The Latest Rumors - Page 32

philly1121

Joined: Oct 19, 2008

Posts: 3,210

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Big C • 3:18p, 9/9/22

Big C said:
TandemBear said:
Arcadiabear said:
Yup. Looks like everyone here is on the exact same page except for tandembear who invented a point that nobody was making.

Switching conference at this point is like giving the program air and water. Does having those mean that you live a great life? no, but it means you get to live for another day.
It was said we needed to switch to the Big10 to increase revenue to stay competitive. Actually, the quote said to challenge for a championship (whatever "championship" the poster meant is unclear).

And I've argued the opposite is true. Several have agreed that we won't actually be more competitive. It's so we can simply tread water. I get it. Moving to the Big10 will NOT bring us closer to winning a Big10 championship. Nor a national championship. That's simply not gonna happen. So again, we're just trying to stay afloat.

But is "treading water" worth the effort? Sending our "student" athletes across the country will now be even more taxing. For what point? To be competitive? Nope. To "keep up with the Jonses."

And "the Jonses" are the money-making machine that is college football. We've lost the entire point. We'll be sending our soccer and baseball players and Olympic sports athletes further afield to compete so our coaches and support staff can make more money.

Which is what many here are completely missing.

Sorry, I'm not yet at the point where I'm willing to give up grabbing for the brass ring. Somebody mentioned up-thread that we are a looooong ways from being a winning program (paraphrase). I disagree: We've been basically a "6-6 program" under Wilcox... I don't think we're too far away from being an "8-4 program". Now, obviously, if we were going 8-4, we'd want to up that to 10-2, but I think being a program that averages 8 wins a season, over a decade or so, is in a pretty decent place.

We need to go that extra yard: Instead of doing what's necessary to "be competitive", we need to do what's necessary to win. I think folks like Sebastabear have done a great job identifying what those things are and getting them going. Let's take our best shot!

What TandemBear is writing is facts. It is not a "hope" that things will get better OR that we seem to think we are better than we are. We aren't. The brass ring? I'm assuming you mean Rose Bowl. What else could there be? The only thing I can write about that is - we better win it in the next two years because if we don't, it is gone forever. Since 2010, we have gone worse than "6-6" 6 times in conference play - which is what really matters here. Especially when talking about any prospective move to the B1G. Since 2015, we have gone 4-5 in conference play 4 times. The two 8-5 seasons that we have had (the only two since 2009) were followed by losing seasons. So...I'm trying to find out where you see any kind of upward trajectory or continuity.

Sebastabear seems to think that there are blocks for building a championship program. He doesn't define what "championship program" means. Winning record? Division champ? Conference champ? Bowl game winner? Rose Bowl winner? CFP Champion?

So now Big C, you're moving the goal posts. We got the stadium and SAHPC to be competitive. Something that was absolutely necessary to be competitive (winning?) and attracting recruits. Now you're saying we need to stop doing things to be competitive and start doing things necessary to win. Well what's the difference??

2

Bobodeluxe

Joined: Jan 20, 2012

Posts: 9,689

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

3:20p, 9/9/22

There are a few minuses to being in the P1G, outweighed by the pluses. The only other options are hoping the PAC? survives close to whole, or joining the MAC. Cal has limited control of these options.

1

calumnus

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 33,447

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to GMP • 3:28p, 9/9/22

GMP said:
TandemBear said:
"...I think the subtext is that we believe with the investments we are making we can create a championship program."

You may indeed be right. Or this may prove to be a fool's errand. Wishful thinking. (However, I'll admit, I'm assuming by "championship program," you mean at the national level. Cal can easily become a CONFERENCE championship program if they encourage all our current competitive rivals to leave the P12 so we can beat up on the new lower-tier arrivals. But I'm pretty sure that is NOT what we want.)

Because if I remember correctly, we rebuilt the stadium & facilities to give our program a MAJOR boost to achieve that very same goal. Yes, we piggybacked upon the crucially-important seismic upgrade that had to happen, but we didn't have to spend a half a billion bucks to bolt the stadium to its foundation!

We did it to reach the top. And we got close - however, that was BEFORE our new facilities' final plans were even dry! We were on the cusp of a #1 ranking BEFORE the first shovel full of dirt was dug. How ironic that our program reached such lofty heights when we still had the crappiest facilities in the conference!

What have we seen for our expenditure? More mediocrity. If you assess our ROI on the stadium, it's proven to be a complete failure from the hoped-for "success" metric. We never could have known how the college football financial landscape was just about the be ratcheted up into the stratosphere. Now that we know that, I can't imagine how this trend won't not only continue, but accelerate. How does moving to the B10 change this?

I hate to say it, but it's pretty clear we will never devote as much institutional energy, financial commitment, administrative support, or academic devotion to college football, nor ever have anything resembling the rabid fan bases of the tOSUs, Alabamas, LSUs, Texas's or any of the rest. I fear our geographic and demographic position eliminates this possibility.

Southern California naysayers could make the same arguments for U$C and fUCLA: they may NEVER be able to compete for a championship, coming from a part of the country that doesn't value football like the midwest and southeast.

But going along for the ride may still be a lot of fun. I imagine the game on the field will improve. Our involvement in a new conference alignment may bring unexpected benefits we can't even imagine. But I sure will feel for our "student" athletes who have to travel across the country while pretending to be serious college students at a prestigious academic institution.

If you ask me what it takes to be a world champion sprinter, I might say, "One if the first things you'll need is a good pair of running cleats. If you try to run barefoot, you're going to get destroyed." For this exercise, we'll ignore natural physical ability.

So then you run out and get a really nice pair of spikes. Light, strong, flashy. Expensive! You are ready! But then you go out and race and lose. Badly! And you come back to me and say, "You said all I needed to do to compete as a world class sprinter was this fancy pair of shoes! But I keep losing!"

"No," I'd say. "That was just the start. You also need to practice and eat healthy and invest time and money into those things. You need to work at least as hard as your competition."

The SAHPC was the start. It's a foundation. Without it, we cannot compete. But that does not mean that with it we don't need to continue to try.

Usain Bolt barefoot beats me wearing the most expensive cleats and best trainers in the world every time.

3

1 edit

berserkeley

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 3,485

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to TandemBear • 3:38p, 9/9/22

TandemBear said:
Arcadiabear said:
Yup. Looks like everyone here is on the exact same page except for tandembear who invented a point that nobody was making.

Switching conference at this point is like giving the program air and water. Does having those mean that you live a great life? no, but it means you get to live for another day.
It was said we needed to switch to the Big10 to increase revenue to stay competitive. Actually, the quote said to challenge for a championship (whatever "championship" the poster meant is unclear).

And I've argued the opposite is true. Several have agreed that we won't actually be more competitive. It's so we can simply tread water. I get it. Moving to the Big10 will NOT bring us closer to winning a Big10 championship. Nor a national championship. That's simply not gonna happen. So again, we're just trying to stay afloat.

But is "treading water" worth the effort? Sending our "student" athletes across the country will now be even more taxing. For what point? To be competitive? Nope. To "keep up with the Jonses."

And "the Jonses" are the money-making machine that is college football. We've lost the entire point. We'll be sending our soccer and baseball players and Olympic sports athletes further afield to compete so our coaches and support staff can make more money.

