berserkeley said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

juarezbear 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.

---

LA is definitely more saturated than the Bay. Rams, Chargers, Dodgers, Angels, Kings, Ducks, Lakers, Clippers, LAFC (which sells out), Galaxy. Not to mention the beach and skiiing 1.5 hrs away. There's a reason why UCLA football and USC basketball have never gained real traction even when they're good.

---

berserkeley said:

---

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.

---

gardenstatebear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

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.

---

Speaking as a long-time Rutgers faculty member, I know of no evidence that Rutgers moves the needle in NYC. (BTW, Rutgers has *no* presence in the Philadelphia area -- the Philly media doesn't cover Rutgers except when it is playing a Philly-area team, and the coverage then is all about the Philly-area team.) As I've said before, I think that Cal brings enough to the Big Ten that Cal will get an invitation. The Big Ten has plenty of teams that bring nothing to the table competitively or money-wise; consider Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa. It will take on one more if it sees that as politic. And while Cal football is poor now, that can be changed just as Rutgers football was changed by some institutional backing and a new coach. The rivalries between Cal, Stanford, USC and UCLA have been powerful draws in the past and can be again. BTW, the Rutgers faculty hates the football program even more than the Cal faculty hates its.

---

gardenstatebear said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

gardenstatebear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

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.

---

Speaking as a long-time Rutgers faculty member, I know of no evidence that Rutgers moves the needle in NYC. (BTW, Rutgers has *no* presence in the Philadelphia area -- the Philly media doesn't cover Rutgers except when it is playing a Philly-area team, and the coverage then is all about the Philly-area team.) As I've said before, I think that Cal brings enough to the Big Ten that Cal will get an invitation. The Big Ten has plenty of teams that bring nothing to the table competitively or money-wise; consider Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa. It will take on one more if it sees that as politic. And while Cal football is poor now, that can be changed just as Rutgers football was changed by some institutional backing and a new coach. The rivalries between Cal, Stanford, USC and UCLA have been powerful draws in the past and can be again. BTW, the Rutgers faculty hates the football program even more than the Cal faculty hates its.

---

Rutgers ranks close #50 in viewership which is much better than Cal (#76). Even if you correct with simplifying assumptions (see my other post on viewership) we only get to about 63 or something. Still not as good as Rutgers.

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

---

Rutgers gets those numbers from playing Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan. If Cal were playing those teams regularly, it would get at least the same numbers. Almost every game between Rutgers and those three schools has been a blow-out, so it's not as though Rutgers is any more competitive on the field than Cal.

---

berserkeley said:

---

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.

---

sycasey said:

---

The problem in this discussion is that people can just arbitrarily decide which factors the B1G considers most important when we don't really know what those are. Of course if Cal was a slam-dunk case we'd have been invited already. Otherwise we have pros and cons like a lot of schools.

My guess is that our profile is stronger than most schools not already in the B1G or SEC (beyond immediate football success), but no one really knows.

---

Rushinbear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

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.

---

Where do the Pac's #'s need to be in orderr for Cal (and the remaining west schools) to say no thanks to the Big? We've got to think opportunity cost. In priority order: financial health, students, alums, people of calif,. ...viewers, faculty, hill people.

---

sycasey said:

---

My guess is that our profile is stronger than most schools not already in the B1G or SEC (beyond immediate football success), but no one really knows.

---

BigDaddy said:

---

sycasey said:

---

My guess is that our profile is stronger than most schools not already in the B1G or SEC (beyond immediate football success), but no one really knows.

---

Stronger than Notre Dame? Oregon and Washington? Stanford? North Carolina? Virginia?

---

sycasey said:

---

The problem in this discussion is that people can just arbitrarily decide which factors the B1G considers most important when we don't really know what those are. Of course if Cal was a slam-dunk case we'd have been invited already. Otherwise we have pros and cons like a lot of schools.

My guess is that our profile is stronger than most schools not already in the B1G or SEC (beyond immediate football success), but no one really knows.

---

Oski87 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The problem in this discussion is that people can just arbitrarily decide which factors the B1G considers most important when we don't really know what those are. Of course if Cal was a slam-dunk case we'd have been invited already. Otherwise we have pros and cons like a lot of schools.

My guess is that our profile is stronger than most schools not already in the B1G or SEC (beyond immediate football success), but no one really knows.

---

My guess is that the money is a key factor, and if we are getting paid short by the Big 10, they would rather have Cal and Stanford as the UCLA / USC partners than Oregon and Washington, who - at least according to Oregon's reporter - have about 15 million more in media value each. So if they have to pony up, say 65 million each, that is only 20 million more than the difference between Cal and Stanford are worth (45 million per according to Fox) than the 35 million extra that Oregon and Washington are worth. Plus, you kill the entirely of California for the PAC 12, which is really the key for them for the late night slot.

I do think if that happens, of course, the rest of the PAC 12 goes to the Big 12 and they get to 20 quick. Losing 40 million people from the PAC 12 would hurt. The rest of the PAC 12 states barely have more than half - about 21 million folks.

---

fat_slice said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The problem in this discussion is that people can just arbitrarily decide which factors the B1G considers most important when we don't really know what those are. Of course if Cal was a slam-dunk case we'd have been invited already. Otherwise we have pros and cons like a lot of schools.

My guess is that our profile is stronger than most schools not already in the B1G or SEC (beyond immediate football success), but no one really knows.

