bearsandgiants said:

---

mirabelle said:

---

Consider this scenario:

Step 1) Establish SEC and Big Ten as the Only Two conferences that matter. Done!
Step 2) Sign incredibly large media deal. Next.
Step 3) Pay the best college age players to play for your conference. In progress.
Step 4) Rake in the dough. Inevitable.

Now, where in here does it say that either of the Only Two conferences need to expand and take in more teams to accomplish this? They are already the Only Two. They don't need any more teams.

It's like the Warriors don't need Kevin Durant. It's not that Durant isn't good. It's that they can be champions without him.

---

They need the whole country interested in college football. Leaving out huge regions, New England, NY, Texas, pacific nw and northern California would be disastrous, no?

Maybe we focus on something that ties those in as a separate mega league with ESPN. But the mega stuff is just icky to me.

---

So, if it's Alabama vs. Georgia, and both are top 10, people aren't going to watch in Northern California? Unfortunately, Najee Harris knew waaay too much about Alabama.
Sure, does the Bay Area market have better ratings when Cal or Furd are good? Sure. Would a good Boston College team move the needle a bit more in Boston? No question. But the bottom line (literally) is that the SEC ratings, interest and whatever other metric you want to use, are way beyond the markets of Tuscaloosa, Baton Rouge, and Knoxville. And in states with gambling opportunities, just adds to the hype.

mbBear said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

mirabelle said:

---

Consider this scenario:

Step 1) Establish SEC and Big Ten as the Only Two conferences that matter. Done!
Step 2) Sign incredibly large media deal. Next.
Step 3) Pay the best college age players to play for your conference. In progress.
Step 4) Rake in the dough. Inevitable.

Now, where in here does it say that either of the Only Two conferences need to expand and take in more teams to accomplish this? They are already the Only Two. They don't need any more teams.

It's like the Warriors don't need Kevin Durant. It's not that Durant isn't good. It's that they can be champions without him.

---

They need the whole country interested in college football. Leaving out huge regions, New England, NY, Texas, pacific nw and northern California would be disastrous, no?

Maybe we focus on something that ties those in as a separate mega league with ESPN. But the mega stuff is just icky to me.

---

So, if it's Alabama vs. Georgia, and both are top 10, people aren't going to watch in Northern California? Unfortunately, Najee Harris knew waaay too much about Alabama.
Sure, does the Bay Area market have better ratings when Cal or Furd are good? Sure. Would a good Boston College team move the needle a bit more in Boston? No question. But the bottom line (literally) is that the SEC ratings, interest and whatever other metric you want to use, are way beyond the markets of Tuscaloosa, Baton Rouge, and Knoxville. And in states with gambling opportunities, just adds to the hype.

---

If its Alabama vs Georgia every year, and no one outside affiliations to those schools has any interest in college football at all anymore, yes, the viewership will go way down. Not just in the Bay Area, but everywhere.

College football gets lots of viewers (and therefore lots of money) because people have attachment to their school/conference. That's what gets them into college football. If we get down to just the SEC/B1G as is then they lose that connection and become a glorified minor league for the NFL. What kind of contracts do minor league NBA/MLB teams get for their television rights again?

Won't happen overnight...but give it a decade or two and the contracts will shrink substantially...

If Cal could sustain a consistent winning record of let's say 9-3, 10-2, 11-1 every year in football, College football fans would fill Memorial Stadium and there would be a much greater interest in the program by advertisers and the local sports media.
The fix is pretty obvious. Play winning football.

Why didn't anybody think of that earlier?!?!

mbBear said:

---

So, if it's Alabama vs. Georgia, and both are top 10, people aren't going to watch in Northern California? Unfortunately, Najee Harris knew waaay too much about Alabama.
Sure, does the Bay Area market have better ratings when Cal or Furd are good? Sure. Would a good Boston College team move the needle a bit more in Boston? No question. But the bottom line (literally) is that the SEC ratings, interest and whatever other metric you want to use, are way beyond the markets of Tuscaloosa, Baton Rouge, and Knoxville. And in states with gambling opportunities, just adds to the hype.

---

I will stop watching "major" college football if

• Many of the traditional rivalries disappear (Texas - A&M, Stanford-U$C)
• Cal and UW and Washington State and Wake Forrest and Boston College and NCState are relegated to junior varsity leagues with zero chance to play for a meaningful championship
• The traditional bowls (Rose Cotton Sugar) become meaningless
• Northwestern and Vanderbilt stay in the "major" league for some reason
• If the "championship" every year is Clemson / Ohio State / Alabama / Georgia

After a few years, then college football will lose 1/3 of their viewers. I wont watch

RJABear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

So, if it's Alabama vs. Georgia, and both are top 10, people aren't going to watch in Northern California? Unfortunately, Najee Harris knew waaay too much about Alabama.
Sure, does the Bay Area market have better ratings when Cal or Furd are good? Sure. Would a good Boston College team move the needle a bit more in Boston? No question. But the bottom line (literally) is that the SEC ratings, interest and whatever other metric you want to use, are way beyond the markets of Tuscaloosa, Baton Rouge, and Knoxville. And in states with gambling opportunities, just adds to the hype.

