Pac-12 commish George Kliavkoff visiiting SMU

113,681 Views | 1094 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by calumnus
BigDaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's sorry man. SDSU might be OK (new football stadium, great basketball program). SMU? Geez.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

That's sorry man. SDSU might be OK (new football stadium, great basketball program). SMU? Geez.


PAC-10 is fine.
Oski87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SMU has the same size stadium as SDSU, in the middle of Dallas. They have done as well as SDSU in football recently - hell, Sonny got a job at TCU because of his success there. They have won a national title - meaning that they are willing to pay up for players (Eric Dickerson). And they have a higher academic ranking than SDSU. Not saying ideal, but if you want to expand to generate dollars, that is one place to go if you bring both in. And frankly, at least Dallas has a direct SWA flights from Oakland. Probably easier to get to than Washington State.

To be honest, I would like SMU and Tulane. Tulane and Buffalo are the only two AAU DI schools not in a G5 conference. Tulane also has a new on campus stadium with about 34,000. I went to my nephews graduation down there - miserable in the June heat in the football stadium for graduation.

wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SMU is in a big media market. Pretty clear we are becoming a Prime conference. See y'all at Bardo's after the game. Query who the rival they would bring with them (think of the irony if it's TCU, they have our ex-coach, we have their ex-QB).

With SDSU, I assume it is either Fresno St or UNLV, which could be where SDSU, which seemed to be a shoe-in to join, may have hit a snag.

From a pure fan perspective, I would be happy with SMU, TCU, SDSU and UNLV becoming parties to the Pac 14. Vegas, Dallas area and San Diego alway nice trips (okay, Dallas area in summer is a little hot). Not sure about the academic fits, but I suspect that the TV contract is driving this.
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Given we are losing the LA market we have to be growth oriented. San Diego and Dallas are decent markets to build.
StarsDoMatter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We need a presence in SoCal and SDSU does just that. Plus quality basketball program.

DFW Is much better than decent. It's massive.
Strykur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

Given we are losing the LA market we have to be growth oriented. San Diego and Dallas are decent markets to build.
"We" might be on our way out sooner than later anyway.
95bears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We're just giving two schools more committed to football a chance to eclipse us in the zero-sum game of recruiting. There is a fixed supply of P5 quality athletes (dwindling in the West). I am good with a Pac-10.


okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The PAC-12 needs some god-fearing schools to balance out the wokes.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
95bears said:

We're just giving two schools more committed to football a chance to eclipse us in the zero-sum game of recruiting. There is a fixed supply of P5 quality athletes (dwindling in the West). I am good with a Pac-10.




Adding schools willl increase the TV contract.

The questions are: 1) whether it will increase the contract by enough to significantly increase the payout for Cal after including 2 or 4 more schools in the payout (including post season payouts), 2) impact our travel expenses 3) impact our recruiting 4) impact our chances of winning the conference 5) impact the perception of the conference.

Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

95bears said:

We're just giving two schools more committed to football a chance to eclipse us in the zero-sum game of recruiting. There is a fixed supply of P5 quality athletes (dwindling in the West). I am good with a Pac-10.




Adding schools willl increase the TV contract.

The questions are: 1) whether it will increase the contract by enough to significantly increase the payout for Cal after including 2 or 4 more schools in the payout (including post season payouts), 2) impact our travel expenses 3) impact our recruiting 4) impact our chances of winning the conference 5) impact the perception of the conference.


Points 3 through 5 are a stretch.
southseasbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.
Fire Knowlton!
Fire Fox!
Put Wilcox in a hot seat!
BigDaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
southseasbear said:

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.
TCU isn't leaving the Big XII to join the Pac-12.
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
southseasbear said:

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.


What is good for "the conference" is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.
southseasbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

southseasbear said:

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.


What is good for the conference is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.
We are most likely to be left out of the B1G. Their top choice for expansion (which they would do in a minute) would be Notre Dame. Stanford is the most likely partner. Then they might include UW and UO. Not us.

What's best for Cal is to add at least 2 teams (SD and SMU) and possibly 4 (Tulane? UNLV? Another team from Texas?) rather than be left alone with WSU and OSU, begging to join the MWC after the so-called 4-corner schools (actually 4 schools representing 3 of the corner states) join the Big 12.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but other than academics, we don't have much to offer.
Fire Knowlton!
Fire Fox!
Put Wilcox in a hot seat!
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
southseasbear said:

calumnus said:

southseasbear said:

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.


