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.

David's article reminds me:

The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022

---

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..

---

Of course you may differ. Indeed, NYC is another example for sure, but to my point, it's quite rare for a college football team to have half a dozen or so professional teams in its backyard. The NYC metro area has such a quantity of teams for sure, but as noted, it's media market is nearly 3x the size of the Bay Area's...

More importantly, as you noted, what FBS schools are situated within that NYC mkt, or even just an hour away? Syracuse is like 4 hours away. Rutgers over two... Army is sort of "there", but I think most would agree that attendance in West Point is not hampered appreciably due to the many pro teams 1.5 hrs southward...

Both Cal and Stanford, in my estimation, have been and remain in the most densely saturated professional sports market in the US, I suppose the world. I had NFL season tickets once, MLB too (Sat games only)... There was only so much of my time, and money to dedicate to sports though. I'm all Cal now, only Cal. Best decision I ever made, for me. Most I know, including Cal alums, as a priority, attend 49er, Warriors, Giants, A's or Sharks games. They are tapped-out, exhausted even. If Cal gets good, they go to a game, which clearly is not that often. Having this many local pro teams, w/o question, impacts interest in and attendance at Cal.

LTbear said:

---

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.

David's article reminds me:

The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022

---

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.

---

Not strictly, but there are other reasons why you'd want both.

1. If you leave one of them behind, then you're leaving an opening for another conference to get a piece of that pie too. If the future is one of mega-conferences competing to get the top schools, then you don't want to give the Big 12 or someone else a chance to also get into the Bay Area market.

2. There are good reasons why Cal and Stanford might not want to move without each other. It's clearly the most important rivalry to each fan/alumni/donor base. Being in different conferences would jeopardize that.

Cal89 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.

David's article reminds me:

The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022

---

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..

---

Of course you may differ. Indeed, NYC is another example for sure, but to my point, it's quite rare for a college football team to have half a dozen or so professional teams in its backyard. The NYC metro area has such a quantity of teams for sure, but as noted, it's media market is nearly 3x the size of the Bay Area's...

More importantly, as you noted, what FBS schools are situated within that NYC mkt, or even just an hour away? Syracuse is like 4 hours away. Rutgers over two... Army is sort of "there", but I think most would agree that attendance in West Point is not hampered appreciably due to the many pro teams 1.5 hrs southward...

Both Cal and Stanford, in my estimation, have been and remain in the most densely saturated professional sports market in the US, I suppose the world. I had NFL season tickets once, MLB too (Sat games only)... There was only so much of my time, and money to dedicate to sports though. I'm all Cal now, only Cal. Best decision I ever made, for me. Most I know, including Cal alums, as a priority, attend 49er, Warriors, Giants, A's or Sharks games. They are tapped-out, exhausted even. If Cal gets good, they go to a game, which clearly is not that often. Having this many local pro teams, w/o question, impacts interest in and attendance at Cal.

---

Rutgers is closer to the Jets/Giants stadium than Cal is to the 49ers stadium. And USC and UCLA also have to contend with Rams, Chargers, Dodgers, Angels, Lakers, Clippers, Kings, and Ducks. There's also quite a few colleges while they "only" have to contend with 3-4 pro teams, they are in smaller markets. But, yes, I agree with your overall point.

berserkeley said:

---

Cal89 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.

David's article reminds me:

The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022

---

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..

---

Of course you may differ. Indeed, NYC is another example for sure, but to my point, it's quite rare for a college football team to have half a dozen or so professional teams in its backyard. The NYC metro area has such a quantity of teams for sure, but as noted, it's media market is nearly 3x the size of the Bay Area's...

More importantly, as you noted, what FBS schools are situated within that NYC mkt, or even just an hour away? Syracuse is like 4 hours away. Rutgers over two... Army is sort of "there", but I think most would agree that attendance in West Point is not hampered appreciably due to the many pro teams 1.5 hrs southward...

Both Cal and Stanford, in my estimation, have been and remain in the most densely saturated professional sports market in the US, I suppose the world. I had NFL season tickets once, MLB too (Sat games only)... There was only so much of my time, and money to dedicate to sports though. I'm all Cal now, only Cal. Best decision I ever made, for me. Most I know, including Cal alums, as a priority, attend 49er, Warriors, Giants, A's or Sharks games. They are tapped-out, exhausted even. If Cal gets good, they go to a game, which clearly is not that often. Having this many local pro teams, w/o question, impacts interest in and attendance at Cal.

---

Rutgers is closer to the Jets/Giants stadium than Cal is to the 49ers stadium. And USC and UCLA also have to contend with Rams, Chargers, Dodgers, Angels, Lakers, Clippers, Kings, and Ducks. There's also quite a few colleges while they "only" have to contend with 3-4 pro teams, they are in smaller markets. But, yes, I agree with your overall point.

---

Just trying to think of major college programs that are located in a "saturated" major pro sports market (meaning the metro area carries teams in all four major sports leagues):

Arizona State
Boston College
Cal
Colorado
Georgia Tech
Maryland
Miami
Minnesota
Northwestern
Rutgers
Stanford
UCLA
USC

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Cal89 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.

David's article reminds me:

The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022

---

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..

---

Of course you may differ. Indeed, NYC is another example for sure, but to my point, it's quite rare for a college football team to have half a dozen or so professional teams in its backyard. The NYC metro area has such a quantity of teams for sure, but as noted, it's media market is nearly 3x the size of the Bay Area's...

More importantly, as you noted, what FBS schools are situated within that NYC mkt, or even just an hour away? Syracuse is like 4 hours away. Rutgers over two... Army is sort of "there", but I think most would agree that attendance in West Point is not hampered appreciably due to the many pro teams 1.5 hrs southward...

Both Cal and Stanford, in my estimation, have been and remain in the most densely saturated professional sports market in the US, I suppose the world. I had NFL season tickets once, MLB too (Sat games only)... There was only so much of my time, and money to dedicate to sports though. I'm all Cal now, only Cal. Best decision I ever made, for me. Most I know, including Cal alums, as a priority, attend 49er, Warriors, Giants, A's or Sharks games. They are tapped-out, exhausted even. If Cal gets good, they go to a game, which clearly is not that often. Having this many local pro teams, w/o question, impacts interest in and attendance at Cal.

