalries do not matter a ******* in realignment, those are being thrown out everywhere, as money and TV deals become paramount factors.

Big Dog said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

calumnus said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

If only there was some recent precedent for the Big 10 caring about both school in a market, and not just one...

---

There are so many differences between them and the Bay Area.

USC and UCLA are both much better athletically than Stanford and Cal respectively.

USC most likely vouched for UCLA's inclusion (even if they didn't, UCLA has a more well connected and willing to do his job AD than we have) . We don't have such a partner. Stanford is not going to do anything for us because frankly we've not been much competition for them over the past decade. They are also not as desirable as USC from a football standpoint so their voice matters less.
Well USC and UCLA may have partnered up (e.g. USC strongly voices that UCLA must come with them)

LA is a substantially bigger market

While I already mentioned the athletics at UCLA, their basketball program can stand on its own - another carrot that can be offered to the B1G. We bring nothing unique to the B1G except extremely horrible administration and red tape that they would never want to work with.

---

He was responding to Big Dog who keeps trying to come up with ways Stanford gets invited and Cal doesn't.

---

Right - I am in agreement with Big Dog ... There are so many different ways Stanford gets invited and we don't that simply pointing out the precedent of USC and UCLA doesn't make sense. Given the vast differences between both sets of schools and regions, pointing out that precedence isn't comforting at all.

---

Exactly. IMO, folks thinking Stanford-Cal are an inexorably linked pair are viewing this with Blue-and-Gold glasses. Yes, there is a business case to be made to link the two schools, but there are "many different ways" to make a business case that they are separate free agents (and Fox Sports knows them all). If Cal wants to remain a P5 (P2, P3?), Cal needs to make its own value-add case, and not assume that we can tag along with Stanford.

---

We shouldn't ASSUME that Cal and Stanford are a linked pair, but by the same token I don't think we should ASSUME that Stanford and Notre Dame are a linked pair, as you've been doing in this thread. In fact, I'd argue it's more likely that Stanford-Cal comes as a package deal to any new conference than Stanford-ND. Not guaranteed, of course, just more likely. A conference that wants to invite a school as a way of owning the Bay Area/NorCal market will probably want to own all of it, not leave an opening for a rival conference to compete for their territory.

---

I've made no such assumption or at least didn't mean to.

---

Apologies, I think I got you mixed up with another poster with a similar name (BigDaddy).

all this talk about who (if anyone) would get invited to the b10 next ignored one factor: the existing schools have to sign off. This is mentioned in the context of $ but not in the context of anything else. Do USC and UCLA want (for example) Oregon in the b10? Ignoring the financial side (probably negative, unlikely to be a big positive), doesn't adding Oregon eliminate one of the benefits of the move for USC/UCLA - killing off / relegating other west coast programs that compete with them for SoCal talent (and potentially making all of CA their territory)?

I'm guessing that for a school like Rutgers any expansion decision is mostly a $ decision. For the LA schools they have other considerations and may not want some of the P12 to follow them. If they say no, I'm guessing the b10 says no.

Caveat: I don't follow recruiting much. I don't think the LA schools would object to furd. Furd reputedly recruits nationally and for a somewhat specific niche of kid so isn't in super direct competition with the LAs. Cal is a tougher case. When we were good (Tedford) we still wouldn't win recruiting battles against a good USC team for kids in their area (yes we got DeSean but mostly we lost) but we did become a problem for UCLA. I could see UCLA vetoing our inclusion.

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

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.

---

Yes. I disagree. I think you don't know what you're talking about.

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.

---

You clearly have not read every article out there as several initially mentioned Cal as a Big Ten possibility. Did you see that the former head of Fox Sports estimated Cal/Stanford to be worth $30 million more than Washington/Oregon? So your prediction that Cal has zero chance of making it isn't based on any general consensus.

And your prediction that this will be the last year of major college football at Cal seems way off. The general consensus seems to have settled on the Big Ten and SEC remaining at 16 until either ND decides to join a conference and/or someone figures out how to pierce the ACC grant of rights. And that as long as the Big Ten and SEC stay at 16, the Pac12-2 will remain together. The Pac-12-2 seems to believe that the Big XII-4+2-2+4 won't get a TV deal that would make any Pac-12-2 bolt.

Now, if you're saying that under the new TV contracts, the Pac-12-2 won't be major college football because of the financial disadvantage, then sure. But that applies to the Clemsons and Florida States of the world too.

And at this point, once teams figure out how to get out of the the ACC grant of rights, no one can predict what will happen next because what happens next largely depends on which TV network picks up which ACC teams.

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

calumnus said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

If only there was some recent precedent for the Big 10 caring about both school in a market, and not just one...

---

There are so many differences between them and the Bay Area.

USC and UCLA are both much better athletically than Stanford and Cal respectively.

USC most likely vouched for UCLA's inclusion (even if they didn't, UCLA has a more well connected and willing to do his job AD than we have) . We don't have such a partner. Stanford is not going to do anything for us because frankly we've not been much competition for them over the past decade. They are also not as desirable as USC from a football standpoint so their voice matters less.
Well USC and UCLA may have partnered up (e.g. USC strongly voices that UCLA must come with them)

LA is a substantially bigger market

While I already mentioned the athletics at UCLA, their basketball program can stand on its own - another carrot that can be offered to the B1G. We bring nothing unique to the B1G except extremely horrible administration and red tape that they would never want to work with.