What is good for the conference is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.
We are most likely to be left out of the B1G. Their top choice for expansion (which they would do in a minute) would be Notre Dame. Stanford is the most likely partner. Then they might include UW and UO. Not us.

What's best for Cal is to add at least 2 teams (SD and SMU) and possibly 4 (Tulane? UNLV? Another team from Texas?) rather than be left alone with WSU and OSU, begging to join the MWC after the so-called 4-corner schools (actually 4 schools representing 3 of the corner states) join the Big 12.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but other than academics, we don't have much to offer.


You would not be right if this was happening during the Tedford years when our basketball program was respectable as well.

That said yes, outside of a few periods in history we haven't amounted to much athletically.

Still - I think we should close up shop if we don't get into the big leagues. Having a huge academic brand while being associated with SMU, UNLV and the like while UCLA, Michigan, Northwestern are all in one league together will have a reputational impact. At that point just shut down the cal football program. It's B1G or bust guys and right now the AD is trying to drive is off a cliff and be happy with a MWC invite?!? Hell no.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
StarsDoMatter said:

We need a presence in SoCal and SDSU does just that. Plus quality basketball program.

DFW Is much better than decent. It's massive.


Gives a boost to recruiting in Texas, big for football.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Econ141 said:

southseasbear said:

calumnus said:

southseasbear said:

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.


What is good for the conference is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.
We are most likely to be left out of the B1G. Their top choice for expansion (which they would do in a minute) would be Notre Dame. Stanford is the most likely partner. Then they might include UW and UO. Not us.

What's best for Cal is to add at least 2 teams (SD and SMU) and possibly 4 (Tulane? UNLV? Another team from Texas?) rather than be left alone with WSU and OSU, begging to join the MWC after the so-called 4-corner schools (actually 4 schools representing 3 of the corner states) join the Big 12.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but other than academics, we don't have much to offer.


You would not be right if this was happening during the Tedford years when our basketball program was respectable as well.

That said yes, outside of a few periods in history we haven't amounted to much athletically.

Still - I think we should close up shop if we don't get into the big leagues. Having a huge academic brand while being associated with SMU, UNLV and the like while UCLA, Michigan, Northwestern are all in one league together will have a reputational impact. At that point just shut down the cal football program. It's B1G or bust guys and right now the AD is trying to drive is off a cliff and be happy with a MWC invite?!? Hell no.


Agreed. I do not understand the fatalism of many on this board. If I didn't know they were long term posters and Cal fans, even boosters, I would suspect them of being Stanford or UCLA trolls.

A future with UCLA, USC, Stanford, Oregon and Washington all in the B1G with all the good academic football schools of the Midwest, and Cal left behind with WSU, OSU, SDSU, UNLV increasing numbers of MWC schools plus SMU and Texas schools the Big 12 doesn't want, we are just supposed to accept that as our fate and even root for that and work toward that as our goal???

If we have a vision for where we WANT to be and make an all out effort to get there and fail, well then we figure out how to make the most of it then. But resigning ourselves to that fait and even cooperating and working towards it…
southseasbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Econ141 said:

southseasbear said:

calumnus said:

southseasbear said:

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.


What is good for the conference is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.
We are most likely to be left out of the B1G. Their top choice for expansion (which they would do in a minute) would be Notre Dame. Stanford is the most likely partner. Then they might include UW and UO. Not us.

What's best for Cal is to add at least 2 teams (SD and SMU) and possibly 4 (Tulane? UNLV? Another team from Texas?) rather than be left alone with WSU and OSU, begging to join the MWC after the so-called 4-corner schools (actually 4 schools representing 3 of the corner states) join the Big 12.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but other than academics, we don't have much to offer.


You would not be right if this was happening during the Tedford years when our basketball program was respectable as well.

That said yes, outside of a few periods in history we haven't amounted to much athletically.

Still - I think we should close up shop if we don't get into the big leagues. Having a huge academic brand while being associated with SMU, UNLV and the like while UCLA, Michigan, Northwestern are all in one league together will have a reputational impact. At that point just shut down the cal football program. It's B1G or bust guys and right now the AD is trying to drive is off a cliff and be happy with a MWC invite?!? Hell no.


