About covers it.

Dgoldnbaer said:

---

St.Mary's in WC.

---

Temple Mt. Sinai in EP

MrGPAC said:

---

As far as I can tell there are two major hangups to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford being invited to the B1G:

1) Money. It all comes down to money. Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford aren't worth as much as UCLA/USC, and the current schools aren't going to take a pay cut to let these 4 schools in. That means they will have to take a smaller slice of the pie. The question then becomes how much smaller.

I'm sure the B1G schools would like to pay as little a possible (giving any extra money earned to the rest of the conference members), and Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford would want as much as possible (and certainly more than they'd get if they don't jump ship). This is going to come down to what the schools think they can get if they don't join the B1G, set that as a floor, and then how much more than that they think they are worth.

2) There ARE some logistics to adding 4 more teams to the B1G. If they did it to make a 6 team "Pacific Pod"...how would that work exactly? There would be 20 teams in the B1G at that point, which is not divisible by 6. 24 is, but I highly doubt the B1G expands to 24 teams unless it includes teams from the ACC/ND. Is there some other prized school I'm missing somewhere?

20 teams makes the most sense as 4 5 team divisions...which would call for a 5 team west coast pod, not 6. The next number that makes sense is 3 7 team pods, and would require the addition of one more school. Utah maybe? You could put Nebraska in the pacific "pod" and add another school in the central/north east area, but I'm unsure what school you would go after.

I actually really like the idea of 3 7 team pods, with the winner of each pod + the best second place finisher going to a 4 team "playoff" for the conference championship. That keeps the intrigue of "rankings" and what not viable, and creates more discussion / disputes which college football seems to live off of, but how does a 4 team conference championship fit in with a 12 team playoff?

You're almost more likely to end up with 2 10 team divisions where you play everyone in your division and maybe 1 team in the other division? So you play every team once a decade? Not sure I'm a fan of that.

Maybe they get more creative than that? 2 10 team divisions, play all teams in your division for a 9 game conference schedule, then during championship game weekend instead of just having the winner of each division play, you have 1 v 1, 2 v 2, 3 v3, etc? But what are they playing for, and again, how does this fit with a 12 team play off?

Bottom line, the B1G is in no rush, unless it results in more $$$. If they invite Cal/Stanford/Washington/Oregon today they'll get a yes. If they extend the invitation in 2 years they'll get a yes. In 5 years they'd likely get a yes too. The only reason to rush is if they need more local games for USC/UCLA, or if they think they'll get priced out of adding them because the Pac12 contract ends up being more than they are willing to pay.

---

The B1G had two 7 team divisions. Add a 6 team Pacific division for your 20 teams. It is only until the ACC can be broken up and you go to 24. Or 30.

Add Utah, the PAC? CHAMPIONS.

calumnus said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

As far as I can tell there are two major hangups to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford being invited to the B1G:

1) Money. It all comes down to money. Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford aren't worth as much as UCLA/USC, and the current schools aren't going to take a pay cut to let these 4 schools in. That means they will have to take a smaller slice of the pie. The question then becomes how much smaller.

I'm sure the B1G schools would like to pay as little a possible (giving any extra money earned to the rest of the conference members), and Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford would want as much as possible (and certainly more than they'd get if they don't jump ship). This is going to come down to what the schools think they can get if they don't join the B1G, set that as a floor, and then how much more than that they think they are worth.

2) There ARE some logistics to adding 4 more teams to the B1G. If they did it to make a 6 team "Pacific Pod"...how would that work exactly? There would be 20 teams in the B1G at that point, which is not divisible by 6. 24 is, but I highly doubt the B1G expands to 24 teams unless it includes teams from the ACC/ND. Is there some other prized school I'm missing somewhere?

20 teams makes the most sense as 4 5 team divisions...which would call for a 5 team west coast pod, not 6. The next number that makes sense is 3 7 team pods, and would require the addition of one more school. Utah maybe? You could put Nebraska in the pacific "pod" and add another school in the central/north east area, but I'm unsure what school you would go after.

I actually really like the idea of 3 7 team pods, with the winner of each pod + the best second place finisher going to a 4 team "playoff" for the conference championship. That keeps the intrigue of "rankings" and what not viable, and creates more discussion / disputes which college football seems to live off of, but how does a 4 team conference championship fit in with a 12 team playoff?