---

He was responding to Big Dog who keeps trying to come up with ways Stanford gets invited and Cal doesn't.

---

Right - I am in agreement with Big Dog ... There are so many different ways Stanford gets invited and we don't that simply pointing out the precedent of USC and UCLA doesn't make sense. Given the vast differences between both sets of schools and regions, pointing out that precedence isn't comforting at all.

---

Exactly. IMO, folks thinking Stanford-Cal are an inexorably linked pair are viewing this with Blue-and-Gold glasses. Yes, there is a business case to be made to link the two schools, but there are "many different ways" to make a business case that they are separate free agents (and Fox Sports knows them all). If Cal wants to remain a P5 (P2, P3?), Cal needs to make its own value-add case, and not assume that we can tag along with Stanford.

---

We shouldn't ASSUME that Cal and Stanford are a linked pair, but by the same token I don't think we should ASSUME that Stanford and Notre Dame are a linked pair, as you've been doing in this thread. In fact, I'd argue it's more likely that Stanford-Cal comes as a package deal to any new conference than Stanford-ND. Not guaranteed, of course, just more likely. A conference that wants to invite a school as a way of owning the Bay Area/NorCal market will probably want to own all of it, not leave an opening for a rival conference to compete for their territory.

---

I can't see how adding Cal and Stanford creates enough revenue to be at least break even additions for the big 10 membership. I could see them going after one of the schools to make a claim to the market, but both schools are not going to be financially justifiable. The networks aren't going to pay $200 million more to get both cal and stanford on board. That is just not going to happen. I also don't see the current membership reducing their payout to let both schools in. I think our only shot of getting in is if Stanford turns it down for some reason, which seems incredibly unlikely. I think their alumni and donors would never forgive the school for that.

Our best scenario of the likely scenarios is that the Pac stays together, steals a couple teams from the big 12,and then manages to bring in a few teams from the ACC. That might give us a claim to being a third conference. I just don't see us maintaing a seat at the table any other way.

Vegas Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

calumnus said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

If only there was some recent precedent for the Big 10 caring about both school in a market, and not just one...

---

There are so many differences between them and the Bay Area.

USC and UCLA are both much better athletically than Stanford and Cal respectively.

USC most likely vouched for UCLA's inclusion (even if they didn't, UCLA has a more well connected and willing to do his job AD than we have) . We don't have such a partner. Stanford is not going to do anything for us because frankly we've not been much competition for them over the past decade. They are also not as desirable as USC from a football standpoint so their voice matters less.
Well USC and UCLA may have partnered up (e.g. USC strongly voices that UCLA must come with them)

LA is a substantially bigger market

While I already mentioned the athletics at UCLA, their basketball program can stand on its own - another carrot that can be offered to the B1G. We bring nothing unique to the B1G except extremely horrible administration and red tape that they would never want to work with.

---

He was responding to Big Dog who keeps trying to come up with ways Stanford gets invited and Cal doesn't.

---

Right - I am in agreement with Big Dog ... There are so many different ways Stanford gets invited and we don't that simply pointing out the precedent of USC and UCLA doesn't make sense. Given the vast differences between both sets of schools and regions, pointing out that precedence isn't comforting at all.

---

Exactly. IMO, folks thinking Stanford-Cal are an inexorably linked pair are viewing this with Blue-and-Gold glasses. Yes, there is a business case to be made to link the two schools, but there are "many different ways" to make a business case that they are separate free agents (and Fox Sports knows them all). If Cal wants to remain a P5 (P2, P3?), Cal needs to make its own value-add case, and not assume that we can tag along with Stanford.

---

We shouldn't ASSUME that Cal and Stanford are a linked pair, but by the same token I don't think we should ASSUME that Stanford and Notre Dame are a linked pair, as you've been doing in this thread. In fact, I'd argue it's more likely that Stanford-Cal comes as a package deal to any new conference than Stanford-ND. Not guaranteed, of course, just more likely. A conference that wants to invite a school as a way of owning the Bay Area/NorCal market will probably want to own all of it, not leave an opening for a rival conference to compete for their territory.

---

I can't see how adding Cal and Stanford creates enough revenue to be at least break even additions for the big 10 membership. I could see them going after one of the schools to make a claim to the market, but both schools are not going to be financially justifiable. The networks aren't going to pay $200 million more to get both cal and stanford on board. That is just not going to happen. I also don't see the current membership reducing their payout to let both schools in. I think our only shot of getting in is if Stanford turns it down for some reason, which seems incredibly unlikely. I think their alumni and donors would never forgive the school for that.

Our best scenario of the likely scenarios is that the Pac stays together, steals a couple teams from the big 12,and then manages to bring in a few teams from the ACC. That might give us a claim to being a third conference. I just don't see us maintaing a seat at the table any other way.

---

Right now it seems like there are no schools in the Pac that would move the financial needle for the B1G, so it's likely status quo in the short term, unless maybe a big move happens with Notre Dame (that also seems unlikely).

However, there's a lot of speculation about how expansion will go in the future. When that happens, I think there are some pretty good reasons to think that if a conference wants either Cal or Stanford it will want both.

berserkeley said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

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.