Agreed. I do not understand the fatalism of many on this board. If I didn't know they were long term posters and Cal fans, even boosters, I would suspect them of being Stanford or UCLA trolls.

A future with UCLA, USC, Stanford, Oregon and Washington all in the B1G with all the good academic football schools of the Midwest, and Cal left behind with WSU, OSU, SDSU, UNLV increasing numbers of MWC schools plus SMU and Texas schools the Big 12 doesn't want, we are just supposed to accept that as our fait and even root for that and work toward that as our goal???

If we have a vision for where we WANT to be and make an all out effort to get there and fail, well then we figure out how to make the most of it then. But resigning ourselves to that fait and even cooperating and working towards it…
You guys don't understand that the train is leaving the station. No one in the midwest respects us as a football or basketball program. We are not even mediocre. You remind me of people south of the Mason-Dixon line chanting "The South will rise again!" ("the Bear will rise again because the Bear does not quit!) In the era of NIL and the Portal we are not going to become a power. Even if it were possible, it is several years away, and by then the B1G will have expanded to include Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington, Oregon and some teams in the South or South East. Again, other than academics, we don't have much to offer.
Fire Knowlton!
Fire Fox!
Put Wilcox in a hot seat!
Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong strongly suggested we try to poach BYU and Nebraska. Pac-12 commissioner looking at SDSU instead. WEAK!!!!

Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As for Cal "not having much to offer" -- that soft thinking. Weak. Soft as baby poop.

There a strong reason that Ohio State, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, and Michigan State saw/see a reason to play Cal. There also reason Notre Dame plays at stanfurd every other year.

These schools want to play a game in our recruiting territory. They know it valuable. So they want Cal on their schedule.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

southseasbear said:

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.


What is good for "the conference" is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.
Logically, the assumption here has to be all remaining Pac 10 teams want to continue on in the Pac for the length of the next media package. Otherwise, why is George even bothering, since he will have 4 to 6 teams off the B1G and 4 teams off the Big 12? What is the point of selling SMU to join a conference with 2 remaining teams in the Northwest (who go Mountain West if they don't go to the B1G)? I might add that so far, what little has been said publicly, is that all 10 teams are on board with staying (e.g. Utah AD, Zona AD, etc. - there is noise out of Udub they want more than a per share split)

BTW, Knowlton and the Chancellor have made it clear, that the Chancellor is the one making the decision on conference realignment, and the JK has limited (if any) input. For starters, it is the Chancellor, not JK, asking donors their views. I don't know when the Chancellor has the time to sleep.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is the Portal and no 1-year of waiting (for eligibility) here for good?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

As for Cal "not having much to offer" -- that soft thinking. Weak. Soft as baby poop.

There a strong reason that Ohio State, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, and Michigan State saw/see a reason to play Cal. There also reason Notre Dame plays at stanfurd every other year.

These schools want to play a game in our recruiting territory. They know it valuable. So they want Cal on their schedule.
Both schools are probably viewed as B minus to B teams for P5 scheduling purposes, and at times rated even higher. For the schools above, they are P5 teams, with occasionally good or even outstanding teams. Its been awhile, but people know Cal was real good for a few years, as was Furd, and they can beat you as Texas, Tennessee, Notre Dame, Michigan State, Ole Miss and other P5 all know. Guys on bowl and NC committees get that. They ain't South West {name state] State U that Alabama plays.
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
southseasbear said:

calumnus said:

Econ141 said:

southseasbear said:

calumnus said:

southseasbear said:

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.


What is good for the conference is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.
We are most likely to be left out of the B1G. Their top choice for expansion (which they would do in a minute) would be Notre Dame. Stanford is the most likely partner. Then they might include UW and UO. Not us.

What's best for Cal is to add at least 2 teams (SD and SMU) and possibly 4 (Tulane? UNLV? Another team from Texas?) rather than be left alone with WSU and OSU, begging to join the MWC after the so-called 4-corner schools (actually 4 schools representing 3 of the corner states) join the Big 12.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but other than academics, we don't have much to offer.


You would not be right if this was happening during the Tedford years when our basketball program was respectable as well.

That said yes, outside of a few periods in history we haven't amounted to much athletically.

