tequila4kapp said:

---

People are still viewing this from a 1950s or 1970s perspective. Academic reputation of an institution is pretty irrelevant. Survival is about money. Money comes from TV revenue. TV revenue comes from advertising revenue. Advertising revenue is driven by viewership. We need big or growing metropolitan markets not Phd programs.

Frankly, if our leadership had realized this at any point in the past 20 years we wouldn't need to add teams because we would have made moves that resulted in our LA schools staying. See the LA departures for what they are - a big huge massive wake-up call

---

sosheezy said:

---

The notion of keeping SDSU out of the PAC based on some marginal academic difference when they are the clear geographic Number 1 prospect for both travel and market and likely most additive to media rights is insane. Conferences are about football. Conference Survival is about football. If SDSU is the best option for football reasons, you gotta add them.

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

The notion of keeping SDSU out of the PAC based on some marginal academic difference when they are the clear geographic Number 1 prospect for both travel and market and likely most additive to media rights is insane. Conferences are about football. Conference Survival is about football. If SDSU is the best option for football reasons, you gotta add them.

---

Is there really a difference academically between SDSU and the Arizona and Oregon schools?

---

southseasbear said:

---

movielover said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

95bears said:

---

movielover said:

---

BearSD said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Two updates:

- Looking less likely that the Regents will block or materially impair UCLA's move to the B10
- The addition of SDSU is also less likely than it appeared 2 months ago. Academic and cultural fit with P12 found to be less than ideal

---

Re UCLA: Looking less likely than the 0.0001% chance of blocking it that was the case before now?

Re SDSU: I'm always skeptical of the "academic and cultural fit" excuse. Academically, SDSU is not much different from Arizona State (remember when Zonies referred to ASU as "Cal State Tempe"), and SDSU is academically better than Washington State.

If SDSU is not a likely addition, it is probably because the TV networks don't want to pay more for a 12-team Pac than they would pay for a 10-team Pac, thus the existing members would each make more money if no one is added. Conversely, if TV offers to make it profitable for the existing members to add SDSU (or UNLV, Boise State, SMU, or whomever), then they will be added.

---

No big fan of SDSU, but I believe you are way wrong on academics (please correct if I misstate). Back in the day Chico State and SDSU were little more than party schools. I believe that a few years back SDSU drew its enrollment back from around 40,000 to about 25,000 and the requirements for admission went up to make it
4.0U. And in the following years it became more and more difficult to gain entrance. No ASU is SDSU. ASU you do need a pulse though.

---

We should take US News with a grain of salt, but for what it's worth, here are their most recent rankings of "national universities" for comparison:

#38 UC Davis*
#105 (tie) Arizona
#105 (tie) Oregon
#105 (tie) Utah
#121 Arizona State
#151 (tie) San Diego State
#151 (tie) Oregon State
#212 Washington State

Whatever rankings you prefer, in the post-LA Pac-12, the consensus of rankings is that the only elite universities are Cal, Stanford, and Washington.

---

Not liking mentioning this but where do you put U$C and UCLA? First off, out of the Pac 12, but interested in your rankings.....

I would go: Furd #1, Cal close #2, fUCLA a not so close #3, U$C wherever the alums want to put them. I would place behind UW. The rest, not so good.

---

UCLA, and maybe USC depending on how far you want to stretch the definition, would also be in the elite category. But they are gone, gone, gone from the Pac.

ARWU worldwide ranking:
2. Stanford
5. UC Berkeley
13. UCLA
17. Washington
53. USC

THE worldwide ranking:
3. (tie) Stanford
8. UC Berkeley
21. UCLA
26. Washington
63. UC Davis*
65. USC

US News "global university" ranking:
3. Stanford
4. UC Berkeley
6. Washington
14. UCLA
73. UC Davis*
80. USC

---

Bold = list updated

---

I am biased being from Sacto but it would be great if there could be some master plan to get Davis into D1/ Pac12 and take over the central valley slot currently held by Fresno. There is a good team to be had owning the Valley, Sacto, Reno, and the zone up to Redding (which we pass on scouting).

---

No. Adds nothing to the media footprint. The point of SD St. is that it adds the So. Cal market. UNLV adds the LV metropolitan area which is small, but growing. I think they would be good
additions.

---

So is the Central Valley counted as part of the
Bay Area? Sacramento kind of a no man's land, not Bear Territory, or Stanford, or Fresno (hours away).