---

Yes. I disagree. I think you don't know what you're talking about.

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.

---

You clearly have not read every article out there as several initially mentioned Cal as a Big Ten possibility. Did you see that the former head of Fox Sports estimated Cal/Stanford to be worth $30 million more than Washington/Oregon? So your prediction that Cal has zero chance of making it isn't based on any general consensus.

And your prediction that this will be the last year of major college football at Cal seems way off. The general consensus seems to have settled on the Big Ten and SEC remaining at 16 until either ND decides to join a conference and/or someone figures out how to pierce the ACC grant of rights. And that as long as the Big Ten and SEC stay at 16, the Pac12-2 will remain together. The Pac-12-2 seems to believe that the Big XII-4+2-2+4 won't get a TV deal that would make any Pac-12-2 bolt.

Now, if you're saying that under the new TV contracts, the Pac-12-2 won't be major college football because of the financial disadvantage, then sure. But that applies to the Clemsons and Florida States of the world too.

And at this point, once teams figure out how to get out of the the ACC grant of rights, no one can predict what will happen next because what happens next largely depends on which TV network picks up which ACC teams.

---

I did read those articles that came out when all this broke. Everything I have read since then has almost never mentioned Cal. We've been grouped as with WSU, OSU into the MWC.

That aside, what I meant by this being the last season of major college football at Cal is that what is happening currently, while it doesn't formally take place 2+ years from now, the impact is immediate. All the recruits we are competing with UCLA, Wisconsin, Michigan etc - you think those 2023 recruits will come here now? Do you think our solid-to-star players are going to stick around after next year if we are not in B1G? Even if the PAC-12 saves itself, do you think they will stay given an offer from one of those schools? Do you think any of our promising coaches (if we have them) will stick around? Our football program goes bust after this year unless we have some clarity.

If this doesn't happen soon, we will be left out -- we have no leadership so if the B1G decides to take more teams 5 years from now... guess what? They are taking SDST because we've continued floundering for the past 5 years with below average recruits, coaches, and most of all, admin.

fat_slice said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

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.

---

Yes. I disagree. I think you don't know what you're talking about.

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.

---

You clearly have not read every article out there as several initially mentioned Cal as a Big Ten possibility. Did you see that the former head of Fox Sports estimated Cal/Stanford to be worth $30 million more than Washington/Oregon? So your prediction that Cal has zero chance of making it isn't based on any general consensus.

And your prediction that this will be the last year of major college football at Cal seems way off. The general consensus seems to have settled on the Big Ten and SEC remaining at 16 until either ND decides to join a conference and/or someone figures out how to pierce the ACC grant of rights. And that as long as the Big Ten and SEC stay at 16, the Pac12-2 will remain together. The Pac-12-2 seems to believe that the Big XII-4+2-2+4 won't get a TV deal that would make any Pac-12-2 bolt.

Now, if you're saying that under the new TV contracts, the Pac-12-2 won't be major college football because of the financial disadvantage, then sure. But that applies to the Clemsons and Florida States of the world too.

And at this point, once teams figure out how to get out of the the ACC grant of rights, no one can predict what will happen next because what happens next largely depends on which TV network picks up which ACC teams.

---

I did read those articles that came out when all this broke. Everything I have read since then has almost never mentioned Cal. We've been grouped as with WSU, OSU into the MWC.

That aside, what I meant by this being the last season of major college football at Cal is that what is happening currently, while it doesn't formally take place 2+ years from now, the impact is immediate. All the recruits we are competing with UCLA, Wisconsin, Michigan etc - you think those 2023 recruits will come here now? Do you think our solid-to-star players are going to stick around after next year if we are not in B1G? Even if the PAC-12 saves itself, do you think they will stay given an offer from one of those schools? Do you think any of our promising coaches (if we have them) will stick around? Our football program goes bust after this year unless we have some clarity.

If this doesn't happen soon, we will be left out -- we have no leadership so if the B1G decides to take more teams 5 years from now... guess what? They are taking SDST because we've continued floundering for the past 5 years with below average recruits, coaches, and most of all, admin.

---

So you have in fact read more than one article that gives Cal a ray of hope then. After the initial round of Cal being a possibility, the consensus has moved to the Big Ten taking no one and the Pac12-2 staying together. Of course, that could change quickly if the Big XII minus Texas and Oklahoma gets a much better deal than the Pac-12 without USC and UCLA.

As for your doom and gloom over Cal recruiting and retention, that applies to every Pac-12, Big XII, ACC team. Every team not in the Big Ten and SEC are in the same exact boat. Yes, it's possible that by the time the ACC grant of rights is pierced, the Big Ten and SEC will have so greatly distanced themselves from the rest of the pack that neither conference decides to expand.

And, no, in 5 years, the Big Ten would not take SDSU over Cal.

berserkeley said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

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.

---

Yes. I disagree. I think you don't know what you're talking about.

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.

---

You clearly have not read every article out there as several initially mentioned Cal as a Big Ten possibility. Did you see that the former head of Fox Sports estimated Cal/Stanford to be worth $30 million more than Washington/Oregon? So your prediction that Cal has zero chance of making it isn't based on any general consensus.

