The Latest Rumors

56,410 Views | 629 Replies | Last: 4 hrs ago by fat_slice
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gardenstatebear said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


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.


Exactly
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HearstMining said:

calumnus said:

dimitrig said:

HoopDreams said:

Rushinbear said:

calumnus said:

BearGreg said:

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.
I think the trend line in their development is another relevant way of interpreting the stats.

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.


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..
realignment swallows all other discussions, but I want to get back to Plummer again.

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.
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.
To address some of the comments above:
  • I noticed that after Garbers had a successful run, he was much quicker to try and repeat it on subsequent plays - tucking the ball when it was obvious he had not checked second or third receivers.
  • Garbers was a good runner, but he wasn't especially good at throwing on the run.
  • RE: "less talented RBs and WRs". I don't think this is the case. Cal WRs have for several years struggled to gain separation from DBs. Was this poor route running, poorly conceived routes, or just lack of athleticism? Remigio wouldn't see a ball for large portions of games. Why was that? The new guys, as a group, are bigger, faster, and more athletic so I hope an overall improvement.
  • Garbers was much more prone to throwing across the middle. Was that because he didn't trust his arm to make the sometimes longer sideline throws or some other reason?
So, for me, a couple of key success factors on offense this year will be:
  • A passing attack that uses the whole field and a QB who hits receivers in stride so they can get some YAC.
  • Some speed from the RBs so they can spread the field laterally and keep opponents from playing 8-in-the-box.
  • Of course, the offensive line play that allows the first two things to happen.


I listen to ESPNU radio most days, and they always talk about the realignment. The best show is Full Ride with Rick Neuheisel (coached at 3 Pac schools) & Chris Childers (wacky, high energy host)

Today, they were discussing another team (forgot who, maybe Nebraska?) and Neuheisel who stays well connected talked about how teams who aren't one of the bluebloods need to have a dual threat QB. He explained how it's like having an extra man on the field, and unless you have elite talent everywhere, it's just a must have.

I agree with this take.

To keep 'on topic' both think Cal and Stanford are a lock to the B1G, it's just the timing that's a question

fat_slice
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams said:

HearstMining said:

calumnus said:

dimitrig said:

HoopDreams said:

Rushinbear said:

calumnus said:

BearGreg said:

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.
I think the trend line in their development is another relevant way of interpreting the stats.

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.


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..
realignment swallows all other discussions, but I want to get back to Plummer again.

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.
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.
To address some of the comments above:
  • I noticed that after Garbers had a successful run, he was much quicker to try and repeat it on subsequent plays - tucking the ball when it was obvious he had not checked second or third receivers.
  • Garbers was a good runner, but he wasn't especially good at throwing on the run.
  • RE: "less talented RBs and WRs". I don't think this is the case. Cal WRs have for several years struggled to gain separation from DBs. Was this poor route running, poorly conceived routes, or just lack of athleticism? Remigio wouldn't see a ball for large portions of games. Why was that? The new guys, as a group, are bigger, faster, and more athletic so I hope an overall improvement.
  • Garbers was much more prone to throwing across the middle. Was that because he didn't trust his arm to make the sometimes longer sideline throws or some other reason?
So, for me, a couple of key success factors on offense this year will be:
  • A passing attack that uses the whole field and a QB who hits receivers in stride so they can get some YAC.
  • Some speed from the RBs so they can spread the field laterally and keep opponents from playing 8-in-the-box.
  • Of course, the offensive line play that allows the first two things to happen.


I listen to ESPNU radio most days, and they always talk about the realignment. The best show is Full Ride with Rick Neuheisel (coached at 3 Pac schools) & Chris Childers (wacky, high energy host)

Today, they were discussing another team (forgot who, maybe Nebraska?) and Neuheisel who stays well connected talked about how teams who aren't one of the bluebloods need to have a dual threat QB. He explained how it's like having an extra man on the field, and unless you have elite talent everywhere, it's just a must have.

I agree with this take.

To keep 'on topic' both think Cal and Stanford are a lock to the B1G, it's just the timing that's a question




I hope they are right but I still fail to see if this is all about brand+money how cal and Stanford still add enough to warrant inclusion on those two perspectives specifically.

That said, timing is a huge issue. If we are say 1+ years out from any announcement on this, our recruiting is going to tank! I have a feeling that has already started .... Look at RJ Jones getting the UCLA offer and Ashton Sanders committing to us over Wisconsin just right before the USC/UCLA to B1G news. I can very easily see those two flipping soon.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fat_slice said:

HoopDreams said:

HearstMining said:

calumnus said:

dimitrig said:

HoopDreams said:

Rushinbear said:

calumnus said:

BearGreg said:

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.
I think the trend line in their development is another relevant way of interpreting the stats.

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.


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..
realignment swallows all other discussions, but I want to get back to Plummer again.

