The question isn't who is better. The question is which school fits the Big Ten's profile better. Oregon is an AAU institution (like virtually all schools in the Big Ten) and San Diego State is not. San Diego State is actually harder to get into, but it is not a research institution.Golden One said:Is Oregon really better than San Diego State from an academic standpoint?gardenstatebear said:
Ph.Ds or not, San Diego State does not fit the academic profile that the Big Ten wants. Stanford, Oregon or Washington are much likelier candidates. Oregon and Washington very badly want to be in the Big Ten -- they would jump at an offer in a nanosecond. But of course all this assumes that UCLA falls through, which is unlikely to happen.
The Latest Rumors
228,864 Views |
1901 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Bobodeluxe
I doubt USC or UCLA would miss Oregon. And USC and UCLA, moreso USC women would dominate track and field in the B1G. I think they're happy to be the big dogs in the Big 10.
I agree. But I could also make the argument that a lot of those meets/invitations are organized by the coaches and that fraternity in the non-revenue sports may not care.Sebastabear said:I wouldn't be banking on bigger hearts prevailing. UCLA and USC created this cluster. It's clear that Cal at least is going to let them suffer the consequences. Would be shocked if the other PAC 10 schools don't follow suit.socaltownie said:Yes. USC and UCLA would "win". It just isn't clear to me though, for example, that UCLA and USC are going to be invited with open arms to the Oregon Track meets to "solve" a problem of their own creation. Now the flip side is that these are students/kids. Bigger hearts may prevail. But I also could easily see an AD say "they made their bed, now they sleep in it")philly1121 said:
Looks like I didn't look at all the sports. I didn't include:
m/w swimming/diving
m/w golf
w lacrosse
w rowing
m/w cross country
m/w track and field outdoor
w gymnastics
But in looking at some of these sports - UCLA and USC would be the new bosses of the B1G. Most of these are meet and invitational events too. The other sports compete in the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation.
Pac-12/B1G conference tournaments are a much tougher nut so the non-revenues will be traveling to mid-west right in the final week window for conference tournaments.
Take care of your Chicken
The B1G also tends to prefer large, flagship state schools and Oregon is also one of those (and yes, that preference also helps Cal).gardenstatebear said:The question isn't who is better. The question is which school fits the Big Ten's profile better. Oregon is an AAU institution (like virtually all schools in the Big Ten) and San Diego State is not. San Diego State is actually harder to get into, but it is not a research institution.Golden One said:Is Oregon really better than San Diego State from an academic standpoint?gardenstatebear said:
Ph.Ds or not, San Diego State does not fit the academic profile that the Big Ten wants. Stanford, Oregon or Washington are much likelier candidates. Oregon and Washington very badly want to be in the Big Ten -- they would jump at an offer in a nanosecond. But of course all this assumes that UCLA falls through, which is unlikely to happen.
Although, as Northwestern's presence shows, that preference is not absolute, and so USC fits well, as would Stanford. Of course, Notre Dame does, too.sycasey said:The B1G also tends to prefer large, flagship state schools and Oregon is also one of those (and yes, that preference also helps Cal).gardenstatebear said:The question isn't who is better. The question is which school fits the Big Ten's profile better. Oregon is an AAU institution (like virtually all schools in the Big Ten) and San Diego State is not. San Diego State is actually harder to get into, but it is not a research institution.Golden One said:Is Oregon really better than San Diego State from an academic standpoint?gardenstatebear said:
Ph.Ds or not, San Diego State does not fit the academic profile that the Big Ten wants. Stanford, Oregon or Washington are much likelier candidates. Oregon and Washington very badly want to be in the Big Ten -- they would jump at an offer in a nanosecond. But of course all this assumes that UCLA falls through, which is unlikely to happen.