And your prediction that this will be the last year of major college football at Cal seems way off. The general consensus seems to have settled on the Big Ten and SEC remaining at 16 until either ND decides to join a conference and/or someone figures out how to pierce the ACC grant of rights. And that as long as the Big Ten and SEC stay at 16, the Pac12-2 will remain together. The Pac-12-2 seems to believe that the Big XII-4+2-2+4 won't get a TV deal that would make any Pac-12-2 bolt.

Now, if you're saying that under the new TV contracts, the Pac-12-2 won't be major college football because of the financial disadvantage, then sure. But that applies to the Clemsons and Florida States of the world too.

And at this point, once teams figure out how to get out of the the ACC grant of rights, no one can predict what will happen next because what happens next largely depends on which TV network picks up which ACC teams.

---

I did read those articles that came out when all this broke. Everything I have read since then has almost never mentioned Cal. We've been grouped as with WSU, OSU into the MWC.

That aside, what I meant by this being the last season of major college football at Cal is that what is happening currently, while it doesn't formally take place 2+ years from now, the impact is immediate. All the recruits we are competing with UCLA, Wisconsin, Michigan etc - you think those 2023 recruits will come here now? Do you think our solid-to-star players are going to stick around after next year if we are not in B1G? Even if the PAC-12 saves itself, do you think they will stay given an offer from one of those schools? Do you think any of our promising coaches (if we have them) will stick around? Our football program goes bust after this year unless we have some clarity.

If this doesn't happen soon, we will be left out -- we have no leadership so if the B1G decides to take more teams 5 years from now... guess what? They are taking SDST because we've continued floundering for the past 5 years with below average recruits, coaches, and most of all, admin.

---

So you have in fact read more than one article that gives Cal a ray of hope then. After the initial round of Cal being a possibility, the consensus has moved to the Big Ten taking no one and the Pac12-2 staying together. Of course, that could change quickly if the Big XII minus Texas and Oklahoma gets a much better deal than the Pac-12 without USC and UCLA.

As for your doom and gloom over Cal recruiting and retention, that applies to every Pac-12, Big XII, ACC team. Every team not in the Big Ten and SEC are in the same exact boat. Yes, it's possible that by the time the ACC grant of rights is pierced, the Big Ten and SEC will have so greatly distanced themselves from the rest of the pack that neither conference decides to expand.

And, no, in 5 years, the Big Ten would not take SDSU over Cal.

---

If SDSU (or any other podunk U) joins the pac-12 and kicks our behinds for 5 years, I don't think it's a no brainer that they would jump us in the B1G sweepstakes.

The Oregon's, Washington's Clemson's, Florida Sts, Miami's have a lot less to worry about -- they get so much admin support they will find a why to stay competitive and worst come to worst, will join the B1G/SEC at their first opp. The doom and gloom is for all the other colleges and yes that is correct -- all these colleges are going to be royally screwed.

I'm not trying to disagree for you - I just honestly don't see a realistic way that we survive this. The only scenario I see that happening is if the ACC and pac-12 officially merge. We could then potentially be a close 3rd to SEC/B1G. The latter though actually happening seems to be a pipe dream. A loose alliance just sounds like a stop gap.

fat_slice said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

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.

---

Yes. I disagree. I think you don't know what you're talking about.

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.

---

You clearly have not read every article out there as several initially mentioned Cal as a Big Ten possibility. Did you see that the former head of Fox Sports estimated Cal/Stanford to be worth $30 million more than Washington/Oregon? So your prediction that Cal has zero chance of making it isn't based on any general consensus.

And your prediction that this will be the last year of major college football at Cal seems way off. The general consensus seems to have settled on the Big Ten and SEC remaining at 16 until either ND decides to join a conference and/or someone figures out how to pierce the ACC grant of rights. And that as long as the Big Ten and SEC stay at 16, the Pac12-2 will remain together. The Pac-12-2 seems to believe that the Big XII-4+2-2+4 won't get a TV deal that would make any Pac-12-2 bolt.

Now, if you're saying that under the new TV contracts, the Pac-12-2 won't be major college football because of the financial disadvantage, then sure. But that applies to the Clemsons and Florida States of the world too.

And at this point, once teams figure out how to get out of the the ACC grant of rights, no one can predict what will happen next because what happens next largely depends on which TV network picks up which ACC teams.

---

I did read those articles that came out when all this broke. Everything I have read since then has almost never mentioned Cal. We've been grouped as with WSU, OSU into the MWC.

That aside, what I meant by this being the last season of major college football at Cal is that what is happening currently, while it doesn't formally take place 2+ years from now, the impact is immediate. All the recruits we are competing with UCLA, Wisconsin, Michigan etc - you think those 2023 recruits will come here now? Do you think our solid-to-star players are going to stick around after next year if we are not in B1G? Even if the PAC-12 saves itself, do you think they will stay given an offer from one of those schools? Do you think any of our promising coaches (if we have them) will stick around? Our football program goes bust after this year unless we have some clarity.

If this doesn't happen soon, we will be left out -- we have no leadership so if the B1G decides to take more teams 5 years from now... guess what? They are taking SDST because we've continued floundering for the past 5 years with below average recruits, coaches, and most of all, admin.

