Do odd number of teams in a conference cause problems? Seems like there is quite a bit of chatter regarding if ND joins than Cal has to be left out of UO, UW, and Stanford.

I don't see why an odd number of team would be an issue and even so the B1G could just add yet another team of that were the case.

Seems odd to try and capture the bay area market by taking the smaller alumni base school (although both more academically and athletically prestigious).

Also, for basketball it would be odd to fly your team the Bay just for one freaking game. If you take Cal you can spend the entire weekend there and get an extra game in.

If the ACC can make 15 work because #15 is ND, then the B1G can make 21 work especially since ND would be #21.

sycasey said:

---

The B1G played with 11 teams for years after Penn State joined. I don't think even numbers are an absolute necessity.

---

The Big 10 had 11 members for 20 years.

I think if the Big10 takes multiple more PAC schools they aren't doing it for even numbers, they're doing it for many reasons that benefit their member schools.

You can have 3 7 team pods. There are a lot of different numbers that can work out. MLB had unbalanced leagues and divisions and did fine. The NL Central had 6 clubs to the AL West's 4 clubs. I don't think the precise team number is dispositive here.

Actually that would be a much better format. it would allow for 2/3 games outside of the division whereas two 10 team divisions would allow no such games

That is what I would have thought - odd number teams is not a huge problem and looks like plenty of precedent.

That said, the biggest risk then is the B1G feels that all they need to capture the bay area market is Stanford and save the conference from having to feed Cal.

Is there any merit to this? I would like to think that Cal brings as much weight as Stanford here (if not more with a much bigger alumni base) but I just keep reading on all Cal hate out there and our decade long irrelevance in football and especially basketball.

sycasey said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

Is there any merit to this? I would like to think that Cal brings as much weight as Stanford here (if not more with a much bigger alumni base) but I just keep reading on all Cal hate out there and our decade long irrelevance in football and especially basketball.

---

I find the arguments for why Stanford is a bigger prize than Cal to be a bit flimsy. Some are saying that they're a "partner" with Notre Dame, but I think any conference would add Notre Dame regardless. I really doubt ND is making any decisions based on what Stanford does. I also doubt the B1G cares about having an even number of teams in the conference.

People are pointing out Cal having low fan interest in recent years, but Stanford has similar issues. Stanford has gotten better TV ratings recently, but has worse attendance. I'm not sure there's an obvious advantage here. Cal does have a much larger alumni base that can be activated by a more competitive football team.

Academics are basically a wash.

I also think there are good reasons to think these two schools would want to move together. A lot of their own fan/donor interest is tied to the Cal-Stanford rivalry. They wouldn't want to blow that up unless they had to.

Randos on Twitter are just looking at recent football success and going from there. A conference like the Big Ten is going to look at more than that.

---

Perhaps it is stigma. Whether it has merit or not, there seems to be a stigma around Cal that our Administration is not "all in" for football. Yes yes yes - we all know about the stadium and infrastructure and all that but, it seems the stigma remains. That Admin or the Academic Senate don't want to invest in what they see as anything that is not academic related. I don't know.

BearForce2 said:

---

I don't think academics plays a role in the decision making process, it's a non-factor. If Oregon St. was a perennial top 25 team, they would be in. (No offense to the Beavers, at least they have an engineering school unlike Oregon.)

---

The Big Ten has historically cared about academics and I would expect they still do. Just not sure how much.

If you are making academic picks then among major FBS schools, Cal and Stanford would have to be #1 and #2 in some order.

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

I don't think academics plays a role in the decision making process, it's a non-factor. If Oregon St. was a perennial top 25 team, they would be in. (No offense to the Beavers, at least they have an engineering school unlike Oregon.)

---

The Big Ten has historically cared about academics and I would expect they still do. Just not sure how much.

If you are making academic picks then among major FBS schools, Cal and Stanford would have to be #1 and #2 in some order.

---

I just saw that Oregon St. isn't an AAU member like Oregon is.

https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Who-We-Are/AAU-Member-List-Updated-2022.pdf

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

I don't think academics plays a role in the decision making process, it's a non-factor. If Oregon St. was a perennial top 25 team, they would be in. (No offense to the Beavers, at least they have an engineering school unlike Oregon.)