Still - I think we should close up shop if we don't get into the big leagues. Having a huge academic brand while being associated with SMU, UNLV and the like while UCLA, Michigan, Northwestern are all in one league together will have a reputational impact. At that point just shut down the cal football program. It's B1G or bust guys and right now the AD is trying to drive is off a cliff and be happy with a MWC invite?!? Hell no.


Agreed. I do not understand the fatalism of many on this board. If I didn't know they were long term posters and Cal fans, even boosters, I would suspect them of being Stanford or UCLA trolls.

A future with UCLA, USC, Stanford, Oregon and Washington all in the B1G with all the good academic football schools of the Midwest, and Cal left behind with WSU, OSU, SDSU, UNLV increasing numbers of MWC schools plus SMU and Texas schools the Big 12 doesn't want, we are just supposed to accept that as our fait and even root for that and work toward that as our goal???

If we have a vision for where we WANT to be and make an all out effort to get there and fail, well then we figure out how to make the most of it then. But resigning ourselves to that fait and even cooperating and working towards it…
You guys don't understand that the train is leaving the station. No one in the midwest respects us as a football or basketball program. We are not even mediocre. You remind me of people south of the Mason-Dixon line chanting "The South will rise again!" ("the Bear will rise again because the Bear does not quit!) In the era of NIL and the Portal we are not going to become a power. Even if it were possible, it is several years away, and by then the B1G will have expanded to include Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington, Oregon and some teams in the South or South East. Again, other than academics, we don't have much to offer.


There are many B1G teams that have as bad or worse history than Cal. It's not solely about how successful we are on the field. Media Market matters too and while yes Bay Area may not have rabid CFB fans it still has a ton of eyeballs. If UW and Oregon were located in the Bay, do you think they would have been left out of the B1G in the latest move?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
southseasbear said:

calumnus said:

Econ141 said:

southseasbear said:

calumnus said:

southseasbear said:

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.


What is good for the conference is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.
We are most likely to be left out of the B1G. Their top choice for expansion (which they would do in a minute) would be Notre Dame. Stanford is the most likely partner. Then they might include UW and UO. Not us.

What's best for Cal is to add at least 2 teams (SD and SMU) and possibly 4 (Tulane? UNLV? Another team from Texas?) rather than be left alone with WSU and OSU, begging to join the MWC after the so-called 4-corner schools (actually 4 schools representing 3 of the corner states) join the Big 12.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but other than academics, we don't have much to offer.


You would not be right if this was happening during the Tedford years when our basketball program was respectable as well.

That said yes, outside of a few periods in history we haven't amounted to much athletically.

Still - I think we should close up shop if we don't get into the big leagues. Having a huge academic brand while being associated with SMU, UNLV and the like while UCLA, Michigan, Northwestern are all in one league together will have a reputational impact. At that point just shut down the cal football program. It's B1G or bust guys and right now the AD is trying to drive is off a cliff and be happy with a MWC invite?!? Hell no.


Agreed. I do not understand the fatalism of many on this board. If I didn't know they were long term posters and Cal fans, even boosters, I would suspect them of being Stanford or UCLA trolls.

A future with UCLA, USC, Stanford, Oregon and Washington all in the B1G with all the good academic football schools of the Midwest, and Cal left behind with WSU, OSU, SDSU, UNLV increasing numbers of MWC schools plus SMU and Texas schools the Big 12 doesn't want, we are just supposed to accept that as our fait and even root for that and work toward that as our goal???

If we have a vision for where we WANT to be and make an all out effort to get there and fail, well then we figure out how to make the most of it then. But resigning ourselves to that fait and even cooperating and working towards it…
You guys don't understand that the train is leaving the station. No one in the midwest respects us as a football or basketball program. We are not even mediocre. You remind me of people south of the Mason-Dixon line chanting "The South will rise again!" ("the Bear will rise again because the Bear does not quit!) In the era of NIL and the Portal we are not going to become a power. Even if it were possible, it is several years away, and by then the B1G will have expanded to include Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington, Oregon and some teams in the South or South East. Again, other than academics, we don't have much to offer.
Let's talk dollars. Cal and Furd share a big media market. Just ask Amazon the value of that. The B1G would probably add a TV package with Prime as the lead for the west coast pod main games (excluding SC/UCLA) , and eventually try to fold Prime in with Fox and the two networks for the entire B1G, thereby making the pot even bigger than now on a per team basis (remember for Prime it is all about new members, not just eyeballs for games, so they will pay a premium for new, large TV markets). At least that is the arguments guys like Canzanno are making.
MrGPAC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
southseasbear said:

calumnus said:

Econ141 said:

southseasbear said:

calumnus said:

southseasbear said:

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.