---

I will stop watching "major" college football if

• Many of the traditional rivalries disappear (Texas - A&M, Stanford-U$C)
• Cal and UW and Washington State and Wake Forrest and Boston College and NCState are relegated to junior varsity leagues with zero chance to play for a meaningful championship
• The traditional bowls (Rose Cotton Sugar) become meaningless
• Northwestern and Vanderbilt stay in the "major" league for some reason
• If the "championship" every year is Clemson / Ohio State / Alabama / Georgia

After a few years, then college football will lose 1/3 of their viewers. I wont watch

---

My prediction is that you won't be watching college football much longer.

parentswerebears said:

---

RJABear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

So, if it's Alabama vs. Georgia, and both are top 10, people aren't going to watch in Northern California? Unfortunately, Najee Harris knew waaay too much about Alabama.
Sure, does the Bay Area market have better ratings when Cal or Furd are good? Sure. Would a good Boston College team move the needle a bit more in Boston? No question. But the bottom line (literally) is that the SEC ratings, interest and whatever other metric you want to use, are way beyond the markets of Tuscaloosa, Baton Rouge, and Knoxville. And in states with gambling opportunities, just adds to the hype.

---

I will stop watching "major" college football if

• Many of the traditional rivalries disappear (Texas - A&M, Stanford-U$C)
• Cal and UW and Washington State and Wake Forrest and Boston College and NCState are relegated to junior varsity leagues with zero chance to play for a meaningful championship
• The traditional bowls (Rose Cotton Sugar) become meaningless
• Northwestern and Vanderbilt stay in the "major" league for some reason
• If the "championship" every year is Clemson / Ohio State / Alabama / Georgia

After a few years, then college football will lose 1/3 of their viewers. I wont watch

---

My prediction is that you won't be watching college football much longer.

---

Not only that - because we have very little clout (no power or connections to B1G or networks let alone competence), get ready to be screwed in the biggest way imaginable. It is primarily Stanford that is getting most of the airtime and predictions for joining the big league and I fully expect that to happen. We will not make the cut without strong (and we'll connected) leadership.

RJABear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

So, if it's Alabama vs. Georgia, and both are top 10, people aren't going to watch in Northern California? Unfortunately, Najee Harris knew waaay too much about Alabama.
Sure, does the Bay Area market have better ratings when Cal or Furd are good? Sure. Would a good Boston College team move the needle a bit more in Boston? No question. But the bottom line (literally) is that the SEC ratings, interest and whatever other metric you want to use, are way beyond the markets of Tuscaloosa, Baton Rouge, and Knoxville. And in states with gambling opportunities, just adds to the hype.

---

I will stop watching "major" college football if

• Many of the traditional rivalries disappear (Texas - A&M, Stanford-U$C)
• Cal and UW and Washington State and Wake Forrest and Boston College and NCState are relegated to junior varsity leagues with zero chance to play for a meaningful championship
• The traditional bowls (Rose Cotton Sugar) become meaningless
• Northwestern and Vanderbilt stay in the "major" league for some reason
• If the "championship" every year is Clemson / Ohio State / Alabama / Georgia

After a few years, then college football will lose 1/3 of their viewers. I wont watch

---

This sounds like a message from 20 years ago. Other than the rivalries, it's pretty much been that way since the dawn of the BCS era.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

I don't think the posters here are the network's primary audience.

---

We are currently avid fans/viewers of college football.

UrsineMaximus said:

---

I recorded but never actually watched this year's national championship game. Next year I likely won't even bother recording it.

---

I didn't even watch the highlights.

calumnus said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

I don't think the posters here are the network's primary audience.

---

We are currently avid fans/viewers of college football.

---

I agree.

While not as numerous per capital as SEC fans, Pac-10 fans are a desired well-educated high-income demographic.

I have been a college football fanatic since I was 8 years old. I am now 60. When the Bears are on the road or on a bye, our home TV was on Game Day at 7am. I might be exercising or working on the PC, but the home TV stayed on college football all day. My wife and I scheduled the fall around Cal football and college football in general. If the worst case plays out,, it would free up a lot of our time and income.

ESPN and FOX may not think they will miss me and thousands of my friends, but they will. College football is in danger of becoming a regional sport, and losing viewers on both coasts. NASCAR was a regional sport, and eventually realized that was an issue..

Unit2Sucks said:

---

RJABear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

So, if it's Alabama vs. Georgia, and both are top 10, people aren't going to watch in Northern California? Unfortunately, Najee Harris knew waaay too much about Alabama.
Sure, does the Bay Area market have better ratings when Cal or Furd are good? Sure. Would a good Boston College team move the needle a bit more in Boston? No question. But the bottom line (literally) is that the SEC ratings, interest and whatever other metric you want to use, are way beyond the markets of Tuscaloosa, Baton Rouge, and Knoxville. And in states with gambling opportunities, just adds to the hype.