Right, they're not totally against private schools, or non-flagship state schools (Michigan St., Purdue). But it definitely helps to be a large flagship state school (and in the AAU).gardenstatebear said:Although, as Northwestern's presence shows, that preference is not absolute, and so USC fits well, as would Stanford. Of course, Notre Dame does, too.sycasey said:The B1G also tends to prefer large, flagship state schools and Oregon is also one of those (and yes, that preference also helps Cal).gardenstatebear said:The question isn't who is better. The question is which school fits the Big Ten's profile better. Oregon is an AAU institution (like virtually all schools in the Big Ten) and San Diego State is not. San Diego State is actually harder to get into, but it is not a research institution.Golden One said:Is Oregon really better than San Diego State from an academic standpoint?gardenstatebear said:
Ph.Ds or not, San Diego State does not fit the academic profile that the Big Ten wants. Stanford, Oregon or Washington are much likelier candidates. Oregon and Washington very badly want to be in the Big Ten -- they would jump at an offer in a nanosecond. But of course all this assumes that UCLA falls through, which is unlikely to happen.
FYI, Northwestern is a charter member. Been there since day one when they first talked about starting the conference.
Only one school has left the Big Ten (University of Chicago).
And only one school has been kicked out.
https://mvictors.com/100th-anniversary-michigan-leaves-the-conference/
The Big Ten is not against Private schools BUT does love the fact a school is AAU and state flagship university.
Only one school has left the Big Ten (University of Chicago).
And only one school has been kicked out.
https://mvictors.com/100th-anniversary-michigan-leaves-the-conference/
The Big Ten is not against Private schools BUT does love the fact a school is AAU and state flagship university.
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
Fire Knowlton!
Fire Fox!
Put Wilcox in a hot seat!
Fire Fox!
Put Wilcox in a hot seat!
southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
I would not be too quick to think Stanford would be leaving since they seem out of synch with the B1G efforts to professionalize athletics.MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
It's not necessary to replace a team as a conference can have an odd number since divisions are no longer required for conference playoffs. (If necessary, however, I'd rather have Davis than SJ St.)
Fire Knowlton!
Fire Fox!
Put Wilcox in a hot seat!
Fire Fox!
Put Wilcox in a hot seat!
MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
Under that scenario Cal should be the Bay Area rep paired with UCLA as California"rivals" with the UCLA-USC game and Big Game traditions continuing as last game of the year OOC games.
I'd vote for staying as the PAC-10. 2 schools from each state. Better path to the CFP.
However, if we expand and add San Diego State, add UNLV or here is a wild idea: maybe an expansion franchise: UC San Diego. Largest UC campus, great academics, wants to move to D1, can share Snapdragon with San Diego St. and would be natural rivals. The Chargers left so no NFL. San Diego would be firmly PAC-12 territory. It would give the PAC-12 another warm weather location for night games, which is a selling point for the TV contract(s) and fits with tge San Diego lifestyle (plenty to do doing the day).
southseasbear said:I would not be too quick to think Stanford would be leaving since they seem out of synch with the B1G efforts to professionalize athletics.MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
It's not necessary to replace a team as a conference can have an odd number since divisions are no longer required for conference playoffs. (If necessary, however, I'd rather have Davis than SJ St.)
Yes, I could definitely see USC only leaving and then be replaced by San Diego State.
Bearer of bad news (pun intended). Cal football is like jazz. Frank Zappa said jazz is not dead, it is just starting to smell funky.
just found out that my comcast plan dropped FS1. comcast customer service said FS1 re-negotiated their contract
Fox needs to pay those bigger dollars to the B1G, and they want ME to pay for it
Fox needs to pay those bigger dollars to the B1G, and they want ME to pay for it
huh, effective when HD? fwiw in cupertino FS1 is still on the air, high def channel 731.HoopDreams said:
just found out that my comcast plan dropped FS1. comcast customer service said FS1 re-negotiated their contract
Fox needs to pay those bigger dollars to the B1G, and they want ME to pay for it
Same in Brentwood.
FS1 has always been available on comcast (xFinity) as far as I remember.smh said:huh, effective when HD? fwiw in cupertino FS1 is still on the air, high def channel 731.HoopDreams said:
just found out that my comcast plan dropped FS1. comcast customer service said FS1 re-negotiated their contract
Fox needs to pay those bigger dollars to the B1G, and they want ME to pay for it
But I have the lowest channel package (plus sports package to get Pac12 network), and last football/basketball season I was able to watch it.