Not that it would be an easy jump for Davis or Sac State. Though the Aggies just opened a new $50 Million athletic performance facility.

---

Central Valley does not have the population to add value. Sacramento is less than 2 hours from Berkeley. San Diego and Las Vegas (not to mention Texas) expands the conference media market. Sacramento, Fresno, and Boise do not.

---

95bears said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

movielover said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

95bears said:

---

movielover said:

---

BearSD said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Two updates:

- Looking less likely that the Regents will block or materially impair UCLA's move to the B10
- The addition of SDSU is also less likely than it appeared 2 months ago. Academic and cultural fit with P12 found to be less than ideal

---

Re UCLA: Looking less likely than the 0.0001% chance of blocking it that was the case before now?

Re SDSU: I'm always skeptical of the "academic and cultural fit" excuse. Academically, SDSU is not much different from Arizona State (remember when Zonies referred to ASU as "Cal State Tempe"), and SDSU is academically better than Washington State.

If SDSU is not a likely addition, it is probably because the TV networks don't want to pay more for a 12-team Pac than they would pay for a 10-team Pac, thus the existing members would each make more money if no one is added. Conversely, if TV offers to make it profitable for the existing members to add SDSU (or UNLV, Boise State, SMU, or whomever), then they will be added.

---

No big fan of SDSU, but I believe you are way wrong on academics (please correct if I misstate). Back in the day Chico State and SDSU were little more than party schools. I believe that a few years back SDSU drew its enrollment back from around 40,000 to about 25,000 and the requirements for admission went up to make it
4.0U. And in the following years it became more and more difficult to gain entrance. No ASU is SDSU. ASU you do need a pulse though.

---

We should take US News with a grain of salt, but for what it's worth, here are their most recent rankings of "national universities" for comparison:

#38 UC Davis*
#105 (tie) Arizona
#105 (tie) Oregon
#105 (tie) Utah
#121 Arizona State
#151 (tie) San Diego State
#151 (tie) Oregon State
#212 Washington State

Whatever rankings you prefer, in the post-LA Pac-12, the consensus of rankings is that the only elite universities are Cal, Stanford, and Washington.

---

Not liking mentioning this but where do you put U$C and UCLA? First off, out of the Pac 12, but interested in your rankings.....

I would go: Furd #1, Cal close #2, fUCLA a not so close #3, U$C wherever the alums want to put them. I would place behind UW. The rest, not so good.

---

UCLA, and maybe USC depending on how far you want to stretch the definition, would also be in the elite category. But they are gone, gone, gone from the Pac.

ARWU worldwide ranking:
2. Stanford
5. UC Berkeley
13. UCLA
17. Washington
53. USC

THE worldwide ranking:
3. (tie) Stanford
8. UC Berkeley
21. UCLA
26. Washington
63. UC Davis*
65. USC

US News "global university" ranking:
3. Stanford
4. UC Berkeley
6. Washington
14. UCLA
73. UC Davis*
80. USC

---

Bold = list updated

---

I am biased being from Sacto but it would be great if there could be some master plan to get Davis into D1/ Pac12 and take over the central valley slot currently held by Fresno. There is a good team to be had owning the Valley, Sacto, Reno, and the zone up to Redding (which we pass on scouting).

---

No. Adds nothing to the media footprint. The point of SD St. is that it adds the So. Cal market. UNLV adds the LV metropolitan area which is small, but growing. I think they would be good
additions.

---

So is the Central Valley counted as part of the
Bay Area? Sacramento kind of a no man's land, not Bear Territory, or Stanford, or Fresno (hours away).

Not that it would be an easy jump for Davis or Sac State. Though the Aggies just opened a new $50 Million athletic performance facility.

---

Central Valley does not have the population to add value. Sacramento is less than 2 hours from Berkeley. San Diego and Las Vegas (not to mention Texas) expands the conference media market. Sacramento, Fresno, and Boise do not.

---

Sacto is the #19 TV market. Fresno is #55. Chico is #80.
San Diego is 27.

Sac and the Central Valley are *NOT* aligned with Cal and they don't watch us except we get the area ratings because either us or Stanford are on in local bars. It's all red/purple state and the view is that "Berkeley" is still a hippy school. If anything Northern, more affluent Sacramento (Roseville, Rocklin, Granite Bay, Folsom) all identify more closely with Stanford (a huge development and country club in Roseville / Rocklin is called Stanford Ranch).