Which is what many here are completely missing.

But it's not just to tread water. It's to preserve century long geographic rivalries. It's to preserve fan engagement.

And we'll be sending our student athletes across the country in the MWC too. Laramie and Honolulu aren't just a bus ride away. I've looked up the soccer and baseball schedules. Women's soccer would have to do more traveling, but baseball, softball, and men's soccer wouldn't do much more travelling in the Big Ten than they already do in the Pac-12.

But, and this is key, those student athletes are going to travel anyway because those student athletes are going to pick a school that competes at a national level. They simply go to Oregon or UCLA instead of Cal. So you're not saving them anything; you're simply recruiting a lower tier athlete.

Oh and most people find what happens when they stop treading water to be rather unpleasant.

2

jy1988

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 321

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

3:52p, 9/9/22

Simple solution-The BiG Pac.

2

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear

Joined: Apr 23, 2009

Posts: 3,382

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

4:11p, 9/9/22

I was told there'd be RUMOURS in here.
Right now I'd settle for RUMOURED RUMOURS of RUMOURS.

3

1 edit

sycasey

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 32,180

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to berserkeley • 4:47p, 9/9/22

berserkeley said:
But, and this is key, those student athletes are going to travel anyway because those student athletes are going to pick a school that competes at a national level. They simply go to Oregon or UCLA instead of Cal. So you're not saving them anything; you're simply recruiting a lower tier athlete.

Or, you're just cutting their program entirely because there's no more power-conference money coming in to support it.

1

airspace

Joined: Aug 20, 2022

Posts: 25

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

5:18p, 9/9/22

Midwestern perspective.

First, the Big Ten has been talking going division less. The AD's in the past have said they want to play each other more. Ohio State has only played Purdue, Illinois and Iowa 3 times each over the last 10 years. Going 4 or 5 years between seeing a team that you have played for over 100 years, sucks.

If the Big Ten adds 6 schools from the west coast (which I believe they will do). I believe they will play each (5 games) to reduce the level of travel east. That would leave 5 games (Big Ten has been talking going to 10 games) against teams from the east. Meaning in some years, 2 games, other years 3 games east. Basically, 1 game a month for each team on the west coast. Really manageable and not so burdensome. With 5 games against teams from the east, you could play through them over a 3 year period.

As far as Cal being competitive. Northwestern and Iowa have won the west recently. Purdue and Minnesota have been competitive and challenging. If they can, why not Cal? Maybe not every year BUT I can see them putting it together every 3 or 4 years and make a real push.

A little off topic. How close a relationship do Cal & Stanford have? There has been no talk of Cal talking to the Big Ten. Since Stanford is Private, could they be talking to the Big Ten on behalf of Cal to avoid FOIA requests.

Good luck.

6

bearsandgiants

Joined: Aug 14, 2012

Posts: 7,994

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Nasal Mucus Goldenbear • 7:02p, 9/9/22

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

I was told there'd be RUMOURS in here.
Right now I'd settle for RUMOURED RUMOURS of RUMOURS.

Announcement on Cal and the Big 10 expected before Notre Dame game according to neighbor in Panoramic Hill association.

6

oskidunker

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 18,177

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

7:24p, 9/9/22

Good. No more Pac12 network.

Go Bears!

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear

Joined: Apr 23, 2009

Posts: 3,382

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to airspace • 7:32p, 9/9/22

airspace said:
As far as Cal being competitive. Northwestern and Iowa have won the west recently. Purdue and Minnesota have been competitive and challenging. If they can, why not Cal? Maybe not every year BUT I can see them putting it together every 3 or 4 years and make a real push.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sorry, I am not laughing at you, kind ser from the Midwest. The laughter is self-directed. I appreciate your contributions here. With Cal football, we "put it together" not every 3 or 4 years (we would be a much greatly sunnier community if that were so!), but every 13 to 16 years. Cal football in the last 63 years has been a contender only in the following years & intervals:

1959
1975 (16 yrs later)
1991 (16)
2004 & 2006 (13 & 15; or 13 & 2, if you prefer)

Problem is that 16 year boundary is this season (2006 + 16 = 2022). If Cal is not a contender past mid-November this year, I will have to update our "putting it together" interval to every 13 to 17 years.

1

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear

Joined: Apr 23, 2009

Posts: 3,382

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to bearsandgiants • 7:48p, 9/9/22

bearsandgiants said:
Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

I was told there'd be RUMOURS in here.
Right now I'd settle for RUMOURED RUMOURS of RUMOURS.

Announcement on Cal and the Big 10 expected before Notre Dame game according to neighbor in Panoramic Hill association.

Thank you, kind knight errant of rumours. Your rumoured rumour graced me with a needed shot of endorphins. And it corroborates what my ex's second-cousin who lives up a tree beside SAHPC told me last weekend.

Edit: Btw I trust my ex-cousin-in-law completely. He's a devout catholic who attends mass twice a day, everyday, for the past 63 years.

1

2 edits

bledblue

Joined: Oct 4, 2021

Posts: 135

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to philly1121 • 8:05p, 9/9/22

philly1121 said:
Big C said:
TandemBear said:
Arcadiabear said:
Yup. Looks like everyone here is on the exact same page except for tandembear who invented a point that nobody was making.

Switching conference at this point is like giving the program air and water. Does having those mean that you live a great life? no, but it means you get to live for another day.
It was said we needed to switch to the Big10 to increase revenue to stay competitive. Actually, the quote said to challenge for a championship (whatever "championship" the poster meant is unclear).

And I've argued the opposite is true. Several have agreed that we won't actually be more competitive. It's so we can simply tread water. I get it. Moving to the Big10 will NOT bring us closer to winning a Big10 championship. Nor a national championship. That's simply not gonna happen. So again, we're just trying to stay afloat.

But is "treading water" worth the effort? Sending our "student" athletes across the country will now be even more taxing. For what point? To be competitive? Nope. To "keep up with the Jonses."

And "the Jonses" are the money-making machine that is college football. We've lost the entire point. We'll be sending our soccer and baseball players and Olympic sports athletes further afield to compete so our coaches and support staff can make more money.

Which is what many here are completely missing.

Sorry, I'm not yet at the point where I'm willing to give up grabbing for the brass ring. Somebody mentioned up-thread that we are a looooong ways from being a winning program (paraphrase). I disagree: We've been basically a "6-6 program" under Wilcox... I don't think we're too far away from being an "8-4 program". Now, obviously, if we were going 8-4, we'd want to up that to 10-2, but I think being a program that averages 8 wins a season, over a decade or so, is in a pretty decent place.

We need to go that extra yard: Instead of doing what's necessary to "be competitive", we need to do what's necessary to win. I think folks like Sebastabear have done a great job identifying what those things are and getting them going. Let's take our best shot!
What TandemBear is writing is facts. It is not a "hope" that things will get better OR that we seem to think we are better than we are. We aren't. The brass ring? I'm assuming you mean Rose Bowl. What else could there be? The only thing I can write about that is - we better win it in the next two years because if we don't, it is gone forever. Since 2010, we have gone worse than "6-6" 6 times in conference play - which is what really matters here. Especially when talking about any prospective move to the B1G. Since 2015, we have gone 4-5 in conference play 4 times. The two 8-5 seasons that we have had (the only two since 2009) were followed by losing seasons. So...I'm trying to find out where you see any kind of upward trajectory or continuity.

