What an odd response by Wilner to to that post.philbert said:
still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.David's article reminds me:
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022
The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2
This should be a make or break year for Musgrave. With whatever strengths and weaknesses he has, Plummer is his guy (as is Millner behind him) so he (Musgrave) better make it work.calumnus said:dimitrig said:HoopDreams said:realignment swallows all other discussions, but I want to get back to Plummer again.Rushinbear said:Plummer has a quicker trigger, better accuracy and a little stronger arm. Those things are what we have needed since Webb. He'll be as good..calumnus said:BearGreg said:I think the trend line in their development is another relevant way of interpreting the stats.calumnus said:
I hope you are right, but Garbers had a 132 career passing rating, Plummer has a 136 but is not as good of a runner. Maybe a Purdue had a worse line and worse talent at WR? We'll see soon enough.
Plummer got a ton of snaps as a Freshman starter and posted a 124 rating before getting hurt. His Sophomore year, after recovering from his injury, he started the last three games and posted a 152 rating. Last year, he won the job in Camp and started the first four games with a 142 rating.
Garbers meanwhile went 119 in his first year, then 149 in his second before slipping back to 120 as a Junior and then 136 last year.
Plummer and Aidan O'Connell competed every year in Purdue. Plummer beat him out as a Freshman, then while recovering from injury lost his job to him prior to the Sophomore year before beating Aidan out again to end his Sophomore year, he then beat him out one more time entering last year before giving way to O'Connell after leading Purdue to a 3-1 start to the season.
While Plummer has seen far fewer games and snaps than Garbers had entering his fourth year, he is statistically IMO way ahead of Chase. The film reviews demonstrate that even more markedly. And finally, Plummer's Spring performance this year was far better than any Spring performance Chase had while in Berkeley.
Yes, Looking at his stats, he had GREAT, GREAT games against Oregon State and UConn and played fairly well against Notre Dame before faltering and losing the starting position against Illinois.
The big question in my mind will be pass protection and even more importantly Musgrave's utilization of the run game (hopefully Ott kills it) and play-action to put Plummer in a position to succeed. Because if the play calling is predictable and vanilla again and pass rushers can continue to tee off on obvious pass plays, I'm doubtful Plummer can be as effective as he was in Spring practice.
my concern about Plummer:
He might be slightly better passer than Garbers, BUT...
1. he will have less experience with his teammates and coaches
2. he will be operating with less experienced and arguably less talented RBs and WRs
3. our OL looks less talented and experienced, with less depth
and the big one for me...
he is way less a running threat compared to Garbers
Garbers dual-threat was huge for our offense, as teams always needed to account for his run. Defenses couldn't pin their ears back and attack. They needed to keep a spy on him and/or keep contain
Many of our key plays and explosive plays were from his running
His scrambling not only kept plays alive, but often resulted in considerable gains. The alternative is the QB throws risky passes while they are scrambling, or more often just throw the ball out of bounds
I think Garbers was too quick to start running. Yes, he made some plays but I want to see a QB throwing the ball unless his name is Michael Vick.
Musgrave tried to turn Garbers into a pocket passer for the 2020 and half of the 2021 season and it was a disaster. He was a piñata behind our porous line and vanilla running schemes. We (and Garbers) were MUCH better when he got the green light to run when WRs were covered and a running lane opened up. That in turn helped WRs get open as defenses had to have a safety spy on him.