You're almost more likely to end up with 2 10 team divisions where you play everyone in your division and maybe 1 team in the other division? So you play every team once a decade? Not sure I'm a fan of that.

Maybe they get more creative than that? 2 10 team divisions, play all teams in your division for a 9 game conference schedule, then during championship game weekend instead of just having the winner of each division play, you have 1 v 1, 2 v 2, 3 v3, etc? But what are they playing for, and again, how does this fit with a 12 team play off?

Bottom line, the B1G is in no rush, unless it results in more $$$. If they invite Cal/Stanford/Washington/Oregon today they'll get a yes. If they extend the invitation in 2 years they'll get a yes. In 5 years they'd likely get a yes too. The only reason to rush is if they need more local games for USC/UCLA, or if they think they'll get priced out of adding them because the Pac12 contract ends up being more than they are willing to pay.

---

The B1G had two 7 team divisions. Add a 6 team Pacific division for your 20 teams. It is only until the ACC can be broken up and you go to 24. Or 30.

---

The Big Ten deal contains an escalator clause if there is expansion. So adding more teams won't necessarily hurt the payout for existing teams in the conference. https://www.si.com/college/byu/football/how-the-big-ten-tv-deal-impacts-big-12-expansion

MrGPAC said:

---

As far as I can tell there are two major hangups to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford being invited to the B1G:

1) Money. It all comes down to money. Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford aren't worth as much as UCLA/USC, and the current schools aren't going to take a pay cut to let these 4 schools in. That means they will have to take a smaller slice of the pie. The question then becomes how much smaller.

I'm sure the B1G schools would like to pay as little a possible (giving any extra money earned to the rest of the conference members), and Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford would want as much as possible (and certainly more than they'd get if they don't jump ship). This is going to come down to what the schools think they can get if they don't join the B1G, set that as a floor, and then how much more than that they think they are worth.

---

The money is so critical but why can't it be started at a lower rate to satisfy the existing members and then promises or contracts to gradually increase with time. We all know because this is about money it will be worth much more tomorrow than today, so promises can be made to UW, UO, 'furd and Cal. This whole money thing makes me think of Arte Moreno just announcing plans to sell the Angels---bought about 15 years ago for under $200M, I think I recall, with an asking now of $2B....

Everyone has big plans for these new arrangements so why not a graduated entrance. Cal would probably start out with just about what they get from the Pac and then incrementally increase.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

As far as I can tell there are two major hangups to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford being invited to the B1G:

1) Money. It all comes down to money. Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford aren't worth as much as UCLA/USC, and the current schools aren't going to take a pay cut to let these 4 schools in. That means they will have to take a smaller slice of the pie. The question then becomes how much smaller.

I'm sure the B1G schools would like to pay as little a possible (giving any extra money earned to the rest of the conference members), and Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford would want as much as possible (and certainly more than they'd get if they don't jump ship). This is going to come down to what the schools think they can get if they don't join the B1G, set that as a floor, and then how much more than that they think they are worth.

---

The money is so critical but why can't it be started at a lower rate to satisfy the existing members and then promises or contracts to gradually increase with time. We all know because this is about money it will be worth much more tomorrow than today, so promises can be made to UW, UO, 'furd and Cal. This whole money thing makes me think of Arte Moreno just announcing plans to sell the Angels---bought about 15 years ago for under $200M, I think I recall, with an asking now of $2B....

Everyone has big plans for these new arrangements so why not a graduated entrance. Cal would probably start out with just about what they get from the Pac and then incrementally increase.

---

I believe that is what happened when colorado and Utah join the Pac.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

As far as I can tell there are two major hangups to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford being invited to the B1G:

1) Money. It all comes down to money. Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford aren't worth as much as UCLA/USC, and the current schools aren't going to take a pay cut to let these 4 schools in. That means they will have to take a smaller slice of the pie. The question then becomes how much smaller.

I'm sure the B1G schools would like to pay as little a possible (giving any extra money earned to the rest of the conference members), and Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford would want as much as possible (and certainly more than they'd get if they don't jump ship). This is going to come down to what the schools think they can get if they don't join the B1G, set that as a floor, and then how much more than that they think they are worth.

---

The money is so critical but why can't it be started at a lower rate to satisfy the existing members and then promises or contracts to gradually increase with time. We all know because this is about money it will be worth much more tomorrow than today, so promises can be made to UW, UO, 'furd and Cal. This whole money thing makes me think of Arte Moreno just announcing plans to sell the Angels---bought about 15 years ago for under $200M, I think I recall, with an asking now of $2B....