Sebastabear seems to think that there are blocks for building a championship program. He doesn't define what "championship program" means. Winning record? Division champ? Conference champ? Bowl game winner? Rose Bowl winner? CFP Champion?

So now Big C, you're moving the goal posts. We got the stadium and SAHPC to be competitive. Something that was absolutely necessary to be competitive (winning?) and attracting recruits. Now you're saying we need to stop doing things to be competitive and start doing things necessary to win. Well what's the difference??

The reason why going to the BIG is important, is because it would afford us to continue to have the Olympic sports that Cal truly cherishes. The Pac will eventually break up due to UW and UO coveting the BIG. If either leave, it's done! Without an invite, we will not be able to generate enough revenue to support all of our sports! In fact, the MWC payout would not support 16 teams, let alone 30+.
Football supports all, and until we get serious about having a competitive team, we will continue to suffer with mediocracy. Knowlton and Christ actually think they support Football, and maybe it's the most that Cal has ever supported it. But compared to successful programs, our support is laughable! We think we can dictate what level of support is needed for success, but it doesn't work that way.
They are more concerned about other sports feeling that football is superior, so much so, that they bend over backwards to make sure football isn't. It's time to give football and it's players preferential treatment!
As far as competing in the BIG. If the giant payday is used wisely, there's no reason why we couldn't have continuous 7-8 win seasons. Cal just hasn't shown that they are willing to support it that way, even after having success sprinkled throughout the years.
Our problems have always been on an administration level! Where they hope hiring the right coach will solve all the administration's incompetence issues!
Sadly, it's the BIG or Bust for us!

2

Big C

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 28,697

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Nasal Mucus Goldenbear • 11:04p, 9/9/22

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:
airspace said:
As far as Cal being competitive. Northwestern and Iowa have won the west recently. Purdue and Minnesota have been competitive and challenging. If they can, why not Cal? Maybe not every year BUT I can see them putting it together every 3 or 4 years and make a real push.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sorry, I am not laughing at you, kind ser from the Midwest. The laughter is self-directed. I appreciate your contributions here. With Cal football, we "put it together" not every 3 or 4 years (we would be a much greatly sunnier community if that were so!), but every 13 to 16 years. Cal football in the last 63 years has been a contender only in the following years & intervals:

1959
1975 (16 yrs later)
1991 (16)
2004 & 2006 (13 & 15; or 13 & 2, if you prefer)

Problem is that 16 year boundary is this season (2006 + 16 = 2022). If Cal is not a contender past mid-November this year, I will have to update our "putting it together" interval to every 13 to 17 years.

Nostradamucus Goldenbear, I believe you have just predicted that... THIS IS THE YEAR!!!

2

1 edit

Eastern Oregon Bear

Joined: Aug 31, 2013

Posts: 7,334

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to bearsandgiants • 2:06a, 9/10/22

bearsandgiants said:
Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

I was told there'd be RUMOURS in here.
Right now I'd settle for RUMOURED RUMOURS of RUMOURS.

Announcement on Cal and the Big 10 expected before Notre Dame game according to neighbor in Panoramic Hill association.

I hope your statement proves to be correct, but I can't figure out any reason why Cal would be discussing this with the Panoramic Hill Association ahead of an announcement.

4

juarezbear

Joined: Oct 28, 2008

Posts: 2,398

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to philly1121 • 2:21a, 9/10/22

philly1121 said:
Big C said:
TandemBear said:
Arcadiabear said:
Yup. Looks like everyone here is on the exact same page except for tandembear who invented a point that nobody was making.

Switching conference at this point is like giving the program air and water. Does having those mean that you live a great life? no, but it means you get to live for another day.
It was said we needed to switch to the Big10 to increase revenue to stay competitive. Actually, the quote said to challenge for a championship (whatever "championship" the poster meant is unclear).

And I've argued the opposite is true. Several have agreed that we won't actually be more competitive. It's so we can simply tread water. I get it. Moving to the Big10 will NOT bring us closer to winning a Big10 championship. Nor a national championship. That's simply not gonna happen. So again, we're just trying to stay afloat.

But is "treading water" worth the effort? Sending our "student" athletes across the country will now be even more taxing. For what point? To be competitive? Nope. To "keep up with the Jonses."

And "the Jonses" are the money-making machine that is college football. We've lost the entire point. We'll be sending our soccer and baseball players and Olympic sports athletes further afield to compete so our coaches and support staff can make more money.

Which is what many here are completely missing.

Sorry, I'm not yet at the point where I'm willing to give up grabbing for the brass ring. Somebody mentioned up-thread that we are a looooong ways from being a winning program (paraphrase). I disagree: We've been basically a "6-6 program" under Wilcox... I don't think we're too far away from being an "8-4 program". Now, obviously, if we were going 8-4, we'd want to up that to 10-2, but I think being a program that averages 8 wins a season, over a decade or so, is in a pretty decent place.

We need to go that extra yard: Instead of doing what's necessary to "be competitive", we need to do what's necessary to win. I think folks like Sebastabear have done a great job identifying what those things are and getting them going. Let's take our best shot!
What TandemBear is writing is facts. It is not a "hope" that things will get better OR that we seem to think we are better than we are. We aren't. The brass ring? I'm assuming you mean Rose Bowl. What else could there be? The only thing I can write about that is - we better win it in the next two years because if we don't, it is gone forever. Since 2010, we have gone worse than "6-6" 6 times in conference play - which is what really matters here. Especially when talking about any prospective move to the B1G. Since 2015, we have gone 4-5 in conference play 4 times. The two 8-5 seasons that we have had (the only two since 2009) were followed by losing seasons. So...I'm trying to find out where you see any kind of upward trajectory or continuity.

Sebastabear seems to think that there are blocks for building a championship program. He doesn't define what "championship program" means. Winning record? Division champ? Conference champ? Bowl game winner? Rose Bowl winner? CFP Champion?

So now Big C, you're moving the goal posts. We got the stadium and SAHPC to be competitive. Something that was absolutely necessary to be competitive (winning?) and attracting recruits. Now you're saying we need to stop doing things to be competitive and start doing things necessary to win. Well what's the difference??

I agree with Sebastabear, as usual…the foundational blocks are laid. Mo' money means upgrading the entire program from coaching, recruiting, nutritional support, etc…it also means stability for the non-revenue sports and athletes. Of course, success in football is the driver for everything, and anything g that leads to that is welcome. Like everybody on this board, I'd like to see success in men's and women's hoops, softball, and my personal favorite both golf teams. Money helps across the board.

2

calumnus

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 33,447

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 2:28a, 9/10/22

Eastern Oregon Bear said:
bearsandgiants said:
Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

I was told there'd be RUMOURS in here.
Right now I'd settle for RUMOURED RUMOURS of RUMOURS.

Announcement on Cal and the Big 10 expected before Notre Dame game according to neighbor in Panoramic Hill association.
I hope your statement proves to be correct, but I can't figure out any reason why Cal would be discussing this with the Panoramic Hill Association ahead of an announcement.

Agreed. There is no reason being part of the PHA would give anyone inside knowledge. If anything, it is the opposite.