I genuinely think the national media/non-Pac 12 football fans just have no inkling of the Cal/Furd rivalry and think that this annual ND/Furd game that only stretches back to, what, 1988, means that they are primary rivals.philbert said:
still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.David's article reminds me:
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022
The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2
StillNoStanfurdium said:I genuinely think the national media/non-Pac 12 football fans just have no inkling of the Cal/Furd rivalry and think that this annual ND/Furd game that only stretches back to, what, 1988, means that they are primary rivals.philbert said:
still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.David's article reminds me:
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022
The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2
The one argument that makes some sense is if the B1G lands Notre Dame and then wants to add three schools out west to form a pod and get to an even 20. Stanford could be split off from Cal in that scenario. That said, I don't entirely see why that would HAVE to happen in such a situation either.fat_slice said:StillNoStanfurdium said:I genuinely think the national media/non-Pac 12 football fans just have no inkling of the Cal/Furd rivalry and think that this annual ND/Furd game that only stretches back to, what, 1988, means that they are primary rivals.philbert said:
still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.David's article reminds me:
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022
The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2
Exactly - and Stanford and ND are not in the same conference now and are still playing each other every year. Why do they need to be in the same conference? Don't get this pairing at all
How is that a "pod"? Notre Dame is 2000 miles away from Palo Alto, it's just another Big 10 team and a CA team.sycasey said:The one argument that makes some sense is if the B1G lands Notre Dame and then wants to add three schools out west to form a pod and get to an even 20. Stanford could be split off from Cal in that scenario. That said, I don't entirely see why that would HAVE to happen in such a situation either.fat_slice said:StillNoStanfurdium said:I genuinely think the national media/non-Pac 12 football fans just have no inkling of the Cal/Furd rivalry and think that this annual ND/Furd game that only stretches back to, what, 1988, means that they are primary rivals.philbert said:
still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.David's article reminds me:
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022
The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2
Exactly - and Stanford and ND are not in the same conference now and are still playing each other every year. Why do they need to be in the same conference? Don't get this pairing at all
maxer said:How is that a "pod"? Notre Dame is 2000 miles away from Palo Alto, it's just another Big 10 team and a CA team.sycasey said:The one argument that makes some sense is if the B1G lands Notre Dame and then wants to add three schools out west to form a pod and get to an even 20. Stanford could be split off from Cal in that scenario. That said, I don't entirely see why that would HAVE to happen in such a situation either.fat_slice said:StillNoStanfurdium said:I genuinely think the national media/non-Pac 12 football fans just have no inkling of the Cal/Furd rivalry and think that this annual ND/Furd game that only stretches back to, what, 1988, means that they are primary rivals.philbert said:
still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.David's article reminds me:
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022
The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2
Exactly - and Stanford and ND are not in the same conference now and are still playing each other every year. Why do they need to be in the same conference? Don't get this pairing at all
In that scenario, they'd create a pod of 5 west coast teams to all play each other every year. ND would presumably be in a different pod.maxer said:How is that a "pod"? Notre Dame is 2000 miles away from Palo Alto, it's just another Big 10 team and a CA team.sycasey said:The one argument that makes some sense is if the B1G lands Notre Dame and then wants to add three schools out west to form a pod and get to an even 20. Stanford could be split off from Cal in that scenario. That said, I don't entirely see why that would HAVE to happen in such a situation either.fat_slice said:StillNoStanfurdium said:I genuinely think the national media/non-Pac 12 football fans just have no inkling of the Cal/Furd rivalry and think that this annual ND/Furd game that only stretches back to, what, 1988, means that they are primary rivals.philbert said:
still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.David's article reminds me:
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022
The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2
Exactly - and Stanford and ND are not in the same conference now and are still playing each other every year. Why do they need to be in the same conference? Don't get this pairing at all
Well, if the d stacks the box, the qb has to call out of the run. But, if the qb is not confident he can complete the pass, he's not gonna change the play.eastcoastcal said:
And to add on to the comments regarding QB play & skill positions, I also think a large part of the equation is play calling. There were times last year when we inexplicably abandoned the run! The opposing defense was getting steamrolled and then suddenly we stop running the ball. Better playcalling has to happen imo.
sycasey said:In that scenario, they'd create a pod of 5 west coast teams to all play each other every year. ND would presumably be in a different pod.maxer said:How is that a "pod"? Notre Dame is 2000 miles away from Palo Alto, it's just another Big 10 team and a CA team.sycasey said:The one argument that makes some sense is if the B1G lands Notre Dame and then wants to add three schools out west to form a pod and get to an even 20. Stanford could be split off from Cal in that scenario. That said, I don't entirely see why that would HAVE to happen in such a situation either.fat_slice said:StillNoStanfurdium said:I genuinely think the national media/non-Pac 12 football fans just have no inkling of the Cal/Furd rivalry and think that this annual ND/Furd game that only stretches back to, what, 1988, means that they are primary rivals.philbert said:
still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.David's article reminds me:
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022
The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2
Exactly - and Stanford and ND are not in the same conference now and are still playing each other every year. Why do they need to be in the same conference? Don't get this pairing at all
Rushinbear said:Well, if the d stacks the box, the qb has to call out of the run. But, if the qb is not confident he can complete the pass, he's not gonna change the play.eastcoastcal said:
And to add on to the comments regarding QB play & skill positions, I also think a large part of the equation is play calling. There were times last year when we inexplicably abandoned the run! The opposing defense was getting steamrolled and then suddenly we stop running the ball. Better playcalling has to happen imo.