Everyone has big plans for these new arrangements so why not a graduated entrance. Cal would probably start out with just about what they get from the Pac and then incrementally increase.

---

The point is it's something that would have to be negotiated and would take time to get all 4 schools to agree to. Oregon wants more than cal/Stanford....cal is just happy for the invite, uw is negotiating to be on same tier or better than Oregon... A lot can go on there.

In principle the b1g could say they wanted the four schools tomorrow and it could take a month to finalize.

Possibly even longer with potential battles from Oregon state and Washington state, and cal having to go through the uc regents for approval. You may think that's a no brainer on the regents part....but they also want financial models if cal were to drop to d3....

MrGPAC said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

As far as I can tell there are two major hangups to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford being invited to the B1G:

1) Money. It all comes down to money. Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford aren't worth as much as UCLA/USC, and the current schools aren't going to take a pay cut to let these 4 schools in. That means they will have to take a smaller slice of the pie. The question then becomes how much smaller.

I'm sure the B1G schools would like to pay as little a possible (giving any extra money earned to the rest of the conference members), and Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford would want as much as possible (and certainly more than they'd get if they don't jump ship). This is going to come down to what the schools think they can get if they don't join the B1G, set that as a floor, and then how much more than that they think they are worth.

---

The money is so critical but why can't it be started at a lower rate to satisfy the existing members and then promises or contracts to gradually increase with time. We all know because this is about money it will be worth much more tomorrow than today, so promises can be made to UW, UO, 'furd and Cal. This whole money thing makes me think of Arte Moreno just announcing plans to sell the Angels---bought about 15 years ago for under $200M, I think I recall, with an asking now of $2B....

Everyone has big plans for these new arrangements so why not a graduated entrance. Cal would probably start out with just about what they get from the Pac and then incrementally increase.

---

The point is it's something that would have to be negotiated and would take time to get all 4 schools to agree to. Oregon wants more than cal/Stanford....cal is just happy for the invite, uw is negotiating to be on same tier or better than Oregon... A lot can go on there.

In principle the b1g could say they wanted the four schools tomorrow and it could take a month to finalize.

Possibly even longer with potential battles from Oregon state and Washington state, and cal having to go through the uc regents for approval. You may think that's a no brainer on the regents part....but they also want financial models if cal were to drop to d3....

---

I realize both UO and UW can make the case that they are stronger in FB and therefore should get more, but UO for one is a lousy media market size wise. Not so much UW. But neither are the scope of the Bay Area/Sacto market. Matter of fact Sacramento by itself is the equal of Portland (tiny diff with UO not even in Portland) and near Seattle. Now add not just SF and Oakland but the entire Bay Area to that and UO/UW have a weakened case.

I'm in total agreement - the regents will never get in the way of Cal going to the Big 10.

I think because of Seattle & it's media size-and still growing - UW is much more marketable to the Big 10 then U of Oregon is. IF not for Phil Knight, I'm not so sure the quacks would even be considered by them.

I was happy to see the climate impact of increased travel from the west coast to midwest and east coast making it into mainstream media coverage of the shuffling of athletic conference alliances.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/annkillion/article/USC-UCLA-moving-to-Big-Ten-creates-a-big-problem-17423221.php

"And here's another disconcerting issue: the environmental consequences of such a move. More travel means a larger carbon footprint and the devouring of more resources.

I'm not the only one who thinks it is strange that this issue is not being mentioned.

"This hasn't received the attention it deserves," said Cal professor of energy Daniel Kammen, the founding director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. "I have not heard this as part of the debate."

"UC, as a whole, is committed to the 2025 carbon-neutrality goal, which is a real challenge when you're extending flight miles," Kammen said. "This decision works exactly against the sustainability standards that UCLA is committed to.""

golden sloth said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

As far as I can tell there are two major hangups to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford being invited to the B1G:

1) Money. It all comes down to money. Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford aren't worth as much as UCLA/USC, and the current schools aren't going to take a pay cut to let these 4 schools in. That means they will have to take a smaller slice of the pie. The question then becomes how much smaller.

I'm sure the B1G schools would like to pay as little a possible (giving any extra money earned to the rest of the conference members), and Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford would want as much as possible (and certainly more than they'd get if they don't jump ship). This is going to come down to what the schools think they can get if they don't join the B1G, set that as a floor, and then how much more than that they think they are worth.