---

I will stop watching "major" college football if

• Many of the traditional rivalries disappear (Texas - A&M, Stanford-U$C)
• Cal and UW and Washington State and Wake Forrest and Boston College and NCState are relegated to junior varsity leagues with zero chance to play for a meaningful championship
• The traditional bowls (Rose Cotton Sugar) become meaningless
• Northwestern and Vanderbilt stay in the "major" league for some reason
• If the "championship" every year is Clemson / Ohio State / Alabama / Georgia

After a few years, then college football will lose 1/3 of their viewers. I wont watch

---

This sounds like a message from 20 years ago. Other than the rivalries, it's pretty much been that way since the dawn of the BCS era.

---

Every 20 years, Cal would have a 1991 or 2004 team and be on the cusp of New Years day relevance ... that kept us hooked.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

parentswerebears said:

---

RJABear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

So, if it's Alabama vs. Georgia, and both are top 10, people aren't going to watch in Northern California? Unfortunately, Najee Harris knew waaay too much about Alabama.
Sure, does the Bay Area market have better ratings when Cal or Furd are good? Sure. Would a good Boston College team move the needle a bit more in Boston? No question. But the bottom line (literally) is that the SEC ratings, interest and whatever other metric you want to use, are way beyond the markets of Tuscaloosa, Baton Rouge, and Knoxville. And in states with gambling opportunities, just adds to the hype.

---

I will stop watching "major" college football if

• Many of the traditional rivalries disappear (Texas - A&M, Stanford-U$C)
• Cal and UW and Washington State and Wake Forrest and Boston College and NCState are relegated to junior varsity leagues with zero chance to play for a meaningful championship
• The traditional bowls (Rose Cotton Sugar) become meaningless
• Northwestern and Vanderbilt stay in the "major" league for some reason
• If the "championship" every year is Clemson / Ohio State / Alabama / Georgia

After a few years, then college football will lose 1/3 of their viewers. I wont watch

---

My prediction is that you won't be watching college football much longer.

---

Not only that - because we have very little clout (no power or connections to B1G or networks let alone competence), get ready to be screwed in the biggest way imaginable. It is primarily Stanford that is getting most of the airtime and predictions for joining the big league and I fully expect that to happen. We will not make the cut without strong (and we'll connected) leadership.

---

And the rumor mill also suggests that our reps are waiting for Kliakoff (sp?) to hold together the Pac 12/10/8...Seems like it is time for a pro active stance and fight like h*ll to get into our #1 choice.

---

I would be pleasantly surprised to learn Knowlton is doing something more than nothing.

calumnus said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

parentswerebears said:

---

RJABear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

So, if it's Alabama vs. Georgia, and both are top 10, people aren't going to watch in Northern California? Unfortunately, Najee Harris knew waaay too much about Alabama.
Sure, does the Bay Area market have better ratings when Cal or Furd are good? Sure. Would a good Boston College team move the needle a bit more in Boston? No question. But the bottom line (literally) is that the SEC ratings, interest and whatever other metric you want to use, are way beyond the markets of Tuscaloosa, Baton Rouge, and Knoxville. And in states with gambling opportunities, just adds to the hype.

---

I will stop watching "major" college football if

• Many of the traditional rivalries disappear (Texas - A&M, Stanford-U$C)
• Cal and UW and Washington State and Wake Forrest and Boston College and NCState are relegated to junior varsity leagues with zero chance to play for a meaningful championship
• The traditional bowls (Rose Cotton Sugar) become meaningless
• Northwestern and Vanderbilt stay in the "major" league for some reason
• If the "championship" every year is Clemson / Ohio State / Alabama / Georgia

After a few years, then college football will lose 1/3 of their viewers. I wont watch

---

My prediction is that you won't be watching college football much longer.

---

Not only that - because we have very little clout (no power or connections to B1G or networks let alone competence), get ready to be screwed in the biggest way imaginable. It is primarily Stanford that is getting most of the airtime and predictions for joining the big league and I fully expect that to happen. We will not make the cut without strong (and we'll connected) leadership.

---

And the rumor mill also suggests that our reps are waiting for Kliakoff (sp?) to hold together the Pac 12/10/8...Seems like it is time for a pro active stance and fight like h*ll to get into our #1 choice.

---

I would be pleasantly surprised to learn Knowlton is doing something more than nothing.

---

Worst hire ever - completely out of his league. He is a mouse, afraid to make any proactive decision and would rather just hire a firm to do all his bidding. 100% this d-bag is leaving it up to the commissioner. I just hope the latter is capable of pulling off a miracle but I'm prepping myself for the inevitable "Stanford and ND to join B1G" headline followed by a "we are surprised and disappointed" message from Carol & Knowlton that ends with "but we remain committed to athletic success for our student-athletes."

Their definition of success is that a student-athlete participates.