1

Arcadiabear

Joined: Jul 6, 2011

Posts: 930

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to TandemBear • 3:26a, 9/10/22

Your question on "is treading water worth the effort?" is an interesting one.

First, you made an assumption that us going to B1G is treading water. You assume that we will stay mediocre forever. Given Cal's history, its an educated guess. But what we are arguing is that it gives us a CHANCE. Even if its a .1% chance, it gives us that CHANCE to compete for the national championship. At least we are in the conversation.

The alternative? Stanford, UO, UW will still go to the B1G, maybe they take a Colorado or Utah with them. We will be begging for a spot in the Big 12, the Big 12 don't want us. More than likely we go holier than thou and fold our sports all together, or we go to the MWC. In either scenario (MWC, folding football), we lose that opportunity forever.

Secondly, you are basically asking, for that .1% chance of winning a national championship, is it worth the effort. I'd argue that yes, it is. As other posters have shared, keeping us in prime time in the biggest league gives us money to pay for our thousand of athletes in other sports. Think about the swimming team that just won a national championship, or our water polo team. Yes, that alone is worth it.

Also, if you take away the mentality of "we must win it all" and truly enjoy college football for what it is, playing against your rivals, talking trash, visiting beautiful campuses around the country, getting excited for BIG games. Then yes, it's worth it to preserve that traditional with all of our rivals. If we go to the MWC, even if we play UCLA or USC every year, it will mean NOTHING. If we go to the B1G, we get to play all of our traditional rivals that we currently play every year with actual stakes. I will feel sorry for OSU and WSU, but who's going to bat an eye for ASU and UA? We get to keep this wonderful thing that consumes all of our Saturdays going just a bit longer.

(at least until the next realignment when Michigan, tOSU, PSU, USC, ND, Alabama decides to form their own super super league. )

1

airspace

Joined: Aug 20, 2022

Posts: 25

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

5:16a, 9/10/22

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear, I can appreciate the humor and am glad I could bring a little humor to you.

Many people bring up Maryland and how it sucks in football in the Big Ten. The following article shows how Maryland has excelled in many other areas since joining the Big Ten.

https://dbknews.com/2021/11/02/big-ten-maryland-athletics-acc-funding/

It's evident that Maryland's athletic department has been the major benefactor of the move to the Big Ten. According to the university's strategic communications officer, Maryland has won the third most conference titles across all sports since 2014-15 at 37, following Michigan and Ohio State, with 44 and 43, respectively. This becomes even more impressive when considering how Maryland sponsors 20 teams, while Michigan sponsors 27 and Ohio State sponsors 37. It's clear that Maryland has a habit of excelling athletically and fits nicely into the Big Ten.

In a recent report commissioned by the university, each football game generates over $27 million for local and state businesses, with about $11 million specifically coming to the campus community.

Naysayers could see Ohio State's near 68,000 enrolled students and compare it to Boston College's near 15,000 students and say it should be blatantly obvious that attendance figures have risen since Maryland jumped ship for the Big Ten; there are more supporters from the larger Big Ten schools that fill the stands than the smaller ACC schools.

But therein lies the point: Maryland is able to fill more of the stands and make more money from hosting athletic events than it could in the ACC.

In addition, being in the Big Ten Conference simply brings more money to the school through conference revenue payouts. Before the pandemic, each member university made about $54 million from the conference in TV/media revenue significantly more than the ACC's $33 million per school payout.

With the increase in athletic revenue, the university could choose to pay off some of its debt and/or help balance its budget, both things it's struggled with this past fiscal year. Or, it could theoretically use the excess revenue to invest in new projects similar to the new dorms, academic buildings and urban revitalization currently occurring around the campus. Overall, the Big Ten provides this university agency as it continues to improve its student experience, academic reputation and national profile.

(ie - Many Big Ten schools have used the Media Revenue to finance non athletic activities. Many schools have used the funds to reimburse the school's general fund for the athletic scholarships given).

The benefits of the Big Ten conference aren't just limited to athletics. The Big Ten Academic Alliance, a consortium that allows the 14 member institutions to share library resources, has allowed students at this university to maximize their intellectual potential and improve their schoolwork. Students are even allowed to take virtual courses offered at the 13 other member institutions, helping students fulfill their personal and academic interests in areas that cannot be met directly in College Park. It's clear that the Big Ten allows Maryland athletes and students more opportunities than the ACC ever could.

Just trying to give a different perspective that many may not be aware of. BTW, part of my interest in Cal goes to my sister in law is a Cal grad.

Good luck.

7

mbBear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 7,490

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to TandemBear • 6:35a, 9/10/22

TandemBear said:
Arcadiabear said:
Yup. Looks like everyone here is on the exact same page except for tandembear who invented a point that nobody was making.

Switching conference at this point is like giving the program air and water. Does having those mean that you live a great life? no, but it means you get to live for another day.
It was said we needed to switch to the Big10 to increase revenue to stay competitive. Actually, the quote said to challenge for a championship (whatever "championship" the poster meant is unclear).

And I've argued the opposite is true. Several have agreed that we won't actually be more competitive. It's so we can simply tread water. I get it. Moving to the Big10 will NOT bring us closer to winning a Big10 championship. Nor a national championship. That's simply not gonna happen. So again, we're just trying to stay afloat.

But is "treading water" worth the effort? Sending our "student" athletes across the country will now be even more taxing. For what point? To be competitive? Nope. To "keep up with the Jonses."

And "the Jonses" are the money-making machine that is college football. We've lost the entire point. We'll be sending our soccer and baseball players and Olympic sports athletes further afield to compete so our coaches and support staff can make more money.

Which is what many here are completely missing.

Neither the conference (or Cal for that matter) is going to make the move because of what the last 5 years have looked like, or, for that matter, guessing what the next 5 years are going to look like. Is this what brings Cal football back to the (good) Tedford years, the Snyder year(s), or, for that matter, the Mike White years?
Maybe it takes 8-9 years to get to that point in the Big; Northwestern has demonstrated moments of success, which is at least some reason for optimism. But we do know if there is a very watered down Pac-10, "success" is going to be very different.
Not sure what "further afield" looks like if there is a BIG Pacific division. We have teams already playing east of the Mississippi...And, how does a 3 game baseball series at Michigan compare to a 3 game series at Washington St? An hour longer in a plane? And you can argue, speculate that maybe we end up with less sports if rolled into the Big. But you can almost guarantee that if it's a Pac-10 right?

philly1121

Joined: Oct 19, 2008

Posts: 3,210

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to airspace • 9:15a, 9/10/22

airspace said:
Nasal Mucus Goldenbear, I can appreciate the humor and am glad I could bring a little humor to you.

Many people bring up Maryland and how it sucks in football in the Big Ten. The following article shows how Maryland has excelled in many other areas since joining the Big Ten.

https://dbknews.com/2021/11/02/big-ten-maryland-athletics-acc-funding/

It's evident that Maryland's athletic department has been the major benefactor of the move to the Big Ten. According to the university's strategic communications officer, Maryland has won the third most conference titles across all sports since 2014-15 at 37, following Michigan and Ohio State, with 44 and 43, respectively. This becomes even more impressive when considering how Maryland sponsors 20 teams, while Michigan sponsors 27 and Ohio State sponsors 37. It's clear that Maryland has a habit of excelling athletically and fits nicely into the Big Ten.