Kids in that region all grow up shooting for Davis with Berkeley and Stanford being the moon shoot schools, and most don't know that "Berkeley" even has a football team. Those that want to get out of the Valley apply to UCLA, UCSB, SDSU or SLO.

---

southseasbear said:

---

95bears said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

movielover said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

95bears said:

---

movielover said:

---

BearSD said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Two updates:

- Looking less likely that the Regents will block or materially impair UCLA's move to the B10
- The addition of SDSU is also less likely than it appeared 2 months ago. Academic and cultural fit with P12 found to be less than ideal

---

Re UCLA: Looking less likely than the 0.0001% chance of blocking it that was the case before now?

Re SDSU: I'm always skeptical of the "academic and cultural fit" excuse. Academically, SDSU is not much different from Arizona State (remember when Zonies referred to ASU as "Cal State Tempe"), and SDSU is academically better than Washington State.

If SDSU is not a likely addition, it is probably because the TV networks don't want to pay more for a 12-team Pac than they would pay for a 10-team Pac, thus the existing members would each make more money if no one is added. Conversely, if TV offers to make it profitable for the existing members to add SDSU (or UNLV, Boise State, SMU, or whomever), then they will be added.

---

No big fan of SDSU, but I believe you are way wrong on academics (please correct if I misstate). Back in the day Chico State and SDSU were little more than party schools. I believe that a few years back SDSU drew its enrollment back from around 40,000 to about 25,000 and the requirements for admission went up to make it
4.0U. And in the following years it became more and more difficult to gain entrance. No ASU is SDSU. ASU you do need a pulse though.

---

We should take US News with a grain of salt, but for what it's worth, here are their most recent rankings of "national universities" for comparison:

#38 UC Davis*
#105 (tie) Arizona
#105 (tie) Oregon
#105 (tie) Utah
#121 Arizona State
#151 (tie) San Diego State
#151 (tie) Oregon State
#212 Washington State

Whatever rankings you prefer, in the post-LA Pac-12, the consensus of rankings is that the only elite universities are Cal, Stanford, and Washington.

---

Not liking mentioning this but where do you put U$C and UCLA? First off, out of the Pac 12, but interested in your rankings.....

I would go: Furd #1, Cal close #2, fUCLA a not so close #3, U$C wherever the alums want to put them. I would place behind UW. The rest, not so good.

---

UCLA, and maybe USC depending on how far you want to stretch the definition, would also be in the elite category. But they are gone, gone, gone from the Pac.

ARWU worldwide ranking:
2. Stanford
5. UC Berkeley
13. UCLA
17. Washington
53. USC

THE worldwide ranking:
3. (tie) Stanford
8. UC Berkeley
21. UCLA
26. Washington
63. UC Davis*
65. USC

US News "global university" ranking:
3. Stanford
4. UC Berkeley
6. Washington
14. UCLA
73. UC Davis*
80. USC

---

Bold = list updated

---

I am biased being from Sacto but it would be great if there could be some master plan to get Davis into D1/ Pac12 and take over the central valley slot currently held by Fresno. There is a good team to be had owning the Valley, Sacto, Reno, and the zone up to Redding (which we pass on scouting).

---

No. Adds nothing to the media footprint. The point of SD St. is that it adds the So. Cal market. UNLV adds the LV metropolitan area which is small, but growing. I think they would be good
additions.

---

So is the Central Valley counted as part of the
Bay Area? Sacramento kind of a no man's land, not Bear Territory, or Stanford, or Fresno (hours away).

Not that it would be an easy jump for Davis or Sac State. Though the Aggies just opened a new $50 Million athletic performance facility.

---

Central Valley does not have the population to add value. Sacramento is less than 2 hours from Berkeley. San Diego and Las Vegas (not to mention Texas) expands the conference media market. Sacramento, Fresno, and Boise do not.

---

Sacto is the #19 TV market. Fresno is #55. Chico is #80.
San Diego is 27.

Sac and the Central Valley are *NOT* aligned with Cal and they don't watch us except we get the area ratings because either us or Stanford are on in local bars. It's all red/purple state and the view is that "Berkeley" is still a hippy school. If anything Northern, more affluent Sacramento (Roseville, Rocklin, Granite Bay, Folsom) all identify more closely with Stanford (a huge development and country club in Roseville / Rocklin is called Stanford Ranch).

