sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Yesterday from USA Today Rutgers Wire

https://rutgerswire.usatoday.com/lists/it-is-mid-august-who-are-now-the-favorites-to-join-the-big-ten-in-conference-expansion/

It is mid August, who are now the favorites to join the Big Ten?
1. Notre Dame
2. Oregon
3. Washington
4. North Carolina
5. Virginia
6. California
7. Kansas
8. Boston College
9. Arizona
10. Colorado
11. Syracuse
12. Utah

---

LOL Furd

---

Big Daddy won't be happy

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Yesterday from USA Today Rutgers Wire

https://rutgerswire.usatoday.com/lists/it-is-mid-august-who-are-now-the-favorites-to-join-the-big-ten-in-conference-expansion/

It is mid August, who are now the favorites to join the Big Ten?
1. Notre Dame
2. Oregon
3. Washington
4. North Carolina
5. Virginia
6. California
7. Kansas
8. Boston College
9. Arizona
10. Colorado
11. Syracuse
12. Utah

---

LOL Furd

---

Big Daddy won't be happy

---

Interesting list - with all the ridicule Cal gets, in what world does UVA have a better profile than us? Are the claiming the DC market (which Maryland all provided them with) or have they actually been better than us over the past 10 years (not a big reach but I don't think I've ever seen them ranked, even briefly like we have been)?

NC has equal or slightly better football than us (despite is beating them twice) and light years better basketball but does that outweigh the Bay Area market?

fat_slice said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Yesterday from USA Today Rutgers Wire

https://rutgerswire.usatoday.com/lists/it-is-mid-august-who-are-now-the-favorites-to-join-the-big-ten-in-conference-expansion/

It is mid August, who are now the favorites to join the Big Ten?
1. Notre Dame
2. Oregon
3. Washington
4. North Carolina
5. Virginia
6. California
7. Kansas
8. Boston College
9. Arizona
10. Colorado
11. Syracuse
12. Utah

---

LOL Furd

---

Big Daddy won't be happy

---

Interesting list - with all the ridicule Cal gets, in what world does UVA have a better profile than us? Are the claiming the DC market (which Maryland all provided them with) or have they actually been better than us over the past 10 years (not a big reach but I don't think I've ever seen them ranked, even briefly like we have been)?

NC has equal or slightly better football than us (despite is beating them twice) and light years better basketball but does that outweigh the Bay Area market?

---

Interestingly, the University of Virginia's winning percentage in football since the 2000 season is 0.429
(63-84). Cal's winning percentage over the same period is exactly the same 0.429 (60-80). However, Virginia's men's basketball team is a helluva better than ours.

Golden One said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Yesterday from USA Today Rutgers Wire

https://rutgerswire.usatoday.com/lists/it-is-mid-august-who-are-now-the-favorites-to-join-the-big-ten-in-conference-expansion/

It is mid August, who are now the favorites to join the Big Ten?
1. Notre Dame
2. Oregon
3. Washington
4. North Carolina
5. Virginia
6. California
7. Kansas
8. Boston College
9. Arizona
10. Colorado
11. Syracuse
12. Utah

---

LOL Furd

---

Big Daddy won't be happy

---

Interesting list - with all the ridicule Cal gets, in what world does UVA have a better profile than us? Are the claiming the DC market (which Maryland all provided them with) or have they actually been better than us over the past 10 years (not a big reach but I don't think I've ever seen them ranked, even briefly like we have been)?

NC has equal or slightly better football than us (despite is beating them twice) and light years better basketball but does that outweigh the Bay Area market?

---

Interestingly, the University of Virginia's winning percentage in football since the 2000 season is 0.429
(63-84). Cal's winning percentage over the same period is exactly the same 0.429 (60-80). However, Virginia's men's basketball team is a helluva better than ours.