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.
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.
To address some of the comments above:
  • I noticed that after Garbers had a successful run, he was much quicker to try and repeat it on subsequent plays - tucking the ball when it was obvious he had not checked second or third receivers.
  • Garbers was a good runner, but he wasn't especially good at throwing on the run.
  • RE: "less talented RBs and WRs". I don't think this is the case. Cal WRs have for several years struggled to gain separation from DBs. Was this poor route running, poorly conceived routes, or just lack of athleticism? Remigio wouldn't see a ball for large portions of games. Why was that? The new guys, as a group, are bigger, faster, and more athletic so I hope an overall improvement.
  • Garbers was much more prone to throwing across the middle. Was that because he didn't trust his arm to make the sometimes longer sideline throws or some other reason?
So, for me, a couple of key success factors on offense this year will be:
  • A passing attack that uses the whole field and a QB who hits receivers in stride so they can get some YAC.
  • Some speed from the RBs so they can spread the field laterally and keep opponents from playing 8-in-the-box.
  • Of course, the offensive line play that allows the first two things to happen.


I listen to ESPNU radio most days, and they always talk about the realignment. The best show is Full Ride with Rick Neuheisel (coached at 3 Pac schools) & Chris Childers (wacky, high energy host)

Today, they were discussing another team (forgot who, maybe Nebraska?) and Neuheisel who stays well connected talked about how teams who aren't one of the bluebloods need to have a dual threat QB. He explained how it's like having an extra man on the field, and unless you have elite talent everywhere, it's just a must have.

I agree with this take.

To keep 'on topic' both think Cal and Stanford are a lock to the B1G, it's just the timing that's a question




I hope they are right but I still fail to see if this is all about brand+money how cal and Stanford still add enough to warrant inclusion on those two perspectives specifically.

That said, timing is a huge issue. If we are say 1+ years out from any announcement on this, our recruiting is going to tank! I have a feeling that has already started .... Look at RJ Jones getting the UCLA offer and Ashton Sanders committing to us over Wisconsin just right before the USC/UCLA to B1G news. I can very easily see those two flipping soon.


Yes, we need to survive, better thrive, to get what should be an invite if we don't tank over the next few years. We just have horrible, incompetent leadership for this critical time. A lot rides on Musgrave. It would be uprecendeted for a coach to go into year seven with a losing record, finishing in the bottom of the conference every year and hiring his third OC. This year is critical.
76BearsFly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BEAT THE IRISH!!! That might solve a long list of problems….. our new QB has his battle stripes against them. So, I'm saying we got a chance….
philly1121
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.
gardenstatebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.
Going to the Big Ten because you were rejected by the Big East is kind of like marrying your favorite sex symbol instead of the plain girl your mom wants to fix you up with. The Big East was a great basketball conference, but a *terrible* football conference in part because it had a bunch of members who didn't have football programs and din't want to. You'll remember it fell apart as a football conference after the ACC raided it. Joe Paterno said he didn't much ike joining the Big Ten,but "it's good for the University." He wold have preferred to stay independent.

As for taking sports seriously, Rutgers has a similar record of equivocation. It now has a President who is willing to run deficits to have a good program, but that is *very* new.
fat_slice
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.


You have a point - Rutgers and Maryland were the only shows in town so to speak unlike bay area that has two teams. I still can't imagine Stanford having a larger viewership. Would be interested in seeing the TV and attendance figures against common opponents.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.


Cal doesn't move the media market needle? But Rutgers does? How can you make that argument with a straight face?
berserkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.
Did you just argue that Rutgers moves the needle of the NYC media market? Huh???

They'll take Rutgers because of the media market, but won't take Cal because of the media market because Cal does not move the needle. That implies you thinks Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. I assure you it does not and did not.
philly1121
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GMP said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.


Cal doesn't move the media market needle? But Rutgers does? How can you make that argument with a straight face?

Are you suggesting that we move the Bay Area media market on our own? Is the Bay Area a college football "town"? Please show me any metric or Neilsen rating data that shows how many people in the Bay Area watch Cal football. That would explain alot.
berserkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

GMP said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.


Cal doesn't move the media market needle? But Rutgers does? How can you make that argument with a straight face?

Are you suggesting that we move the Bay Area media market on our own? Is the Bay Area a college football "town"? Please show me any metric or Neilsen rating data that shows how many people in the Bay Area watch Cal football. That would explain alot.
No. What was suggested was the Cal captures the Bay Area media market every bit as much as Rutgers captures the NYC market. In fact, Cal probably draws better in the Bay Area than Rutgers does in NYC.
philly1121
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.
Did you just argue that Rutgers moves the needle of the NYC media market? Huh???

They'll take Rutgers because of the media market, but won't take Cal because of the media market because Cal does not move the needle. That implies you thinks Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. I assure you it does not and did not.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2021-49ef4f315858

This is what I could find on data for the 2021 football season. As you can see, Rutgers ranks 58th. Cal ranks 76th. So, please explain to me how we are capturing the hearts, minds and eyes of the Bay Area population?