So it changed sometime between now and last spring
how about a flagship US school:sycasey said:Right, they're not totally against private schools, or non-flagship state schools (Michigan St., Purdue). But it definitely helps to be a large flagship state school (and in the AAU).gardenstatebear said:Although, as Northwestern's presence shows, that preference is not absolute, and so USC fits well, as would Stanford. Of course, Notre Dame does, too.sycasey said:The B1G also tends to prefer large, flagship state schools and Oregon is also one of those (and yes, that preference also helps Cal).gardenstatebear said:The question isn't who is better. The question is which school fits the Big Ten's profile better. Oregon is an AAU institution (like virtually all schools in the Big Ten) and San Diego State is not. San Diego State is actually harder to get into, but it is not a research institution.Golden One said:Is Oregon really better than San Diego State from an academic standpoint?gardenstatebear said:
Ph.Ds or not, San Diego State does not fit the academic profile that the Big Ten wants. Stanford, Oregon or Washington are much likelier candidates. Oregon and Washington very badly want to be in the Big Ten -- they would jump at an offer in a nanosecond. But of course all this assumes that UCLA falls through, which is unlikely to happen.
🌟@UCBerkeley remains the No. 1 public university in the world (per U.S. News & World Report’s 2023 global universities rankings.) https://t.co/5VdAClR8SU
— UC Berkeley Law (@BerkeleyLaw) November 3, 2022
Aren't we talking about two different scenarios?wifeisafurd said:Without giving away inside information, I think Cal and Stanford administrators think that the travel issues with a west B1G pod can be worked out without jeopardizing the student experience. It will just cost more money.socaltownie said:You are closer to it but I just think that absent something really radical/left field Stanfurd faces a huge challenge of how to support the non-football atheletes when travel would be 2 time zones away. Even creating a 4 team "pod" feels like it creates a problem.wifeisafurd said:I would like to give you an intelligence response, but I have no idea. I think that they want to stay in the Pac, but if they have a lot of coin thrown at them?BearGoggles said:Is there any chance Furd goes to B1G with just USC? Seems inconceivable to me but I could be wrong.wifeisafurd said:That is a great question. I suspect that the B1G would go after Stanford instead to avoid facing a fight with the Pac before the CS Board of Trustees. No offense to SDSU, but Stanford also has a superior athletics and academics profile.Bobodeluxe said:What if the P1G replaces ucla with San Diego State?wifeisafurd said:It should be obvious by now that SDSU is replacing USC.philbert said:
In other related news:An important hurdle has been cleared for SDSU on the academic front (awarding of doctorates) https://t.co/42CrVIcip0
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) November 2, 2022
For example - near as I can tell the B1G mens baseball teams played about 23 games last year. Furd played more than TWICE as many cause....well....west coast versus frozen Tundra. Swim and Dive are on compressed schedules (or barely fielded) by B1G teams while Furd has a robust home and away set of meets.
At this point the B1G/tOSU have essentially waved their hands at this problem. I am not sure USC cares and UCLA with its deficit was desperate for any sort of life line to put off cutting teams. But absent some sort of interconference peace treaty (which essentially has to be a B1G payment to the Pac12 that would allow entry without football) I don't see anyone else leaving (including Cal) unless it is a group for 6 so you could actually have a west coast division for non-revenue sports.
PS. I think given Christ's quotes in the Athletic this week _SHE_ would be loath to allow Cal to make that jump absent a solution. It is clear that she places a high value on non-revenues.
Also, I have talked with several school administrators from different Pac schools and they are all over the place on what they think the Regents will do. FWIW, the effort Carol Christ is making to protect Cal's interests on this is gratifying.
1. UCLA backs out of B1G, Furd replaces it. No west coast pod.
2. USC/UCLA/Furd/Cal part of west coast pod with 2-4 other teams.
I think travel is much less of an issue in scenario 2 (which is what your post refers to). But we had been discussing option 1. Absent a west coast pod, it sure seems like #1 would be a lot of travel, particularly for non-revenue sports. Imagine baseball and softball which have longer seasons.
Which is obvious, and what Bill Walton mentioned. No regard for the student athlete.