---

There are about 80 teams in Division 1 that have basketball teams much better than ours.

dimitrig said:

---

Golden One said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Yesterday from USA Today Rutgers Wire

https://rutgerswire.usatoday.com/lists/it-is-mid-august-who-are-now-the-favorites-to-join-the-big-ten-in-conference-expansion/

It is mid August, who are now the favorites to join the Big Ten?
1. Notre Dame
2. Oregon
3. Washington
4. North Carolina
5. Virginia
6. California
7. Kansas
8. Boston College
9. Arizona
10. Colorado
11. Syracuse
12. Utah

---

LOL Furd

---

Big Daddy won't be happy

---

Interesting list - with all the ridicule Cal gets, in what world does UVA have a better profile than us? Are the claiming the DC market (which Maryland all provided them with) or have they actually been better than us over the past 10 years (not a big reach but I don't think I've ever seen them ranked, even briefly like we have been)?

NC has equal or slightly better football than us (despite is beating them twice) and light years better basketball but does that outweigh the Bay Area market?

---

Interestingly, the University of Virginia's winning percentage in football since the 2000 season is 0.429
(63-84). Cal's winning percentage over the same period is exactly the same 0.429 (60-80). However, Virginia's men's basketball team is a helluva better than ours.

---

There are about 80 teams in Division 1 that have basketball teams much better than ours.

---

Does basketball even matter here? Read somewhere (maybe a post here) that Kansas makes more revenue from their football program than from basketball.

In any case, UVA should automatically be banned from all power conferences for losing as a 1 seed to the 16th.

Rutgers was worse athletically than Cal. Commenters on Big Ten chatboards still routinely say that Rutgers shouldn't have been invited. Guess what: Rutgers is there.

ASU?

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

---

GMP said:

---

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

---

We badly need to do much better at revenue sports. Being great at aquatics, rubgy, and Esports simply does not register at all in the big picture of collegiate athletics. Our national reputation is clogged within the foulmost depths of the stenchiest, projectile vomit-inducing, disease-infested wh0reh0use 0uth0use.

Quote:

---

LyndonJayhawk1
They [Cal] really don't [fit] in the PAC either. They should join the Ivy. Great academics and terrible athletics.

redblueKU
Academics is the only reason.

All4KU
Hard to say. UCLA and USC's announcement surprised everyone. I guess Cal could, too.

LyndonJayhawk1
Cal will surprise people even more if they do get an invite since they suck in everything athletically and you would think Stanford, Kansas, Oregon, Washington, and even Colorado would be better gets.

---

---

Your first sentence is true, full stop. We need to do better.

But the rest of what you said, and your evidence from a Kansas board…who gives a crap? We've been bad for the last decade, decade and a half maybe, and still we are in a good spot for conference realignment.

---

Let me ask you this: are we (arguably) still in a good spot for realignment because of our athletic performance or despite it? The post was about our athletic reputation nationally. The post was not about our chances for a piece of the pie due to reasons other than revenue sports performance. No sense attacking a strawman.

Question: Are you really arguing our national reputation in revenue sports is not deep in the 5HITTER? That was my only point. Season after season after season, I read dozens of opinions that sound just like LyndonJayhawk1 in other teams' boards (I would say hundreds of times, but Cal revenue sports are not deemed relevant enough in the big picture for more than the occasional joke or insult).

Why do people say 'full stop' and then keep going? Full stop. Put the 'full stop' at the very end where it belongs for rhetorical force and accuracy.

---

Your point was that we need to do better at revenue sports because our reputation stinks. I don't disagree that we need to do better. I don't disagree that our reputation isn't good. But you also said that we do not "register at all in the big picture of collegiate athletics." To evidence this, you posted some Kansas fans' comments.

My point is that (1) we need to do better; however (2) despite not being good for the last 15 years, we DO still register, for the people who matter, in the big picture of collegiate athletics, despite what fans of other teams on message boards think. Full stop.

As for your critique of my use of "full stop"...I think you are failing to utilize any nuance. I used full stop for rhetorical force to show that I am not in any way arguing that Cal's football and basketball performance the last 15 years has been acceptable. I am instead making a different point, and after saying "full stop," I moved onto that point. When you come to a "full stop" at a "Stop Sign," do you have to stay there forever?

Gardenstate's last paragraph puts the period in the discussion of the Ivy League model, (which I would be OK with IF it included schools such as Stanford, Vandy, Northwestern, and Rice). I have watched a fair amount of Ivy League football via streaming and it's plenty entertaining. I didn't dismiss my daughter's hs games because I thought the level of competition wouldn't compete with the college game, nor do I watch Cal women's basketball because it's not as good as the men. As I have stated ad nauseum I'd be really happy to see collegiate athletics go to a model minus scholarships except for financial need. But college athletics aren't going to go back, obviously. And the Ivy League model, which I would support, just isn't going to happen precisely for the reasons Gardenstate shared.