---

Rutgers is closer to the Jets/Giants stadium than Cal is to the 49ers stadium. And USC and UCLA also have to contend with Rams, Chargers, Dodgers, Angels, Lakers, Clippers, Kings, and Ducks. There's also quite a few colleges while they "only" have to contend with 3-4 pro teams, they are in smaller markets. But, yes, I agree with your overall point.

---

Just trying to think of major college programs that are located in a "saturated" major pro sports market (meaning the metro area carries teams in all four major sports leagues):

Arizona State
Boston College
Cal
Colorado
Georgia Tech
Maryland
Miami
Minnesota
Northwestern
Rutgers
Stanford
UCLA
USC

---

Michigan? Ann Arbor to Ford Field is a way easier drive (and slightly shorter) than Berkeley to Levi's...

Schools like Georgia, Florida, and LSU are all in college towns that are about 70-80 miles from an NFL team as well. They are going to still get a lot of donors who bring big city money in and make the drives in to tailgate.and watch the games. Not sure pro baseball or basketball are going to impact college football sales either - maybe from a corporate standpoint, but not from a donor/attendance standpoint.

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.

David's article reminds me:

The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022

---

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...

---

You left off Napa, Sonoma, The City, beach, etc.

Is Cal viewership up when there is a star player - Marshawn Lynch, etc? Lots of casual fans respond to such players.

I know I want to see Ohtani play against the As, but the Giants are my team.

ColoradoBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Cal89 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.

David's article reminds me:

The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022

---

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..

---

Of course you may differ. Indeed, NYC is another example for sure, but to my point, it's quite rare for a college football team to have half a dozen or so professional teams in its backyard. The NYC metro area has such a quantity of teams for sure, but as noted, it's media market is nearly 3x the size of the Bay Area's...

More importantly, as you noted, what FBS schools are situated within that NYC mkt, or even just an hour away? Syracuse is like 4 hours away. Rutgers over two... Army is sort of "there", but I think most would agree that attendance in West Point is not hampered appreciably due to the many pro teams 1.5 hrs southward...

Both Cal and Stanford, in my estimation, have been and remain in the most densely saturated professional sports market in the US, I suppose the world. I had NFL season tickets once, MLB too (Sat games only)... There was only so much of my time, and money to dedicate to sports though. I'm all Cal now, only Cal. Best decision I ever made, for me. Most I know, including Cal alums, as a priority, attend 49er, Warriors, Giants, A's or Sharks games. They are tapped-out, exhausted even. If Cal gets good, they go to a game, which clearly is not that often. Having this many local pro teams, w/o question, impacts interest in and attendance at Cal.

---

Rutgers is closer to the Jets/Giants stadium than Cal is to the 49ers stadium. And USC and UCLA also have to contend with Rams, Chargers, Dodgers, Angels, Lakers, Clippers, Kings, and Ducks. There's also quite a few colleges while they "only" have to contend with 3-4 pro teams, they are in smaller markets. But, yes, I agree with your overall point.

---

Just trying to think of major college programs that are located in a "saturated" major pro sports market (meaning the metro area carries teams in all four major sports leagues):

Arizona State
Boston College
Cal
Colorado
Georgia Tech
Maryland
Miami
Minnesota
Northwestern
Rutgers
Stanford
UCLA
USC

---

Michigan? Ann Arbor to Ford Field is a way easier drive (and slightly shorter) than Berkeley to Levi's...

Schools like Georgia, Florida, and LSU are all in college towns that are about 70-80 miles from an NFL team as well. They are going to still get a lot of donors who bring big city money in and make the drives in to tailgate.and watch the games. Not sure pro baseball or basketball are going to impact college football sales either - maybe from a corporate standpoint, but not from a donor/attendance standpoint.

---

I tried to restrict it to schools that are literally IN the metro area. But sure, you could argue Ann Arbor is close enough to Detroit.

movielover said:

---

Is Cal viewership up when there is a star player - Marshawn Lynch, etc? Lots of casual fans respond to such players.

I know I want to see Ohtani play against the As, but the Giants are my team.

---

I think it is a huge problem with a defense/no offense coach as it mostly appeals to a few football purists, mostly over 60. Casual fans do not come to see linebackers and defensive struggles. We played arguably great defense in the Cheezit Bowl and were a national joke. Who are the marketable stars of the current team? Or the last 5 years? Garbers?

movielover 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.

David's article reminds me:

The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022

---

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...

---

You left off Napa, Sonoma, The City, beach, etc.

---

Yup... and why I was said "There are more factors of course...."

sycasey - Thanks for that list. I had most of those in my head. Might you know off-hand how many of those schools have those pro teams within an hour, approx, from campus? For quite a few years Cal & Stanford had six NFL, MLB, NBA & NHL teams competing for our eyeballs and dollars. I refrained from adding pro soccer, but of course that exists too in the Bay Area...

berserkeley said:

---

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.

David's article reminds me:

The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022

---

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.

---

I wasn't overestimating Rutger's draw in NYC. I said you're overestimating Cal's draw in the Bay Area. I was not making a comparison - only to suggest that by any metric, Cal's tv draw is low.

And let's talk about the P12 Network. Maybe the reason why no sportsmediawatch or other ratings outlets don't count the P12 is because no one effing watches it!! Maybe that's also why Cal is on there 7 times in a season is because no one wants to put Cal on network Fox, ESPN, ESPNU. Why is that so difficult to understand? The selection process for these games is complicated but the one constant is that ESPN and Fox take the top predicted games. Everything else goes on the P12. There is no way. NONE. Zero, that ratings for any game on P12 would move the needle so far that it would move us into the top 40 of the list I posted.

Here's another one which shows TV viewership for the past 5 years for P12 teams:

PAC-12 TV Viewership Rankings: pic.twitter.com/Q55xWTsRMT

— WestCoastCFB (@WestCoastCFB) July 17, 2022

ColoradoBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Cal89 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.

David's article reminds me:

The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022

---

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..

---

Of course you may differ. Indeed, NYC is another example for sure, but to my point, it's quite rare for a college football team to have half a dozen or so professional teams in its backyard. The NYC metro area has such a quantity of teams for sure, but as noted, it's media market is nearly 3x the size of the Bay Area's...

More importantly, as you noted, what FBS schools are situated within that NYC mkt, or even just an hour away? Syracuse is like 4 hours away. Rutgers over two... Army is sort of "there", but I think most would agree that attendance in West Point is not hampered appreciably due to the many pro teams 1.5 hrs southward...