---

My guess is that the money is a key factor, and if we are getting paid short by the Big 10, they would rather have Cal and Stanford as the UCLA / USC partners than Oregon and Washington, who - at least according to Oregon's reporter - have about 15 million more in media value each. So if they have to pony up, say 65 million each, that is only 20 million more than the difference between Cal and Stanford are worth (45 million per according to Fox) than the 35 million extra that Oregon and Washington are worth. Plus, you kill the entirely of California for the PAC 12, which is really the key for them for the late night slot.

I do think if that happens, of course, the rest of the PAC 12 goes to the Big 12 and they get to 20 quick. Losing 40 million people from the PAC 12 would hurt. The rest of the PAC 12 states barely have more than half - about 21 million folks.

---

Not sure I am following the math here - would you mind breaking that down more explicitly (for example, who is the "they" who is ponying up and how again does the $30 mm difference between the two sets of schools overcome?)..

Also - one important aspect is that there will be lots of money awarded for college playoff participants. I don't know if that gets distributed to the conference but if that is the case, they have a much better shot of playoffs with Oregon and Washington than the Bay Area schools.

---

sycasey said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The problem in this discussion is that people can just arbitrarily decide which factors the B1G considers most important when we don't really know what those are. Of course if Cal was a slam-dunk case we'd have been invited already. Otherwise we have pros and cons like a lot of schools.

My guess is that our profile is stronger than most schools not already in the B1G or SEC (beyond immediate football success), but no one really knows.

---

My guess is that the money is a key factor, and if we are getting paid short by the Big 10, they would rather have Cal and Stanford as the UCLA / USC partners than Oregon and Washington, who - at least according to Oregon's reporter - have about 15 million more in media value each. So if they have to pony up, say 65 million each, that is only 20 million more than the difference between Cal and Stanford are worth (45 million per according to Fox) than the 35 million extra that Oregon and Washington are worth. Plus, you kill the entirely of California for the PAC 12, which is really the key for them for the late night slot.

I do think if that happens, of course, the rest of the PAC 12 goes to the Big 12 and they get to 20 quick. Losing 40 million people from the PAC 12 would hurt. The rest of the PAC 12 states barely have more than half - about 21 million folks.

---

Not sure I am following the math here - would you mind breaking that down more explicitly (for example, who is the "they" who is ponying up and how again does the $30 mm difference between the two sets of schools overcome?)..

Also - one important aspect is that there will be lots of money awarded for college playoff participants. I don't know if that gets distributed to the conference but if that is the case, they have a much better shot of playoffs with Oregon and Washington than the Bay Area schools.

---

The playoff money would go to ANY team in the conference, so if Cal and Stanford suck then it may be easier for OTHER teams to make the playoff with us on the schedule.

Though really I hope the conference leaders aren't thinking short-term like that. Program success is cyclical. It wasn't that long ago that Cal was good and UW was terrible.

---

Big Ten finalizing media rights deal w/Fox Sports, CBS & NBC, sources told @ActionNetworkHQ. 1st reported by @Ourand_SBJ. Unless there’s a last minute change, this will be 1st time in 40 years Big Ten football & basketball games will not be on ESPN, @Ourand_SBJ reports

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) August 9, 2022

juarezbear 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.

---

LA is definitely more saturated than the Bay. Rams, Chargers, Dodgers, Angels, Kings, Ducks, Lakers, Clippers, LAFC (which sells out), Galaxy. Not to mention the beach and skiiing 1.5 hrs away. There's a reason why UCLA football and USC basketball have never gained real traction even when they're good.

---

Cal89 said:

---

juarezbear 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.

---

LA is definitely more saturated than the Bay. Rams, Chargers, Dodgers, Angels, Kings, Ducks, Lakers, Clippers, LAFC (which sells out), Galaxy. Not to mention the beach and skiiing 1.5 hrs away. There's a reason why UCLA football and USC basketball have never gained real traction even when they're good.

---

Indeed, LA has more pro teams than the Bay Area, and I imagine those are within an hour of Southern Cal and UCLA too... Not sure though.

Importantly, saturation takes into account the population, the size of the media market, and by many accounts the LA mkt (TV homes) is more than twice that of the Bay Area's. In the Bay Area, there are more pro sports teams per home, compared to LA.

Yup, great beaches in the LA area, but the Bay Area has some darn nice ones too, and from my experiences, much less crowded ones also (including traffic to/from). Skiing is not 1.5 hours away from the BA, closer to 3, but there are quite a few more resorts to choose from... Wine country is near, Yosemite about 4 hours away. Both areas have plenty of attractions within and nearby to compete with college football for our time and money...

---

ESPN has pulled out of Big Ten media rights negotiations, ending one of the longest sports media relationships in the business. ESPN said no to the conference’s final offer of a 7-year/$380 million per-year package, sources tell SBJ.

Story to be filed soon.

— John Ourand (@Ourand_SBJ) August 9, 2022

Unit2Sucks said:

---

How is the B1G going to get to $100M per year per team?

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

How is the B1G going to get to $100M per year per team?

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

How is the B1G going to get to $100M per year per team?

---

berserkeley said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

How is the B1G going to get to $100M per year per team?

---

By Fox, CBS, and NBC picking up the rights and willing to pay even more than ESPN. This is a not a bad sign for the Big Ten.

---