So for me, it's either a solid Pac 12 with the remaining schools (although I wouldn't mind if the Arizona duo went to the Big 12), or the B1G. But once Cal goes down the path of the B1G, it's going to take resources, and money to make the Bears competitive. It's a pandora's box and once it's opened, Cal will have to play "that game" with the big boys for a very long time. Please remember that there will be a price to be paid to be competitive in that league and it may not always seem to fit the "Cal way" we've prided ourselves on for so many years. I suspect there will be some movement by those wanting to relax academic standards, and behavioral standards in order to compete. The alternative is to be the Vandy of the B1G, and I don't think any of us would be happy with that (regardless of the respect for their academic reputation).

The B1G is a different world. It will require a different mindset, and a different model, I fear.

TomBear said:

---

Gardenstate's last paragraph puts the period in the discussion of the Ivy League model, (which I would be OK with IF it included schools such as Stanford, Vandy, Northwestern, and Rice). I have watched a fair amount of Ivy League football via streaming and it's plenty entertaining. I didn't dismiss my daughter's hs games because I thought the level of competition wouldn't compete with the college game, nor do I watch Cal women's basketball because it's not as good as the men. As I have stated ad nauseum I'd be really happy to see collegiate athletics go to a model minus scholarships except for financial need. But college athletics aren't going to go back, obviously. And the Ivy League model, which I would support, just isn't going to happen precisely for the reasons Gardenstate shared.

So for me, it's either a solid Pac 12 with the remaining schools (although I wouldn't mind if the Arizona duo went to the Big 12), or the B1G. But once Cal goes down the path of the B1G, it's going to take resources, and money to make the Bears competitive. It's a pandora's box and once it's opened, Cal will have to play "that game" with the big boys for a very long time. Please remember that there will be a price to be paid to be competitive in that league and it may not always seem to fit the "Cal way" we've prided ourselves on for so many years. I suspect there will be some movement by those wanting to relax academic standards, and behavioral standards in order to compete. The alternative is to be the Vandy of the B1G, and I don't think any of us would be happy with that (regardless of the respect for their academic reputation).

The B1G is a different world. It will require a different mindset, and a different model, I fear.

---

Thank you for the compliments! But I'm not sure I entirely agree with you. I don't see relaxed academic or behavioral standards here at Rutgers,and I am certainly no apologist for the place. When then-coach Kyle Flood tried to lean on a part-time instructor to raise a football player's grade, he got suspended without pay and fired at the end of the year. (So did the AD, and the Flood incident was one of the reasons.) The current football coach, Greg Schiano, emphasizes to his players that they need to get their degrees, and there is an extensive academic support program. (I believe Rutgers' APR is better than Cal's, and Rutgers can't be dismissed as just being an easy school.) Even the most fervent Rutgers fans know that the school is never going to outshine Penn State, Michigan or Ohio State in football. Just being able to qualify for a post-season bowl often (which just requires a .500 record) and having the possibility of lightning striking every so often (as at Northwestern) would satisfy the vast majority of the fan base. It's not impossible for Cal to follow a similar path.

fat_slice said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Yesterday from USA Today Rutgers Wire

https://rutgerswire.usatoday.com/lists/it-is-mid-august-who-are-now-the-favorites-to-join-the-big-ten-in-conference-expansion/

It is mid August, who are now the favorites to join the Big Ten?
1. Notre Dame
2. Oregon
3. Washington
4. North Carolina
5. Virginia
6. California
7. Kansas
8. Boston College
9. Arizona
10. Colorado
11. Syracuse
12. Utah

---

LOL Furd

---

Big Daddy won't be happy

---

Interesting list - with all the ridicule Cal gets, in what world does UVA have a better profile than us? Are the claiming the DC market (which Maryland all provided them with) or have they actually been better than us over the past 10 years (not a big reach but I don't think I've ever seen them ranked, even briefly like we have been)?

NC has equal or slightly better football than us (despite is beating them twice) and light years better basketball but does that outweigh the Bay Area market?