Back in 2012, your question was asked as to whether Rutgers would "bring" the NY media market. Of course, this was the reason why the Big 10 wanted Rutgers. But in an old article before they formally entered the Big 10, ESPN threw cold water on Rutgers viewership in the NY media market. But, ESPN also wrote,


Quote:

The true money for the Big Ten Network is for the Rutgers fan base to drive carriers to put the Big Ten Network on its basic tier so it can automatically generate subscriber fees for every customer even if they have no interest in the channel.

Does Cal have enough fans to push local carriers to put the P12 or, if we were to join the Big 10, put the B1G Network on local carriers? Still, anyway you look at it, it seems people are watching Rutgers more than Cal. Look at value to conference. That's the only metric.
gardenstatebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

GMP said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.


Cal doesn't move the media market needle? But Rutgers does? How can you make that argument with a straight face?

Are you suggesting that we move the Bay Area media market on our own? Is the Bay Area a college football "town"? Please show me any metric or Neilsen rating data that shows how many people in the Bay Area watch Cal football. That would explain alot.
No. What was suggested was the Cal captures the Bay Area media market every bit as much as Rutgers captures the NYC market. In fact, Cal probably draws better in the Bay Area than Rutgers does in NYC.
(edited to cancel; I don't see a way to delete a post.)
philly1121
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2021-49ef4f315858

The link above says otherwise.
sosheezy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.
Did you just argue that Rutgers moves the needle of the NYC media market? Huh???

They'll take Rutgers because of the media market, but won't take Cal because of the media market because Cal does not move the needle. That implies you thinks Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. I assure you it does not and did not.
My understanding is that adding Rutgers triggered deals with cable providers to add the Big Ten Network to TimeWarner, Cablevision, and Comcast in NY, whenever that deal was struck. So it really was about growing the BTN in the new Big Ten footprint. Rutgers didn't 'move the needle', but they were able to add the channel to those cable providers, with Rutgers as an 'in'. But in today's evironment, Comcast already has the Big Ten Network in the Bay Area (or at least on a sports tier?) so it would be less of a gain.
gardenstatebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sosheezy said:

berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.
Did you just argue that Rutgers moves the needle of the NYC media market? Huh???

They'll take Rutgers because of the media market, but won't take Cal because of the media market because Cal does not move the needle. That implies you thinks Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. I assure you it does not and did not.
My understanding is that adding Rutgers triggered deals with cable providers to add the Big Ten Network to TimeWarner, Cablevision, and Comcast in NY, whenever that deal was struck. So it really was about growing the BTN in the new Big Ten footprint. Rutgers didn't 'move the needle', but they were able to add the channel to those cable providers, with Rutgers as an 'in'. But in today's evironment, Comcast already has the Big Ten Network in the Bay Area (or at least on a sports tier?) so it would be less of a gain.
I think that's only partly right. The BTN was already in the New York area. But having a team in the area hugely increased the carriage fees. If I'm wrong, I'll correct this.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gardenstatebear said:

sosheezy said:

berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.
Did you just argue that Rutgers moves the needle of the NYC media market? Huh???

They'll take Rutgers because of the media market, but won't take Cal because of the media market because Cal does not move the needle. That implies you thinks Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. I assure you it does not and did not.
My understanding is that adding Rutgers triggered deals with cable providers to add the Big Ten Network to TimeWarner, Cablevision, and Comcast in NY, whenever that deal was struck. So it really was about growing the BTN in the new Big Ten footprint. Rutgers didn't 'move the needle', but they were able to add the channel to those cable providers, with Rutgers as an 'in'. But in today's evironment, Comcast already has the Big Ten Network in the Bay Area (or at least on a sports tier?) so it would be less of a gain.
I think that's only partly right. The BTN was already in the New York area. But having a team in the area hugely increased the carriage fees. If I'm wrong, I'll correct this.
Yes, and that's exactly what would happen in the Bay Area if Cal/Stanford were added to the Big Ten.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2021-49ef4f315858

The link above says otherwise.
I'm not saying Cal has been doing amazing in the ratings, but these numbers are not reliable for Pac-12 teams because the Pac-12 Network reported no numbers. So all those games counted as zero.
Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fat_slice said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.


You have a point - Rutgers and Maryland were the only shows in town so to speak unlike bay area that has two teams. I still can't imagine Stanford having a larger viewership. Would be interested in seeing the TV and attendance figures against common opponents.
It's really much more than that...

College sports is not the only game or big ticket in town, at least for us: 49ers, Raiders (now gone), Giants, A's, Warriors and Sharks. These all compete for our sports/entertainment dollar, time/mind-share - and all are within an hour or so of campus. How many other universities contend with such in their backyard? Other than Stanford, one would be hard-pressed to find the same elsewhere (5-6 professional teams, some damn successful ones too, plus 3 FBS schools...).