Kids in that region all grow up shooting for Davis with Berkeley and Stanford being the moon shoot schools, and most don't know that "Berkeley" even has a football team. Those that want to get out of the Valley apply to UCLA, UCSB, SDSU or SLO.

---

I don't know what this has to do with conference expansion. First, the point of admitting SDSU is not to get the limited SD market but the much larger Southern California. Sac may be a larger market but it is adjacent to the Bay and therefore does not add any value to the conference. Do you think Washington, Oregon, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona will be as excited about getting Sacramento or Fresno as they will Southern California? Third, I don't want Fresno. How can can we compete in recruiting with a school where students don't even have to go to classes?

---

southseasbear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

---

We had an opportunity to accept Oklahoma and OK State just a few years ago, which would have given credibility to the conference.

---

dimitrig said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

The notion of keeping SDSU out of the PAC based on some marginal academic difference when they are the clear geographic Number 1 prospect for both travel and market and likely most additive to media rights is insane. Conferences are about football. Conference Survival is about football. If SDSU is the best option for football reasons, you gotta add them.

---

Is there really a difference academically between SDSU and the Arizona and Oregon schools?

---

Yes.

---

dimitrig said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

fwiw: By the metrics of teh poobahs, both Arizona State and Wazzou are R1, Very High Research. SDSU is classified as High Research.

---

We should add another UC before adding SDSU

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

fwiw: By the metrics of teh poobahs, both Arizona State and Wazzou are R1, Very High Research. SDSU is classified as High Research.

---

We should add another UC before adding SDSU

---

sure we need somebody Cal can beat, at least in football. Screw the money aspect, no one cares about that other than USC or UCLA (sarcasm emoji).

---

oski003 said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

95bears said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

movielover said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

95bears said:

---

movielover said:

---

BearSD said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Two updates:

- Looking less likely that the Regents will block or materially impair UCLA's move to the B10
- The addition of SDSU is also less likely than it appeared 2 months ago. Academic and cultural fit with P12 found to be less than ideal

---

Re UCLA: Looking less likely than the 0.0001% chance of blocking it that was the case before now?

Re SDSU: I'm always skeptical of the "academic and cultural fit" excuse. Academically, SDSU is not much different from Arizona State (remember when Zonies referred to ASU as "Cal State Tempe"), and SDSU is academically better than Washington State.

If SDSU is not a likely addition, it is probably because the TV networks don't want to pay more for a 12-team Pac than they would pay for a 10-team Pac, thus the existing members would each make more money if no one is added. Conversely, if TV offers to make it profitable for the existing members to add SDSU (or UNLV, Boise State, SMU, or whomever), then they will be added.

---

No big fan of SDSU, but I believe you are way wrong on academics (please correct if I misstate). Back in the day Chico State and SDSU were little more than party schools. I believe that a few years back SDSU drew its enrollment back from around 40,000 to about 25,000 and the requirements for admission went up to make it
4.0U. And in the following years it became more and more difficult to gain entrance. No ASU is SDSU. ASU you do need a pulse though.

---

We should take US News with a grain of salt, but for what it's worth, here are their most recent rankings of "national universities" for comparison:

#38 UC Davis*
#105 (tie) Arizona
#105 (tie) Oregon
#105 (tie) Utah
#121 Arizona State
#151 (tie) San Diego State
#151 (tie) Oregon State
#212 Washington State

Whatever rankings you prefer, in the post-LA Pac-12, the consensus of rankings is that the only elite universities are Cal, Stanford, and Washington.

---

Not liking mentioning this but where do you put U$C and UCLA? First off, out of the Pac 12, but interested in your rankings.....

I would go: Furd #1, Cal close #2, fUCLA a not so close #3, U$C wherever the alums want to put them. I would place behind UW. The rest, not so good.

---

UCLA, and maybe USC depending on how far you want to stretch the definition, would also be in the elite category. But they are gone, gone, gone from the Pac.

ARWU worldwide ranking:
2. Stanford
5. UC Berkeley
13. UCLA
17. Washington
53. USC

THE worldwide ranking:
3. (tie) Stanford
8. UC Berkeley
21. UCLA
26. Washington
63. UC Davis*
65. USC

US News "global university" ranking:
3. Stanford
4. UC Berkeley
6. Washington
14. UCLA
73. UC Davis*
80. USC

---

Bold = list updated

---

I am biased being from Sacto but it would be great if there could be some master plan to get Davis into D1/ Pac12 and take over the central valley slot currently held by Fresno. There is a good team to be had owning the Valley, Sacto, Reno, and the zone up to Redding (which we pass on scouting).