Both Cal and Stanford, in my estimation, have been and remain in the most densely saturated professional sports market in the US, I suppose the world. I had NFL season tickets once, MLB too (Sat games only)... There was only so much of my time, and money to dedicate to sports though. I'm all Cal now, only Cal. Best decision I ever made, for me. Most I know, including Cal alums, as a priority, attend 49er, Warriors, Giants, A's or Sharks games. They are tapped-out, exhausted even. If Cal gets good, they go to a game, which clearly is not that often. Having this many local pro teams, w/o question, impacts interest in and attendance at Cal.

---

Rutgers is closer to the Jets/Giants stadium than Cal is to the 49ers stadium. And USC and UCLA also have to contend with Rams, Chargers, Dodgers, Angels, Lakers, Clippers, Kings, and Ducks. There's also quite a few colleges while they "only" have to contend with 3-4 pro teams, they are in smaller markets. But, yes, I agree with your overall point.

---

Just trying to think of major college programs that are located in a "saturated" major pro sports market (meaning the metro area carries teams in all four major sports leagues):

Arizona State
Boston College
Cal
Colorado
Georgia Tech
Maryland
Miami
Minnesota
Northwestern
Rutgers
Stanford
UCLA
USC

---

Michigan? Ann Arbor to Ford Field is a way easier drive (and slightly shorter) than Berkeley to Levi's...

Schools like Georgia, Florida, and LSU are all in college towns that are about 70-80 miles from an NFL team as well. They are going to still get a lot of donors who bring big city money in and make the drives in to tailgate.and watch the games. Not sure pro baseball or basketball are going to impact college football sales either - maybe from a corporate standpoint, but not from a donor/attendance standpoint.

---

From my personal experience and those I know, they budget so much $ for sporting events. More, they budget only so much time, especially those with kids. I'm about to head-off to a hoops practice for my oldest who has a game this Sun, next week, one both Sat and Sun. It seems I will miss at least one Cal game because of this commitment. We only have so much time, and most of us are on a budget... Regardless of the pro sport, time of year played, it can and does compete with the interest level in college football.

philly1121 said:

---

And let's talk about the P12 Network. Maybe the reason why no sportsmediawatch or other ratings outlets don't count the P12 is because no one effing watches it!!

---

You're just casting about at this point. The P12 Network ratings aren't counted because the P12 Network didn't report them. That's the only reason. I'm sure the ratings there aren't stellar, but they are more than zero viewers. If you don't know the viewership there then you don't really know how many viewers the teams in the conference had.

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

And let's talk about the P12 Network. Maybe the reason why no sportsmediawatch or other ratings outlets don't count the P12 is because no one effing watches it!!

---

You're just casting about at this point. The P12 Network ratings aren't counted because the P12 Network didn't report them. That's the only reason. I'm sure the ratings there aren't stellar, but they are more than zero viewers. If you don't know the viewership there then you don't really know how many viewers the teams in the conference had.

---

I actually subscribe to PAC-12 networks via comcast so all these viewership numbers should be upped by at least 1. I say "at least 1" because I will force anyone at home with me at the time to watch the game over anything else.

ColoradoBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Cal89 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.

David's article reminds me:

The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022

---

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..

---

Of course you may differ. Indeed, NYC is another example for sure, but to my point, it's quite rare for a college football team to have half a dozen or so professional teams in its backyard. The NYC metro area has such a quantity of teams for sure, but as noted, it's media market is nearly 3x the size of the Bay Area's...

More importantly, as you noted, what FBS schools are situated within that NYC mkt, or even just an hour away? Syracuse is like 4 hours away. Rutgers over two... Army is sort of "there", but I think most would agree that attendance in West Point is not hampered appreciably due to the many pro teams 1.5 hrs southward...

Both Cal and Stanford, in my estimation, have been and remain in the most densely saturated professional sports market in the US, I suppose the world. I had NFL season tickets once, MLB too (Sat games only)... There was only so much of my time, and money to dedicate to sports though. I'm all Cal now, only Cal. Best decision I ever made, for me. Most I know, including Cal alums, as a priority, attend 49er, Warriors, Giants, A's or Sharks games. They are tapped-out, exhausted even. If Cal gets good, they go to a game, which clearly is not that often. Having this many local pro teams, w/o question, impacts interest in and attendance at Cal.

---

Rutgers is closer to the Jets/Giants stadium than Cal is to the 49ers stadium. And USC and UCLA also have to contend with Rams, Chargers, Dodgers, Angels, Lakers, Clippers, Kings, and Ducks. There's also quite a few colleges while they "only" have to contend with 3-4 pro teams, they are in smaller markets. But, yes, I agree with your overall point.

---

Just trying to think of major college programs that are located in a "saturated" major pro sports market (meaning the metro area carries teams in all four major sports leagues):

Arizona State
Boston College
Cal
Colorado
Georgia Tech
Maryland
Miami
Minnesota
Northwestern
Rutgers
Stanford
UCLA
USC

---

Michigan? Ann Arbor to Ford Field is a way easier drive (and slightly shorter) than Berkeley to Levi's...

Schools like Georgia, Florida, and LSU are all in college towns that are about 70-80 miles from an NFL team as well. They are going to still get a lot of donors who bring big city money in and make the drives in to tailgate.and watch the games. Not sure pro baseball or basketball are going to impact college football sales either - maybe from a corporate standpoint, but not from a donor/attendance standpoint.

---

Yes but no one would say Ann Arbor is in the Detroit metro, whereas Cal is in the heart of the Bay Area metro. Distance isn't the only thing.

You miss the point. Again. The numbers you posted are inaccurate and it says so right in the data you provided.

If a team has exactly 500,000 for every game, then the 12 game average comes out to 500,000. But, if 7 of those games are counted as 0 because the person calculating the average is missing the data for those games, the average comes out to 208,333.

Rutgers does not move the needle in NYC media market any more than Cal moves the needle in the Bay Area. I cannot have overestimated Cal's draw in the Bay Area because I made no claim whatsoever that Cal moves the needle there. None. The B1G did not add Rutgers because Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. They added Rutgers because merely having a NYC area team meant they could collect a higher fee from subscribers in NYC.

And let's examine your "Rutgers moves the needle in NYC" argument a little closer using the data you provided, shall we?