---

UVa and/or Carolina effectively blows up the ACC -- hurting Fox Sports' biggest competitor, espn.

TomBear said:

---

Your point is fair and I didn't think the statement through very well when I wrote it.

The Vandys and Rutgers of the world may not compromise some standards. I don't know enough about each one. I was thinking more in terms of the biggies such as tOSU, Michigan, maybe Penn State, MSU etc. I really don't know their "standards", only that people talk about their ability to get athletes Cal might not be able to get. Perhaps someone who's paid more attention that I can speak more intelligently. I'm going on a lot of "reputation" and hearsay.

However, there is a point to be made that to be competitive, standards very well may be sacrificed. I'm not sure how I feel about it. Michigan seems to do just fine and their academic reputation is pretty good. Notre Dame (though not in B1G as of this moment) seems to do pretty well. $C is, well, $C.

There is a lot of "keep up with the Jones's" in college football these days. Cal would have gone years without the athletic support center if they could have. But eventually, even Cal had to make a major improvement to facilities in order to compete. Memorial Stadium was a no-brainer because it would eventually have fallen down. I couldn't believe the appearance of the steel inter structure before the remodel. How the place stayed up is beyond me.

But lots of schools now have indoor facilities for practices. Many also have multiple fields to practice on. Cal has only 2 or 3 as far as i know. Many have gone back to superior grass fields. NIL opportunities are going to be much greater at the $Cs, Michigans and OSUs than they will be at the Cals and Indianas.

I just think the overall "college game" is going to be lost in a maze of dollar signs and "deals". I'm not thrilled about where I think the future is going, especially if Cal goes into the B1G.

Nevertheless, if the Pac __ can't be saved, I do want to see Cal in the B1G. But I will miss what we once had.

---

Here's a link to what Rutgers presently has. When Schiano was hired a couple of years ago, he insisted on a commitment to more -- I wish I could remember exactly what. The state legislature, which is otherwise stingy with Rutgers (I know the California legislature is the same with the University of California, but it's *much* worse here), authorized a special appropriation for more facilities. I will try to supplement this e-mail with info on what is being planned if I can easily find out. https://scarletknights.com/facilities

fat_slice said:

---

TomBear said:

---

Gardenstate's last paragraph puts the period in the discussion of the Ivy League model, (which I would be OK with IF it included schools such as Stanford, Vandy, Northwestern, and Rice). I have watched a fair amount of Ivy League football via streaming and it's plenty entertaining. I didn't dismiss my daughter's hs games because I thought the level of competition wouldn't compete with the college game, nor do I watch Cal women's basketball because it's not as good as the men. As I have stated ad nauseum I'd be really happy to see collegiate athletics go to a model minus scholarships except for financial need. But college athletics aren't going to go back, obviously. And the Ivy League model, which I would support, just isn't going to happen precisely for the reasons Gardenstate shared.

So for me, it's either a solid Pac 12 with the remaining schools (although I wouldn't mind if the Arizona duo went to the Big 12), or the B1G. But once Cal goes down the path of the B1G, it's going to take resources, and money to make the Bears competitive. It's a pandora's box and once it's opened, Cal will have to play "that game" with the big boys for a very long time. Please remember that there will be a price to be paid to be competitive in that league and it may not always seem to fit the "Cal way" we've prided ourselves on for so many years. I suspect there will be some movement by those wanting to relax academic standards, and behavioral standards in order to compete. The alternative is to be the Vandy of the B1G, and I don't think any of us would be happy with that (regardless of the respect for their academic reputation).

The B1G is a different world. It will require a different mindset, and a different model, I fear.

---

Agreed - but if there is one thing Cal football needs ... It's a new world. We need the NIL so that smart, rich, and passionate leaders can steer the program ... Not like the governmental bureaucrats running the show now. They need the football program taken away from them and into some real revenue generators.