What is good for the conference is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.
We are most likely to be left out of the B1G. Their top choice for expansion (which they would do in a minute) would be Notre Dame. Stanford is the most likely partner. Then they might include UW and UO. Not us.

What's best for Cal is to add at least 2 teams (SD and SMU) and possibly 4 (Tulane? UNLV? Another team from Texas?) rather than be left alone with WSU and OSU, begging to join the MWC after the so-called 4-corner schools (actually 4 schools representing 3 of the corner states) join the Big 12.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but other than academics, we don't have much to offer.


You would not be right if this was happening during the Tedford years when our basketball program was respectable as well.

That said yes, outside of a few periods in history we haven't amounted to much athletically.

Still - I think we should close up shop if we don't get into the big leagues. Having a huge academic brand while being associated with SMU, UNLV and the like while UCLA, Michigan, Northwestern are all in one league together will have a reputational impact. At that point just shut down the cal football program. It's B1G or bust guys and right now the AD is trying to drive is off a cliff and be happy with a MWC invite?!? Hell no.


Agreed. I do not understand the fatalism of many on this board. If I didn't know they were long term posters and Cal fans, even boosters, I would suspect them of being Stanford or UCLA trolls.

A future with UCLA, USC, Stanford, Oregon and Washington all in the B1G with all the good academic football schools of the Midwest, and Cal left behind with WSU, OSU, SDSU, UNLV increasing numbers of MWC schools plus SMU and Texas schools the Big 12 doesn't want, we are just supposed to accept that as our fait and even root for that and work toward that as our goal???

If we have a vision for where we WANT to be and make an all out effort to get there and fail, well then we figure out how to make the most of it then. But resigning ourselves to that fait and even cooperating and working towards it…
You guys don't understand that the train is leaving the station. No one in the midwest respects us as a football or basketball program. We are not even mediocre. You remind me of people south of the Mason-Dixon line chanting "The South will rise again!" ("the Bear will rise again because the Bear does not quit!) In the era of NIL and the Portal we are not going to become a power. Even if it were possible, it is several years away, and by then the B1G will have expanded to include Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington, Oregon and some teams in the South or South East. Again, other than academics, we don't have much to offer.

The idea that Notre Dame and Stanford pair to the B1G is laughable at best. This is extreme doomer-ism.

1) Notre Dame doesn't need a pair.

2) If Notre Dame were to break their contract with the ACC, it would very likely start a dominoe effect that would result in multiple teams from the ACC also breaking their GOR, with several teams bolting for the SEC/B1G. I actually see this as improving the odds of expansion to 24 teams, which would include a 6 team "pod" on the west coast.

3) Stanford is not very good at football or mens basketball either at this point.

4) Stanford at their peak success was worth far less than Cal at its peak success. Stanford had a largely empty stadium on years they went to the Rose Bowl. We had sell out crowds for pretty much all of the games we have had with the B1G. Sure, some of that is due to their fans showing up, but that was an option for the Stanford games too and they didn't sell out all of their matches.

5) For a variety of reasons it is far more practical to have two teams in the bay area than one (basketball travel, among others).

6) UCLA has a direct financial interest in getting Cal an invite. If doomsday were to happen as a direct result of UCLA leaving for the B1G, damages to Cal would be far greater than they are now, and it appears the regents are still waiting to see what the damages are if Cal gets a contract with the Pac12 before officially announcing what the penalties already are.

7) Stanford is on record as saying they won't pay athletes, and have the financial ability to drop sports if that's what it would come to. Whether or not they would is a question...and that would be troubling to a league looking to potentially pay players.

Is it possible that Cal gets left out? Sure. Cal has made a lot of really really bad decisions lately with respect to the revenue generating sports that have left them in a bad spot perception wise. That doesn't mean this is at all likely, let alone set in stone, "train has already left the station."
Alkiadt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

Cal Strong strongly suggested we try to poach BYU and Nebraska. Pac-12 commissioner looking at SDSU instead. WEAK!!!!