---

So you have in fact read more than one article that gives Cal a ray of hope then. After the initial round of Cal being a possibility, the consensus has moved to the Big Ten taking no one and the Pac12-2 staying together. Of course, that could change quickly if the Big XII minus Texas and Oklahoma gets a much better deal than the Pac-12 without USC and UCLA.

As for your doom and gloom over Cal recruiting and retention, that applies to every Pac-12, Big XII, ACC team. Every team not in the Big Ten and SEC are in the same exact boat. Yes, it's possible that by the time the ACC grant of rights is pierced, the Big Ten and SEC will have so greatly distanced themselves from the rest of the pack that neither conference decides to expand.

And, no, in 5 years, the Big Ten would not take SDSU over Cal.

---

If SDSU (or any other podunk U) joins the pac-12 and kicks our behinds for 5 years, I don't think it's a no brainer that they would jump us in the B1G sweepstakes.

The Oregon's, Washington's Clemson's, Florida Sts, Miami's have a lot less to worry about -- they get so much admin support they will find a why to stay competitive and worst come to worst, will join the B1G/SEC at their first opp. The doom and gloom is for all the other colleges and yes that is correct -- all these colleges are going to be royally screwed.

I'm not trying to disagree for you - I just honestly don't see a realistic way that we survive this. The only scenario I see that happening is if the ACC and pac-12 officially merge. We could then potentially be a close 3rd to SEC/B1G. The latter though actually happening seems to be a pipe dream. A loose alliance just sounds like a stop gap.

---

If you think there's any future where the B1G takes SDSU I'd like to you where you're getting your stash from because you're high as a kite.

Rushinbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

calumnus said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

If only there was some recent precedent for the Big 10 caring about both school in a market, and not just one...

---

There are so many differences between them and the Bay Area.

USC and UCLA are both much better athletically than Stanford and Cal respectively.

USC most likely vouched for UCLA's inclusion (even if they didn't, UCLA has a more well connected and willing to do his job AD than we have) . We don't have such a partner. Stanford is not going to do anything for us because frankly we've not been much competition for them over the past decade. They are also not as desirable as USC from a football standpoint so their voice matters less.
Well USC and UCLA may have partnered up (e.g. USC strongly voices that UCLA must come with them)

LA is a substantially bigger market

While I already mentioned the athletics at UCLA, their basketball program can stand on its own - another carrot that can be offered to the B1G. We bring nothing unique to the B1G except extremely horrible administration and red tape that they would never want to work with.

---

He was responding to Big Dog who keeps trying to come up with ways Stanford gets invited and Cal doesn't.

---

Right - I am in agreement with Big Dog ... There are so many different ways Stanford gets invited and we don't that simply pointing out the precedent of USC and UCLA doesn't make sense. Given the vast differences between both sets of schools and regions, pointing out that precedence isn't comforting at all.

---

Exactly. IMO, folks thinking Stanford-Cal are an inexorably linked pair are viewing this with Blue-and-Gold glasses. Yes, there is a business case to be made to link the two schools, but there are "many different ways" to make a business case that they are separate free agents (and Fox Sports knows them all). If Cal wants to remain a P5 (P2, P3?), Cal needs to make its own value-add case, and not assume that we can tag along with Stanford.

---

We shouldn't ASSUME that Cal and Stanford are a linked pair, but by the same token I don't think we should ASSUME that Stanford and Notre Dame are a linked pair, as you've been doing in this thread. In fact, I'd argue it's more likely that Stanford-Cal comes as a package deal to any new conference than Stanford-ND. Not guaranteed, of course, just more likely. A conference that wants to invite a school as a way of owning the Bay Area/NorCal market will probably want to own all of it, not leave an opening for a rival conference to compete for their territory.

---

Furd lusts to be thought of in conjunction with ND. But, ND? Who's Furd? They have a tree for a mascot...and a color? Just another opponent.A private school that we will beat 90% of the time...especially without their "glove".

---

It's actually the other way around. Stanford doesn't crave national football prominence, but Notre Dame more than craves Stanford's academic standing. ND loves the yearly matchup so the announced can chirp about how kids kn both teams do it in the field and in the classroom.

juarezbear said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

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.

---

Yes. I disagree. I think you don't know what you're talking about.

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.

---

You clearly have not read every article out there as several initially mentioned Cal as a Big Ten possibility. Did you see that the former head of Fox Sports estimated Cal/Stanford to be worth $30 million more than Washington/Oregon? So your prediction that Cal has zero chance of making it isn't based on any general consensus.

And your prediction that this will be the last year of major college football at Cal seems way off. The general consensus seems to have settled on the Big Ten and SEC remaining at 16 until either ND decides to join a conference and/or someone figures out how to pierce the ACC grant of rights. And that as long as the Big Ten and SEC stay at 16, the Pac12-2 will remain together. The Pac-12-2 seems to believe that the Big XII-4+2-2+4 won't get a TV deal that would make any Pac-12-2 bolt.

Now, if you're saying that under the new TV contracts, the Pac-12-2 won't be major college football because of the financial disadvantage, then sure. But that applies to the Clemsons and Florida States of the world too.

And at this point, once teams figure out how to get out of the the ACC grant of rights, no one can predict what will happen next because what happens next largely depends on which TV network picks up which ACC teams.

---

I did read those articles that came out when all this broke. Everything I have read since then has almost never mentioned Cal. We've been grouped as with WSU, OSU into the MWC.