Rutgers played Ohio St (5.22M/game), Michigan (4.74M/game), Penn St (3.87M/game), Michigan St (2.89M/game), and Wisconsin (2.41M/game). Let's assume Rutgers drew their opponent's average number of viewers for these 5 games and 0 viewers for their other 7 games. If that were true, Rutgers would have averaged 1.59M/game. Rutgers only drew 488K/game. That's less than a third of where it should be.

Now, let's assume Rutgers averaged 222K in those 7 other games; which would make them Cal's equal. That would mean Rutgers averaged 860K against the Big 5. 860K is 22% of the big 5's average number of viewers. Not 22% of their high water mark; 22% of their average. So, yes, Rutgers does move the needle, they just move it in the wrong direction.

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

And let's talk about the P12 Network. Maybe the reason why no sportsmediawatch or other ratings outlets don't count the P12 is because no one effing watches it!!

---

You're just casting about at this point. The P12 Network ratings aren't counted because the P12 Network didn't report them. That's the only reason. I'm sure the ratings there aren't stellar, but they are more than zero viewers. If you don't know the viewership there then you don't really know how many viewers the teams in the conference had.

---

You don't know the ratings numbers either. But to think they would move the needle upwards past Stanford is absurd. It's a comfy theory to make Sunshiners feel good. Nothing more. If you can show that our viewership ratings on P12 put us upwards of 44th on the list I provided, then we're getting somewhere.

berserkeley said:

---

You miss the point. Again. The numbers you posted are inaccurate and it says so right in the data you provided.

If a team has exactly 500,000 for every game, then the 12 game average comes out to 500,000. But, if 7 of those games are counted as 0 because the person calculating the average is missing the data for those games, the average comes out to 208,333.

Rutgers does not move the needle in NYC media market any more than Cal moves the needle in the Bay Area. I cannot have overestimated Cal's draw in the Bay Area because I made no claim whatsoever that Cal moves the needle there. None. The B1G did not add Rutgers because Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. They added Rutgers because merely having a NYC area team meant they could collect a higher fee from subscribers in NYC.

---

How can the numbers be inaccurate when that is the only known metric to go by? P12 doesn't publish numbers? Ok great. Not my fault. And ask yourself why they don't. Could they be too low?

I'm not missing any point. You overestimate Cals inherent value. When I quoted the ESPN article I conceded that there was no viewership surge. It was for entry into the NY market and that they could charge subscribers a premium for carrying the B1G Network. Whether it translates to viewership increases is not known. What IS known, based on any quantifiable data that is available to any of us, is that their simple entry into the B1G added value to the conference. Nothing more.

The question that is still on the table is whether Cal would add value to the B1G enough for them to add us- based on us being in the 6th largest media market.. do we bring viewers? Or, is it enough for them to bring us by getting us on Comcast or Xfinity at a rate these companies will pay to carry the network. On all available evidence to us, we are 10th in the conference on a 5year look and 70+ in team tv ratings. If there is other data from P12, let's see it. It's still about value. I'm not missing any point.

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

You miss the point. Again. The numbers you posted are inaccurate and it says so right in the data you provided.

If a team has exactly 500,000 for every game, then the 12 game average comes out to 500,000. But, if 7 of those games are counted as 0 because the person calculating the average is missing the data for those games, the average comes out to 208,333.

Rutgers does not move the needle in NYC media market any more than Cal moves the needle in the Bay Area. I cannot have overestimated Cal's draw in the Bay Area because I made no claim whatsoever that Cal moves the needle there. None. The B1G did not add Rutgers because Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. They added Rutgers because merely having a NYC area team meant they could collect a higher fee from subscribers in NYC.

---

How can the numbers be inaccurate when that is the only known metric to go by? P12 doesn't publish numbers? Ok great. Not my fault. And ask yourself why they don't. Could they be too low?

I'm not missing any point. You overestimate Cals inherent value. When I quoted the ESPN article I conceded that there was no viewership surge. It was for entry into the NY market and that they could charge subscribers a premium for carrying the B1G Network. Whether it translates to viewership increases is not known. What IS known, based on any quantifiable data that is available to any of us, is that their simple entry into the B1G added value to the conference. Nothing more.

The question that is still on the table is whether Cal would add value to the B1G enough for them to add us- based on us being in the 6th largest media market.. do we bring viewers? Or, is it enough for them to bring us by getting us on Comcast or Xfinity at a rate these companies will pay to carry the network. On all available evidence to us, we are 10th in the conference on a 5year look and 70+ in team tv ratings. If there is other data from P12, let's see it. It's still about value. I'm not missing any point.

---

First of all, Comcast and Xfinity are the same thing.

Secondly, they carry Pac-12 Network on a standard tier in the Bay Area, precisely because the local college games (Cal and Furd) will be on there. The same would happen if they went on the Big 10 Network, almost certainly. The increased carriage fees are the point.

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

You miss the point. Again. The numbers you posted are inaccurate and it says so right in the data you provided.

If a team has exactly 500,000 for every game, then the 12 game average comes out to 500,000. But, if 7 of those games are counted as 0 because the person calculating the average is missing the data for those games, the average comes out to 208,333.

Rutgers does not move the needle in NYC media market any more than Cal moves the needle in the Bay Area. I cannot have overestimated Cal's draw in the Bay Area because I made no claim whatsoever that Cal moves the needle there. None. The B1G did not add Rutgers because Rutgers moved the needle in NYC. They added Rutgers because merely having a NYC area team meant they could collect a higher fee from subscribers in NYC.

---

How can the numbers be inaccurate when that is the only known metric to go by? P12 doesn't publish numbers? Ok great. Not my fault. And ask yourself why they don't. Could they be too low?

I'm not missing any point. You overestimate Cals inherent value. When I quoted the ESPN article I conceded that there was no viewership surge. It was for entry into the NY market and that they could charge subscribers a premium for carrying the B1G Network. Whether it translates to viewership increases is not known. What IS known, based on any quantifiable data that is available to any of us, is that their simple entry into the B1G added value to the conference. Nothing more.

The question that is still on the table is whether Cal would add value to the B1G enough for them to add us- based on us being in the 6th largest media market.. do we bring viewers? Or, is it enough for them to bring us by getting us on Comcast or Xfinity at a rate these companies will pay to carry the network. On all available evidence to us, we are 10th in the conference on a 5year look and 70+ in team tv ratings. If there is other data from P12, let's see it. It's still about value. I'm not missing any point.