What's "Weak" is thinking Nebraska would leave BIG money for Pac 12 scraps. You're as dumb as you come off sounding with the stupid meathead act of yours.
OskiDeLaHoya
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

southseasbear said:

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.


What is good for "the conference" is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.
Logically, the assumption here has to be all remaining Pac 10 teams want to continue on in the Pac for the length of the next media package. Otherwise, why is George even bothering, since he will have 4 to 6 teams off the B1G and 4 teams off the Big 12? What is the point of selling SMU to join a conference with 2 remaining teams in the Northwest (who go Mountain West if they don't go to the B1G)? I might add that so far, what little has been said publicly, is that all 10 teams are on board with staying (e.g. Utah AD, Zona AD, etc. - there is noise out of Udub they want more than a per share split)

BTW, Knowlton and the Chancellor have made it clear, that the Chancellor is the one making the decision on conference realignment, and the JK has limited (if any) input. For starters, it is the Chancellor, not JK, asking donors their views. I don't know when the Chancellor has the time to sleep.


I have a couple of questions:

1. Makes sense that the Chancellor would be the one calling the shots, just as it is the B1G presidents calling the shots in admitting new schools (which I think helps Cal should they be considered in the future). What I'm very curious about is what is the Chancellor's thinking on where Cal _should_ land (from what you've heard)? What is our ideal scenario in her view? The only public statements I recall came during the UCLA hearing where she was critical of the impact that being in the B1G might have (don't recall the exact quote, and I recognize she had to say what she said given the arguments being made about UCLA's departure). Does the Chancellor favor reuniting with SC and UCLA or is she committed to rebuilding the Pac-12? I've heard that all 10 schools are committed but there have been very few direct quotes from Cal (or Stanfurd for that matter) in the last 6 months. We know that UW and UO met with the B1G and may have even submitted applications. Did Cal reach out to the B1G too in the last 6 months? I imagine yes but nothing was reported. A lot of hay had been made by the Twitterati following a quote from UC Regent Richard Lieb in December that they looked into getting the foursome into th B1G but I'm not sure what exactly he meant by that

2. Not sure how attuned you are to what's going on across the Bay ... but your wife is a Furd. What's their thinking? Are they coordinating with Cal? In all this upheaval, my first priority is that Cal and Stanfurd remain in lockstep and end up in the same conference, even if it's the MWC. My second priority is continuing to play the LA schools in football. Sadly, I think this may be the last year we play SC in football for a while.
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OskiDeLaHoya said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

southseasbear said:

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.


What is good for "the conference" is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.
Logically, the assumption here has to be all remaining Pac 10 teams want to continue on in the Pac for the length of the next media package. Otherwise, why is George even bothering, since he will have 4 to 6 teams off the B1G and 4 teams off the Big 12? What is the point of selling SMU to join a conference with 2 remaining teams in the Northwest (who go Mountain West if they don't go to the B1G)? I might add that so far, what little has been said publicly, is that all 10 teams are on board with staying (e.g. Utah AD, Zona AD, etc. - there is noise out of Udub they want more than a per share split)

BTW, Knowlton and the Chancellor have made it clear, that the Chancellor is the one making the decision on conference realignment, and the JK has limited (if any) input. For starters, it is the Chancellor, not JK, asking donors their views. I don't know when the Chancellor has the time to sleep.


I have a couple of questions:

1. Makes sense that the Chancellor would be the one calling the shots, just as it is the B1G presidents calling the shots in admitting new schools (which I think helps Cal should they be considered in the future). What I'm very curious about is what is the Chancellor's thinking on where Cal _should_ land (from what you've heard)? What is our ideal scenario in her view? The only public statements I recall came during the UCLA hearing where she was critical of the impact that being in the B1G might have (don't recall the exact quote, and I recognize she had to say what she said given the arguments being made about UCLA's departure). Does the Chancellor favor reuniting with SC and UCLA or is she committed to rebuilding the Pac-12? I've heard that all 10 schools are committed but there have been very few direct quotes from Cal (or Stanfurd for that matter) in the last 6 months. We know that UW and UO met with the B1G and may have even submitted applications. Did Cal reach out to the B1G too in the last 6 months? I imagine yes but nothing was reported. A lot of hay had been made by the Twitterati following a quote from UC Regent Richard Lieb in December that they looked into getting the foursome into th B1G but I'm not sure what exactly he meant by that

2. Not sure how attuned you are to what's going on across the Bay ... but your wife is a Furd. What's their thinking? Are they coordinating with Cal? In all this upheaval, my first priority is that Cal and Stanfurd remain in lockstep and end up in the same conference, even if it's the MWC. My second priority is continuing to play the LA schools in football. Sadly, I think this may the last year we play SC in football for a while.