---

The Big Ten has historically cared about academics and I would expect they still do. Just not sure how much.

If you are making academic picks then among major FBS schools, Cal and Stanford would have to be #1 and #2 in some order.

---

I just saw that Oregon St. isn't an AAU member like Oregon is.

https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Who-We-Are/AAU-Member-List-Updated-2022.pdf

---

They do seem to put a premium on AAU membership. All of their current members are in the AAU except Nebraska, which used to be.

Notre Dame isn't in the AAU either, but I assume they'd be the exception.

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

I don't think academics plays a role in the decision making process, it's a non-factor. If Oregon St. was a perennial top 25 team, they would be in. (No offense to the Beavers, at least they have an engineering school unlike Oregon.)

---

The Big Ten has historically cared about academics and I would expect they still do. Just not sure how much.

If you are making academic picks then among major FBS schools, Cal and Stanford would have to be #1 and #2 in some order.

---

I just saw that Oregon St. isn't an AAU member like Oregon is.

https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Who-We-Are/AAU-Member-List-Updated-2022.pdf

---

They do seem to put a premium on AAU membership. All of their current members are in the AAU except Nebraska, which used to be.

Notre Dame isn't in the AAU either, but I assume they'd be the exception.

---

My understanding is that Notre Dame isn't in the AAU b/c their PhD program are pretty limited, not because of a general low standard of academics.

And yes they'd be an exception anyway I think.

maxer said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

I don't think academics plays a role in the decision making process, it's a non-factor. If Oregon St. was a perennial top 25 team, they would be in. (No offense to the Beavers, at least they have an engineering school unlike Oregon.)

---

The Big Ten has historically cared about academics and I would expect they still do. Just not sure how much.

If you are making academic picks then among major FBS schools, Cal and Stanford would have to be #1 and #2 in some order.

---

I just saw that Oregon St. isn't an AAU member like Oregon is.

https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Who-We-Are/AAU-Member-List-Updated-2022.pdf

---

They do seem to put a premium on AAU membership. All of their current members are in the AAU except Nebraska, which used to be.

Notre Dame isn't in the AAU either, but I assume they'd be the exception.

---

My understanding is that Notre Dame isn't in the AAU b/c their PhD program are pretty limited, not because of a general low standard of academics.

And yes they'd be an exception anyway I think.

---

Right, they're pretty highly rated for undergrad education, but they aren't much of a "research" school because of that.

calumnus said:

---

Arcadiabear said:

---

Sure they can "learn" but is it too late?


My biggest gripe is not really with them. I dont know them, they could be working their butt off for all i know. It is probably with the seemingly lack of connections to other major universities. UCLA's AD have so many connections they can make it work.

The pac-12 commissioner (larry to george) were both out of the box non football hires. Ours is from Air Force which is not in the main league. It really creates a situation where we play catchup instead of being in the "room where it happens"

Connections gets things done. period.

---

Knowlton was a terrible hire for Cal at this critical time in the history of college sports. His extension to the end of the decade was almost criminal.

---

fair point. agreed it was a terrible hire

Arcadiabear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Arcadiabear said:

---

Sure they can "learn" but is it too late?


My biggest gripe is not really with them. I dont know them, they could be working their butt off for all i know. It is probably with the seemingly lack of connections to other major universities. UCLA's AD have so many connections they can make it work.

The pac-12 commissioner (larry to george) were both out of the box non football hires. Ours is from Air Force which is not in the main league. It really creates a situation where we play catchup instead of being in the "room where it happens"

Connections gets things done. period.

---

Knowlton was a terrible hire for Cal at this critical time in the history of college sports. His extension to the end of the decade was almost criminal.

---

fair point. agreed it was a terrible hire

---

Totally agree - anyone know what he was supposedly good at to get this job in the first place?

In any case, I hope Christ is held accountable if/when we get left out of B1G. Disaster of a hire followed by nonsensical and non-earned extension

fat_slice said:

---

Arcadiabear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Arcadiabear said:

---

Sure they can "learn" but is it too late?