---

To be honest, the change is not just the games that we play, but the platform we play on. We play on ESPN and Pac 12 network. USC and UCLA play on ABC. Look at the games on the list - Cal is the only team where out biggest games are on ESPN - because the network never puts on on anything else.

In the Big 10, we would be on Fox, or else the Big 10 network. Perhaps ESPN as well. But the odds of us being on a better platform at least initially are much greater. Regardless, we would be generating much better carriage rights in the Bay Area for the Big 10 network. Depending on the quality of the Big 10 network, with much more games on the platform, those rights would increase from the current platform. I assume having Stanford only would generate the same level. But regardless, the point is that the platform you play on has a lot to do with the ratings you get.

That being said, not being picked to be on the big show is probably a factor of our appeal. I would suggest that the vitriol being lobbed about with regard to Cal would make it much more of a desirable team to watch - people love to watch ND because they hate them so much! I love all the folks who despise Cal on the inter webs. Seems a little weird to me to have so much space in their brains over all this stuff.

berserkeley said:

---

Quote:

---

How can the numbers be inaccurate when that is the only known metric to go by? P12 doesn't publish numbers? Ok great. Not my fault. And ask yourself why they don't. Could they be too low?

---

Because that's what the word inaccurate means. Accurate means "conforming exactly to truth or to a standard; exact." Because the site did not know the total viewers for those 7 games, the site counted those games as having 0 viewers. That does not conform to the truth and it is not exact. It is, by definition, inaccurate.

Quote:

---

You overestimate Cals inherent value.

---

Impossible. I shall repeat, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. To be extra clear, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. I have only stated that Rutgers did not move the needle in the NYC market as you originally claimed. That's it. My point is only about Rutgers. Rutgers, not Cal. Rutgers. The B1G did not add Rutgers because they moved the needle in NYC. They added Rutgers because they got to collect a bigger check from NYC subscribers despite the fact that Rutgers did not move the needle.

---

See my post regarding tv viewership. I think you can make some simplistic assumptions to get a better sense of where Cal stands with viewership.

I agree with your take on Rutgers ... access to the market was the driver.

That said. It has been made clear to me that all you need is one team to get the benefits of carriage fees ... and that team is likely Stanford given their more recent success and academics and 30 year relationship with ND.

The recent post by those who run this site indicated that while cal and Stanford are "in touch" with each other on this, each will move decidedly in their own best interest. This is a problem as neither of these two have leverage on the B1G. If they are invited and ask that cal be brought with them, how hard do you think they will really try and vouch for us?

So I don't think we make it in the next round of expansion whenever that comes ... But unfortunately the negative outcome to recruiting and transfers will be immediate.

berserkeley said:

---

Quote:

---

How can the numbers be inaccurate when that is the only known metric to go by? P12 doesn't publish numbers? Ok great. Not my fault. And ask yourself why they don't. Could they be too low?

---

Because that's what the word inaccurate means. Accurate means "conforming exactly to truth or to a standard; exact." Because the site did not know the total viewers for those 7 games, the site counted those games as having 0 viewers. That does not conform to the truth and it is not exact. It is, by definition, inaccurate.

Quote:

---

You overestimate Cals inherent value.

---

Impossible. I shall repeat, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. To be extra clear, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. I have only stated that Rutgers did not move the needle in the NYC market as you originally claimed. That's it. My point is only about Rutgers. Rutgers, not Cal. Rutgers. The B1G did not add Rutgers because they moved the needle in NYC. They added Rutgers because they got to collect a bigger check from NYC subscribers despite the fact that Rutgers did not move the needle.

---

here's what you said:

Quote:

---

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.

---

This statement is as absurd as it is grounded in no facts whatsoever. By even your own metric, you indicate that P12 Viewership isn't counted. So let's count it as zero. If that is the case, then how could you possibly assert that you know Cal "probably draws better" in the Bay Area than Rutgers does in NYC?

I would look at fat_slice's thread to get a better understanding of estimates of P12 Network viewership. He does a pretty good job of estimating how many people may actually be watching. As this is getting rather tedious, we shall agree to disagree

fat_slice said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Quote:

---

How can the numbers be inaccurate when that is the only known metric to go by? P12 doesn't publish numbers? Ok great. Not my fault. And ask yourself why they don't. Could they be too low?

---

Because that's what the word inaccurate means. Accurate means "conforming exactly to truth or to a standard; exact." Because the site did not know the total viewers for those 7 games, the site counted those games as having 0 viewers. That does not conform to the truth and it is not exact. It is, by definition, inaccurate.

Quote:

---

You overestimate Cals inherent value.

---

Impossible. I shall repeat, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. To be extra clear, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. I have only stated that Rutgers did not move the needle in the NYC market as you originally claimed. That's it. My point is only about Rutgers. Rutgers, not Cal. Rutgers. The B1G did not add Rutgers because they moved the needle in NYC. They added Rutgers because they got to collect a bigger check from NYC subscribers despite the fact that Rutgers did not move the needle.

---

See my post regarding tv viewership. I think you can make some simplistic assumptions to get a better sense of where Cal stands with viewership.

I agree with your take on Rutgers ... access to the market was the driver.

That said. It has become clear to me that all you need for access is one team ... and that team is Stanford given their more recent success (leaps and bounds above ours across multiple) and academics. They don't need Cal for this and the only hope we have is striking up enough fear in B1G10 that Newsom's bark also has a bite or an antitrust lawsuit. Both are Hail Marys and extremely unlikely.

We should immediately change the program's focus to rely more on the transfer portal as hs recruits will not come to a second tier conference. We don't have the luxury to see how things will play out because after this year there will be a mass exodus of talent that we frankly can't replace with inexperienced 2/3 star high school players.

---

If they only need team why are we so sure its Stanford? Yes, they have some history with Notre Dame, and some more recent success...but otherwise?

Going back 20 years, which school had a better environment for the B1G when they were good? Cal with their raucous stadium vs Tennessee is clearly a highlight, and it wasn't the only time we've seen Memorial Stadium come alive when they were good. Does Stanford have a landmark game/environment similar to that despite their successes?

Stanford is also a lot closer to a pro stadium (49ers) than Cal now that the Raiders left. The warriors also left the east bay. And the A's are looking to do the same. The East Bay may soon be without a single pro team after being home to 3 for decades. Stanford is in Giants, Warriors, 49ers territory, and none of those teams are going anywhere. Proximity wise all 3 teams are located right near Caltrain with easy access from the penninsula (which is why the Giants have fought off the A's going to the south bay so hard).