---

The money is so critical but why can't it be started at a lower rate to satisfy the existing members and then promises or contracts to gradually increase with time. We all know because this is about money it will be worth much more tomorrow than today, so promises can be made to UW, UO, 'furd and Cal. This whole money thing makes me think of Arte Moreno just announcing plans to sell the Angels---bought about 15 years ago for under $200M, I think I recall, with an asking now of $2B....

Everyone has big plans for these new arrangements so why not a graduated entrance. Cal would probably start out with just about what they get from the Pac and then incrementally increase.

---

I believe that is what happened when colorado and Utah join the Pac.

---

And it is what happened when Rutgers and Maryland joined the Big Ten -- the schools transitioned over seven years or so to a full share. The same will happen, I am sure, if Cal joins.

Dgoldnbaer said:

---

I'm in total agreement - the regents will never get in the way of Cal going to the Big 10.

---

In fact, the Regents will be ecstatic because having Cal join the Big Ten avoids the huge financial hit of being left in the Pac-12, and because having Cal in the Big Ten eases travel problems for UCLA athletes. The entire reason why the Regents (or at least one Regent) are saying that "all the options are on the table" is to pressure the Big Ten to take Cal.

sycasey said:

---

The regents do not care about which conference Cal is in. They do care about:

1. The stadium debt
2. The overall state of the athletic program at the flagship university. If Cal has to cut a bunch of women's programs because there's no more money that will be a bad look.

Cal in the B1G solves all of that. Cal going Div 3 does not.

---

Just to break it to you but the regents most decidedly in its current form do not consider Cal a "flagship" - something which it explicitly is not formally recognized as being in the state master plan for higher ed.

socaltownie said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The regents do not care about which conference Cal is in. They do care about:

1. The stadium debt
2. The overall state of the athletic program at the flagship university. If Cal has to cut a bunch of women's programs because there's no more money that will be a bad look.

Cal in the B1G solves all of that. Cal going Div 3 does not.

---

Just to break it to you but the regents most decidedly in its current form do not consider Cal a "flagship" - something which it explicitly is not formally recognized as being in the state master plan for higher ed.

---

Yeah, but informally . . . they know.

MrGPAC said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

As far as I can tell there are two major hangups to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford being invited to the B1G:

1) Money. It all comes down to money. Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford aren't worth as much as UCLA/USC, and the current schools aren't going to take a pay cut to let these 4 schools in. That means they will have to take a smaller slice of the pie. The question then becomes how much smaller.

I'm sure the B1G schools would like to pay as little a possible (giving any extra money earned to the rest of the conference members), and Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford would want as much as possible (and certainly more than they'd get if they don't jump ship). This is going to come down to what the schools think they can get if they don't join the B1G, set that as a floor, and then how much more than that they think they are worth.

---

The money is so critical but why can't it be started at a lower rate to satisfy the existing members and then promises or contracts to gradually increase with time. We all know because this is about money it will be worth much more tomorrow than today, so promises can be made to UW, UO, 'furd and Cal. This whole money thing makes me think of Arte Moreno just announcing plans to sell the Angels---bought about 15 years ago for under $200M, I think I recall, with an asking now of $2B....

Everyone has big plans for these new arrangements so why not a graduated entrance. Cal would probably start out with just about what they get from the Pac and then incrementally increase.

---

The point is it's something that would have to be negotiated and would take time to get all 4 schools to agree to. Oregon wants more than cal/Stanford....cal is just happy for the invite, uw is negotiating to be on same tier or better than Oregon... A lot can go on there.

In principle the b1g could say they wanted the four schools tomorrow and it could take a month to finalize.

Possibly even longer with potential battles from Oregon state and Washington state, and cal having to go through the uc regents for approval. You may think that's a no brainer on the regents part....but they also want financial models if cal were to drop to d3....

---

I sincerely doubt that the four schools would receive different payouts.

For one, the former president of Fox Sports said that Oregon + Washington were worth about $60 million and Cal + Stanford were worth $90 million so they don't deserve more.

For another, they hold no cards to be making any kind of demand. I am sure the Big Ten is more than happy to leave Oregon behind if they start making demands.

And, finally, the Big Ten is an "everyone takes the same reduced cut until becoming full fledged members and then everyone earns the same cut" kind of conference so I doubt they'd even entertain the idea of paying out new members at different rates.