Good points although I would take a more adversarial stance and refuse to play the LA schools. Let them cook in their own stew and wish them well in spending half of their season traveling to far off places.
OskiDeLaHoya
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Econ141 said:

OskiDeLaHoya said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

southseasbear said:

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.


What is good for "the conference" is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.
Logically, the assumption here has to be all remaining Pac 10 teams want to continue on in the Pac for the length of the next media package. Otherwise, why is George even bothering, since he will have 4 to 6 teams off the B1G and 4 teams off the Big 12? What is the point of selling SMU to join a conference with 2 remaining teams in the Northwest (who go Mountain West if they don't go to the B1G)? I might add that so far, what little has been said publicly, is that all 10 teams are on board with staying (e.g. Utah AD, Zona AD, etc. - there is noise out of Udub they want more than a per share split)

BTW, Knowlton and the Chancellor have made it clear, that the Chancellor is the one making the decision on conference realignment, and the JK has limited (if any) input. For starters, it is the Chancellor, not JK, asking donors their views. I don't know when the Chancellor has the time to sleep.


I have a couple of questions:

1. Makes sense that the Chancellor would be the one calling the shots, just as it is the B1G presidents calling the shots in admitting new schools (which I think helps Cal should they be considered in the future). What I'm very curious about is what is the Chancellor's thinking on where Cal _should_ land (from what you've heard)? What is our ideal scenario in her view? The only public statements I recall came during the UCLA hearing where she was critical of the impact that being in the B1G might have (don't recall the exact quote, and I recognize she had to say what she said given the arguments being made about UCLA's departure). Does the Chancellor favor reuniting with SC and UCLA or is she committed to rebuilding the Pac-12? I've heard that all 10 schools are committed but there have been very few direct quotes from Cal (or Stanfurd for that matter) in the last 6 months. We know that UW and UO met with the B1G and may have even submitted applications. Did Cal reach out to the B1G too in the last 6 months? I imagine yes but nothing was reported. A lot of hay had been made by the Twitterati following a quote from UC Regent Richard Lieb in December that they looked into getting the foursome into th B1G but I'm not sure what exactly he meant by that

2. Not sure how attuned you are to what's going on across the Bay ... but your wife is a Furd. What's their thinking? Are they coordinating with Cal? In all this upheaval, my first priority is that Cal and Stanfurd remain in lockstep and end up in the same conference, even if it's the MWC. My second priority is continuing to play the LA schools in football. Sadly, I think this may the last year we play SC in football for a while.


Good points although I would take a more adversarial stance and refuse to play the LA schools. Let them cook in their own stew and wish them well in spending half of their season traveling to far off places.



I understand the sentiment and I sometimes feel the same way too. But it doesn't change the fact that I will be sad to see these rivalries go away. And if I'm rational about it, at least in football, we wouldn't be "punishing" USC/UCLA if we refuse to schedule them. They would simply find other West Coast schools to fill out their schedules and reduce travel , like UNLV, Fresno, SDSU, SJSU, Nevada, etc.
MrGPAC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OskiDeLaHoya said:

Econ141 said:

OskiDeLaHoya said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

southseasbear said:

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.


What is good for "the conference" is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.
Logically, the assumption here has to be all remaining Pac 10 teams want to continue on in the Pac for the length of the next media package. Otherwise, why is George even bothering, since he will have 4 to 6 teams off the B1G and 4 teams off the Big 12? What is the point of selling SMU to join a conference with 2 remaining teams in the Northwest (who go Mountain West if they don't go to the B1G)? I might add that so far, what little has been said publicly, is that all 10 teams are on board with staying (e.g. Utah AD, Zona AD, etc. - there is noise out of Udub they want more than a per share split)

BTW, Knowlton and the Chancellor have made it clear, that the Chancellor is the one making the decision on conference realignment, and the JK has limited (if any) input. For starters, it is the Chancellor, not JK, asking donors their views. I don't know when the Chancellor has the time to sleep.