---

Spot on. Cal severely underperformed under the old rules. We have one of the largest, smartest, wealthiest alumni bases in the country, with a beautiful campus in one of the largest and wealthiest media markets with plenty of local talent.

fat_slice said:

---

TomBear said:

---

Gardenstate's last paragraph puts the period in the discussion of the Ivy League model, (which I would be OK with IF it included schools such as Stanford, Vandy, Northwestern, and Rice). I have watched a fair amount of Ivy League football via streaming and it's plenty entertaining. I didn't dismiss my daughter's hs games because I thought the level of competition wouldn't compete with the college game, nor do I watch Cal women's basketball because it's not as good as the men. As I have stated ad nauseum I'd be really happy to see collegiate athletics go to a model minus scholarships except for financial need. But college athletics aren't going to go back, obviously. And the Ivy League model, which I would support, just isn't going to happen precisely for the reasons Gardenstate shared.

So for me, it's either a solid Pac 12 with the remaining schools (although I wouldn't mind if the Arizona duo went to the Big 12), or the B1G. But once Cal goes down the path of the B1G, it's going to take resources, and money to make the Bears competitive. It's a pandora's box and once it's opened, Cal will have to play "that game" with the big boys for a very long time. Please remember that there will be a price to be paid to be competitive in that league and it may not always seem to fit the "Cal way" we've prided ourselves on for so many years. I suspect there will be some movement by those wanting to relax academic standards, and behavioral standards in order to compete. The alternative is to be the Vandy of the B1G, and I don't think any of us would be happy with that (regardless of the respect for their academic reputation).

The B1G is a different world. It will require a different mindset, and a different model, I fear.

---

Agreed - but if there is one thing Cal football needs ... It's a new world. We need the NIL so that smart, rich, and passionate leaders can steer the program ... Not like the governmental bureaucrats running the show now. They need the football program taken away from them and into some real revenue generators.

---

What we need honestly are better bureaucrats. Because Cal has not traditionally valued athletics, the bureaucrats they tend to hire are mediocre. The academic ones, although they have their problems, are better.

gardenstatebear said:

---

TomBear said:

---

Your point is fair and I didn't think the statement through very well when I wrote it.

The Vandys and Rutgers of the world may not compromise some standards. I don't know enough about each one. I was thinking more in terms of the biggies such as tOSU, Michigan, maybe Penn State, MSU etc. I really don't know their "standards", only that people talk about their ability to get athletes Cal might not be able to get. Perhaps someone who's paid more attention that I can speak more intelligently. I'm going on a lot of "reputation" and hearsay.

However, there is a point to be made that to be competitive, standards very well may be sacrificed. I'm not sure how I feel about it. Michigan seems to do just fine and their academic reputation is pretty good. Notre Dame (though not in B1G as of this moment) seems to do pretty well. $C is, well, $C.

There is a lot of "keep up with the Jones's" in college football these days. Cal would have gone years without the athletic support center if they could have. But eventually, even Cal had to make a major improvement to facilities in order to compete. Memorial Stadium was a no-brainer because it would eventually have fallen down. I couldn't believe the appearance of the steel inter structure before the remodel. How the place stayed up is beyond me.

But lots of schools now have indoor facilities for practices. Many also have multiple fields to practice on. Cal has only 2 or 3 as far as i know. Many have gone back to superior grass fields. NIL opportunities are going to be much greater at the $Cs, Michigans and OSUs than they will be at the Cals and Indianas.

I just think the overall "college game" is going to be lost in a maze of dollar signs and "deals". I'm not thrilled about where I think the future is going, especially if Cal goes into the B1G.

Nevertheless, if the Pac __ can't be saved, I do want to see Cal in the B1G. But I will miss what we once had.

---

Here's a link to what Rutgers presently has. When Schiano was hired a couple of years ago, he insisted on a commitment to more -- I wish I could remember exactly what. The state legislature, which is otherwise stingy with Rutgers (I know the California legislature is the same with the University of California, but it's *much* worse here), authorized a special appropriation for more facilities. I will try to supplement this e-mail with info on what is being planned if I can easily find out. https://scarletknights.com/facilities

---

My understanding is that Rutgers promised Schiano a football-only center with an indoor practice facility to replace the "bubble" that the team now uses. I am told that every other Big Ten school has the kind of indoor practice facility that Schiano wants. Schiano, though, has since made clear that the biggest priority right now is constructing NIL deals to help recruit and retain players. The NJ state legislature, which is usually quite stingy with Rutgers (much more so than the California legislature is with Cal) included in this year's state budget $100 million for athletic facilities, but much of that will go to renovating the basketball arena.