So if all this is true, do CU, Utah, Arizona and ASU bolt for the Big 12?

The original poster about him/her having information about the four schools joining the BIG is playing us. Why is that so hard for you to see? It's bogus!!!

philly1121 said:

---

So if all this is true, do CU, Utah, Arizona and ASU bolt for the Big 12?

---

If it happens, almost certainly yes.

And OSU and WSU . . . good luck in the Mountain West.

berserkeley said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

As far as I can tell there are two major hangups to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford being invited to the B1G:

1) Money. It all comes down to money. Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford aren't worth as much as UCLA/USC, and the current schools aren't going to take a pay cut to let these 4 schools in. That means they will have to take a smaller slice of the pie. The question then becomes how much smaller.

I'm sure the B1G schools would like to pay as little a possible (giving any extra money earned to the rest of the conference members), and Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford would want as much as possible (and certainly more than they'd get if they don't jump ship). This is going to come down to what the schools think they can get if they don't join the B1G, set that as a floor, and then how much more than that they think they are worth.

---

The money is so critical but why can't it be started at a lower rate to satisfy the existing members and then promises or contracts to gradually increase with time. We all know because this is about money it will be worth much more tomorrow than today, so promises can be made to UW, UO, 'furd and Cal. This whole money thing makes me think of Arte Moreno just announcing plans to sell the Angels---bought about 15 years ago for under $200M, I think I recall, with an asking now of $2B....

Everyone has big plans for these new arrangements so why not a graduated entrance. Cal would probably start out with just about what they get from the Pac and then incrementally increase.

---

The point is it's something that would have to be negotiated and would take time to get all 4 schools to agree to. Oregon wants more than cal/Stanford....cal is just happy for the invite, uw is negotiating to be on same tier or better than Oregon... A lot can go on there.

In principle the b1g could say they wanted the four schools tomorrow and it could take a month to finalize.

Possibly even longer with potential battles from Oregon state and Washington state, and cal having to go through the uc regents for approval. You may think that's a no brainer on the regents part....but they also want financial models if cal were to drop to d3....

---

I sincerely doubt that the four schools would receive different payouts.

For one, the former president of Fox Sports said that Oregon + Washington were worth about $60 million and Cal + Stanford were worth $90 million so they don't deserve more.

For another, they hold no cards to be making any kind of demand. I am sure the Big Ten is more than happy to leave Oregon behind if they start making demands.

And, finally, the Big Ten is an "everyone takes the same reduced cut until becoming full fledged members and then everyone earns the same cut" kind of conference so I doubt they'd even entertain the idea of paying out new members at different rates.

---

Whether they would receive different payouts and would request different payouts are two different discussions. Rumor already is that Oregon is trying to get a bigger piece of the Pac12 pie than other schools.

I agree that ultimately they would all get the same valuation coming in, but it doesn't mean that all 4 schools are going to be on the same page from a negotiations standpoint. Since the value will more than likely be less than a full share, I can easily see some discussions about how much of a full share each should get. It isn't so much about making demands, as the schools trying to negotiate the best possible position for themselves. As far as I know, the four schools haven't met together to get on the same page as to what those negotiations should be, and as such each school would be negotiating on their own behalf.

With regards to the regents blocking Cal from joining, I highly doubt they would either. But at this point a precedent has been set that they should ask for permission before going, which means the Regents need to have a meeting to discuss it which takes time to set up / orchestrate.

And again, Oregon/Washington may have to discuss a few things with regards to leaving behind Oregon State / Washington State.

Whatever happens, it will take time between the B1G deciding they will be officially sending an invitation to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford, and the ink being dry on the contract. Further, there are advantages to both parties to not disclose the finalization of such a move until the contract is signed. If any negotiations fall through and the corner schools had already left for the Big12 then Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford have no where to fall back on if the negotiations go south.

HateRed said:

---

I think this guy is playing us…

---

i don't see a ton of reason to play us. if he wants to troll a message board he can certainly find ones with more traffic

doesn't mean his info is right, but you'd have to have actual mental health issues (ala Amy) to troll this board

Well, I hope something comes of this. I would love for CAL to be in the BIG. I just don't see anything concrete indicating as much.

berserkeley said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

As far as I can tell there are two major hangups to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford being invited to the B1G:

1) Money. It all comes down to money. Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford aren't worth as much as UCLA/USC, and the current schools aren't going to take a pay cut to let these 4 schools in. That means they will have to take a smaller slice of the pie. The question then becomes how much smaller.