In a recent report commissioned by the university, each football game generates over $27 million for local and state businesses, with about $11 million specifically coming to the campus community.

Naysayers could see Ohio State's near 68,000 enrolled students and compare it to Boston College's near 15,000 students and say it should be blatantly obvious that attendance figures have risen since Maryland jumped ship for the Big Ten; there are more supporters from the larger Big Ten schools that fill the stands than the smaller ACC schools.

But therein lies the point: Maryland is able to fill more of the stands and make more money from hosting athletic events than it could in the ACC.

In addition, being in the Big Ten Conference simply brings more money to the school through conference revenue payouts. Before the pandemic, each member university made about $54 million from the conference in TV/media revenue significantly more than the ACC's $33 million per school payout.

With the increase in athletic revenue, the university could choose to pay off some of its debt and/or help balance its budget, both things it's struggled with this past fiscal year. Or, it could theoretically use the excess revenue to invest in new projects similar to the new dorms, academic buildings and urban revitalization currently occurring around the campus. Overall, the Big Ten provides this university agency as it continues to improve its student experience, academic reputation and national profile.

(ie - Many Big Ten schools have used the Media Revenue to finance non athletic activities. Many schools have used the funds to reimburse the school's general fund for the athletic scholarships given).

The benefits of the Big Ten conference aren't just limited to athletics. The Big Ten Academic Alliance, a consortium that allows the 14 member institutions to share library resources, has allowed students at this university to maximize their intellectual potential and improve their schoolwork. Students are even allowed to take virtual courses offered at the 13 other member institutions, helping students fulfill their personal and academic interests in areas that cannot be met directly in College Park. It's clear that the Big Ten allows Maryland athletes and students more opportunities than the ACC ever could.

Just trying to give a different perspective that many may not be aware of. BTW, part of my interest in Cal goes to my sister in law is a Cal grad.

Good luck.

airspace, I don't think anyone on this board is saying that joining the Big10 would not be a game saver for other sports at Cal. It would certainly pay the bills. No question. But the trade off is the football team "taking the bullet" on behalf of the Athletic Department. There is no evidence - NONE - that we would do any better than how we are doing now. Yeah, its possible we would perhaps do a 7-5 season here or there. But I can and will unequivocally say that we will not be part of ANY national championship conversation. Some other poster wrote that and I nearly fell off my chair. He somehow thinks we will be "in the conversation" if we move to the Big 10? Absurdity.

As far as attendance at Maryland - did you see pictures of their opener against Buffalo? Maybe there was 10,000 fans there. As in - scanned tickets. I believe they rank 7th in attendance in the B1G - I think from 2019.

6956bear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 12,394

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to philly1121 • 9:39a, 9/10/22

philly1121 said:
airspace said:
Nasal Mucus Goldenbear, I can appreciate the humor and am glad I could bring a little humor to you.

Many people bring up Maryland and how it sucks in football in the Big Ten. The following article shows how Maryland has excelled in many other areas since joining the Big Ten.

https://dbknews.com/2021/11/02/big-ten-maryland-athletics-acc-funding/

It's evident that Maryland's athletic department has been the major benefactor of the move to the Big Ten. According to the university's strategic communications officer, Maryland has won the third most conference titles across all sports since 2014-15 at 37, following Michigan and Ohio State, with 44 and 43, respectively. This becomes even more impressive when considering how Maryland sponsors 20 teams, while Michigan sponsors 27 and Ohio State sponsors 37. It's clear that Maryland has a habit of excelling athletically and fits nicely into the Big Ten.

In a recent report commissioned by the university, each football game generates over $27 million for local and state businesses, with about $11 million specifically coming to the campus community.

Naysayers could see Ohio State's near 68,000 enrolled students and compare it to Boston College's near 15,000 students and say it should be blatantly obvious that attendance figures have risen since Maryland jumped ship for the Big Ten; there are more supporters from the larger Big Ten schools that fill the stands than the smaller ACC schools.

But therein lies the point: Maryland is able to fill more of the stands and make more money from hosting athletic events than it could in the ACC.

In addition, being in the Big Ten Conference simply brings more money to the school through conference revenue payouts. Before the pandemic, each member university made about $54 million from the conference in TV/media revenue significantly more than the ACC's $33 million per school payout.

With the increase in athletic revenue, the university could choose to pay off some of its debt and/or help balance its budget, both things it's struggled with this past fiscal year. Or, it could theoretically use the excess revenue to invest in new projects similar to the new dorms, academic buildings and urban revitalization currently occurring around the campus. Overall, the Big Ten provides this university agency as it continues to improve its student experience, academic reputation and national profile.

(ie - Many Big Ten schools have used the Media Revenue to finance non athletic activities. Many schools have used the funds to reimburse the school's general fund for the athletic scholarships given).

The benefits of the Big Ten conference aren't just limited to athletics. The Big Ten Academic Alliance, a consortium that allows the 14 member institutions to share library resources, has allowed students at this university to maximize their intellectual potential and improve their schoolwork. Students are even allowed to take virtual courses offered at the 13 other member institutions, helping students fulfill their personal and academic interests in areas that cannot be met directly in College Park. It's clear that the Big Ten allows Maryland athletes and students more opportunities than the ACC ever could.

Just trying to give a different perspective that many may not be aware of. BTW, part of my interest in Cal goes to my sister in law is a Cal grad.

Good luck.
airspace, I don't think anyone on this board is saying that joining the Big10 would not be a game saver for other sports at Cal. It would certainly pay the bills. No question. But the trade off is the football team "taking the bullet" on behalf of the Athletic Department. There is no evidence - NONE - that we would do any better than how we are doing now. Yeah, its possible we would perhaps do a 7-5 season here or there. But I can and will unequivocally say that we will not be part of ANY national championship conversation. Some other poster wrote that and I nearly fell off my chair. He somehow thinks we will be "in the conversation" if we move to the Big 10? Absurdity.

As far as attendance at Maryland - did you see pictures of their opener against Buffalo? Maybe there was 10,000 fans there. As in - scanned tickets. I believe they rank 7th in attendance in the B1G - I think from 2019.

The revenues from the Big 10 would be a game changer for the non revenue sports. At least in terms of paying for them. It is hard to say how much the football program would benefit from the move. So they play UO, UW, USC, UCLA and Stanford annually. Depends on who they play from the Big 10 as to what it would mean for the overall record.

Nebraska, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland, Minnesota and Northwestern are all still in the Big 10 and Cal would play these teams as often as tOSU, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin , Iowa and MSU. The OOC record would likely determine bowl eligibility.

My hope would be the increased revenues could be used to lure an established winning coach should Cal move on from Wilcox. Cal will not be a CFP contender almost certainly, even in an expanded CFP. But I think the overall record could still as good as it currently is. And it would be great to play programs like Ohio St and Michigan more regularly. It is always fun to have the big programs roll through CMS.

I think the potential upside in football and the revenues from the Big 10 make joining the Big 10 if an invite is extended a great thing.

The P12 is nearly certain to die. At least as we know it. The LA schools are gone and the Big 10 is virtually certain to add more P12 programs. Cal needs to be one of them.