If your the B1G and think your brand will add value (along with increased investment), you gotta see that as a huge opportunity. Yes, Cal is squandering its opportunities, but the B1G knows how to market itself and you have to believe they would be able to better take advantage of Cal's more natural advantages (number of alumni, location in the east bay which is losing all of its pro teams).

Taking Cal also resolves a major issue for UCLA and the Regents.

Lastly, Stanford is on record as saying they will NOT partake in athletics if students are treated as employees (aka paid). How exactly is that going to fit with the direction collegiate athletics are going? I'm not saying its

MrGPAC said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Quote:

---

How can the numbers be inaccurate when that is the only known metric to go by? P12 doesn't publish numbers? Ok great. Not my fault. And ask yourself why they don't. Could they be too low?

---

Because that's what the word inaccurate means. Accurate means "conforming exactly to truth or to a standard; exact." Because the site did not know the total viewers for those 7 games, the site counted those games as having 0 viewers. That does not conform to the truth and it is not exact. It is, by definition, inaccurate.

Quote:

---

You overestimate Cals inherent value.

---

Impossible. I shall repeat, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. To be extra clear, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. I have only stated that Rutgers did not move the needle in the NYC market as you originally claimed. That's it. My point is only about Rutgers. Rutgers, not Cal. Rutgers. The B1G did not add Rutgers because they moved the needle in NYC. They added Rutgers because they got to collect a bigger check from NYC subscribers despite the fact that Rutgers did not move the needle.

---

See my post regarding tv viewership. I think you can make some simplistic assumptions to get a better sense of where Cal stands with viewership.

I agree with your take on Rutgers ... access to the market was the driver.

That said. It has become clear to me that all you need for access is one team ... and that team is Stanford given their more recent success (leaps and bounds above ours across multiple) and academics. They don't need Cal for this and the only hope we have is striking up enough fear in B1G10 that Newsom's bark also has a bite or an antitrust lawsuit. Both are Hail Marys and extremely unlikely.

We should immediately change the program's focus to rely more on the transfer portal as hs recruits will not come to a second tier conference. We don't have the luxury to see how things will play out because after this year there will be a mass exodus of talent that we frankly can't replace with inexperienced 2/3 star high school players.

---

If they only need team why are we so sure its Stanford? Yes, they have some history with Notre Dame, and some more recent success...but otherwise?

Going back 20 years, which school had a better environment for the B1G when they were good? Cal with their raucous stadium vs Tennessee is clearly a highlight, and it wasn't the only time we've seen Memorial Stadium come alive when they were good. Does Stanford have a landmark game/environment similar to that despite their successes?

Stanford is also a lot closer to a pro stadium (49ers) than Cal now that the Raiders left. The warriors also left the east bay. And the A's are looking to do the same. The East Bay may soon be without a single pro team after being home to 3 for decades. Stanford is in Giants, Warriors, 49ers territory, and none of those teams are going anywhere. Proximity wise all 3 teams are located right near Caltrain with easy access from the penninsula (which is why the Giants have fought off the A's going to the south bay so hard).

If your the B1G and think your brand will add value (along with increased investment), you gotta see that as a huge opportunity. Yes, Cal is squandering its opportunities, but the B1G knows how to market itself and you have to believe they would be able to better take advantage of Cal's more natural advantages (number of alumni, location in the east bay which is losing all of its pro teams).

Taking Cal also resolves a major issue for UCLA and the Regents.

Lastly, Stanford is on record as saying they will NOT partake in athletics if students are treated as employees (aka paid). How exactly is that going to fit with the direction collegiate athletics are going? I'm not saying its

---

Stanford has "more recent" history of past success, but the teams are very equal right now.

Going forward, in an environment with NIL and the transfer portal, Cal is in a much better position to succeed, assuming good coaching, management and marketing, which is Stanford's temporary and hopefully fading advantage.

Maybe I'm being pollyannaish, but I don't think it's either-or. The Cal-Stanford rivalry is worth something; having an even number of Pacific coast teams is worth something, and placating those upset by UCLA leaving is worth something. I think Cal will be fine.

calumnus said:

---

Cal is in a much better position to succeed, assuming good coaching, management and marketing, which is Stanford's temporary and hopefully fading advantage.

---

Big assumption for all three!! Cal has consistently failed when it comes to good coaching, management, and marketing. What's going to change this all of a sudden?

gardenstatebear said:

---

Maybe I'm being pollyannaish, but I don't think it's either-or. The Cal-Stanford rivalry is worth something; having an even number of Pacific coast teams is worth something, and placating those upset by UCLA leaving is worth something. I think Cal will be fine.

---

Agreed. Either/or is a false dichotomy. For many reasons it makes sense to take both.

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Quote:

---

How can the numbers be inaccurate when that is the only known metric to go by? P12 doesn't publish numbers? Ok great. Not my fault. And ask yourself why they don't. Could they be too low?

---

Because that's what the word inaccurate means. Accurate means "conforming exactly to truth or to a standard; exact." Because the site did not know the total viewers for those 7 games, the site counted those games as having 0 viewers. That does not conform to the truth and it is not exact. It is, by definition, inaccurate.

Quote:

---

You overestimate Cals inherent value.

---

Impossible. I shall repeat, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. To be extra clear, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. I have only stated that Rutgers did not move the needle in the NYC market as you originally claimed. That's it. My point is only about Rutgers. Rutgers, not Cal. Rutgers. The B1G did not add Rutgers because they moved the needle in NYC. They added Rutgers because they got to collect a bigger check from NYC subscribers despite the fact that Rutgers did not move the needle.

---

here's what you said:

Quote:

---

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.

---

This statement is as absurd as it is grounded in no facts whatsoever. By even your own metric, you indicate that P12 Viewership isn't counted. So let's count it as zero. If that is the case, then how could you possibly assert that you know Cal "probably draws better" in the Bay Area than Rutgers does in NYC?

I would look at fat_slice's thread to get a better understanding of estimates of P12 Network viewership. He does a pretty good job of estimating how many people may actually be watching. As this is getting rather tedious, we shall agree to disagree

---

You misread. I have stated repeatedly now that Rutgers does not move the needle in NYC. Suggesting that Cal moves the needle "every bit as much as" a team who doesn't move the needle is not a statement to Cal's inherent value. That's not the way comparisons work. And, yes, there was bit of an assumption on my part that Cal's draw in the Bay Area was probably slightly above negligible, but we don't have numbers to say one way or the other hence the word "probably."