That aside, what I meant by this being the last season of major college football at Cal is that what is happening currently, while it doesn't formally take place 2+ years from now, the impact is immediate. All the recruits we are competing with UCLA, Wisconsin, Michigan etc - you think those 2023 recruits will come here now? Do you think our solid-to-star players are going to stick around after next year if we are not in B1G? Even if the PAC-12 saves itself, do you think they will stay given an offer from one of those schools? Do you think any of our promising coaches (if we have them) will stick around? Our football program goes bust after this year unless we have some clarity.

If this doesn't happen soon, we will be left out -- we have no leadership so if the B1G decides to take more teams 5 years from now... guess what? They are taking SDST because we've continued floundering for the past 5 years with below average recruits, coaches, and most of all, admin.

---

So you have in fact read more than one article that gives Cal a ray of hope then. After the initial round of Cal being a possibility, the consensus has moved to the Big Ten taking no one and the Pac12-2 staying together. Of course, that could change quickly if the Big XII minus Texas and Oklahoma gets a much better deal than the Pac-12 without USC and UCLA.

As for your doom and gloom over Cal recruiting and retention, that applies to every Pac-12, Big XII, ACC team. Every team not in the Big Ten and SEC are in the same exact boat. Yes, it's possible that by the time the ACC grant of rights is pierced, the Big Ten and SEC will have so greatly distanced themselves from the rest of the pack that neither conference decides to expand.

And, no, in 5 years, the Big Ten would not take SDSU over Cal.

---

If SDSU (or any other podunk U) joins the pac-12 and kicks our behinds for 5 years, I don't think it's a no brainer that they would jump us in the B1G sweepstakes.

The Oregon's, Washington's Clemson's, Florida Sts, Miami's have a lot less to worry about -- they get so much admin support they will find a why to stay competitive and worst come to worst, will join the B1G/SEC at their first opp. The doom and gloom is for all the other colleges and yes that is correct -- all these colleges are going to be royally screwed.

I'm not trying to disagree for you - I just honestly don't see a realistic way that we survive this. The only scenario I see that happening is if the ACC and pac-12 officially merge. We could then potentially be a close 3rd to SEC/B1G. The latter though actually happening seems to be a pipe dream. A loose alliance just sounds like a stop gap.

---

If you think there's any future where the B1G takes SDSU I'd like to you where you're getting your stash from because you're high as a kite.

---

I don't think SDSU has a chance to join B1G. My point is that I don't think Cal had a shot either. I'm just making a side point that we have such poor leadership that if SDSU we're to join, they probably would end up being better than us (marketing their brand + wins). And that would make their chance of getting in better than ours even though that chance is 0.000000000001% . Ours would then be 1/2 that.

fat_slice said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

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.

---

Yes. I disagree. I think you don't know what you're talking about.

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.

---

You clearly have not read every article out there as several initially mentioned Cal as a Big Ten possibility. Did you see that the former head of Fox Sports estimated Cal/Stanford to be worth $30 million more than Washington/Oregon? So your prediction that Cal has zero chance of making it isn't based on any general consensus.

And your prediction that this will be the last year of major college football at Cal seems way off. The general consensus seems to have settled on the Big Ten and SEC remaining at 16 until either ND decides to join a conference and/or someone figures out how to pierce the ACC grant of rights. And that as long as the Big Ten and SEC stay at 16, the Pac12-2 will remain together. The Pac-12-2 seems to believe that the Big XII-4+2-2+4 won't get a TV deal that would make any Pac-12-2 bolt.

Now, if you're saying that under the new TV contracts, the Pac-12-2 won't be major college football because of the financial disadvantage, then sure. But that applies to the Clemsons and Florida States of the world too.

And at this point, once teams figure out how to get out of the the ACC grant of rights, no one can predict what will happen next because what happens next largely depends on which TV network picks up which ACC teams.

---

I did read those articles that came out when all this broke. Everything I have read since then has almost never mentioned Cal. We've been grouped as with WSU, OSU into the MWC.

That aside, what I meant by this being the last season of major college football at Cal is that what is happening currently, while it doesn't formally take place 2+ years from now, the impact is immediate. All the recruits we are competing with UCLA, Wisconsin, Michigan etc - you think those 2023 recruits will come here now? Do you think our solid-to-star players are going to stick around after next year if we are not in B1G? Even if the PAC-12 saves itself, do you think they will stay given an offer from one of those schools? Do you think any of our promising coaches (if we have them) will stick around? Our football program goes bust after this year unless we have some clarity.

If this doesn't happen soon, we will be left out -- we have no leadership so if the B1G decides to take more teams 5 years from now... guess what? They are taking SDST because we've continued floundering for the past 5 years with below average recruits, coaches, and most of all, admin.

---

So you have in fact read more than one article that gives Cal a ray of hope then. After the initial round of Cal being a possibility, the consensus has moved to the Big Ten taking no one and the Pac12-2 staying together. Of course, that could change quickly if the Big XII minus Texas and Oklahoma gets a much better deal than the Pac-12 without USC and UCLA.

As for your doom and gloom over Cal recruiting and retention, that applies to every Pac-12, Big XII, ACC team. Every team not in the Big Ten and SEC are in the same exact boat. Yes, it's possible that by the time the ACC grant of rights is pierced, the Big Ten and SEC will have so greatly distanced themselves from the rest of the pack that neither conference decides to expand.