There are more factors of course, including some already mentioned, but simply with respect to other sports teams, the Bay Area is saturated in ways that other universities are not...
Sig test...
fat_slice
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

philly1121 said:

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2021-49ef4f315858

The link above says otherwise.
I'm not saying Cal has been doing amazing in the ratings, but these numbers are not reliable for Pac-12 teams because the Pac-12 Network reported no numbers. So all those games counted as zero.


This is something I fully expect Christ and Knowlton NOT to be aware of and will not explain this in their pitch or whatever.

I really hope someone on this thread is connected enough to convey this up. I have a bad feeling it's our incompetence that is going to keep us out of the B1G.
maxer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sosheezy said:

berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.
Did you just argue that Rutgers moves the needle of the NYC media market? Huh???

They'll take Rutgers because of the media market, but won't take Cal because of the media market because Cal does not move the needle. That implies you thinks Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. I assure you it does not and did not.
My understanding is that adding Rutgers triggered deals with cable providers to add the Big Ten Network to TimeWarner, Cablevision, and Comcast in NY, whenever that deal was struck. So it really was about growing the BTN in the new Big Ten footprint. Rutgers didn't 'move the needle', but they were able to add the channel to those cable providers, with Rutgers as an 'in'. But in today's evironment, Comcast already has the Big Ten Network in the Bay Area (or at least on a sports tier?) so it would be less of a gain.
That's not really the point. To take LA, the numbers I saw were that the Big 10 charged LA cable/satellite/internet sports bundle providers ten cents per household per month to carry the Big 10 network.

After they add USC and UCLA, they will charge those providers $1.50 per household per month.

That's close to $92m/year right there.

If you use the same rough math and apply it to the Bay Area media market it equals about $42m in revenue for carriage.

That's before you get into the brand and how many people want to watch the team. It's also why the PAC 12 Network and it's terrible carriage was such a bad move by Larry Scott (had they partnered with ESPN or Fox they would have ben able to force carriage).
gardenstatebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal89 said:

fat_slice said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.


You have a point - Rutgers and Maryland were the only shows in town so to speak unlike bay area that has two teams. I still can't imagine Stanford having a larger viewership. Would be interested in seeing the TV and attendance figures against common opponents.
It's really much more than that...

College sports is not the only game or big ticket in town, at least for us: 49ers, Raiders (now gone), Giants, A's, Warriors and Sharks. These all compete for our sports/entertainment dollar, time/mind-share - and all are within an hour or so of campus. How many other universities contend with such in their backyard? Other than Stanford, one would be hard-pressed to find the same elsewhere (5-6 professional teams, some damn successful ones too, plus 3 FBS schools...).

There are more factors of course, including some already mentioned, but simply with respect to other sports teams, the Bay Area is saturated in ways that other universities are not...
May I differ? The New York City market is even more saturated, and there is no tradition of watching college football in NY because there is no big-time program in or even close to New York. Yet the cable networks were more than willing to pay big bucks once the Big Ten had a team in the watching area..
fat_slice
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gardenstatebear said:

Cal89 said:

fat_slice said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.


You have a point - Rutgers and Maryland were the only shows in town so to speak unlike bay area that has two teams. I still can't imagine Stanford having a larger viewership. Would be interested in seeing the TV and attendance figures against common opponents.
It's really much more than that...

College sports is not the only game or big ticket in town, at least for us: 49ers, Raiders (now gone), Giants, A's, Warriors and Sharks. These all compete for our sports/entertainment dollar, time/mind-share - and all are within an hour or so of campus. How many other universities contend with such in their backyard? Other than Stanford, one would be hard-pressed to find the same elsewhere (5-6 professional teams, some damn successful ones too, plus 3 FBS schools...).

There are more factors of course, including some already mentioned, but simply with respect to other sports teams, the Bay Area is saturated in ways that other universities are not...
May I differ? The New York City market is even more saturated, and there is no tradition of watching college football in NY because there is no big-time program in or even close to New York. Yet the cable networks were more than willing to pay big bucks once the Big Ten had a team in the watching area..


Agree but there are a gazillion more people there so even a small percentage there leads to sizeable $$$.

We need Christ and Knowlton to dig up data from when we were actually relevant to show what the potential is. I doubt they want to lift a finger though. They are still in month 2 of 6 to investigate bullying in swimming.
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fat_slice said:

gardenstatebear said:

Cal89 said:

fat_slice said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.


You have a point - Rutgers and Maryland were the only shows in town so to speak unlike bay area that has two teams. I still can't imagine Stanford having a larger viewership. Would be interested in seeing the TV and attendance figures against common opponents.
It's really much more than that...

College sports is not the only game or big ticket in town, at least for us: 49ers, Raiders (now gone), Giants, A's, Warriors and Sharks. These all compete for our sports/entertainment dollar, time/mind-share - and all are within an hour or so of campus. How many other universities contend with such in their backyard? Other than Stanford, one would be hard-pressed to find the same elsewhere (5-6 professional teams, some damn successful ones too, plus 3 FBS schools...).