In a 20 team B1G, a 5 team West Coast pod would be USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon and Washington, Notre Dame would be in a MIdwest, probably with with Michigan, Mich State, Northwestern and Purdue. They play UM, MSU and Purdue regularly and Chicago (NW) is a Notre Dame hotbed.maxer said:How is that a "pod"? Notre Dame is 2000 miles away from Palo Alto, it's just another Big 10 team and a CA team.sycasey said:The one argument that makes some sense is if the B1G lands Notre Dame and then wants to add three schools out west to form a pod and get to an even 20. Stanford could be split off from Cal in that scenario. That said, I don't entirely see why that would HAVE to happen in such a situation either.fat_slice said:StillNoStanfurdium said:I genuinely think the national media/non-Pac 12 football fans just have no inkling of the Cal/Furd rivalry and think that this annual ND/Furd game that only stretches back to, what, 1988, means that they are primary rivals.philbert said:
still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.David's article reminds me:
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022
The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2
Exactly - and Stanford and ND are not in the same conference now and are still playing each other every year. Why do they need to be in the same conference? Don't get this pairing at all
calumnus said:Rushinbear said:Well, if the d stacks the box, the qb has to call out of the run. But, if the qb is not confident he can complete the pass, he's not gonna change the play.eastcoastcal said:
And to add on to the comments regarding QB play & skill positions, I also think a large part of the equation is play calling. There were times last year when we inexplicably abandoned the run! The opposing defense was getting steamrolled and then suddenly we stop running the ball. Better playcalling has to happen imo.
No we abandoned the run.
Worse, we marched the entire length of the field with power running, got into the red zone, and then went spread, sometimes even empty backfield and 100% passing. You cannot blame the QB for that.
The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.fat_slice said:StillNoStanfurdium said:I genuinely think the national media/non-Pac 12 football fans just have no inkling of the Cal/Furd rivalry and think that this annual ND/Furd game that only stretches back to, what, 1988, means that they are primary rivals.philbert said:
still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.David's article reminds me:
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022
The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2
Exactly - and Stanford and ND are not in the same conference now and are still playing each other every year. Why do they need to be in the same conference?
Don't get this pairing at all. It's simply a pairing for pairing's sake while Stanford/cal pairing gives you unequivocal ownership of bay area market, keeps tradition with those two plus other Cali schools, way bigger academic presence, and a feel good "saving l local business communities" the windfall they get from rivalry.
ND/Stanford doesn't do squat...
I could definitely see the three state AGs banding together to sue the Big 10 if they split the teams like that.calumnus said:sycasey said:In that scenario, they'd create a pod of 5 west coast teams to all play each other every year. ND would presumably be in a different pod.maxer said:How is that a "pod"? Notre Dame is 2000 miles away from Palo Alto, it's just another Big 10 team and a CA team.sycasey said:The one argument that makes some sense is if the B1G lands Notre Dame and then wants to add three schools out west to form a pod and get to an even 20. Stanford could be split off from Cal in that scenario. That said, I don't entirely see why that would HAVE to happen in such a situation either.fat_slice said:StillNoStanfurdium said:I genuinely think the national media/non-Pac 12 football fans just have no inkling of the Cal/Furd rivalry and think that this annual ND/Furd game that only stretches back to, what, 1988, means that they are primary rivals.philbert said:
still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.David's article reminds me:
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022
The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2
Exactly - and Stanford and ND are not in the same conference now and are still playing each other every year. Why do they need to be in the same conference? Don't get this pairing at all
Yeah, no doubt it could work for football, better than a "pod" of 2 that they would have now. However, it does not work for the other sports such as basketball. Plus you now have Cal, WSU and OSU separated from their traditional rivals, the Governors of California, Oregon and Washington pissed at you and the prospect of an antitrust suit very high.