maxer said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

TomBear said:

---

Gardenstate's last paragraph puts the period in the discussion of the Ivy League model, (which I would be OK with IF it included schools such as Stanford, Vandy, Northwestern, and Rice). I have watched a fair amount of Ivy League football via streaming and it's plenty entertaining. I didn't dismiss my daughter's hs games because I thought the level of competition wouldn't compete with the college game, nor do I watch Cal women's basketball because it's not as good as the men. As I have stated ad nauseum I'd be really happy to see collegiate athletics go to a model minus scholarships except for financial need. But college athletics aren't going to go back, obviously. And the Ivy League model, which I would support, just isn't going to happen precisely for the reasons Gardenstate shared.

So for me, it's either a solid Pac 12 with the remaining schools (although I wouldn't mind if the Arizona duo went to the Big 12), or the B1G. But once Cal goes down the path of the B1G, it's going to take resources, and money to make the Bears competitive. It's a pandora's box and once it's opened, Cal will have to play "that game" with the big boys for a very long time. Please remember that there will be a price to be paid to be competitive in that league and it may not always seem to fit the "Cal way" we've prided ourselves on for so many years. I suspect there will be some movement by those wanting to relax academic standards, and behavioral standards in order to compete. The alternative is to be the Vandy of the B1G, and I don't think any of us would be happy with that (regardless of the respect for their academic reputation).

The B1G is a different world. It will require a different mindset, and a different model, I fear.

---

Agreed - but if there is one thing Cal football needs ... It's a new world. We need the NIL so that smart, rich, and passionate leaders can steer the program ... Not like the governmental bureaucrats running the show now. They need the football program taken away from them and into some real revenue generators.

---

What we need honestly are better bureaucrats. Because Cal has not traditionally valued athletics, the bureaucrats they tend to hire are mediocre. The academic ones, although they have their problems, are better.

---

Agree that we need better bureaucrats but the bureaucrats are hired by bureaucrats. The one good one was our crew coach. Furthermore, Knowlton was extended until the end of the decade, so unless he is brought down by the McKeever scandal, our best hope is we perform better under the new model lead by smart alums.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

---

We badly need to do much better at revenue sports. Being great at aquatics, rubgy, and Esports simply does not register at all in the big picture of collegiate athletics. Our national reputation is clogged within the foulmost depths of the stenchiest, projectile vomit-inducing, disease-infested wh0reh0use 0uth0use.

Quote:

---

LyndonJayhawk1
They [Cal] really don't [fit] in the PAC either. They should join the Ivy. Great academics and terrible athletics.

redblueKU
Academics is the only reason.

All4KU
Hard to say. UCLA and USC's announcement surprised everyone. I guess Cal could, too.

LyndonJayhawk1
Cal will surprise people even more if they do get an invite since they suck in everything athletically and you would think Stanford, Kansas, Oregon, Washington, and even Colorado would be better gets.

---

---

Kansas isn't a Big Ten school. Kansas is in the Big Twelve, a conference in bad trouble. Who cares what Kansas fans say? My guess is that Kansas fans would kill to be in the Big Ten. .

Perhaps college football is going the way of pro soccer. Most of the world's best teams play in one league, which has a global tv audience.

It not like all the best players grew up in Liverpool or Manchester, or that Liverpool is bigger than Birmingham (it's not) but only that they have the brand name recognition and the lucrative tv deal.

Now, how many can name the best club team in Brazil? Lets' say it's Flamengo. That would seem to be Cal's destiny.

Laundry.

Period.

gardenstatebear said:

---

Rutgers was worse athletically than Cal. Commenters on Big Ten chatboards still routinely say that Rutgers shouldn't have been invited. Guess what: Rutgers is there.

---

it got the BTN on cable in NYC, and if customers want their sports channels for NFL, MLB and NBA, they likely have to sign up for a sports package that includes BTN for a few bucks more. literally all they cared about. rutgers could go 0-12 the next 10 years and they'd still be happy.

Cal brings a ton more to the table on just about every level, except said media market

WalterSobchak said:

---

I'm all in on this and hope Christ, Knowlton, etc. are too (apologies as I assume everyone's seen it already):
https://i.imgur.com/RO6dRRq.png
https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/voq5mn/b1g_endgame_speculation/

---

I keep coming back to the idea that if this was the plan, wouldn't they have opened with this?

not a Cal hater at all, but I think bodes poorly for Cal.