1

oskidunker

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 18,177

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

9:40a, 9/10/22

Maybe I will be able to watch on Direct Tv.

Go Bears!

BigDaddy

Joined: Jan 28, 2016

Posts: 627

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to gardenstatebear • 10:06a, 9/10/22

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.

They were voted in as full members receiving full shares of the new media rights package.

“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill

sycasey

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 32,180

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to philly1121 • 10:17a, 9/10/22

philly1121 said:
airspace said:
Nasal Mucus Goldenbear, I can appreciate the humor and am glad I could bring a little humor to you.

Many people bring up Maryland and how it sucks in football in the Big Ten. The following article shows how Maryland has excelled in many other areas since joining the Big Ten.

https://dbknews.com/2021/11/02/big-ten-maryland-athletics-acc-funding/

It's evident that Maryland's athletic department has been the major benefactor of the move to the Big Ten. According to the university's strategic communications officer, Maryland has won the third most conference titles across all sports since 2014-15 at 37, following Michigan and Ohio State, with 44 and 43, respectively. This becomes even more impressive when considering how Maryland sponsors 20 teams, while Michigan sponsors 27 and Ohio State sponsors 37. It's clear that Maryland has a habit of excelling athletically and fits nicely into the Big Ten.

In a recent report commissioned by the university, each football game generates over $27 million for local and state businesses, with about $11 million specifically coming to the campus community.

Naysayers could see Ohio State's near 68,000 enrolled students and compare it to Boston College's near 15,000 students and say it should be blatantly obvious that attendance figures have risen since Maryland jumped ship for the Big Ten; there are more supporters from the larger Big Ten schools that fill the stands than the smaller ACC schools.

But therein lies the point: Maryland is able to fill more of the stands and make more money from hosting athletic events than it could in the ACC.

In addition, being in the Big Ten Conference simply brings more money to the school through conference revenue payouts. Before the pandemic, each member university made about $54 million from the conference in TV/media revenue significantly more than the ACC's $33 million per school payout.

With the increase in athletic revenue, the university could choose to pay off some of its debt and/or help balance its budget, both things it's struggled with this past fiscal year. Or, it could theoretically use the excess revenue to invest in new projects similar to the new dorms, academic buildings and urban revitalization currently occurring around the campus. Overall, the Big Ten provides this university agency as it continues to improve its student experience, academic reputation and national profile.

(ie - Many Big Ten schools have used the Media Revenue to finance non athletic activities. Many schools have used the funds to reimburse the school's general fund for the athletic scholarships given).

The benefits of the Big Ten conference aren't just limited to athletics. The Big Ten Academic Alliance, a consortium that allows the 14 member institutions to share library resources, has allowed students at this university to maximize their intellectual potential and improve their schoolwork. Students are even allowed to take virtual courses offered at the 13 other member institutions, helping students fulfill their personal and academic interests in areas that cannot be met directly in College Park. It's clear that the Big Ten allows Maryland athletes and students more opportunities than the ACC ever could.

Just trying to give a different perspective that many may not be aware of. BTW, part of my interest in Cal goes to my sister in law is a Cal grad.

Good luck.
airspace, I don't think anyone on this board is saying that joining the Big10 would not be a game saver for other sports at Cal. It would certainly pay the bills. No question. But the trade off is the football team "taking the bullet" on behalf of the Athletic Department. There is no evidence - NONE - that we would do any better than how we are doing now. Yeah, its possible we would perhaps do a 7-5 season here or there. But I can and will unequivocally say that we will not be part of ANY national championship conversation. Some other poster wrote that and I nearly fell off my chair. He somehow thinks we will be "in the conversation" if we move to the Big 10? Absurdity.

As far as attendance at Maryland - did you see pictures of their opener against Buffalo? Maybe there was 10,000 fans there. As in - scanned tickets. I believe they rank 7th in attendance in the B1G - I think from 2019.

People like you also seem to think that Cal football would definitely do worse in the B1G. I don't see it. Our record against current B1G teams does not support such a conclusion. I say the most likely scenario is that assuming our level of play remains the same, our record also remains about the same. If we get better, our record would improve the same as it does in the PAC. If we get worse, same.

What makes you think Cal would be worse at football because of joining the B1G?

philly1121

Joined: Oct 19, 2008

Posts: 3,210

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to sycasey • 11:01a, 9/10/22

sycasey said:
philly1121 said:
airspace said:
Nasal Mucus Goldenbear, I can appreciate the humor and am glad I could bring a little humor to you.

Many people bring up Maryland and how it sucks in football in the Big Ten. The following article shows how Maryland has excelled in many other areas since joining the Big Ten.

https://dbknews.com/2021/11/02/big-ten-maryland-athletics-acc-funding/

It's evident that Maryland's athletic department has been the major benefactor of the move to the Big Ten. According to the university's strategic communications officer, Maryland has won the third most conference titles across all sports since 2014-15 at 37, following Michigan and Ohio State, with 44 and 43, respectively. This becomes even more impressive when considering how Maryland sponsors 20 teams, while Michigan sponsors 27 and Ohio State sponsors 37. It's clear that Maryland has a habit of excelling athletically and fits nicely into the Big Ten.

In a recent report commissioned by the university, each football game generates over $27 million for local and state businesses, with about $11 million specifically coming to the campus community.

Naysayers could see Ohio State's near 68,000 enrolled students and compare it to Boston College's near 15,000 students and say it should be blatantly obvious that attendance figures have risen since Maryland jumped ship for the Big Ten; there are more supporters from the larger Big Ten schools that fill the stands than the smaller ACC schools.

But therein lies the point: Maryland is able to fill more of the stands and make more money from hosting athletic events than it could in the ACC.

In addition, being in the Big Ten Conference simply brings more money to the school through conference revenue payouts. Before the pandemic, each member university made about $54 million from the conference in TV/media revenue significantly more than the ACC's $33 million per school payout.

With the increase in athletic revenue, the university could choose to pay off some of its debt and/or help balance its budget, both things it's struggled with this past fiscal year. Or, it could theoretically use the excess revenue to invest in new projects similar to the new dorms, academic buildings and urban revitalization currently occurring around the campus. Overall, the Big Ten provides this university agency as it continues to improve its student experience, academic reputation and national profile.

(ie - Many Big Ten schools have used the Media Revenue to finance non athletic activities. Many schools have used the funds to reimburse the school's general fund for the athletic scholarships given).

The benefits of the Big Ten conference aren't just limited to athletics. The Big Ten Academic Alliance, a consortium that allows the 14 member institutions to share library resources, has allowed students at this university to maximize their intellectual potential and improve their schoolwork. Students are even allowed to take virtual courses offered at the 13 other member institutions, helping students fulfill their personal and academic interests in areas that cannot be met directly in College Park. It's clear that the Big Ten allows Maryland athletes and students more opportunities than the ACC ever could.

Just trying to give a different perspective that many may not be aware of. BTW, part of my interest in Cal goes to my sister in law is a Cal grad.