If you take Cal and Stanford for a pod of 4 you get the Bay Area, the LA school alums get their annual road trip, you maintain traditional rivalries (remember, when the PAC-12 split North South, the California schools continued to play each other every year), you have natural pairs for basketball and other sport road trips, you get Newsome off your back and you are not as likely to have to defend an antitrust suit.
The bottom line is Cal and Stanford are a natural pair.
Notre Dame stands alone.
The other argument is that Cal is a high-ceiling program. Attendance and viewership are down right now, but could rebound quickly if the program lurches out of mediocrity. And we have evidence of that in the recent past (Tedford years).golden sloth said:
Cal is a net-neutral with regards to income and eyeballs (weak viewership in a big market), with good academics, and would make the most sense as an add to facilitate logistics for other schools. That is not a great argument, but it's also not bad.
Cal is effectively on the bubble.
sycasey said:The other argument is that Cal is a high-ceiling program. Attendance and viewership are down right now, but could rebound quickly if the program lurches out of mediocrity. And we have evidence of that in the recent past (Tedford years).golden sloth said:
Cal is a net-neutral with regards to income and eyeballs (weak viewership in a big market), with good academics, and would make the most sense as an add to facilitate logistics for other schools. That is not a great argument, but it's also not bad.
Cal is effectively on the bubble.
I find that to be a very valid point; and one that I have to believe will be a factor. And while I imagine this would be true with many/most other schools, it was not so at Stanford during their massively successful run just a few years back...sycasey said:The other argument is that Cal is a high-ceiling program. Attendance and viewership are down right now, but could rebound quickly if the program lurches out of mediocrity. And we have evidence of that in the recent past (Tedford years).golden sloth said:
Cal is a net-neutral with regards to income and eyeballs (weak viewership in a big market), with good academics, and would make the most sense as an add to facilitate logistics for other schools. That is not a great argument, but it's also not bad.
Cal is effectively on the bubble.
Cal has a large alumni base in the region. Stanford does not.Cal89 said:I find that to be a very valid point; and one that I have to believe will be a factor. And while I imagine this would be true with many/most other schools, it was not so at Stanford during their massively successful run just a few years back...sycasey said:The other argument is that Cal is a high-ceiling program. Attendance and viewership are down right now, but could rebound quickly if the program lurches out of mediocrity. And we have evidence of that in the recent past (Tedford years).golden sloth said:
Cal is a net-neutral with regards to income and eyeballs (weak viewership in a big market), with good academics, and would make the most sense as an add to facilitate logistics for other schools. That is not a great argument, but it's also not bad.
Cal is effectively on the bubble.
That YouTube video of the 2007 Tennessee game is amazing. Sigh.fat_slice said:sycasey said:The other argument is that Cal is a high-ceiling program. Attendance and viewership are down right now, but could rebound quickly if the program lurches out of mediocrity. And we have evidence of that in the recent past (Tedford years).golden sloth said:
Cal is a net-neutral with regards to income and eyeballs (weak viewership in a big market), with good academics, and would make the most sense as an add to facilitate logistics for other schools. That is not a great argument, but it's also not bad.
Cal is effectively on the bubble.
Leave it to Christ and Knowlton to forget this during their pitch to the B1G.
Yup, plus many Midwest transplants are here too...sycasey said:Cal has a large alumni base in the region. Stanford does not.Cal89 said:I find that to be a very valid point; and one that I have to believe will be a factor. And while I imagine this would be true with many/most other schools, it was not so at Stanford during their massively successful run just a few years back...sycasey said:The other argument is that Cal is a high-ceiling program. Attendance and viewership are down right now, but could rebound quickly if the program lurches out of mediocrity. And we have evidence of that in the recent past (Tedford years).golden sloth said:
Cal is a net-neutral with regards to income and eyeballs (weak viewership in a big market), with good academics, and would make the most sense as an add to facilitate logistics for other schools. That is not a great argument, but it's also not bad.
Cal is effectively on the bubble.