And, yes, I suppose we should agree to disagree as to whether Rutgers is a draw in NYC. I say it's not.

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Quote:

---

How can the numbers be inaccurate when that is the only known metric to go by? P12 doesn't publish numbers? Ok great. Not my fault. And ask yourself why they don't. Could they be too low?

---

Because that's what the word inaccurate means. Accurate means "conforming exactly to truth or to a standard; exact." Because the site did not know the total viewers for those 7 games, the site counted those games as having 0 viewers. That does not conform to the truth and it is not exact. It is, by definition, inaccurate.

Quote:

---

You overestimate Cals inherent value.

---

Impossible. I shall repeat, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. To be extra clear, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. I have only stated that Rutgers did not move the needle in the NYC market as you originally claimed. That's it. My point is only about Rutgers. Rutgers, not Cal. Rutgers. The B1G did not add Rutgers because they moved the needle in NYC. They added Rutgers because they got to collect a bigger check from NYC subscribers despite the fact that Rutgers did not move the needle.

---

here's what you said:

Quote:

---

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.

---

This statement is as absurd as it is grounded in no facts whatsoever. By even your own metric, you indicate that P12 Viewership isn't counted. So let's count it as zero. If that is the case, then how could you possibly assert that you know Cal "probably draws better" in the Bay Area than Rutgers does in NYC?

I would look at fat_slice's thread to get a better understanding of estimates of P12 Network viewership. He does a pretty good job of estimating how many people may actually be watching. As this is getting rather tedious, we shall agree to disagree

---

You misread. I have stated repeatedly now that Rutgers does not move the needle in NYC. Suggesting that Cal moves the needle "every bit as much as" a team who doesn't move the needle is not a statement to Cal's inherent value. That's not the way comparisons work. And, yes, there was bit of an assumption on my part that Cal's draw in the Bay Area was probably slightly above negligible, but we don't have numbers to say one way or the other hence the word "probably."

And, yes, I suppose we should agree to disagree as to whether Rutgers is a draw in NYC. I say it's not
.

---

I would agree with you Berserkley
My thorough, in-depth and extensive on the ground research (one Rutgers alum and fan in Central Jersey near I-78.) says that Rutgers football doesn't draw much attention in Central NJ, let alone NYC.

As for comparative media attention.
Remember that the NYC/NJ TV Market has THREE NFL teams- Giants, Jets, Eagles.
There are several major Colleges with much greater stature than Rutgers. Princeton, U Penn, Columbia, NYU (NYC is just over 30 Miles and Philadelphia is about 60 miles - about the same distance from Berkeley to San Jose)
As for college football Princeton-Harvard; Princeton- Yale are much bigger. (Granted when Rutgers plays OSU or Michigan it will get attention).
Cal is much more dominant in the Bay Area than Rutgers is in the NYC Philadelphia area

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Quote:

---

How can the numbers be inaccurate when that is the only known metric to go by? P12 doesn't publish numbers? Ok great. Not my fault. And ask yourself why they don't. Could they be too low?

---

Because that's what the word inaccurate means. Accurate means "conforming exactly to truth or to a standard; exact." Because the site did not know the total viewers for those 7 games, the site counted those games as having 0 viewers. That does not conform to the truth and it is not exact. It is, by definition, inaccurate.

Quote:

---

You overestimate Cals inherent value.

---

Impossible. I shall repeat, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. To be extra clear, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. I have only stated that Rutgers did not move the needle in the NYC market as you originally claimed. That's it. My point is only about Rutgers. Rutgers, not Cal. Rutgers. The B1G did not add Rutgers because they moved the needle in NYC. They added Rutgers because they got to collect a bigger check from NYC subscribers despite the fact that Rutgers did not move the needle.

---

here's what you said:

Quote:

---

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.

---

This statement is as absurd as it is grounded in no facts whatsoever. By even your own metric, you indicate that P12 Viewership isn't counted. So let's count it as zero. If that is the case, then how could you possibly assert that you know Cal "probably draws better" in the Bay Area than Rutgers does in NYC?

I would look at fat_slice's thread to get a better understanding of estimates of P12 Network viewership. He does a pretty good job of estimating how many people may actually be watching. As this is getting rather tedious, we shall agree to disagree

---

You misread. I have stated repeatedly now that Rutgers does not move the needle in NYC. Suggesting that Cal moves the needle "every bit as much as" a team who doesn't move the needle is not a statement to Cal's inherent value. That's not the way comparisons work. And, yes, there was bit of an assumption on my part that Cal's draw in the Bay Area was probably slightly above negligible, but we don't have numbers to say one way or the other hence the word "probably."

And, yes, I suppose we should agree to disagree as to whether Rutgers is a draw in NYC. I say it's not.

---

I didn't misread anything. Its wishful thinking on your part. Nothing more. Rutgers doesn't need to "move the needle". What you're equating, in fact, is that Cal does move the needle in the Bay Area to the extent that they should be included in B10 expansion. what I have said all along was that they do not, I've shown viewership stats that we are 10th in conference in viewership. Where we differ, is this so called P12 Network effect that you think magically elevates our viewership in the P12. Or even past Rutgers. lol The B10 doesn't need us to get the Bay Area market. They only need one team.

And as far as the Cal Stanford rivalry. The B10 is probably saying - who cares.

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Quote:

---

How can the numbers be inaccurate when that is the only known metric to go by? P12 doesn't publish numbers? Ok great. Not my fault. And ask yourself why they don't. Could they be too low?

---

Because that's what the word inaccurate means. Accurate means "conforming exactly to truth or to a standard; exact." Because the site did not know the total viewers for those 7 games, the site counted those games as having 0 viewers. That does not conform to the truth and it is not exact. It is, by definition, inaccurate.

Quote:

---

You overestimate Cals inherent value.

---

Impossible. I shall repeat, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. To be extra clear, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. I have only stated that Rutgers did not move the needle in the NYC market as you originally claimed. That's it. My point is only about Rutgers. Rutgers, not Cal. Rutgers. The B1G did not add Rutgers because they moved the needle in NYC. They added Rutgers because they got to collect a bigger check from NYC subscribers despite the fact that Rutgers did not move the needle.