Good luck.
airspace, I don't think anyone on this board is saying that joining the Big10 would not be a game saver for other sports at Cal. It would certainly pay the bills. No question. But the trade off is the football team "taking the bullet" on behalf of the Athletic Department. There is no evidence - NONE - that we would do any better than how we are doing now. Yeah, its possible we would perhaps do a 7-5 season here or there. But I can and will unequivocally say that we will not be part of ANY national championship conversation. Some other poster wrote that and I nearly fell off my chair. He somehow thinks we will be "in the conversation" if we move to the Big 10? Absurdity.

As far as attendance at Maryland - did you see pictures of their opener against Buffalo? Maybe there was 10,000 fans there. As in - scanned tickets. I believe they rank 7th in attendance in the B1G - I think from 2019.

People like you also seem to think that Cal football would definitely do worse in the B1G. I don't see it. Our record against current B1G teams does not support such a conclusion. I say the most likely scenario is that assuming our level of play remains the same, our record also remains about the same. If we get better, our record would improve the same as it does in the PAC. If we get worse, same.

What makes you think Cal would be worse at football because of joining the B1G?

Simply because the teams that we have played over the past 10 years from the Big10 were not all that good. We had quality wins against MSU. But playing the likes of Illinois, Minnesota - definitely NOT the heavyweights of the Big 10 is a different story than Mich, OSU, Penn State. Our record demonstrates - current and historic - that we are .500 or worse. As it has been written time and time again on this board - the Big 10 is regarded as more competitive, more passionate and are routine participants in CFP talk. So now, we are talking playing UCLA, USC, Oregon Washington Stanford - all our "traditional" rivals and then get into divisional play that may include perhaps 2 heavyweights of the Big 10 and then 2-3 also-rans.

I'm a realist. There is nothing to show, beyond wishful thinking, that we will be more competitive or above .500 if we move to the Big 10. We would essentially have to run the table against our old Pac12 mates and beat our OOC opponents (2?). That gets us to 7 wins. And then 5 more against the Big 10. I don't see it happening. At least we'll be rich though. lol

1

sycasey

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 32,180

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to philly1121 • 11:11a, 9/10/22

philly1121 said:
sycasey said:
philly1121 said:
airspace said:
Nasal Mucus Goldenbear, I can appreciate the humor and am glad I could bring a little humor to you.

Many people bring up Maryland and how it sucks in football in the Big Ten. The following article shows how Maryland has excelled in many other areas since joining the Big Ten.

https://dbknews.com/2021/11/02/big-ten-maryland-athletics-acc-funding/

It's evident that Maryland's athletic department has been the major benefactor of the move to the Big Ten. According to the university's strategic communications officer, Maryland has won the third most conference titles across all sports since 2014-15 at 37, following Michigan and Ohio State, with 44 and 43, respectively. This becomes even more impressive when considering how Maryland sponsors 20 teams, while Michigan sponsors 27 and Ohio State sponsors 37. It's clear that Maryland has a habit of excelling athletically and fits nicely into the Big Ten.

In a recent report commissioned by the university, each football game generates over $27 million for local and state businesses, with about $11 million specifically coming to the campus community.

Naysayers could see Ohio State's near 68,000 enrolled students and compare it to Boston College's near 15,000 students and say it should be blatantly obvious that attendance figures have risen since Maryland jumped ship for the Big Ten; there are more supporters from the larger Big Ten schools that fill the stands than the smaller ACC schools.

But therein lies the point: Maryland is able to fill more of the stands and make more money from hosting athletic events than it could in the ACC.

In addition, being in the Big Ten Conference simply brings more money to the school through conference revenue payouts. Before the pandemic, each member university made about $54 million from the conference in TV/media revenue significantly more than the ACC's $33 million per school payout.

With the increase in athletic revenue, the university could choose to pay off some of its debt and/or help balance its budget, both things it's struggled with this past fiscal year. Or, it could theoretically use the excess revenue to invest in new projects similar to the new dorms, academic buildings and urban revitalization currently occurring around the campus. Overall, the Big Ten provides this university agency as it continues to improve its student experience, academic reputation and national profile.

(ie - Many Big Ten schools have used the Media Revenue to finance non athletic activities. Many schools have used the funds to reimburse the school's general fund for the athletic scholarships given).

The benefits of the Big Ten conference aren't just limited to athletics. The Big Ten Academic Alliance, a consortium that allows the 14 member institutions to share library resources, has allowed students at this university to maximize their intellectual potential and improve their schoolwork. Students are even allowed to take virtual courses offered at the 13 other member institutions, helping students fulfill their personal and academic interests in areas that cannot be met directly in College Park. It's clear that the Big Ten allows Maryland athletes and students more opportunities than the ACC ever could.

Just trying to give a different perspective that many may not be aware of. BTW, part of my interest in Cal goes to my sister in law is a Cal grad.

Good luck.
airspace, I don't think anyone on this board is saying that joining the Big10 would not be a game saver for other sports at Cal. It would certainly pay the bills. No question. But the trade off is the football team "taking the bullet" on behalf of the Athletic Department. There is no evidence - NONE - that we would do any better than how we are doing now. Yeah, its possible we would perhaps do a 7-5 season here or there. But I can and will unequivocally say that we will not be part of ANY national championship conversation. Some other poster wrote that and I nearly fell off my chair. He somehow thinks we will be "in the conversation" if we move to the Big 10? Absurdity.

As far as attendance at Maryland - did you see pictures of their opener against Buffalo? Maybe there was 10,000 fans there. As in - scanned tickets. I believe they rank 7th in attendance in the B1G - I think from 2019.

People like you also seem to think that Cal football would definitely do worse in the B1G. I don't see it. Our record against current B1G teams does not support such a conclusion. I say the most likely scenario is that assuming our level of play remains the same, our record also remains about the same. If we get better, our record would improve the same as it does in the PAC. If we get worse, same.

What makes you think Cal would be worse at football because of joining the B1G?
Simply because the teams that we have played over the past 10 years from the Big10 were not all that good. We had quality wins against MSU. But playing the likes of Illinois, Minnesota - definitely NOT the heavyweights of the Big 10 is a different story than Mich, OSU, Penn State. Our record demonstrates - current and historic - that we are .500 or worse. As it has been written time and time again on this board - the Big 10 is regarded as more competitive, more passionate and are routine participants in CFP talk. So now, we are talking playing UCLA, USC, Oregon Washington Stanford - all our "traditional" rivals and then get into divisional play that may include perhaps 2 heavyweights of the Big 10 and then 2-3 also-rans.

I'm a realist. There is nothing to show, beyond wishful thinking, that we will be more competitive or above .500 if we move to the Big 10. We would essentially have to run the table against our old Pac12 mates and beat our OOC opponents (2?). That gets us to 7 wins. And then 5 more against the Big 10. I don't see it happening. At least we'll be rich though. lol

The point is that MOST of the teams in the B1G are not the top programs. The majority are more on the level of Minnesota. So playing a regular conference schedule would have us playing them more often than OSU and Michigan.

Again: 9-4 in the last 20 years against a schedule that's pretty representative of a normal B1G schedule: 2 vs. OSU, 2 vs. MSU, the rest against middling programs like Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Maryland. That's what the Big Ten really is, not the mythical version you've got in your head.

1

Big C

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 28,697

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to philly1121 • 12:35p, 9/10/22

philly1121 said:
Big C said:
TandemBear said:
Arcadiabear said:
Yup. Looks like everyone here is on the exact same page except for tandembear who invented a point that nobody was making.