There are more factors of course, including some already mentioned, but simply with respect to other sports teams, the Bay Area is saturated in ways that other universities are not...
May I differ? The New York City market is even more saturated, and there is no tradition of watching college football in NY because there is no big-time program in or even close to New York. Yet the cable networks were more than willing to pay big bucks once the Big Ten had a team in the watching area..


Agree but there are a gazillion more people there so even a small percentage there leads to sizeable $$$.

We need Christ and Knowlton to dig up data from when we were actually relevant to show what the potential is. I doubt they want to lift a finger though. They are still one month 2 of 6 to investigate bullying in swimming.
They're all watching soccer and the NYG and Jets.
gardenstatebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fat_slice said:

gardenstatebear said:

Cal89 said:

fat_slice said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.


You have a point - Rutgers and Maryland were the only shows in town so to speak unlike bay area that has two teams. I still can't imagine Stanford having a larger viewership. Would be interested in seeing the TV and attendance figures against common opponents.
It's really much more than that...

College sports is not the only game or big ticket in town, at least for us: 49ers, Raiders (now gone), Giants, A's, Warriors and Sharks. These all compete for our sports/entertainment dollar, time/mind-share - and all are within an hour or so of campus. How many other universities contend with such in their backyard? Other than Stanford, one would be hard-pressed to find the same elsewhere (5-6 professional teams, some damn successful ones too, plus 3 FBS schools...).

There are more factors of course, including some already mentioned, but simply with respect to other sports teams, the Bay Area is saturated in ways that other universities are not...
May I differ? The New York City market is even more saturated, and there is no tradition of watching college football in NY because there is no big-time program in or even close to New York. Yet the cable networks were more than willing to pay big bucks once the Big Ten had a team in the watching area..


Agree but there are a gazillion more people there so even a small percentage there leads to sizeable $$$.

We need Christ and Knowlton to dig up data from when we were actually relevant to show what the potential is. I doubt they want to lift a finger though. They are still in month 2 of 6 to investigate bullying in swimming.
Yes, NY is bigger -- but the Bay Area is #6 in the country, which ain't horsefeed.
berserkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.
Did you just argue that Rutgers moves the needle of the NYC media market? Huh???

They'll take Rutgers because of the media market, but won't take Cal because of the media market because Cal does not move the needle. That implies you thinks Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. I assure you it does not and did not.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2021-49ef4f315858

This is what I could find on data for the 2021 football season. As you can see, Rutgers ranks 58th. Cal ranks 76th. So, please explain to me how we are capturing the hearts, minds and eyes of the Bay Area population?

Back in 2012, your question was asked as to whether Rutgers would "bring" the NY media market. Of course, this was the reason why the Big 10 wanted Rutgers. But in an old article before they formally entered the Big 10, ESPN threw cold water on Rutgers viewership in the NY media market. But, ESPN also wrote,


Quote:

The true money for the Big Ten Network is for the Rutgers fan base to drive carriers to put the Big Ten Network on its basic tier so it can automatically generate subscriber fees for every customer even if they have no interest in the channel.

Does Cal have enough fans to push local carriers to put the P12 or, if we were to join the Big 10, put the B1G Network on local carriers? Still, anyway you look at it, it seems people are watching Rutgers more than Cal. Look at value to conference. That's the only metric.
That's because those numbers don't include viewership for games aired on the Pac-12 Network so the numbers for Cal are very much wrong.

And, yes, absolutely, if Rutgers puts the BTN on the basic tier in NYC, Cal puts the BTN on the basic tier in the Bay Area. You grossly underestimate Rutgers's draw in NYC.
gardenstatebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.
Did you just argue that Rutgers moves the needle of the NYC media market? Huh???

They'll take Rutgers because of the media market, but won't take Cal because of the media market because Cal does not move the needle. That implies you thinks Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. I assure you it does not and did not.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2021-49ef4f315858

This is what I could find on data for the 2021 football season. As you can see, Rutgers ranks 58th. Cal ranks 76th. So, please explain to me how we are capturing the hearts, minds and eyes of the Bay Area population?

Back in 2012, your question was asked as to whether Rutgers would "bring" the NY media market. Of course, this was the reason why the Big 10 wanted Rutgers. But in an old article before they formally entered the Big 10, ESPN threw cold water on Rutgers viewership in the NY media market. But, ESPN also wrote,


Quote:

The true money for the Big Ten Network is for the Rutgers fan base to drive carriers to put the Big Ten Network on its basic tier so it can automatically generate subscriber fees for every customer even if they have no interest in the channel.

Does Cal have enough fans to push local carriers to put the P12 or, if we were to join the Big 10, put the B1G Network on local carriers? Still, anyway you look at it, it seems people are watching Rutgers more than Cal. Look at value to conference. That's the only metric.
That's because those numbers don't include viewership for games aired on the Pac-12 Network so the numbers for Cal are very much wrong.