I'm sure the B1G schools would like to pay as little a possible (giving any extra money earned to the rest of the conference members), and Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford would want as much as possible (and certainly more than they'd get if they don't jump ship). This is going to come down to what the schools think they can get if they don't join the B1G, set that as a floor, and then how much more than that they think they are worth.

---

The money is so critical but why can't it be started at a lower rate to satisfy the existing members and then promises or contracts to gradually increase with time. We all know because this is about money it will be worth much more tomorrow than today, so promises can be made to UW, UO, 'furd and Cal. This whole money thing makes me think of Arte Moreno just announcing plans to sell the Angels---bought about 15 years ago for under $200M, I think I recall, with an asking now of $2B....

Everyone has big plans for these new arrangements so why not a graduated entrance. Cal would probably start out with just about what they get from the Pac and then incrementally increase.

---

The point is it's something that would have to be negotiated and would take time to get all 4 schools to agree to. Oregon wants more than cal/Stanford....cal is just happy for the invite, uw is negotiating to be on same tier or better than Oregon... A lot can go on there.

In principle the b1g could say they wanted the four schools tomorrow and it could take a month to finalize.

Possibly even longer with potential battles from Oregon state and Washington state, and cal having to go through the uc regents for approval. You may think that's a no brainer on the regents part....but they also want financial models if cal were to drop to d3....

---

I sincerely doubt that the four schools would receive different payouts.

For one, the former president of Fox Sports said that Oregon + Washington were worth about $60 million and Cal + Stanford were worth $90 million so they don't deserve more.

For another, they hold no cards to be making any kind of demand. I am sure the Big Ten is more than happy to leave Oregon behind if they start making demands.

And, finally, the Big Ten is an "everyone takes the same reduced cut until becoming full fledged members and then everyone earns the same cut" kind of conference so I doubt they'd even entertain the idea of paying out new members at different rates.

---

Isn't it true that UCLA and USC will get a full share immediately? Or is that just an internet rumor? Rutgers and Maryland, by contrast, went through a seven-year transition period.

I would see them being quite successful in the Mountain West. Would just be Fresno, SDSU, Boise to contend with.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

As far as I can tell there are two major hangups to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford being invited to the B1G:

1) Money. It all comes down to money. Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford aren't worth as much as UCLA/USC, and the current schools aren't going to take a pay cut to let these 4 schools in. That means they will have to take a smaller slice of the pie. The question then becomes how much smaller.

I'm sure the B1G schools would like to pay as little a possible (giving any extra money earned to the rest of the conference members), and Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford would want as much as possible (and certainly more than they'd get if they don't jump ship). This is going to come down to what the schools think they can get if they don't join the B1G, set that as a floor, and then how much more than that they think they are worth.

---

The money is so critical but why can't it be started at a lower rate to satisfy the existing members and then promises or contracts to gradually increase with time. We all know because this is about money it will be worth much more tomorrow than today, so promises can be made to UW, UO, 'furd and Cal. This whole money thing makes me think of Arte Moreno just announcing plans to sell the Angels---bought about 15 years ago for under $200M, I think I recall, with an asking now of $2B....

Everyone has big plans for these new arrangements so why not a graduated entrance. Cal would probably start out with just about what they get from the Pac and then incrementally increase.

---

The point is it's something that would have to be negotiated and would take time to get all 4 schools to agree to. Oregon wants more than cal/Stanford....cal is just happy for the invite, uw is negotiating to be on same tier or better than Oregon... A lot can go on there.

In principle the b1g could say they wanted the four schools tomorrow and it could take a month to finalize.

Possibly even longer with potential battles from Oregon state and Washington state, and cal having to go through the uc regents for approval. You may think that's a no brainer on the regents part....but they also want financial models if cal were to drop to d3....

---

I realize both UO and UW can make the case that they are stronger in FB and therefore should get more, but UO for one is a lousy media market size wise. Not so much UW. But neither are the scope of the Bay Area/Sacto market. Matter of fact Sacramento by itself is the equal of Portland (tiny diff with UO not even in Portland) and near Seattle. Now add not just SF and Oakland but the entire Bay Area to that and UO/UW have a weakened case.