---

here's what you said:

Quote:

---

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.

---

This statement is as absurd as it is grounded in no facts whatsoever. By even your own metric, you indicate that P12 Viewership isn't counted. So let's count it as zero. If that is the case, then how could you possibly assert that you know Cal "probably draws better" in the Bay Area than Rutgers does in NYC?

I would look at fat_slice's thread to get a better understanding of estimates of P12 Network viewership. He does a pretty good job of estimating how many people may actually be watching. As this is getting rather tedious, we shall agree to disagree

---

You misread. I have stated repeatedly now that Rutgers does not move the needle in NYC. Suggesting that Cal moves the needle "every bit as much as" a team who doesn't move the needle is not a statement to Cal's inherent value. That's not the way comparisons work. And, yes, there was bit of an assumption on my part that Cal's draw in the Bay Area was probably slightly above negligible, but we don't have numbers to say one way or the other hence the word "probably."

And, yes, I suppose we should agree to disagree as to whether Rutgers is a draw in NYC. I say it's not.

---

I didn't misread anything. Its wishful thinking on your part. Nothing more. Rutgers doesn't need to "move the needle". What you're equating, in fact, is that Cal does move the needle in the Bay Area to the extent that they should be included in B10 expansion. what I have said all along was that they do not, I've shown viewership stats that we are 10th in conference in viewership. Where we differ, is this so called P12 Network effect that you think magically elevates our viewership in the P12. Or even past Rutgers. lol The B10 doesn't need us to get the Bay Area market. They only need one team.

And as far as the Cal Stanford rivalry. The B10 is probably saying - who cares.

---

All arguments are being repeated over and over again. At this point we just have to wait and see. It does not look good though - to summarize:

1. B1G gets the bay area market with just 1 team and will not want another mouth to feed
2. Stanford gets the nod because of athletic success, ND relationship, and more competent administration that will be easier to work/deal with
3. Traditions are out the door and Stanford does not carry enough leverage to twist the B1G's arm to take Cal - no one cares about the big game except for Cal fans and 12 Stanford alums
4. We need to hope for a miracle that some outside force like Newsom gets us in. Surprisingly (more disturbing) ... we don't have any powerful donor or person of influence like Oregon's Knight in shining armor.

The above are all points against inclusion. The points for inclusion are:

1. Add another major academic power to B1G
2. Cal has some success in nom-revenue sports
3. Mitigate antitrust and unhappy CA politics scenarios
4. Cal adds a 6th team to west coast (assuming UW and UO are in) to lessen travel burden. Not sure the pay cut warrants this but this has been mentioned by many.

Please add any new points or things I might have left off to the above. Right now, the points against Cal inclusion seem to outweigh the case for inclusion.

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Quote:

---

How can the numbers be inaccurate when that is the only known metric to go by? P12 doesn't publish numbers? Ok great. Not my fault. And ask yourself why they don't. Could they be too low?

---

Because that's what the word inaccurate means. Accurate means "conforming exactly to truth or to a standard; exact." Because the site did not know the total viewers for those 7 games, the site counted those games as having 0 viewers. That does not conform to the truth and it is not exact. It is, by definition, inaccurate.

Quote:

---

You overestimate Cals inherent value.

---

Impossible. I shall repeat, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. To be extra clear, I have made no claim whatsoever as to Cal's inherent value. I have only stated that Rutgers did not move the needle in the NYC market as you originally claimed. That's it. My point is only about Rutgers. Rutgers, not Cal. Rutgers. The B1G did not add Rutgers because they moved the needle in NYC. They added Rutgers because they got to collect a bigger check from NYC subscribers despite the fact that Rutgers did not move the needle.

---

here's what you said:

Quote:

---

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.

---

This statement is as absurd as it is grounded in no facts whatsoever. By even your own metric, you indicate that P12 Viewership isn't counted. So let's count it as zero. If that is the case, then how could you possibly assert that you know Cal "probably draws better" in the Bay Area than Rutgers does in NYC?

I would look at fat_slice's thread to get a better understanding of estimates of P12 Network viewership. He does a pretty good job of estimating how many people may actually be watching. As this is getting rather tedious, we shall agree to disagree

---

You misread. I have stated repeatedly now that Rutgers does not move the needle in NYC. Suggesting that Cal moves the needle "every bit as much as" a team who doesn't move the needle is not a statement to Cal's inherent value. That's not the way comparisons work. And, yes, there was bit of an assumption on my part that Cal's draw in the Bay Area was probably slightly above negligible, but we don't have numbers to say one way or the other hence the word "probably."

And, yes, I suppose we should agree to disagree as to whether Rutgers is a draw in NYC. I say it's not.

---

I didn't misread anything. Its wishful thinking on your part. Nothing more. Rutgers doesn't need to "move the needle". What you're equating, in fact, is that Cal does move the needle in the Bay Area to the extent that they should be included in B10 expansion. what I have said all along was that they do not, I've shown viewership stats that we are 10th in conference in viewership. Where we differ, is this so called P12 Network effect that you think magically elevates our viewership in the P12. Or even past Rutgers. lol The B10 doesn't need us to get the Bay Area market. They only need one team.

And as far as the Cal Stanford rivalry. The B10 is probably saying - who cares.

---

I do not believe that Cal moves the needle in the Bay Area to justify Cal's invitation to the B1G.
I do not believe that Cal's actual viewers for the Pac-12 Network pushes their viewership above Rutgers.
I do believe that the B1G can get the same Bay Area higher subscription fees by adding Stanford without Cal.

You are having an argument with points I have not made and am not making.

It's a statement of fact that Cal's viewership numbers are wrong because they assume 0 viewers for Cal's 7 games on the Pac-12 Network. I have made no assertion as to how wrong they are nor have I suggested they are they would be higher than Rutgers's numbers.

It is my opinion that Rutgers does not move the needle in the NYC based on having lived in NYC with a Rutgers alum (so personal bias), but also based on Rutgers's poor TV ratings against opponents relative to that opponent's TV ratings when not playing Rutgers.

FWIW, I do believe that Cal has a path to the B1G depending on what the B1G values. If the B1G is looking for like-minded institutions with strong academics, progressive leadership, large alumni base, good media markets, geographic fit (now that they're a West Coast conference), and overall athletic commitment, then Cal stands a good chance. If they're looking at football dollars only, Cal's probably looking at the MWC.