And, yes, absolutely, if Rutgers puts the BTN on the basic tier in NYC, Cal puts the BTN on the basic tier in the Bay Area. You grossly underestimate Rutgers's draw in NYC.
I'm not sure Rutgers has a big draw in NYC -- but there's certainly potential there as the team improves. Games with Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan will be competitive much more than they presently are. For that matter, though a good Cal team would do well here. It would be interesting to know Cal's viewership in the best of the Tedford years.

I'm not sure BTN is on the basic tier at least here in Southern New Jersey.
berserkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gardenstatebear said:

berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.
Did you just argue that Rutgers moves the needle of the NYC media market? Huh???

They'll take Rutgers because of the media market, but won't take Cal because of the media market because Cal does not move the needle. That implies you thinks Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. I assure you it does not and did not.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2021-49ef4f315858

This is what I could find on data for the 2021 football season. As you can see, Rutgers ranks 58th. Cal ranks 76th. So, please explain to me how we are capturing the hearts, minds and eyes of the Bay Area population?

Back in 2012, your question was asked as to whether Rutgers would "bring" the NY media market. Of course, this was the reason why the Big 10 wanted Rutgers. But in an old article before they formally entered the Big 10, ESPN threw cold water on Rutgers viewership in the NY media market. But, ESPN also wrote,


Quote:

The true money for the Big Ten Network is for the Rutgers fan base to drive carriers to put the Big Ten Network on its basic tier so it can automatically generate subscriber fees for every customer even if they have no interest in the channel.

Does Cal have enough fans to push local carriers to put the P12 or, if we were to join the Big 10, put the B1G Network on local carriers? Still, anyway you look at it, it seems people are watching Rutgers more than Cal. Look at value to conference. That's the only metric.
That's because those numbers don't include viewership for games aired on the Pac-12 Network so the numbers for Cal are very much wrong.

And, yes, absolutely, if Rutgers puts the BTN on the basic tier in NYC, Cal puts the BTN on the basic tier in the Bay Area. You grossly underestimate Rutgers's draw in NYC.
I'm not sure Rutgers has a big draw in NYC -- but there's certainly potential there as the team improves. Games with Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan will be competitive much more than they presently are. For that matter, though a good Cal team would do well here. It would be interesting to know Cal's viewership in the best of the Tedford years.

I'm not sure BTN is on the basic tier at least here in Southern New Jersey.

Forgive me. I meant to say "grossly underestimate Rutgers's lack of interest in NYC"
philly1121
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.
Did you just argue that Rutgers moves the needle of the NYC media market? Huh???

They'll take Rutgers because of the media market, but won't take Cal because of the media market because Cal does not move the needle. That implies you thinks Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. I assure you it does not and did not.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2021-49ef4f315858

This is what I could find on data for the 2021 football season. As you can see, Rutgers ranks 58th. Cal ranks 76th. So, please explain to me how we are capturing the hearts, minds and eyes of the Bay Area population?

Back in 2012, your question was asked as to whether Rutgers would "bring" the NY media market. Of course, this was the reason why the Big 10 wanted Rutgers. But in an old article before they formally entered the Big 10, ESPN threw cold water on Rutgers viewership in the NY media market. But, ESPN also wrote,


Quote:

The true money for the Big Ten Network is for the Rutgers fan base to drive carriers to put the Big Ten Network on its basic tier so it can automatically generate subscriber fees for every customer even if they have no interest in the channel.

Does Cal have enough fans to push local carriers to put the P12 or, if we were to join the Big 10, put the B1G Network on local carriers? Still, anyway you look at it, it seems people are watching Rutgers more than Cal. Look at value to conference. That's the only metric.
That's because those numbers don't include viewership for games aired on the Pac-12 Network so the numbers for Cal are very much wrong.

And, yes, absolutely, if Rutgers puts the BTN on the basic tier in NYC, Cal puts the BTN on the basic tier in the Bay Area. You grossly underestimate Rutgers's draw in NYC.
lol are you suggesting that viewership of the P12 Network, a network that wasn't carried by DirecTV and, as far as I can see, only Xfinity and Dish network (in the bay area) would move the needle so far that it would surpass Rutgers or Stanford? I mean seriously? Stanford's position on that list doesn't reflect the P12 Network either and that would be the same for Rutgers for the B1G Network, no? So its a wash. It still ends up the same.

And no, I'm not overestimating Rutgers' viewership in the NYC area. I'm saying you're overestimating Cal's viewership in the Bay Area and beyond. And don't say, "well its because we got a bad deal with the P12 Network and that's why are numbers are so low". Yeah, and? That's the hand we've been dealt. We have to play it. No excuses.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gardenstatebear said:

fat_slice said:

gardenstatebear said:

Cal89 said:

fat_slice said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.


You have a point - Rutgers and Maryland were the only shows in town so to speak unlike bay area that has two teams. I still can't imagine Stanford having a larger viewership. Would be interested in seeing the TV and attendance figures against common opponents.
It's really much more than that...