BearGoggles said:Aren't we talking about two different scenarios?wifeisafurd said:Without giving away inside information, I think Cal and Stanford administrators think that the travel issues with a west B1G pod can be worked out without jeopardizing the student experience. It will just cost more money.socaltownie said:You are closer to it but I just think that absent something really radical/left field Stanfurd faces a huge challenge of how to support the non-football atheletes when travel would be 2 time zones away. Even creating a 4 team "pod" feels like it creates a problem.wifeisafurd said:I would like to give you an intelligence response, but I have no idea. I think that they want to stay in the Pac, but if they have a lot of coin thrown at them?BearGoggles said:Is there any chance Furd goes to B1G with just USC? Seems inconceivable to me but I could be wrong.wifeisafurd said:That is a great question. I suspect that the B1G would go after Stanford instead to avoid facing a fight with the Pac before the CS Board of Trustees. No offense to SDSU, but Stanford also has a superior athletics and academics profile.Bobodeluxe said:What if the P1G replaces ucla with San Diego State?wifeisafurd said:It should be obvious by now that SDSU is replacing USC.philbert said:
In other related news:An important hurdle has been cleared for SDSU on the academic front (awarding of doctorates) https://t.co/42CrVIcip0
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) November 2, 2022
For example - near as I can tell the B1G mens baseball teams played about 23 games last year. Furd played more than TWICE as many cause....well....west coast versus frozen Tundra. Swim and Dive are on compressed schedules (or barely fielded) by B1G teams while Furd has a robust home and away set of meets.
At this point the B1G/tOSU have essentially waved their hands at this problem. I am not sure USC cares and UCLA with its deficit was desperate for any sort of life line to put off cutting teams. But absent some sort of interconference peace treaty (which essentially has to be a B1G payment to the Pac12 that would allow entry without football) I don't see anyone else leaving (including Cal) unless it is a group for 6 so you could actually have a west coast division for non-revenue sports.
PS. I think given Christ's quotes in the Athletic this week _SHE_ would be loath to allow Cal to make that jump absent a solution. It is clear that she places a high value on non-revenues.
Also, I have talked with several school administrators from different Pac schools and they are all over the place on what they think the Regents will do. FWIW, the effort Carol Christ is making to protect Cal's interests on this is gratifying.
1. UCLA backs out of B1G, Furd replaces it. No west coast pod.
2. USC/UCLA/Furd/Cal part of west coast pod with 2-4 other teams.
I think travel is much less of an issue in scenario 2 (which is what your post refers to). But we had been discussing option 1. Absent a west coast pod, it sure seems like #1 would be a lot of travel, particularly for non-revenue sports. Imagine baseball and softball which have longer seasons.
The move to the B1G is mostly for football.
Hawaii is only a member of the MWC for football. All other sports, even basketball, are in the California-based Big West.
I don't know what sports are required for B1G membership, but USC and UCLA coukd do something similar; football to the B1G and all other sports to the WCC or Big West with maybe a lot of OOC games against the B1G.
Would the Pac 12 allow all UCLA teams to stay if just FB left? My guess is no.
movielover said:
Would the Pac 12 allow all UCLA teams to stay if just FB left? My guess is no.
There's no reason to give up that kind of leverage.
Almost certainly not. Let them play in the Big West.movielover said:
Would the Pac 12 allow all UCLA teams to stay if just FB left? My guess is no.
Why would the pac agree to that? ucla gets all of the monetary benefits of joining the b1g but none of the headache. fucla.movielover said:
Would the Pac 12 allow all UCLA teams to stay if just FB left? My guess is no.
