philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

That would be quite unprecedented, if not incredible, that one or more schools of the Pac10 were to request admission to an athletic conference, be denied, and then sue to force admission. I think, this too, is far fetched. No school with any sense of pride or fear of embarrassment would do such a thing.

Also, comparing the Big 10 to a cartel as a mechanism of/for monopoly isn't realistic. Who's to say, with that rationale, we shouldn't join the SEC? It is, after all, the best conference in terms of teams and market value.

I think a poster on page 9 indicated that USC and UCLA didn't want us in the B1G and I agree. They left the Pac12 and got away from us for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that USC felt they brought most of the value without being compensated for it. Whether we would go in as full or even half shares, they wouldn't want us. It would dilute their brand. They would once again have to share recruitment ground with us.

It is better for the B1G to stand pat, wait to see what happens to the P10 in 4-5 years and if it collapses, they can then pick who they want. This is different from the Big12 who are trying to press for expansion now and likely hasten the P10's demise.

---

With the Supreme Court affirming that the laws of commerce, especially the antitrust laws, apply to college sports, we are in a brave new world. Paying players above the table was unprecedented too. But here we are.

The issue will be if the PAC-12 craters and schools are locked out of TV contracts and membership in the conferences that have contracts. It is not "suing to get in" it is the risk of being sued for damages if they are excluded and suffer irreparable harm as a result.

---

The problem with your analysis is that you think a court is going to rule that we belong in the B1G when we have the MWC available. The fact is our football and basketball teams do not perform up to the B1G standards and are far below USC and Southern Branch. How about Air Force? How about Nevada? How about Idaho? How about Montana? How about Fresno? There are many schools (many with teams that out perform ours) that could also whine that they were excluded.

---

First, MWC schools have not been impacted at all by B1G actions. It is much tougher for them to claim damages. It is tough for them to claim they fit the B1G academic profile.

If the PAC-12 dies, the B1G, Fox and ESPN will be easily be portrayed as the perpetrators and probably as part of a conspiracy. If the B1G refuses to admit, at any value, the left over PAC-10 teams, and those teams are forced to drop down to a much lower revenue level, there will be a basis for damages and the B1G will need to have a good basis for their decision. What is their criteria? Their schools are largely land grant public schools in relatively populous states that are their state's flagship school with good academics. Same as the PAC-12, but not the same as the MWC, which is why the PAC-12 is having trouble finding replacements. The B1G used to only have Midwest schools but now the have Rutgers, Maryland, USC and UCLA. The B1G can argue WSU and OSU don't fit, and easily argue MWC teams don't fit, but they cannot argue Cal and UW don't fit. They can only argue we are not worth full membership $. They cannot argue our value is zero. If they offer less, and we walk because we only want full membership $, then they are off tge hook, they did not refuse to deal, we did.

Similarly, if Cal does not ask to get in, and try to negotiate, we will have no basis to claim they refused to deal with us. For the reasons I stated above, the initiative needs to come from our side, working with Stanford, UCLA and USC especially, plus, UW and Oregon. Or the entire PAC-10.

---

These are athletic conferences. We are not a good fit in the B1G because our football and mens basketball teams are terrible. Frankly, they suck. The B1G can exclude us for the same reason the Pac 12 excluded Fresno State, Boise State, BYU, and (until recently) SDSU. And don't forget the Pac 12 recently denied membership to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

---

The pac-12 did not exclude Boise State et al because their football teams "suck" in fact they were usually far better than us. They were excluded because the academic institutions were not a good fit.

Cal and Stanford clearly fit the B1G from an academic standpoint. Exceedingly so. The question is what value our football team (mostly) and basketball (secondarily) would bring. It is clearly not the full share, not in the short run, but it is clearly more than zero. There should be a value that it works, that is how markets work. It is really unfortunate that our teams have gone through the worst 6 years in our history. It is a really bad time for all this to be happening.

I have been saying since he was hired that Jim Knowlton was possibly the worst hire as AD to guide Cal through this critical time in the history of college athletics and after Christ gave him an 8 year extension that we would be lucky to have an athletics program when he is done.

---

So you think it is acceptable for an athletic conference to exclude a team for mediocre academics but not for mediocre athletics.

I get that you think Cal is a good fit in the B1G. The point is that the B1G does not think we are a good fit. If they expand they will add Oregon and Washington before us. They will certainly add ND if possible and maybe even Stanford. They will add some southern teams if possible before us.

You are like the high school kid who thinks they are hot stuff but can't understand why they have no date on a Saturday night. Our administration has not supported athletics for the most of the past 60 years. We are not an attractive candidate for the B1G.

---

Why are you making it about me? I don't think we are "hot stuff" I am one of the people on this board that has pointed out that the last 6 years were the worst 6 years in our history and Knowlton is a horrible fit. If we do get left out it is largely due to his incompetence.

It is not about what I think.

It is not what I find "acceptable," it is what a court would decide is "reasonable." There has to be a good reason for the exclusion. When the NFL absorbed the AFC, there was a "minimum stadium size" requirement, but in the end, everyone got in and that was when most money came from ticket sakes.

If the B1G causes the PAC-12 to collapse and they admit some schools but not others they will need to have a defensible standard by which some are included and some are excluded to defend against lawsuits by the excluded schools. The B1G has some teams that are not very good, they recently admitted Rutgers and Maryland. The B1G lawyers (and Fox and Disney lawyers) all know this. We are currently so bad maybe there is an attendance test we would fail.