I have followed realignment for 30 years.

If they wanted the bay (a top 10 market) they could have easily added it. I think the unstated truth is that 1) they don't want to actively kill the PAC and 2) They have a strong preference for Stanford only over stanford and Cal. Stanford probably helps in the Notre Dame hunt. The fact the bay duo wasn't added probably suggests Cal fell short of deserving a spot financially by their criteria. (Although maybe it had more to do with not wanting to kill the pac than cal's value.)

I could see the PAC getting a deal that pays like 32M to start and then BYU and the LDS church turn up the heat on Utah. Given the Big 12's TV advantages (easier to levage their brands, and many of those resonate in teh lost big ten footprint.) and a general historic behavior pattern of ESPN directing one conference to poach another in order to not overpay some schools (cal, Oregon state, and WSU).

How is Utah going to resist all out pressure from the church and state leadership when the Big 12 might offer 2M more?

And Utah is the school the PAC is RELYING on to keep their mountain schools at home.

This hits me as horrible thinking, but maybe I am wrong.

if that happens, you might see the Big ten scoop up stanford, cal, and washington and create their own Pac 10. I don't think it is unfathomable that Cal ends up in the Mountain west conference with WSU and Oregon state. Cal is just not consistently good at football.

I am just bewildered how the conference and school leadership can think TV negotions iwill solve all of this. I think the PAC is the old Big East. Overconfident in their teams' loyalty and in their financial position. (or maybe the WAC).

I have tried calling in to the PAC offices, to send them a letter of what I think might happen but they don't accept ideas from the public...

If I were a Cal fan I would be telling my president and AD to get stanford to agree on any financially sensible and moderately academically acceptable expansion into the central time zone right now.

I would try to prune the Big 12 of western members and push the B12 footprint further from the Arizona schools. pull in a Kanas, Iowa state, TCU...(i know that last one would be a tough sell to the bay schools but they are a key to the dfw market as they dominate ft. worth ---40%of the market --- and dallas doesn't really have a school of that measure.)

Thurmond: "I'm very concerned about the financial impact to Cal-Berkeley and to make sure whatever new revenue might be achieved envisions a scenario to help offset (Cal's) need"

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 17, 2022

philbert said:

---

Thurmond: "I'm very concerned about the financial impact to Cal-Berkeley and to make sure whatever new revenue might be achieved envisions a scenario to help offset (Cal's) need"

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 17, 2022

---

Thurmond represented an East Bay district (including Berkeley) in the State Assembly, so yeah I would hope he gets it.

One of the regents seems to be under the impression Cal can just decide whether or not it wants to be in the Big Ten too,

Another just proposed they should model out various scenarios for Cal -- including one where it moves to Division III.

— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) August 17, 2022

calumnus said:

---

Yesterday from USA Today Rutgers Wire

https://rutgerswire.usatoday.com/lists/it-is-mid-august-who-are-now-the-favorites-to-join-the-big-ten-in-conference-expansion/

It is mid August, who are now the favorites to join the Big Ten?
1. Notre Dame
2. Oregon
3. Washington
4. North Carolina
5. Virginia
6. California
7. Kansas
8. Boston College
9. Arizona
10. Colorado
11. Syracuse
12. Utah

---

stanford didn't even make the list? Have to think that is a bad list.

BigDaddy said:

---

One of the regents seems to be under the impression Cal can just decide whether or not it wants to be in the Big Ten too,

Another just proposed they should model out various scenarios for Cal -- including one where it moves to Division III.

— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) August 17, 2022

---

Lol - cal is screwed. We just can't keep from embarrassing ourselves over and over again in new and interesting ways. We deserve DIII

Yeah, glad to see we put our best foot forward at the regents meeting. I can only assume we showed a highlight film exclusively from Holmoe's last season and Sonny's first season.

We also know why USC and UCLA kept this super top secret. The UC regents would have absolutely destroyed things for them. We just shat ourselves out of B1G with this debacle.

Thanks a lot Newsom- we would have been better off without this display of ineptitude.