College sports is not the only game or big ticket in town, at least for us: 49ers, Raiders (now gone), Giants, A's, Warriors and Sharks. These all compete for our sports/entertainment dollar, time/mind-share - and all are within an hour or so of campus. How many other universities contend with such in their backyard? Other than Stanford, one would be hard-pressed to find the same elsewhere (5-6 professional teams, some damn successful ones too, plus 3 FBS schools...).

There are more factors of course, including some already mentioned, but simply with respect to other sports teams, the Bay Area is saturated in ways that other universities are not...
May I differ? The New York City market is even more saturated, and there is no tradition of watching college football in NY because there is no big-time program in or even close to New York. Yet the cable networks were more than willing to pay big bucks once the Big Ten had a team in the watching area..


Agree but there are a gazillion more people there so even a small percentage there leads to sizeable $$$.

We need Christ and Knowlton to dig up data from when we were actually relevant to show what the potential is. I doubt they want to lift a finger though. They are still in month 2 of 6 to investigate bullying in swimming.
Yes, NY is bigger -- but the Bay Area is #6 in the country, which ain't horsefeed.
Moreover, it's easily the next largest market the Big Ten could possibly add.

And I think you'd have to include the #20 market (Sacramento) as part of the deal too. Bay Area sports TV packages tend to extend out there.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.
Did you just argue that Rutgers moves the needle of the NYC media market? Huh???

They'll take Rutgers because of the media market, but won't take Cal because of the media market because Cal does not move the needle. That implies you thinks Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. I assure you it does not and did not.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2021-49ef4f315858

This is what I could find on data for the 2021 football season. As you can see, Rutgers ranks 58th. Cal ranks 76th. So, please explain to me how we are capturing the hearts, minds and eyes of the Bay Area population?

Back in 2012, your question was asked as to whether Rutgers would "bring" the NY media market. Of course, this was the reason why the Big 10 wanted Rutgers. But in an old article before they formally entered the Big 10, ESPN threw cold water on Rutgers viewership in the NY media market. But, ESPN also wrote,


Quote:

The true money for the Big Ten Network is for the Rutgers fan base to drive carriers to put the Big Ten Network on its basic tier so it can automatically generate subscriber fees for every customer even if they have no interest in the channel.

Does Cal have enough fans to push local carriers to put the P12 or, if we were to join the Big 10, put the B1G Network on local carriers? Still, anyway you look at it, it seems people are watching Rutgers more than Cal. Look at value to conference. That's the only metric.
That's because those numbers don't include viewership for games aired on the Pac-12 Network so the numbers for Cal are very much wrong.

And, yes, absolutely, if Rutgers puts the BTN on the basic tier in NYC, Cal puts the BTN on the basic tier in the Bay Area. You grossly underestimate Rutgers's draw in NYC.
lol are you suggesting that viewership of the P12 Network, a network that wasn't carried by DirecTV and, as far as I can see, only Xfinity and Dish network (in the bay area) would move the needle so far that it would surpass Rutgers or Stanford? I mean seriously? Stanford's position on that list doesn't reflect the P12 Network either and that would be the same for Rutgers for the B1G Network, no? So its a wash. It still ends up the same.

And no, I'm not overestimating Rutgers' viewership in the NYC area. I'm saying you're overestimating Cal's viewership in the Bay Area and beyond. And don't say, "well its because we got a bad deal with the P12 Network and that's why are numbers are so low". Yeah, and? That's the hand we've been dealt. We have to play it. No excuses.
I'm pretty sure Big Ten Network viewership is included in the numbers. It's only the Pac-12 Network that isn't. So if you're comparing across DIFFERENT conferences, then no it's not a wash. It's a big disadvantage for teams that had a lot of games on P12 Network.

If you're comparing within the Pac-12 itself then that's more fair. But even there, all the teams don't play the same number of games on P12N so it's still not totally reliable.

Again, not saying Cal is getting great ratings right now, but that list is crap.
berserkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.
Did you just argue that Rutgers moves the needle of the NYC media market? Huh???

They'll take Rutgers because of the media market, but won't take Cal because of the media market because Cal does not move the needle. That implies you thinks Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. I assure you it does not and did not.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2021-49ef4f315858

This is what I could find on data for the 2021 football season. As you can see, Rutgers ranks 58th. Cal ranks 76th. So, please explain to me how we are capturing the hearts, minds and eyes of the Bay Area population?

Back in 2012, your question was asked as to whether Rutgers would "bring" the NY media market. Of course, this was the reason why the Big 10 wanted Rutgers. But in an old article before they formally entered the Big 10, ESPN threw cold water on Rutgers viewership in the NY media market. But, ESPN also wrote,


Quote:

The true money for the Big Ten Network is for the Rutgers fan base to drive carriers to put the Big Ten Network on its basic tier so it can automatically generate subscriber fees for every customer even if they have no interest in the channel.

Does Cal have enough fans to push local carriers to put the P12 or, if we were to join the Big 10, put the B1G Network on local carriers? Still, anyway you look at it, it seems people are watching Rutgers more than Cal. Look at value to conference. That's the only metric.
That's because those numbers don't include viewership for games aired on the Pac-12 Network so the numbers for Cal are very much wrong.