yes, and I concur with your analysis.BearGoggles said:Aren't we talking about two different scenarios?wifeisafurd said:Without giving away inside information, I think Cal and Stanford administrators think that the travel issues with a west B1G pod can be worked out without jeopardizing the student experience. It will just cost more money.socaltownie said:You are closer to it but I just think that absent something really radical/left field Stanfurd faces a huge challenge of how to support the non-football atheletes when travel would be 2 time zones away. Even creating a 4 team "pod" feels like it creates a problem.wifeisafurd said:I would like to give you an intelligence response, but I have no idea. I think that they want to stay in the Pac, but if they have a lot of coin thrown at them?BearGoggles said:Is there any chance Furd goes to B1G with just USC? Seems inconceivable to me but I could be wrong.wifeisafurd said:That is a great question. I suspect that the B1G would go after Stanford instead to avoid facing a fight with the Pac before the CS Board of Trustees. No offense to SDSU, but Stanford also has a superior athletics and academics profile.Bobodeluxe said:What if the P1G replaces ucla with San Diego State?wifeisafurd said:It should be obvious by now that SDSU is replacing USC.philbert said:
In other related news:An important hurdle has been cleared for SDSU on the academic front (awarding of doctorates) https://t.co/42CrVIcip0
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) November 2, 2022
For example - near as I can tell the B1G mens baseball teams played about 23 games last year. Furd played more than TWICE as many cause....well....west coast versus frozen Tundra. Swim and Dive are on compressed schedules (or barely fielded) by B1G teams while Furd has a robust home and away set of meets.
At this point the B1G/tOSU have essentially waved their hands at this problem. I am not sure USC cares and UCLA with its deficit was desperate for any sort of life line to put off cutting teams. But absent some sort of interconference peace treaty (which essentially has to be a B1G payment to the Pac12 that would allow entry without football) I don't see anyone else leaving (including Cal) unless it is a group for 6 so you could actually have a west coast division for non-revenue sports.
PS. I think given Christ's quotes in the Athletic this week _SHE_ would be loath to allow Cal to make that jump absent a solution. It is clear that she places a high value on non-revenues.
Also, I have talked with several school administrators from different Pac schools and they are all over the place on what they think the Regents will do. FWIW, the effort Carol Christ is making to protect Cal's interests on this is gratifying.
1. UCLA backs out of B1G, Furd replaces it. No west coast pod.
2. USC/UCLA/Furd/Cal part of west coast pod with 2-4 other teams.
I think travel is much less of an issue in scenario 2 (which is what your post refers to). But we had been discussing option 1. Absent a west coast pod, it sure seems like #1 would be a lot of travel, particularly for non-revenue sports. Imagine baseball and softball which have longer seasons.
calumnus said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
Under that scenario Cal should be the Bay Area rep paired with UCLA as California"rivals" with the UCLA-USC game and Big Game traditions continuing as last game of the year OOC games.
I'd vote for staying as the PAC-10. 2 schools from each state. Better path to the CFP.
However, if we expand and add San Diego State, add UNLV or here is a wild idea: maybe an expansion franchise: UC San Diego. Largest UC campus, great academics, wants to move to D1, can share Snapdragon with San Diego St. and would be natural rivals. The Chargers left so no NFL. San Diego would be firmly PAC-12 territory. It would give the PAC-12 another warm weather location for night games, which is a selling point for the TV contract(s) and fits with tge San Diego lifestyle (plenty to do doing the day).
UCSD creating a football team, let alone a D1 football team is a fairytale. Some sports are in the Big West.
The best additions for the Pac are SDSU and UNLV. You bring SDSU in for Southern Cali and UNLV in for Nevada recruiting. They aren't natural rivals but - SO WHAT? Rivalries no longer matter in college football.
Agree re rivalries. The question is do SDSU and UNLV bring media and other revenues? I think SDSU does/can. Not sure about Vegas though that has been an attractive market for NHL and NFL. Is Vegas a valuable media market?philly1121 said:calumnus said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
Under that scenario Cal should be the Bay Area rep paired with UCLA as California"rivals" with the UCLA-USC game and Big Game traditions continuing as last game of the year OOC games.
I'd vote for staying as the PAC-10. 2 schools from each state. Better path to the CFP.
However, if we expand and add San Diego State, add UNLV or here is a wild idea: maybe an expansion franchise: UC San Diego. Largest UC campus, great academics, wants to move to D1, can share Snapdragon with San Diego St. and would be natural rivals. The Chargers left so no NFL. San Diego would be firmly PAC-12 territory. It would give the PAC-12 another warm weather location for night games, which is a selling point for the TV contract(s) and fits with tge San Diego lifestyle (plenty to do doing the day).
UCSD creating a football team, let alone a D1 football team is a fairytale. Some sports are in the Big West.