---

Re: Oregon's market. You can make the argument based on things like this map that they have a "market" that extends beyond their own state and thus should get credit for that. I think this extended popularity is very much contingent on them continuing to have football success. If that goes away then IMO this "market" contracts quickly. But they do have it for now.

gardenstatebear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

As far as I can tell there are two major hangups to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford being invited to the B1G:

1) Money. It all comes down to money. Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford aren't worth as much as UCLA/USC, and the current schools aren't going to take a pay cut to let these 4 schools in. That means they will have to take a smaller slice of the pie. The question then becomes how much smaller.

I'm sure the B1G schools would like to pay as little a possible (giving any extra money earned to the rest of the conference members), and Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford would want as much as possible (and certainly more than they'd get if they don't jump ship). This is going to come down to what the schools think they can get if they don't join the B1G, set that as a floor, and then how much more than that they think they are worth.

---

The money is so critical but why can't it be started at a lower rate to satisfy the existing members and then promises or contracts to gradually increase with time. We all know because this is about money it will be worth much more tomorrow than today, so promises can be made to UW, UO, 'furd and Cal. This whole money thing makes me think of Arte Moreno just announcing plans to sell the Angels---bought about 15 years ago for under $200M, I think I recall, with an asking now of $2B....

Everyone has big plans for these new arrangements so why not a graduated entrance. Cal would probably start out with just about what they get from the Pac and then incrementally increase.

---

The point is it's something that would have to be negotiated and would take time to get all 4 schools to agree to. Oregon wants more than cal/Stanford....cal is just happy for the invite, uw is negotiating to be on same tier or better than Oregon... A lot can go on there.

In principle the b1g could say they wanted the four schools tomorrow and it could take a month to finalize.

Possibly even longer with potential battles from Oregon state and Washington state, and cal having to go through the uc regents for approval. You may think that's a no brainer on the regents part....but they also want financial models if cal were to drop to d3....

---

I sincerely doubt that the four schools would receive different payouts.

For one, the former president of Fox Sports said that Oregon + Washington were worth about $60 million and Cal + Stanford were worth $90 million so they don't deserve more.

For another, they hold no cards to be making any kind of demand. I am sure the Big Ten is more than happy to leave Oregon behind if they start making demands.

And, finally, the Big Ten is an "everyone takes the same reduced cut until becoming full fledged members and then everyone earns the same cut" kind of conference so I doubt they'd even entertain the idea of paying out new members at different rates.

---

Isn't it true that UCLA and USC will get a full share immediately? Or is that just an internet rumor? Rutgers and Maryland, by contrast, went through a seven-year transition period.

---

If you think about it - UCLA and USC are getting shafted as a full share member. They are worth 250 million to the PAC 12. They are probably worth 350 million to the Big 10 at this point. Yet they are getting about 160 million in revenue. So, yes they are getting a full share. But less than they deserve.

TandemBear said:

---

Strykur said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Strykur said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/report-big-ten-targeting-5-major-schools-for-conference-expansion

Quote:

---

The Big Ten is reportedly "targeting" five schools for expansion, including Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington and two more Pac-12 schools. Those final two programs likely include Cal and Stanford.

---

---

There would also be an expanded College football playoff.

---

It just did.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34509443/board-managers-decide-12-team-college-football-playoff-sources-say

---

This actually creates an incentive to stay in the Pac-12.

---

Except for the $$$

---

Yeah unless we routinely make playoff trips in a stripped-down PAC-12, better to take the money in the Big Ten even if it means we're getting beaten up a bit.

---

So we're trying to jump to the Big Ten so we can have more money. Money is CRUCIAL to be competitive.
But we're switching to a conference with much harder competition, so we'll be less competitive.

Ok, got it!

And yes, I understand this is the reality of the current college football environment. But when you're chasing money for money's sake, why are you doing it? Who really benefits? Will this improve the game on the field? Will this improve the game-day experience for Cal fans? Will this improve the college football experience for Cal students? Or will the main improvement for fans really just be the spectacle/presentation piped into our homes that we can watch on our 85" screens with all our personal creature comforts? (And no inconveniences like east-side stadium temps, parking hassles and all the rest.)

Oh and the TRUE beneficiaries? Everyone feeding at the trough that is college football, mainly the head coaches, their coordinators, and the top-level execs. throughout the system. THEY are the ones to realize the big benefits of the current system.

Is that really what "student athletes" should be playing for?