And, no, in 5 years, the Big Ten would not take SDSU over Cal.

---

If SDSU (or any other podunk U) joins the pac-12 and kicks our behinds for 5 years, I don't think it's a no brainer that they would jump us in the B1G sweepstakes.

The Oregon's, Washington's Clemson's, Florida Sts, Miami's have a lot less to worry about -- they get so much admin support they will find a why to stay competitive and worst come to worst, will join the B1G/SEC at their first opp. The doom and gloom is for all the other colleges and yes that is correct -- all these colleges are going to be royally screwed.

I'm not trying to disagree for you - I just honestly don't see a realistic way that we survive this. The only scenario I see that happening is if the ACC and pac-12 officially merge. We could then potentially be a close 3rd to SEC/B1G. The latter though actually happening seems to be a pipe dream. A loose alliance just sounds like a stop gap.

---

If you think there's any future where the B1G takes SDSU I'd like to you where you're getting your stash from because you're high as a kite.

---

I don't think SDSU has a chance to join B1G. My point is that I don't think Cal had a shot either. I'm just making a side point that we have such poor leadership that if SDSU we're to join, they probably would end up being better than us (marketing their brand + wins). And that would make their chance of getting in better than ours even though that chance is 0.000000000001% . Ours would then be 1/2 that.

---

So there's a chance?!?!

berserkeley said:

---

So you have in fact read more than one article that gives Cal a ray of hope then. After the initial round of Cal being a possibility, the consensus has moved to the Big Ten taking no one and the Pac12-2 staying together. Of course, that could change quickly if the Big XII minus Texas and Oklahoma gets a much better deal than the Pac-12 without USC and UCLA.

As for your doom and gloom over Cal recruiting and retention, that applies to every Pac-12, Big XII, ACC team. Every team not in the Big Ten and SEC are in the same exact boat. Yes, it's possible that by the time the ACC grant of rights is pierced, the Big Ten and SEC will have so greatly distanced themselves from the rest of the pack that neither conference decides to expand.

And, no, in 5 years, the Big Ten would not take SDSU over Cal.

---

The Pac-12-2 is in a very precarious position, because it is a very real possibility that the "Four Corners" schools... some combination or all of ASU, UofA, Utah and Colorado... bolt for the Big XII.

BigDaddy said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

So you have in fact read more than one article that gives Cal a ray of hope then. After the initial round of Cal being a possibility, the consensus has moved to the Big Ten taking no one and the Pac12-2 staying together. Of course, that could change quickly if the Big XII minus Texas and Oklahoma gets a much better deal than the Pac-12 without USC and UCLA.

As for your doom and gloom over Cal recruiting and retention, that applies to every Pac-12, Big XII, ACC team. Every team not in the Big Ten and SEC are in the same exact boat. Yes, it's possible that by the time the ACC grant of rights is pierced, the Big Ten and SEC will have so greatly distanced themselves from the rest of the pack that neither conference decides to expand.

And, no, in 5 years, the Big Ten would not take SDSU over Cal.

---

The Pac-12-2 is in a very precarious position, because it is a very real possibility that the "Four Corners" schools... some combination or all of ASU, UofA, Utah and Colorado... bolt for the Big XII.

---

I think what makes all this more maddening is knowing that Knowlton and Christ are just sitting around twiddling their thumbs. If we had someone who we knew was working diligently, making phone calls, hitting up every connection and turning over every stone - I would feel immensely more fine with all of this...even if that meant we got left behind. I am absolutely pissed that we are just letting one of the best places to watch football games go to hell without a fight.

fat_slice said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

So you have in fact read more than one article that gives Cal a ray of hope then. After the initial round of Cal being a possibility, the consensus has moved to the Big Ten taking no one and the Pac12-2 staying together. Of course, that could change quickly if the Big XII minus Texas and Oklahoma gets a much better deal than the Pac-12 without USC and UCLA.

As for your doom and gloom over Cal recruiting and retention, that applies to every Pac-12, Big XII, ACC team. Every team not in the Big Ten and SEC are in the same exact boat. Yes, it's possible that by the time the ACC grant of rights is pierced, the Big Ten and SEC will have so greatly distanced themselves from the rest of the pack that neither conference decides to expand.

And, no, in 5 years, the Big Ten would not take SDSU over Cal.

---

The Pac-12-2 is in a very precarious position, because it is a very real possibility that the "Four Corners" schools... some combination or all of ASU, UofA, Utah and Colorado... bolt for the Big XII.

---

I think what makes all this more maddening is knowing that Knowlton and Christ are just sitting around twiddling their thumbs. If we had someone who we knew was working diligently, making phone calls, hitting up every connection and turning over every stone - I would feel immensely more fine with all of this...even if that meant we got left behind. I am absolutely pissed that we are just letting one of the best places to watch football games go to hell without a fight.

---

Our problem is that Chancellor Christ is sort of above the fray... and Knowlton is below it.

Big C said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

So you have in fact read more than one article that gives Cal a ray of hope then. After the initial round of Cal being a possibility, the consensus has moved to the Big Ten taking no one and the Pac12-2 staying together. Of course, that could change quickly if the Big XII minus Texas and Oklahoma gets a much better deal than the Pac-12 without USC and UCLA.