A couple of Holiday Bowl appearances doesn't make Cal a "high ceiling program".sycasey said:The other argument is that Cal is a high-ceiling program. Attendance and viewership are down right now, but could rebound quickly if the program lurches out of mediocrity. And we have evidence of that in the recent past (Tedford years).golden sloth said:
Cal is a net-neutral with regards to income and eyeballs (weak viewership in a big market), with good academics, and would make the most sense as an add to facilitate logistics for other schools. That is not a great argument, but it's also not bad.
Cal is effectively on the bubble.
philly1121 said:The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.fat_slice said:StillNoStanfurdium said:I genuinely think the national media/non-Pac 12 football fans just have no inkling of the Cal/Furd rivalry and think that this annual ND/Furd game that only stretches back to, what, 1988, means that they are primary rivals.philbert said:
still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.David's article reminds me:
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022
The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2
Exactly - and Stanford and ND are not in the same conference now and are still playing each other every year. Why do they need to be in the same conference?
Don't get this pairing at all. It's simply a pairing for pairing's sake while Stanford/cal pairing gives you unequivocal ownership of bay area market, keeps tradition with those two plus other Cali schools, way bigger academic presence, and a feel good "saving l local business communities" the windfall they get from rivalry.
ND/Stanford doesn't do squat...
If the B1G thought that it did, and the Bay Area market meant as much to them as the LA media market, they would have already chosen one or both of us. This really isn't question of pairing. Its a question of what value any pairing would bring.
Does anyone watch Cal outside the Bay Area, with any meaningful number? Does Stanford? Probably not, Most watch college football programs in 2021, Stanford was #46. Cal was #76. Notre Dame was 9th. Ohio State was tops.
Yes, Notre Dame stands alone. But, they already have Michigan and MSU in the B1G. Do they need to pair with them? No, they're already in the B1G. They already play them. so the question then becomes, as far as new schools are concerned, who should we bring in with Notre Dame, as an effective "pairing". UW? Nope. Oregon? Nope. Cal? Nope. None of these have history with ND. Stanford? Yes. I mean, they've met 33 years straight. Couple that with the academics, its a good fit. You don't need both schools to try and gain greater access to the Bay Area media market. If the B1G felt we moved the meter towards "unequivocal ownership" of the media market, our phone would be ringing.
Correct.golden sloth said:
Cal is a net-neutral with regards to income and eyeballs (weak viewership in a big market), with good academics, and would make the most sense as an add to facilitate logistics for other schools. That is not a great argument, but it's also not bad.
Cal is effectively on the bubble.
BigDaddy said:A couple of Holiday Bowl appearances doesn't make Cal a "high ceiling program".sycasey said:The other argument is that Cal is a high-ceiling program. Attendance and viewership are down right now, but could rebound quickly if the program lurches out of mediocrity. And we have evidence of that in the recent past (Tedford years).golden sloth said:
Cal is a net-neutral with regards to income and eyeballs (weak viewership in a big market), with good academics, and would make the most sense as an add to facilitate logistics for other schools. That is not a great argument, but it's also not bad.
Cal is effectively on the bubble.
If Notre Dane joins the B1G, Cal will be competing with Oregon, Washington and Stanford for the other 3 spots. So Crist and Knowlton better hope that ND isn't interested or that the B1G wants to go to 24 teams. Because in the 3 spots for 4 teams scenario, it's hard to see them jumping the line ahead of UO, UW and Stanford.
philly1121 said:The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.fat_slice said:StillNoStanfurdium said:I genuinely think the national media/non-Pac 12 football fans just have no inkling of the Cal/Furd rivalry and think that this annual ND/Furd game that only stretches back to, what, 1988, means that they are primary rivals.philbert said:
still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.David's article reminds me:
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022
The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2
Exactly - and Stanford and ND are not in the same conference now and are still playing each other every year. Why do they need to be in the same conference?
Don't get this pairing at all. It's simply a pairing for pairing's sake while Stanford/cal pairing gives you unequivocal ownership of bay area market, keeps tradition with those two plus other Cali schools, way bigger academic presence, and a feel good "saving l local business communities" the windfall they get from rivalry.
ND/Stanford doesn't do squat...
If the B1G thought that it did, and the Bay Area market meant as much to them as the LA media market, they would have already chosen one or both of us. This really isn't question of pairing. Its a question of what value any pairing would bring.
Does anyone watch Cal outside the Bay Area, with any meaningful number? Does Stanford? Probably not, Most watch college football programs in 2021, Stanford was #46. Cal was #76. Notre Dame was 9th. Ohio State was tops.