The best additions for the Pac are SDSU and UNLV. You bring SDSU in for Southern Cali and UNLV in for Nevada recruiting. They aren't natural rivals but - SO WHAT? Rivalries no longer matter in college football.
That was my point - the scenario where UCLA is brought back in. Lots of speculation that Furd then takes their spot but I don't see that without the minimum 4 team (and I think you actually then get 6 with Oregon and Washington) West coast "pod/division" so that non revenues like baseball and softball might make a fun 2 weeks of it traveling to the midwest but otherwise home and aways against the 5 other west coast teams.wifeisafurd said:yes, and I concur with your analysis.BearGoggles said:Aren't we talking about two different scenarios?wifeisafurd said:Without giving away inside information, I think Cal and Stanford administrators think that the travel issues with a west B1G pod can be worked out without jeopardizing the student experience. It will just cost more money.socaltownie said:You are closer to it but I just think that absent something really radical/left field Stanfurd faces a huge challenge of how to support the non-football atheletes when travel would be 2 time zones away. Even creating a 4 team "pod" feels like it creates a problem.wifeisafurd said:I would like to give you an intelligence response, but I have no idea. I think that they want to stay in the Pac, but if they have a lot of coin thrown at them?BearGoggles said:Is there any chance Furd goes to B1G with just USC? Seems inconceivable to me but I could be wrong.wifeisafurd said:That is a great question. I suspect that the B1G would go after Stanford instead to avoid facing a fight with the Pac before the CS Board of Trustees. No offense to SDSU, but Stanford also has a superior athletics and academics profile.Bobodeluxe said:What if the P1G replaces ucla with San Diego State?wifeisafurd said:It should be obvious by now that SDSU is replacing USC.philbert said:
In other related news:An important hurdle has been cleared for SDSU on the academic front (awarding of doctorates) https://t.co/42CrVIcip0
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) November 2, 2022
For example - near as I can tell the B1G mens baseball teams played about 23 games last year. Furd played more than TWICE as many cause....well....west coast versus frozen Tundra. Swim and Dive are on compressed schedules (or barely fielded) by B1G teams while Furd has a robust home and away set of meets.
At this point the B1G/tOSU have essentially waved their hands at this problem. I am not sure USC cares and UCLA with its deficit was desperate for any sort of life line to put off cutting teams. But absent some sort of interconference peace treaty (which essentially has to be a B1G payment to the Pac12 that would allow entry without football) I don't see anyone else leaving (including Cal) unless it is a group for 6 so you could actually have a west coast division for non-revenue sports.
PS. I think given Christ's quotes in the Athletic this week _SHE_ would be loath to allow Cal to make that jump absent a solution. It is clear that she places a high value on non-revenues.
Also, I have talked with several school administrators from different Pac schools and they are all over the place on what they think the Regents will do. FWIW, the effort Carol Christ is making to protect Cal's interests on this is gratifying.
1. UCLA backs out of B1G, Furd replaces it. No west coast pod.
2. USC/UCLA/Furd/Cal part of west coast pod with 2-4 other teams.
I think travel is much less of an issue in scenario 2 (which is what your post refers to). But we had been discussing option 1. Absent a west coast pod, it sure seems like #1 would be a lot of travel, particularly for non-revenue sports. Imagine baseball and softball which have longer seasons.
Take care of your Chicken
IIRC UCSD had a Club football team for a think half a year back when I was in grad school in the late 1980s. I BELIEVE they lost to Cal Tech. I am not sure this is the case currently but when they made the move to D1 status a condition from the faculty senate was no scholarships.philly1121 said:calumnus said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
Under that scenario Cal should be the Bay Area rep paired with UCLA as California"rivals" with the UCLA-USC game and Big Game traditions continuing as last game of the year OOC games.
I'd vote for staying as the PAC-10. 2 schools from each state. Better path to the CFP.
However, if we expand and add San Diego State, add UNLV or here is a wild idea: maybe an expansion franchise: UC San Diego. Largest UC campus, great academics, wants to move to D1, can share Snapdragon with San Diego St. and would be natural rivals. The Chargers left so no NFL. San Diego would be firmly PAC-12 territory. It would give the PAC-12 another warm weather location for night games, which is a selling point for the TV contract(s) and fits with tge San Diego lifestyle (plenty to do doing the day).