As for your doom and gloom over Cal recruiting and retention, that applies to every Pac-12, Big XII, ACC team. Every team not in the Big Ten and SEC are in the same exact boat. Yes, it's possible that by the time the ACC grant of rights is pierced, the Big Ten and SEC will have so greatly distanced themselves from the rest of the pack that neither conference decides to expand.

And, no, in 5 years, the Big Ten would not take SDSU over Cal.

---

The Pac-12-2 is in a very precarious position, because it is a very real possibility that the "Four Corners" schools... some combination or all of ASU, UofA, Utah and Colorado... bolt for the Big XII.

---

I think what makes all this more maddening is knowing that Knowlton and Christ are just sitting around twiddling their thumbs. If we had someone who we knew was working diligently, making phone calls, hitting up every connection and turning over every stone - I would feel immensely more fine with all of this...even if that meant we got left behind. I am absolutely pissed that we are just letting one of the best places to watch football games go to hell without a fight.

---

Our problem is that Chancellor Christ is sort of above the fray... and Knowlton is below it.

---

Yes. I doubt they are doing anything other than calling Kliavkoff and the other PAC-10 chancellors and ADs to get reassurances that everyone will stay together and everything will be all right. While the other chancellors and ADs are doing that AND frantically trying to get into the B1G or checking on their other options.

Vegas Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

calumnus said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

If only there was some recent precedent for the Big 10 caring about both school in a market, and not just one...

---

There are so many differences between them and the Bay Area.

USC and UCLA are both much better athletically than Stanford and Cal respectively.

USC most likely vouched for UCLA's inclusion (even if they didn't, UCLA has a more well connected and willing to do his job AD than we have) . We don't have such a partner. Stanford is not going to do anything for us because frankly we've not been much competition for them over the past decade. They are also not as desirable as USC from a football standpoint so their voice matters less.
Well USC and UCLA may have partnered up (e.g. USC strongly voices that UCLA must come with them)

LA is a substantially bigger market

While I already mentioned the athletics at UCLA, their basketball program can stand on its own - another carrot that can be offered to the B1G. We bring nothing unique to the B1G except extremely horrible administration and red tape that they would never want to work with.

---

He was responding to Big Dog who keeps trying to come up with ways Stanford gets invited and Cal doesn't.

---

Right - I am in agreement with Big Dog ... There are so many different ways Stanford gets invited and we don't that simply pointing out the precedent of USC and UCLA doesn't make sense. Given the vast differences between both sets of schools and regions, pointing out that precedence isn't comforting at all.

---

Exactly. IMO, folks thinking Stanford-Cal are an inexorably linked pair are viewing this with Blue-and-Gold glasses. Yes, there is a business case to be made to link the two schools, but there are "many different ways" to make a business case that they are separate free agents (and Fox Sports knows them all). If Cal wants to remain a P5 (P2, P3?), Cal needs to make its own value-add case, and not assume that we can tag along with Stanford.

---

We shouldn't ASSUME that Cal and Stanford are a linked pair, but by the same token I don't think we should ASSUME that Stanford and Notre Dame are a linked pair, as you've been doing in this thread. In fact, I'd argue it's more likely that Stanford-Cal comes as a package deal to any new conference than Stanford-ND. Not guaranteed, of course, just more likely. A conference that wants to invite a school as a way of owning the Bay Area/NorCal market will probably want to own all of it, not leave an opening for a rival conference to compete for their territory.

---

I can't see how adding Cal and Stanford creates enough revenue to be at least break even additions for the big 10 membership. I could see them going after one of the schools to make a claim to the market, but both schools are not going to be financially justifiable. The networks aren't going to pay $200 million more to get both cal and stanford on board. That is just not going to happen. I also don't see the current membership reducing their payout to let both schools in. I think our only shot of getting in is if Stanford turns it down for some reason, which seems incredibly unlikely. I think their alumni and donors would never forgive the school for that.

Our best scenario of the likely scenarios is that the Pac stays together, steals a couple teams from the big 12,and then manages to bring in a few teams from the ACC. That might give us a claim to being a third conference. I just don't see us maintaing a seat at the table any other way.

---

No ACC team would fall for that. And, their league wouldn't let them off the $$$ hook.

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.

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.

---

There clearly is a 'sky-is-falling' outcome, where Stanford/UW/Oregon join ND in the Big 10. It wouldn't shock me, and it had me in a pretty rough spot the day the news broke.

But there is no clear evidence that the Big 10 is interested it growing any further. It has to move pretty fast because the Pac 12 (10) will be inking a new TV deal, and there's a chance that pushes any further change out 5-10+ years.

And there has been no indication that Stanford is discussing anything with ND. You're assuming Stanford is willing to forsake a century and a half of ties w/ the countries' leading public institution, located right next to it... in favor of a private religious school that does no research, just because they've played football annually for a decade or two. Old Blues who have been around longer than me will know better, but that does not sound like the Stanford administration I know of.

I could be wrong, but I think people vastly overestimate the Stanford / Notre Dame relationship. Notre Dame uses Stanford to reach California and get viewers to equate the two academically. Stanford gets much less out of the relationship