Yes, Notre Dame stands alone. But, they already have Michigan and MSU in the B1G. Do they need to pair with them? No, they're already in the B1G. They already play them. so the question then becomes, as far as new schools are concerned, who should we bring in with Notre Dame, as an effective "pairing". UW? Nope. Oregon? Nope. Cal? Nope. None of these have history with ND. Stanford? Yes. I mean, they've met 33 years straight. Couple that with the academics, its a good fit. You don't need both schools to try and gain greater access to the Bay Area media market. If the B1G felt we moved the meter towards "unequivocal ownership" of the media market, our phone would be ringing.
BigDaddy said:A couple of Holiday Bowl appearances doesn't make Cal a "high ceiling program".sycasey said:The other argument is that Cal is a high-ceiling program. Attendance and viewership are down right now, but could rebound quickly if the program lurches out of mediocrity. And we have evidence of that in the recent past (Tedford years).golden sloth said:
Cal is a net-neutral with regards to income and eyeballs (weak viewership in a big market), with good academics, and would make the most sense as an add to facilitate logistics for other schools. That is not a great argument, but it's also not bad.
Cal is effectively on the bubble.
If Notre Dane joins the B1G, Cal will be competing with Oregon, Washington and Stanford for the other 3 spots. So Crist and Knowlton better hope that ND isn't interested or that the B1G wants to go to 24 teams. Because in the 3 spots for 4 teams scenario, it's hard to see them jumping the line ahead of UO, UW and Stanford.
1. It's a high ceiling program b/c of the number of alumni and the size of the media market, not b/c of the success or lack thereof on the field recently. As a lot of people have said to you in a lot of threads.BigDaddy said:A couple of Holiday Bowl appearances doesn't make Cal a "high ceiling program".sycasey said:The other argument is that Cal is a high-ceiling program. Attendance and viewership are down right now, but could rebound quickly if the program lurches out of mediocrity. And we have evidence of that in the recent past (Tedford years).golden sloth said:
Cal is a net-neutral with regards to income and eyeballs (weak viewership in a big market), with good academics, and would make the most sense as an add to facilitate logistics for other schools. That is not a great argument, but it's also not bad.
Cal is effectively on the bubble.
If Notre Dane joins the B1G, Cal will be competing with Oregon, Washington and Stanford for the other 3 spots. So Crist and Knowlton better hope that ND isn't interested or that the B1G wants to go to 24 teams. Because in the 3 spots for 4 teams scenario, it's hard to see them jumping the line ahead of UO, UW and Stanford.
MrGPAC said:philly1121 said:The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.fat_slice said:StillNoStanfurdium said:I genuinely think the national media/non-Pac 12 football fans just have no inkling of the Cal/Furd rivalry and think that this annual ND/Furd game that only stretches back to, what, 1988, means that they are primary rivals.philbert said:
still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.David's article reminds me:
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022
The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2
Exactly - and Stanford and ND are not in the same conference now and are still playing each other every year. Why do they need to be in the same conference?
Don't get this pairing at all. It's simply a pairing for pairing's sake while Stanford/cal pairing gives you unequivocal ownership of bay area market, keeps tradition with those two plus other Cali schools, way bigger academic presence, and a feel good "saving l local business communities" the windfall they get from rivalry.
ND/Stanford doesn't do squat...
If the B1G thought that it did, and the Bay Area market meant as much to them as the LA media market, they would have already chosen one or both of us. This really isn't question of pairing. Its a question of what value any pairing would bring.
Does anyone watch Cal outside the Bay Area, with any meaningful number? Does Stanford? Probably not, Most watch college football programs in 2021, Stanford was #46. Cal was #76. Notre Dame was 9th. Ohio State was tops.
Yes, Notre Dame stands alone. But, they already have Michigan and MSU in the B1G. Do they need to pair with them? No, they're already in the B1G. They already play them. so the question then becomes, as far as new schools are concerned, who should we bring in with Notre Dame, as an effective "pairing". UW? Nope. Oregon? Nope. Cal? Nope. None of these have history with ND. Stanford? Yes. I mean, they've met 33 years straight. Couple that with the academics, its a good fit. You don't need both schools to try and gain greater access to the Bay Area media market. If the B1G felt we moved the meter towards "unequivocal ownership" of the media market, our phone would be ringing.