Switching conference at this point is like giving the program air and water. Does having those mean that you live a great life? no, but it means you get to live for another day.
It was said we needed to switch to the Big10 to increase revenue to stay competitive. Actually, the quote said to challenge for a championship (whatever "championship" the poster meant is unclear).

And I've argued the opposite is true. Several have agreed that we won't actually be more competitive. It's so we can simply tread water. I get it. Moving to the Big10 will NOT bring us closer to winning a Big10 championship. Nor a national championship. That's simply not gonna happen. So again, we're just trying to stay afloat.

But is "treading water" worth the effort? Sending our "student" athletes across the country will now be even more taxing. For what point? To be competitive? Nope. To "keep up with the Jonses."

And "the Jonses" are the money-making machine that is college football. We've lost the entire point. We'll be sending our soccer and baseball players and Olympic sports athletes further afield to compete so our coaches and support staff can make more money.

Which is what many here are completely missing.

Sorry, I'm not yet at the point where I'm willing to give up grabbing for the brass ring. Somebody mentioned up-thread that we are a looooong ways from being a winning program (paraphrase). I disagree: We've been basically a "6-6 program" under Wilcox... I don't think we're too far away from being an "8-4 program". Now, obviously, if we were going 8-4, we'd want to up that to 10-2, but I think being a program that averages 8 wins a season, over a decade or so, is in a pretty decent place.

We need to go that extra yard: Instead of doing what's necessary to "be competitive", we need to do what's necessary to win. I think folks like Sebastabear have done a great job identifying what those things are and getting them going. Let's take our best shot!
What TandemBear is writing is facts. It is not a "hope" that things will get better OR that we seem to think we are better than we are. We aren't. The brass ring? I'm assuming you mean Rose Bowl. What else could there be? The only thing I can write about that is - we better win it in the next two years because if we don't, it is gone forever. Since 2010, we have gone worse than "6-6" 6 times in conference play - which is what really matters here. Especially when talking about any prospective move to the B1G. Since 2015, we have gone 4-5 in conference play 4 times. The two 8-5 seasons that we have had (the only two since 2009) were followed by losing seasons. So...I'm trying to find out where you see any kind of upward trajectory or continuity.

Sebastabear seems to think that there are blocks for building a championship program. He doesn't define what "championship program" means. Winning record? Division champ? Conference champ? Bowl game winner? Rose Bowl winner? CFP Champion?

So now Big C, you're moving the goal posts. We got the stadium and SAHPC to be competitive. Something that was absolutely necessary to be competitive (winning?) and attracting recruits. Now you're saying we need to stop doing things to be competitive and start doing things necessary to win. Well what's the difference??

I didn't say "stop doing things to be competitive". However, as I look at what I wrote, I didn't articulate it as well as I could have. We need to do "X" in order to be "competitive", i.e. average-or-close-to-it in the conference. In addition to "X", we also need to do "Y" (or more of X) in order to put us consistently above average in the conference and give us a chance at the proverbial brass ring (current day equivalent of what the Rose Bowl has been).

Five years ago, "X" was improving post-grad opportunities for student athletes who have graduated and also increasing the salaries of our assistants to where we're at least conference average.

Check.

Right now, "X" is maybe having some sort of NIL collective and getting the conference situation straightened out so that we are at least not playing in the Mountain West or some Ivy League.

"Y" would be doing a really good job with X (above). Also maybe getting some more close-by student housing for football players, maybe increasing the recruiting budget(?), maybe increasing the medical services for football players and, who knows, we may need to hire a head coach again, (or, if Wilcox is successful, pay him even more).

I'm sure Sebastabear has the "master list" of things we'd like to have to give us a chance to get past simply "competitive". I'd like to see us give it a try. Wish I could help more.

It's tough because it seems like we're in a never-ending arms race, so I understand when some people say "Enough!", but I'm not at that point yet.

1

4 edits

TomBear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 2,956

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

3:13p, 9/10/22

Time and again it seems Cal plays to the level of their competition. So if that's the case, bring on the B1G!!!!!!

(I haven't looked back at win-loss records so my opening statement may not be valid. But it sure does feel that way. Case in point, how we played vs. Ole MIss, Tennessee, Texas, etc. I know there is a counter, but I was just thinking.......)

Econ141

Joined: Jan 10, 2009

Posts: 5,230

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

6:21p, 9/10/22

Bye bye B1G

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10044319-big-ten-reportedly-no-longer-as-interested-in-adding-oregon-more-pac-12-schools

Never mind this - didn't see the date ... August 3rd so nothing new.

1 edit

Econ141

Joined: Jan 10, 2009

Posts: 5,230

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

8:05p, 9/20/22

Oregon being very aggressive in trying to get into the B1G.

Some nuggets:
* Oregon is a pair with Washington
* Oregon/Washington/Stanford won't sign a deal that "has teeth" (i.e. need escape clause)
* Thinks news will drop in 1-3 weeks

Don't know how good the guy is but he seems to have connections and predicted the UCLA/USC move in the spring before anyone else.

philbert

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 7,488

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Econ141 • 9:28p, 9/20/22

Flugaur is connected...but he doesn't know why he gets the info he gets.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story/2022-08-19/greg-flugaur-minnesota-fan-broke-usc-move-big-ten

sycasey

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 32,180

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to philbert • 10:07p, 9/20/22

philbert said:
Flugaur is connected...but he doesn't know why he gets the info he gets.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story/2022-08-19/greg-flugaur-minnesota-fan-broke-usc-move-big-ten

Yeah, this seems shaky. The guy was right about one big thing and now wants to act like he's connected.

wifeisafurd

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 26,847

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to BigDaddy • 10:58p, 9/20/22

BigDaddy said:
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.
They were voted in as full members receiving full shares of the new media rights package.

USC was voted full share, UCLA was not. Just one of the few surprises coming when UCLA documents become public.

In that regard: Kilavkoff claims UCLA losses money in joining B1G due to addtonal expenses exceeding increased revenue.

CBMie2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnNpLmNvbS9jb2xsZWdlLzIwMjIvMDkvMjAvcGFjLTEyLWNvbW1pc3Npb25lci1nZW9yZ2Uta2xpYXZrb2ZmLXdlbGNvbWVzLXBvc3NpYmlsaXR5LW9mLXVjbGEtcmVtYWluaW5nLWluLWxlYWd1ZdIBgAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5zaS5jb20vLmFtcC9jb2xsZWdlLzIwMjIvMDkvMjAvcGFjLTEyLWNvbW1pc3Npb25lci1nZW9yZ2Uta2xpYXZrb2ZmLXdlbGNvbWVzLXBvc3NpYmlsaXR5LW9mLXVjbGEtcmVtYWluaW5nLWluLWxlYWd1ZQ

1 edit

philbert

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 7,488

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

11:10p, 9/20/22

Here's a clip of Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff talking about UCLA. @kliavkoff believes the Bruins will lose money -- not make it -- by going to the Big Ten.

Full podcast:
Soundcloud: https://t.co/hqwey7TsNA
Apple: https://t.co/0alXZbX7qO
Spotify: https://t.co/OF9nb0Oe9e pic.twitter.com/XwlYntabuR
— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) September 20, 2022