---

No. Adds nothing to the media footprint. The point of SD St. is that it adds the So. Cal market. UNLV adds the LV metropolitan area which is small, but growing. I think they would be good
additions.

---

So is the Central Valley counted as part of the
Bay Area? Sacramento kind of a no man's land, not Bear Territory, or Stanford, or Fresno (hours away).

Not that it would be an easy jump for Davis or Sac State. Though the Aggies just opened a new $50 Million athletic performance facility.

---

Central Valley does not have the population to add value. Sacramento is less than 2 hours from Berkeley. San Diego and Las Vegas (not to mention Texas) expands the conference media market. Sacramento, Fresno, and Boise do not.

---

Sacto is the #19 TV market. Fresno is #55. Chico is #80.
San Diego is 27.

Sac and the Central Valley are *NOT* aligned with Cal and they don't watch us except we get the area ratings because either us or Stanford are on in local bars. It's all red/purple state and the view is that "Berkeley" is still a hippy school. If anything Northern, more affluent Sacramento (Roseville, Rocklin, Granite Bay, Folsom) all identify more closely with Stanford (a huge development and country club in Roseville / Rocklin is called Stanford Ranch).

Kids in that region all grow up shooting for Davis with Berkeley and Stanford being the moon shoot schools, and most don't know that "Berkeley" even has a football team. Those that want to get out of the Valley apply to UCLA, UCSB, SDSU or SLO.

---

I don't know what this has to do with conference expansion. First, the point of admitting SDSU is not to get the limited SD market but the much larger Southern California. Sac may be a larger market but it is adjacent to the Bay and therefore does not add any value to the conference. Do you think Washington, Oregon, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona will be as excited about getting Sacramento or Fresno as they will Southern California? Third, I don't want Fresno. How can can we compete in recruiting with a school where students don't even have to go to classes?

---

How can can we compete in recruiting with a school where students don't even have to go to classes?

We are in the NCAA right? Are we pretending that other schools require football players to attend classes? Also, do scholarship limits even matter anymore? Schools with massive NIL funds can pay walk-ons, right?

---

Pittstop said:

---

Cal has recruited a lot of players from the Sacramento area, including TT, Sydney Quan, Oladejo, and many others. So the prep players in that area certainly know about Cal, and know where Berkeley is.

---

95bears said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

Cal has recruited a lot of players from the Sacramento area, including TT, Sydney Quan, Oladejo, and many others. So the prep players in that area certainly know about Cal, and know where Berkeley is.

---

More D1 prospects head out of the area (am counting Modesto/Stockton to Chico/Redding) than go to Cal. Even with Sacramento proper I think that's true.

What I was advocating for as a blue sky idea was Davis putting an investment into Football and sucking in the Central Valley including taking a chunk out of Fresno State's recruiting base (i.e. the smarter players). That *does* add to the media footprint because those people aren't watching the Bay Area schools anyway. I see way more Oregon stickers in windows north of Sacramento than Cal/Furd.

---

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

fwiw: By the metrics of teh poobahs, both Arizona State and Wazzou are R1, Very High Research. SDSU is classified as High Research.

---

We should add another UC before adding SDSU

---

sure we need somebody Cal can beat, at least in football. Screw the money aspect, no one cares about that other than USC or UCLA (sarcasm emoji).

---

well, if we want to add somebody both Football and men's Basketball can beat, perhaps Scripps College would want to upgrade. Or, I heard Mark Fox could out recruit Little Sisters of the Poor.

---

95bears said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

Cal has recruited a lot of players from the Sacramento area, including TT, Sydney Quan, Oladejo, and many others. So the prep players in that area certainly know about Cal, and know where Berkeley is.

---

More D1 prospects head out of the area (am counting Modesto/Stockton to Chico/Redding) than go to Cal. Even with Sacramento proper I think that's true.

What I was advocating for as a blue sky idea was Davis putting an investment into Football and sucking in the Central Valley including taking a chunk out of Fresno State's recruiting base (i.e. the smarter players). That *does* add to the media footprint because those people aren't watching the Bay Area schools anyway. I see way more Oregon stickers in windows north of Sacramento than Cal/Furd.