This is about money. There are two ways that adding a team effects this bottom line.
1) Having a team in the market means that the B1G gets additional money guaranteed for every cable subscriber in that market. In this essence it doesn't matter if anyone watches the content or not, they just get $$$$$ based on the sole fact they have a team in the market. This is why Rutgers is in the B1G.
2) Having something that's more desirable to watch makes it worth more. You are right that Cal/Stanford may not move the needle much here.
But on the raw cash (and exposure) for the B1G to be able to force their way into the tv pacakages and getting those raw subscriber numbers up getting the bay area market is valuable. It is also true that only one of Cal or Stanford is required for that revenue addition.
This isn't about bowl appearances, it's about attendance and ratings.BigDaddy said:A couple of Holiday Bowl appearances doesn't make Cal a "high ceiling program".sycasey said:The other argument is that Cal is a high-ceiling program. Attendance and viewership are down right now, but could rebound quickly if the program lurches out of mediocrity. And we have evidence of that in the recent past (Tedford years).golden sloth said:
Cal is a net-neutral with regards to income and eyeballs (weak viewership in a big market), with good academics, and would make the most sense as an add to facilitate logistics for other schools. That is not a great argument, but it's also not bad.
Cal is effectively on the bubble.
They brought in Rutgers because having Rutgers gave them a team in the New York market, thus enabling them to get a lot more money in carriage fees from New York area cable companies. It didn't matter that opposing fans would chant, "What's a rutgers?" when Rutgers was on the road. They brought in Maryland for the D.C. and Baltimore markets and because it made sense to bring in two eastern seaboard teams at once. (Maryland actually once had an excellent football program; Rutgers has been terrible ever since it went "big-time" in 1980 or so.) They'll bring in Cal and Stanford to have an even number of Pacific coast teams, to enable UCLA and USC to play some road games in their own time zone ---and to get the additional carriage fees from the Bay Area market.calumnus said:philly1121 said:The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.fat_slice said:StillNoStanfurdium said:I genuinely think the national media/non-Pac 12 football fans just have no inkling of the Cal/Furd rivalry and think that this annual ND/Furd game that only stretches back to, what, 1988, means that they are primary rivals.philbert said:
still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.David's article reminds me:
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022
The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2
Exactly - and Stanford and ND are not in the same conference now and are still playing each other every year. Why do they need to be in the same conference?
Don't get this pairing at all. It's simply a pairing for pairing's sake while Stanford/cal pairing gives you unequivocal ownership of bay area market, keeps tradition with those two plus other Cali schools, way bigger academic presence, and a feel good "saving l local business communities" the windfall they get from rivalry.
ND/Stanford doesn't do squat...
If the B1G thought that it did, and the Bay Area market meant as much to them as the LA media market, they would have already chosen one or both of us. This really isn't question of pairing. Its a question of what value any pairing would bring.
Does anyone watch Cal outside the Bay Area, with any meaningful number? Does Stanford? Probably not, Most watch college football programs in 2021, Stanford was #46. Cal was #76. Notre Dame was 9th. Ohio State was tops.
Yes, Notre Dame stands alone. But, they already have Michigan and MSU in the B1G. Do they need to pair with them? No, they're already in the B1G. They already play them. so the question then becomes, as far as new schools are concerned, who should we bring in with Notre Dame, as an effective "pairing". UW? Nope. Oregon? Nope. Cal? Nope. None of these have history with ND. Stanford? Yes. I mean, they've met 33 years straight. Couple that with the academics, its a good fit. You don't need both schools to try and gain greater access to the Bay Area media market. If the B1G felt we moved the meter towards "unequivocal ownership" of the media market, our phone would be ringing.
They brought Penn State in without a partner.
They brought Nebraska in without a partner.
They most certainly do not need to have a partner to bring in Notre Dame.
Again, why did they bring in Rutgers? Does Rutgers have a national following?
Why did they bring in Maryland? Does Maryland have a national following?
Which universities do you think the university presidents (almost all at large public research institutions, their state's flagship campus) who will vote on this, want to be associated with?