My biggest gripe is not really with them. I dont know them, they could be working their butt off for all i know. It is probably with the seemingly lack of connections to other major universities. UCLA's AD have so many connections they can make it work.

The pac-12 commissioner (larry to george) were both out of the box non football hires. Ours is from Air Force which is not in the main league. It really creates a situation where we play catchup instead of being in the "room where it happens"

Connections gets things done. period.

---

Knowlton was a terrible hire for Cal at this critical time in the history of college sports. His extension to the end of the decade was almost criminal.

---

fair point. agreed it was a terrible hire

---

Totally agree - anyone know what he was supposedly good at to get this job in the first place?

In any case, I hope Christ is held accountable if/when we get left out of B1G. Disaster of a hire followed by nonsensical and non-earned extension

---

After the McKeever debacle, there is no reason knowlton can't be fired with cause, nullifying his contract. Should probably be in prison.

fat_slice said:

---

This article comes from Wilner, our PAC 12 guy and even he keeps leaving out Cal when it comes to B1G inclusion (he mentions it in passing once then focuses on the other 3 and ND for the majority of the article).

https://sports360az.com/2022/07/wilner-hotline-the-pac-12s-survival-depends-on-the-big-ten-not-the-big-12-tracing-the-path-to-stability/

If anything, I hope clueless Christ and Knowlton now understand why marketing our brand is so important. It is too easy to be left out of this convo.

If anythjng

---

That article is definitely disconcerting especially because it comes from Wilner. But what's so odd is that he references the CBS Sports story and yet concludes "Without the Irish, no combination of Pac-12 schools creates an equivalent financial windfall for the existing Big Ten members, who are likely to collect more than $75 million annually in total media rights distributions"

But the CBS story said that the Big Ten was looking to invite the Pac-12 schools at reduced revenue share so there was no need for them to create the equivalent financial windfall. That part of the CBS story was in the video and not in print so maybe he did not see it when he published his story. I don't know. But I'm guessing the B1G doesn't share equal revenue with the Pac-12 schools whether ND is part of the deal or not so not sure why it's the deal breaker he concludes it is.

Although I do think it's interesting he points out that Oregon may not be desired at all. Given that they're the weakest academic peer in the group of 4 and the most SEC like school in the group and have all that Phil Knight money to compete against the rest of the conference, I've never been convinced the B1G would actually want them. But taking an odd number of West Coast teams also feels weird for all the other sports and Oregon definitely adds value.

I recall Wilner saying a lot of his column today was speculative. Very few people really know what's going on.

maxer said:

---

I think looking at Oregon, they are the best football school in the (remaining) PAC, but they are not widely viewed outside of the state of Oregon when they are not good. Their floor is significantly lower than many others. I think that factors in as well.

---

This made me think of our recent game in Australia. Cal has a wider reach that Oregon ... If at all there is an effort to market college football outside of the US, then surely Cal (oh wait we better call them Berkeley) will have more fans/alumni/familiarity anywhere in the world.

Maybe we belong in the Ivy League.

Or they could take Notre Dame, Duke, UNC and Virginia to get to 20.

mirabelle said:

---

Or they could take Notre Dame, Duke, UNC and Virginia to get to 20.

---

ACC Grant of Rights.

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

I think looking at Oregon, they are the best football school in the (remaining) PAC, but they are not widely viewed outside of the state of Oregon when they are not good. Their floor is significantly lower than many others. I think that factors in as well.

---

This made me think of our recent game in Australia. Cal has a wider reach that Oregon ... If at all there is an effort to market college football outside of the US, then surely Cal (oh wait we better call them Berkeley) will have more fans/alumni/familiarity anywhere in the world.

---

We OWN the Australian media market!! Suck on that B1G!

mirabelle said:

---

Maybe we belong in the Ivy League.

---

Assuming that is tongue-in-cheek. We spec'd about a Big Ivy from time to time and the numbers never work...at all. Cal, Furd, Rice, NW, Vander, GT, Tulane, Duke, etc., but who'd watch? Cost a bundle - all out of pocket. Maybe the Academies would up the viewership a little.