UCSD creating a football team, let alone a D1 football team is a fairytale. Some sports are in the Big West.
The best additions for the Pac are SDSU and UNLV. You bring SDSU in for Southern Cali and UNLV in for Nevada recruiting. They aren't natural rivals but - SO WHAT? Rivalries no longer matter in college football.
Take care of your Chicken
Probably not. 40th largest market 700,000 eyeballs. ARGUABLY UNLV punches a bit above its weight because of fan affiliation. Unclear to me impact of wagering.BearGoggles said:Agree re rivalries. The question is do SDSU and UNLV bring media and other revenues? I think SDSU does/can. Not sure about Vegas though that has been an attractive market for NHL and NFL. Is Vegas a valuable media market?philly1121 said:calumnus said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
Under that scenario Cal should be the Bay Area rep paired with UCLA as California"rivals" with the UCLA-USC game and Big Game traditions continuing as last game of the year OOC games.
I'd vote for staying as the PAC-10. 2 schools from each state. Better path to the CFP.
However, if we expand and add San Diego State, add UNLV or here is a wild idea: maybe an expansion franchise: UC San Diego. Largest UC campus, great academics, wants to move to D1, can share Snapdragon with San Diego St. and would be natural rivals. The Chargers left so no NFL. San Diego would be firmly PAC-12 territory. It would give the PAC-12 another warm weather location for night games, which is a selling point for the TV contract(s) and fits with tge San Diego lifestyle (plenty to do doing the day).
UCSD creating a football team, let alone a D1 football team is a fairytale. Some sports are in the Big West.
The best additions for the Pac are SDSU and UNLV. You bring SDSU in for Southern Cali and UNLV in for Nevada recruiting. They aren't natural rivals but - SO WHAT? Rivalries no longer matter in college football.
Here is the best reference easily findable on the web
https://s3.amazonaws.com/arc-wordpress-client-uploads/wweek/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/10150709/361115045-Top-TV-markets-for-2017-2018-season.pdf
Take care of your Chicken
Vegas is not a big media market. 40th largest in the United States.BearGoggles said:Agree re rivalries. The question is do SDSU and UNLV bring media and other revenues? I think SDSU does/can. Not sure about Vegas though that has been an attractive market for NHL and NFL. Is Vegas a valuable media market?philly1121 said:calumnus said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
Under that scenario Cal should be the Bay Area rep paired with UCLA as California"rivals" with the UCLA-USC game and Big Game traditions continuing as last game of the year OOC games.
I'd vote for staying as the PAC-10. 2 schools from each state. Better path to the CFP.
However, if we expand and add San Diego State, add UNLV or here is a wild idea: maybe an expansion franchise: UC San Diego. Largest UC campus, great academics, wants to move to D1, can share Snapdragon with San Diego St. and would be natural rivals. The Chargers left so no NFL. San Diego would be firmly PAC-12 territory. It would give the PAC-12 another warm weather location for night games, which is a selling point for the TV contract(s) and fits with tge San Diego lifestyle (plenty to do doing the day).
UCSD creating a football team, let alone a D1 football team is a fairytale. Some sports are in the Big West.
The best additions for the Pac are SDSU and UNLV. You bring SDSU in for Southern Cali and UNLV in for Nevada recruiting. They aren't natural rivals but - SO WHAT? Rivalries no longer matter in college football.
I don't think UNLV brings much at all.
Probably means a lot of happy Pac fans that get to go to away games in Vegas....sycasey said:Vegas is not a big media market. 40th largest in the United States.BearGoggles said:Agree re rivalries. The question is do SDSU and UNLV bring media and other revenues? I think SDSU does/can. Not sure about Vegas though that has been an attractive market for NHL and NFL. Is Vegas a valuable media market?philly1121 said:calumnus said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
Under that scenario Cal should be the Bay Area rep paired with UCLA as California"rivals" with the UCLA-USC game and Big Game traditions continuing as last game of the year OOC games.
I'd vote for staying as the PAC-10. 2 schools from each state. Better path to the CFP.