I have a couple of questions:

1. Makes sense that the Chancellor would be the one calling the shots, just as it is the B1G presidents calling the shots in admitting new schools (which I think helps Cal should they be considered in the future). What I'm very curious about is what is the Chancellor's thinking on where Cal _should_ land (from what you've heard)? What is our ideal scenario in her view? The only public statements I recall came during the UCLA hearing where she was critical of the impact that being in the B1G might have (don't recall the exact quote, and I recognize she had to say what she said given the arguments being made about UCLA's departure). Does the Chancellor favor reuniting with SC and UCLA or is she committed to rebuilding the Pac-12? I've heard that all 10 schools are committed but there have been very few direct quotes from Cal (or Stanfurd for that matter) in the last 6 months. We know that UW and UO met with the B1G and may have even submitted applications. Did Cal reach out to the B1G too in the last 6 months? I imagine yes but nothing was reported. A lot of hay had been made by the Twitterati following a quote from UC Regent Richard Lieb in December that they looked into getting the foursome into th B1G but I'm not sure what exactly he meant by that

2. Not sure how attuned you are to what's going on across the Bay ... but your wife is a Furd. What's their thinking? Are they coordinating with Cal? In all this upheaval, my first priority is that Cal and Stanfurd remain in lockstep and end up in the same conference, even if it's the MWC. My second priority is continuing to play the LA schools in football. Sadly, I think this may the last year we play SC in football for a while.


Good points although I would take a more adversarial stance and refuse to play the LA schools. Let them cook in their own stew and wish them well in spending half of their season traveling to far off places.



I understand the sentiment and I sometimes feel the same way too. But it doesn't change the fact that I will be sad to see these rivalries go away. And if I'm rational about it, at least in football, we wouldn't be "punishing" USC/UCLA if we refuse to schedule them. They would simply find other West Coast schools to fill out their schedules and reduce travel , like UNLV, Fresno, SDSU, SJSU, Nevada, etc.

SJSU maybe, but for the most part this is punishing their alumni who either live in the bay area, or enjoy the anual weekend trip to the bay area. I'm not sure how many of those would be as happy to go to Reno or Fresno. Especially after doing it once or twice...

Also, return trips from any of those schools are not going to get nearly as much enthusiasm as the bay area teams do. I'm not saying that USC/UCLA love cal or that we are special, but we typically have a decent turn out at the socal games.
upsetof86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

SMU is in a big media market. Pretty clear we are becoming a Prime conference. See y'all at Bardo's after the game. Query who the rival they would bring with them (think of the irony if it's TCU, they have our ex-coach, we have their ex-QB).

With SDSU, I assume it is either Fresno St or UNLV, which could be where SDSU, which seemed to be a shoe-in to join, may have hit a snag.

From a pure fan perspective, I would be happy with SMU, TCU, SDSU and UNLV becoming parties to the Pac 14. Vegas, Dallas area and San Diego alway nice trips (okay, Dallas area in summer is a little hot). Not sure about the academic fits, but I suspect that the TV contract is driving this.


This is some good thinking. I would be all in for this P14 idea because of the markets. It's great for the new 4 so they stay with us longer and good for the whole to get that audience. And ultimately good for Cal. Let's be real about having it all, academic prestige and legacy brand association with the likes of the B1G and winning games in a re defined conference footprint.
Oski87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You have to wonder if these new teams will be worth 150 million in new revenue. Also - because we are looking at possible playoff revenue - dividing one or two playoff teams by 10 instead of 12 or 14 is a lot better. So I would think that adding these locations would have to give us revenue dollars.

San Diego does not give us LA media market. Dallas and Houston are great, and it would be nice to get them and possibly they could get paid as a good TV market for football - but they are the 5th and 6 or 7th teams in the state. They could certainly improve, however. So it is a crapshoot. Are those 4 going to get on average more than the current PAC 12 teams - Oregon, Washington, Cal, Furd, ASU, Arizona, Colorado and Utah? My guess is no, but you never know. I guess they would be underpaid for the first contract period, and then full members by the second contract (if there is one).
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.