---

I think this is a great point TandemBear. We seem to want to go to the Big 10 for no other reason than the "fear of missing out". We almost have to join at this point because if we don't - the house crumbles. We miss out on all the money to get beaten up on so we can save all other sports. Is it worth it? Probably.

But we shouldn't kid ourselves here. We're praying for a Pac 6 lite - to get UCLA, Oregon, SC, Stanford and UW every year, plus 5 more in conference rotation and two OOC pansies. And I say, what is the difference? Probably upwards of $20-30 mil. Perhaps not at the start.

I'm not sure what defines student athlete anymore. But for all the people on their knees begging to get into the Big10, is it worth the price of going .500 or less every year for a few million more? To save intercollegiate athletics at Cal, probably.

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

So if all this is true, do CU, Utah, Arizona and ASU bolt for the Big 12?

---

If it happens, almost certainly yes.

And OSU and WSU . . . good luck in the Mountain West.

---

The one consideration is that the new 12 team playoff agreement gives a PAC champion an advantage over a B-12 runner up. If I am them I'd consider staying and having Kliavkoff raid the MWC and B-12. In the end it might end up as you say, but staying and being king of the Pac could be a better deal than going to the B-12 or MWC.

philly1121 said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Strykur said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Strykur said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/report-big-ten-targeting-5-major-schools-for-conference-expansion

Quote:

---

The Big Ten is reportedly "targeting" five schools for expansion, including Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington and two more Pac-12 schools. Those final two programs likely include Cal and Stanford.

---

---

There would also be an expanded College football playoff.

---

It just did.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34509443/board-managers-decide-12-team-college-football-playoff-sources-say

---

This actually creates an incentive to stay in the Pac-12.

---

Except for the $$$

---

Yeah unless we routinely make playoff trips in a stripped-down PAC-12, better to take the money in the Big Ten even if it means we're getting beaten up a bit.

---

So we're trying to jump to the Big Ten so we can have more money. Money is CRUCIAL to be competitive.
But we're switching to a conference with much harder competition, so we'll be less competitive.

Ok, got it!

And yes, I understand this is the reality of the current college football environment. But when you're chasing money for money's sake, why are you doing it? Who really benefits? Will this improve the game on the field? Will this improve the game-day experience for Cal fans? Will this improve the college football experience for Cal students? Or will the main improvement for fans really just be the spectacle/presentation piped into our homes that we can watch on our 85" screens with all our personal creature comforts? (And no inconveniences like east-side stadium temps, parking hassles and all the rest.)

Oh and the TRUE beneficiaries? Everyone feeding at the trough that is college football, mainly the head coaches, their coordinators, and the top-level execs. throughout the system. THEY are the ones to realize the big benefits of the current system.

Is that really what "student athletes" should be playing for?

---

I think this is a great point TandemBear. We seem to want to go to the Big 10 for no other reason than the "fear of missing out". We almost have to join at this point because if we don't - the house crumbles. We miss out on all the money to get beaten up on so we can save all other sports. Is it worth it? Probably.

But we shouldn't kid ourselves here. We're praying for a Pac 6 lite - to get UCLA, Oregon, SC, Stanford and UW every year, plus 5 more in conference rotation and two OOC pansies. And I say, what is the difference? Probably upwards of $20-30 mil. Perhaps not at the start.

I'm not sure what defines student athlete anymore. But for all the people on their knees begging to get into the Big10, is it worth the price of going .500 or less every year for a few million more? To save intercollegiate athletics at Cal, probably.

---

Part of the value being created with the new mergers and playoffs is that games against pansies will be eliminated in favor of more compelling (and marketable) in-conference matchups. Otherwise, there is little real economic value being created.

The breakup of the PAC-12 is largely due to mismanagement. Thanks to Larry Scott and the ADs that enabled him, we have not be able to capture our full value and squandered much of what we did capture on his lavish offices, lifestyle and love of Olympic sports. A conference with better management sees us as undervalued, is confident they can better market us to TV (and eliminate our sizable overhead) and so adds us to their portfolio. Given the equal revenue sharing in the PAC-12 that meant some schools are SEVERELY under valued. They picked off the highest value programs first, capturing much of that value for their existing members knowing that strengthens their position with the rest which they know will fall like dominoes.

In the end we will be a Pacific Division of some size with a tougher schedule, more late afternoon or night games, better TV contracts and all our games will be more readily found on broadcast or streaming with more money coming in to the AD, but not as much if we had just been competently run all along.