However, if we expand and add San Diego State, add UNLV or here is a wild idea: maybe an expansion franchise: UC San Diego. Largest UC campus, great academics, wants to move to D1, can share Snapdragon with San Diego St. and would be natural rivals. The Chargers left so no NFL. San Diego would be firmly PAC-12 territory. It would give the PAC-12 another warm weather location for night games, which is a selling point for the TV contract(s) and fits with tge San Diego lifestyle (plenty to do doing the day).
UCSD creating a football team, let alone a D1 football team is a fairytale. Some sports are in the Big West.
The best additions for the Pac are SDSU and UNLV. You bring SDSU in for Southern Cali and UNLV in for Nevada recruiting. They aren't natural rivals but - SO WHAT? Rivalries no longer matter in college football.
I don't think UNLV brings much at all.
wifeisafurd said:Probably means a lot of happy Pac fans that get to go to away games in Vegas....sycasey said:Vegas is not a big media market. 40th largest in the United States.BearGoggles said:Agree re rivalries. The question is do SDSU and UNLV bring media and other revenues? I think SDSU does/can. Not sure about Vegas though that has been an attractive market for NHL and NFL. Is Vegas a valuable media market?philly1121 said:calumnus said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
Under that scenario Cal should be the Bay Area rep paired with UCLA as California"rivals" with the UCLA-USC game and Big Game traditions continuing as last game of the year OOC games.
I'd vote for staying as the PAC-10. 2 schools from each state. Better path to the CFP.
However, if we expand and add San Diego State, add UNLV or here is a wild idea: maybe an expansion franchise: UC San Diego. Largest UC campus, great academics, wants to move to D1, can share Snapdragon with San Diego St. and would be natural rivals. The Chargers left so no NFL. San Diego would be firmly PAC-12 territory. It would give the PAC-12 another warm weather location for night games, which is a selling point for the TV contract(s) and fits with tge San Diego lifestyle (plenty to do doing the day).
UCSD creating a football team, let alone a D1 football team is a fairytale. Some sports are in the Big West.
The best additions for the Pac are SDSU and UNLV. You bring SDSU in for Southern Cali and UNLV in for Nevada recruiting. They aren't natural rivals but - SO WHAT? Rivalries no longer matter in college football.
I don't think UNLV brings much at all.
Another good location for night games to sell.
UNLV is in Vegas, but "UNLV" brings almost nothing, unless the Runnin' Rebels start making deep tournament runs again.calumnus said:Another good location for night games to sell.wifeisafurd said:Probably means a lot of happy Pac fans that get to go to away games in Vegas....sycasey said:Vegas is not a big media market. 40th largest in the United States.BearGoggles said:Agree re rivalries. The question is do SDSU and UNLV bring media and other revenues? I think SDSU does/can. Not sure about Vegas though that has been an attractive market for NHL and NFL. Is Vegas a valuable media market?philly1121 said:calumnus said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
Under that scenario Cal should be the Bay Area rep paired with UCLA as California"rivals" with the UCLA-USC game and Big Game traditions continuing as last game of the year OOC games.
I'd vote for staying as the PAC-10. 2 schools from each state. Better path to the CFP.
However, if we expand and add San Diego State, add UNLV or here is a wild idea: maybe an expansion franchise: UC San Diego. Largest UC campus, great academics, wants to move to D1, can share Snapdragon with San Diego St. and would be natural rivals. The Chargers left so no NFL. San Diego would be firmly PAC-12 territory. It would give the PAC-12 another warm weather location for night games, which is a selling point for the TV contract(s) and fits with tge San Diego lifestyle (plenty to do doing the day).
UCSD creating a football team, let alone a D1 football team is a fairytale. Some sports are in the Big West.
The best additions for the Pac are SDSU and UNLV. You bring SDSU in for Southern Cali and UNLV in for Nevada recruiting. They aren't natural rivals but - SO WHAT? Rivalries no longer matter in college football.
I don't think UNLV brings much at all.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Add Maryland Portal Tight End Corey Dyches
by Jim McGill
Cal Duo Earns Pac-12 Weekly Honors
by Cal Athletics