BearinOC said:
sycasey said:
gardenstatebear said:
fat_slice said:
gardenstatebear said:
fat_slice said:
gardenstatebear said:
BigDaddy said:
Stanford was supposedly offering to go into a B1G like Rutgers, Nebraska and Maryland did, taking a smaller slice of the revenue pie.
One of the reasons given to the pass on Oregon and Washington was their inclusion would mean less money per school out of the media rights pie. Notre Dame actually increases each B1G team's share.
The implication that Rutgers and other schools are having to settle for a reduced share is incorrect. Rutgers did not get a full share right away. But its share is gradually becoming a full share.What is distinctive about UCLA and USC is that they are getting a full share immediately. But every member eventually gets to a full share.
I think many of you are much too pessimistic about Cal's chances to get into the Big Ten. UCLA and USC do not want to have to send their athletes at least two time zones east for every road game. In addition, having teams in the Bay Area market will sharply increase what cable companies in the Bay Area will pay to carry the Big Ten network. That is how Rutgers got into the Big Ten despite having a not-very-good football team -- it was all about having a school in the New York market so that the cable companies in the NYC area would pay a lot to carry the BTN.
Yes but do they need both Cal and Stanford? I think that is the question now.
They need an even number of Pacific coast schools. Yes, maybe they'd take two more, and have that be Stanford and Washington. But taking four more schools (Cal, Stanford, Washington, Oregon )minimizes travel east for USC/UCLA and gives the Big Ten four more institutions that are part of the Association of American Universities -- a credential that the Big Ten cares about. (Every Big Ten school except Nebraska is a member.)
Is anyone here familiar with the BTAA (big ten academic alliance)? I am not but just skimmed this wiki article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Academic_Alliance
If that is an alliance with clout, adding Stanford and Cal would be of huge value outside of just academic brand.
Big 10 has northwestern, Michigan, and now UCLA as their only true academic power houses out of 16 (am I missing any?). Adding Cal / Stanford to this mix would really boost this consortium.
I'm somewhat familiar with this alliance from having been a career Rutgers faculty member. My impression is that it doesn't have much clout, and having clout (say, in getting research money) is not its primary purpose. In addition, I don't think membership is of much value to Cal. Rutgers cared because Rutgers wanted the cachet of being in a conference with other Association of American Universities schools. The most recent Rutgers master plan spent a lot of energy compared Rutgers' programs with the other Big Ten schools. But of course that's not important to Cal. BTW, Wisconsin could be classified as an academic power house, and, as I said above, everybody except Nebraska is an Association of American Universities member, which means they have excellent academic programs, particularly graduate programs.
The question is less about how valuable it would be to Cal and more about how valuable it is to the current B1G to have a school like Cal in the alliance. My understanding is that this does have some value to them.
I agree. Cal would be a huge get for the Big 10. Without Cal and Stanford, B10 conference is less than what it can be due to the entire California TV market plus the academic prestige we would bring to it. I am not sure about joining the Big 10. At what cost? Student athletes would be worn out from the travels.
You need to check the Cal Field Hockey schedule to see that it's already being done. Football players/basketball players sitting on a charter for an extra hour doesn't bother me all that much, if I am being honest. The demands on their time, including what is expected of them during the Summer, left the spectrum of "normal" student athletes probably 30 years ago. Once in the Big 10 footprint, basketball travel for a weekend series wouldn't be much different than the 2 weekend games that exist now. But again, if we are talking about a "West" division, meaning Cal gets in, doesn't the travel almost exist as it does now? Maybe one road football game to the "Midwest division" and one road game to the "East division"? (Then hosting two schools from those divisions, plus 5 West division games gets you to 9 conference games.) Similar for basketball? For the Olympic sports, maybe it's an additional tournament, but again, I think the "west division" would be the foundation, leading to conference championships.
The "entire California market" is a bit of an X factor, but Gardenstatebear's comments regarding a conference network were important (because NJ Bears know what they are talking about!!!) But, is a Michigan/Wisconsin Fox game going to get better ratings in the Bay Area because Cal and Furd are members of the conference, or because the schools playing are both ranked top 10? Just maybe, more conference "coverage"(social media, talk radio, newspapers, et. al.) gives you some uptick, so maybe some additional ad up-sell? To be more on point, the real question is will Cal/Iowa get better numbers (meaning some overall ad up-sell) on FS1, or okay, maybe on Fox if they are both good that year, to warrant the splitting of the TV deal pie into more pieces?
I have always been skeptical about the "academic prestige" component once this all hit the fan-does it really matter in the end? Again, enough to share dollars? What does it mean for the stronger academic institutions of Northwestern, Michigan, and Wisconsin whose acceptance rates are already 9%, 26%, and 51% respectively? Does "academic prestige" mean more applications for the next tier of schools, and raise their academic status and non-athletic donor contributions? Having lived in Chicago during the Northwestern miracle years, and return to the Rose Bowl, the football success raised their application numbers significantly-does a conference with Cal, Furd, UCLA, and SC, get to market themselves differently than they do right now?