And, yes, absolutely, if Rutgers puts the BTN on the basic tier in NYC, Cal puts the BTN on the basic tier in the Bay Area. You grossly underestimate Rutgers's draw in NYC.
lol are you suggesting that viewership of the P12 Network, a network that wasn't carried by DirecTV and, as far as I can see, only Xfinity and Dish network (in the bay area) would move the needle so far that it would surpass Rutgers or Stanford? I mean seriously? Stanford's position on that list doesn't reflect the P12 Network either and that would be the same for Rutgers for the B1G Network, no? So its a wash. It still ends up the same.

And no, I'm not overestimating Rutgers' viewership in the NYC area. I'm saying you're overestimating Cal's viewership in the Bay Area and beyond. And don't say, "well its because we got a bad deal with the P12 Network and that's why are numbers are so low". Yeah, and? That's the hand we've been dealt. We have to play it. No excuses.
I said no such thing. I said the numbers you posted were bogus because they didn't include viewership from Pac-12 Network games.

Cal had 7 games on the Pac-12 Network in 2021. The data you provided counted all 7 of those games as 0 viewers, but went ahead and included those games in the average viewers for Cal's 12 games. I assume I don't need to type out the math for you to prove to you how including 7 0s in a 12 game average grossly distorts the final number.

Stanford's position on the list reflects only 3 games from the Pac-12 Network counted as 0. I again assume I don't need to type out the math for you to prove to you how including 3 0s in a 12 game average distorts the final number less than including 7 0s.

The BTN reports their viewership so Rutgers's numbers don't have this problem.

So, yes, you are grossly overestimating Rutgers's draw in NYC compared to Cal's draw in the Bay Area.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gardenstatebear said:

sosheezy said:

berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.
Did you just argue that Rutgers moves the needle of the NYC media market? Huh???

They'll take Rutgers because of the media market, but won't take Cal because of the media market because Cal does not move the needle. That implies you thinks Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. I assure you it does not and did not.
My understanding is that adding Rutgers triggered deals with cable providers to add the Big Ten Network to TimeWarner, Cablevision, and Comcast in NY, whenever that deal was struck. So it really was about growing the BTN in the new Big Ten footprint. Rutgers didn't 'move the needle', but they were able to add the channel to those cable providers, with Rutgers as an 'in'. But in today's evironment, Comcast already has the Big Ten Network in the Bay Area (or at least on a sports tier?) so it would be less of a gain.
I think that's only partly right. The BTN was already in the New York area. But having a team in the area hugely increased the carriage fees. If I'm wrong, I'll correct this.
Typically in market fees are not only many time more than out of market fees, but they put the BTN on the basic cable tier versus the sports tier. I'd guess 'in market' designation would be 10-20x more valuable then what is paid now in the bay area for BTN.
LTbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

gardenstatebear said:

sosheezy said:

berserkeley said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

philly1121 said:

fat_slice said:

StillNoStanfurdium said:

philbert said:

still don't really understand why everyone says Furd would be a "natural" partner for ND.



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.


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...


The addition of Stanford and Cal does not give any conference unequivocal ownership of the bay Area tv market.

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?


Well they brought in Penn State because they were independent. But they had tried to bring Notre Dame with them. Penn State went to the Big 10 after they were rejected by the Big East.

Nebraska was brought in because, as in this situation we are in today, Nebraska felt that they were not being fairly treated by the Big12 and they felt that the conference lacked stability with UT and OU threatening to leave back then.

Rutgers and Maryland because of the media markets. But as I said before, Cal's inclusion does not move the needle of the Bay Area media market. And as other posters have mentioned Cal alumni across Cali and other places - how has that translated into ratings for us - ratings on the level that the Big10 wants?

As to your last question - they would want to be associated with a university that takes athletics seriously. Whose faculty and Admin do not vacillate as to actual merits of the football program.
Did you just argue that Rutgers moves the needle of the NYC media market? Huh???

They'll take Rutgers because of the media market, but won't take Cal because of the media market because Cal does not move the needle. That implies you thinks Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. I assure you it does not and did not.
My understanding is that adding Rutgers triggered deals with cable providers to add the Big Ten Network to TimeWarner, Cablevision, and Comcast in NY, whenever that deal was struck. So it really was about growing the BTN in the new Big Ten footprint. Rutgers didn't 'move the needle', but they were able to add the channel to those cable providers, with Rutgers as an 'in'. But in today's evironment, Comcast already has the Big Ten Network in the Bay Area (or at least on a sports tier?) so it would be less of a gain.
I think that's only partly right. The BTN was already in the New York area. But having a team in the area hugely increased the carriage fees. If I'm wrong, I'll correct this.
Yes, and that's exactly what would happen in the Bay Area if Cal/Stanford were added to the Big Ten.
Don't need both for that purpose though.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.