---

berserkeley said:

---

95bears said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

Cal has recruited a lot of players from the Sacramento area, including TT, Sydney Quan, Oladejo, and many others. So the prep players in that area certainly know about Cal, and know where Berkeley is.

---

More D1 prospects head out of the area (am counting Modesto/Stockton to Chico/Redding) than go to Cal. Even with Sacramento proper I think that's true.

What I was advocating for as a blue sky idea was Davis putting an investment into Football and sucking in the Central Valley including taking a chunk out of Fresno State's recruiting base (i.e. the smarter players). That *does* add to the media footprint because those people aren't watching the Bay Area schools anyway. I see way more Oregon stickers in windows north of Sacramento than Cal/Furd.

---

And you just hit the nail on the head as to why adding a Central Valley school makes little sense. Oregon is in the Pac-12.

The point is that the Pac-12 schools already recruit well in the Sacramento area. Players that leave for Ohio State and Georgia aren't going to suddenly start signing with Cal and Oregon just because Davis is in the conference. They might sign with Davis, but the Pac-12 isn't going to expand as an act of a charity.

And while there may be room for the Pac-12 to expand the TV market in the Central Valley, the Pac-12 as a whole has enough presence there that the sports broadcasters aren't going to pay the Pac-12 much for adding a Sacramento area team. Certainly no where near the $30M+/yr that's required.

Adding teams in SoCal, Nevada, or Texas at least expand the footprint into markets where the Pac-12 has no recruiting or media footprint. But it's not obvious that the available teams in those areas move the needle in their markets enough for it to be worth it to the Pac-12.

---

movielover said:

---

Boise - 235,000
Dallas (SMU) - 1,300,000
San Diego - 1,400,000 - #27 TV market
Idaho population - 1,900,000
Sac Valley - 2,100,000 - #19 TV market

Sports offered

SDSU - 17
Boise State - 16
SMU - 17
UC Davis - 25


No new addition seems perfect.

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

The chancellor just reiterated on a campus broadcast that she thinks that more conferences is better for college athletics and she values the amateur athlete instead of the professional athlete model. That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G. She did not discuss the woeful state of our revenue programs.

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

The chancellor just reiterated on a campus broadcast that she thinks that more conferences is better for college athletics and she values the amateur athlete instead of the professional athlete model. That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G. She did not discuss the woeful state of our revenue programs.

---

Does she not care that these athletes were being taken advantage of through the amateur model? Nope. Does anyone leading the landscape change to cfb care what she thinks? She is running our program into the ground and all we can do is watch.

---

How many times did we have to hear that she and Knowlton are the best chancellor and AD combo we have ever had for athletics? That Christ is working tirelessly to get us into the B1G? And this was from insiders and major boosters.

The ONLY saving grace is that the new play for play environment is not her choice or under her control. It is now the law of the country and the law gives control to the boosters.

All we need is for our boosters to see Christ and Knowlton clearly for what they are, stop spreading BS that they are going to save us, stop being sycophants, and stop giving them money to throw away and instead put it into booster controlled funds and taking control over the AD, telling Knowlton what to do like boosters at other schools do.

Our alumni base is large, wealthier, smarter and more innovative than the competition. The new environment is actually one in which Cal can excel.

Developing a well funded booster organization that pays players and elects a shadow AD is the path forward.

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

The chancellor just reiterated on a campus broadcast that she thinks that more conferences is better for college athletics and she values the amateur athlete instead of the professional athlete model. That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G. She did not discuss the woeful state of our revenue programs.

---

dimitrig said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

The chancellor just reiterated on a campus broadcast that she thinks that more conferences is better for college athletics and she values the amateur athlete instead of the professional athlete model. That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G. She did not discuss the woeful state of our revenue programs.

---

I guess we're going to have to drop D1 football and basketball.

Does she realize that means other sports will have to be cut as well?

---

Econ141 said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

The chancellor just reiterated on a campus broadcast that she thinks that more conferences is better for college athletics and she values the amateur athlete instead of the professional athlete model. That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G. She did not discuss the woeful state of our revenue programs.

---

Does she not care that these athletes were being taken advantage of through the amateur model? Nope. Does anyone leading the landscape change to cfb care what she thinks? She is running our program into the ground and all we can do is watch.

---