All I am saying is that, since the 2021 Supreme Court decision, the antitrust laws fully apply and the B1G knows this.

The USFL example is only applicable if the NFL admitted some of the USFL teams, with the intent of causing the league to collapse, but excluded others without good reason. You can bet those owners would sue.

---

We are being excluded because (a) our teams are not competitive, and (b) our fans don't come to games.

And it's not just the last 6 years. With brief and rare exceptions our teams in revenue sports have been mediocre at best for over 60 years.

---

Unlike Rutgers?

---

Yes. First of all, Rutgers allowed the B1G to expand their footprint to the East coast, just as adding the two LA schools permitted their presence on the West Coast. Mission accomplished: the B1G does not have to add other teams such as Buffalo in the east or us on the west. Second, Rutgers has a decent basketball team; we don't.

Compare Rutgers's #35 ranking to our #304:
https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/ncaab/updated-college-basketball-net-rankings-for-ncaa-tournament-bm10/

We would be at the bottom of the MWC or the Big Sky. We would be near the bottom of the Big West (above only Northridge and Cal Poly). We would be second from the bottom in the Ivy League (above only Columbia).

Rutgers is a good match for the B1G; we are not.

---

Rutgers has made the NCAA tourney 2 times this century. Cal made it 9 times. By your logic, Cal is a good match for the B1G, Rutgers is not.

---

Make no mistake, Rutgers was added to expand the conference to the east coast. No other team was added or needed to be included. With the addition of the LA schools, the B1G has expanded to the west coast. They do not need any other team. If they change their minds, Oregon and Washington are in line ahead of us.

Could the B1G add us? Sure. Will a federal judge find antitrust violation in not adding us? I don't think so. Again, we have only ourselves to blame for being comfortable with mediocrity.

---

I know exactly why the B1G added Rutgers and it had absolutely nothing to do with Rutgers athletics.

My only point is don't try to bring up Rutgers athletics as an argument for why the B1G would invite Rutgers and not Cal because it's a losing argument. For as terrible as Cal athletics has been over the past 60 years, Rutgers has been worse. Far worse.

---

I think Southseas is saying is that the B1G already has what they want - two West coast teams. They don't need us. They already have the top2 media markets in the country. Stanford and us and probably 6 other teams in the P10 don't tick a box for the B1G. Us and Stanford have academics. Nothing else.

---

TomBear said:

---

I keep reading the B1G added Rutgers to get the eastern market.

Maybe so. But is there any tangible evidence more viewers on the east coast are actually watching?

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Colorado and Utah may be on their way out the door. Stay tuned...

---

BearSD said:

---

6956bear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Basketball (and academics) is largely irrelevant to conference realignment. It is about football brands and tv markets being valuable enough to generate revenue. That is all.

---

I think that is largely true. Cal being in the Bay Area market is its most attractive quality. It is a great market that has a very large upside potential. But being strong academically certainly is helpful for conference PR and perception. The presidents do want to portray the conference as strong academically. Even if it is simply window dressing.

But sure TV does not care. They are writing the checks. But the Bay Area is a big and largely untapped market. With a lot of wealth.

---

Maybe the TV guys think that market size doesn't always translate into being a great market for college football TV broadcasts.

Six largest metro areas in US, per Wikipedia
NYC 23.2 million
LA 18.5
DC 9.9
Chicago 9.9
SF 9.5
Boston 8.4

Out of those, are any of them other than Chicago prime markets for college football? Or are they primarily pro sports markets?

Yes, the Big Ten has recently hoovered up teams in the NYC, LA, and DC markets, but except for USC, the teams they've added are largely for "potential" rather than proven ability to draw large college football audiences. And the Big Ten seems to have added those new markets defensively, against the growing power of the SEC who has added teams that have much more college football drawing power.

Further Big Ten expansion in the west rests on the hope that the Big Ten will double, triple, and quadruple down on the strategy of "big market, hopefully someday they'll be big in college football".

But the Big Ten could, instead, wait things out until they have a chance to acquire Notre Dame and Florida State, the only remaining top-value teams that are not already in the Big Ten or SEC.

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

6956bear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Basketball (and academics) is largely irrelevant to conference realignment. It is about football brands and tv markets being valuable enough to generate revenue. That is all.

---

I think that is largely true. Cal being in the Bay Area market is its most attractive quality. It is a great market that has a very large upside potential. But being strong academically certainly is helpful for conference PR and perception. The presidents do want to portray the conference as strong academically. Even if it is simply window dressing.

But sure TV does not care. They are writing the checks. But the Bay Area is a big and largely untapped market. With a lot of wealth.

---

Maybe the TV guys think that market size doesn't always translate into being a great market for college football TV broadcasts.

Six largest metro areas in US, per Wikipedia
NYC 23.2 million
LA 18.5
DC 9.9
Chicago 9.9
SF 9.5
Boston 8.4

Out of those, are any of them other than Chicago prime markets for college football? Or are they primarily pro sports markets?

Yes, the Big Ten has recently hoovered up teams in the NYC, LA, and DC markets, but except for USC, the teams they've added are largely for "potential" rather than proven ability to draw large college football audiences. And the Big Ten seems to have added those new markets defensively, against the growing power of the SEC who has added teams that have much more college football drawing power.

Further Big Ten expansion in the west rests on the hope that the Big Ten will double, triple, and quadruple down on the strategy of "big market, hopefully someday they'll be big in college football".

But the Big Ten could, instead, wait things out until they have a chance to acquire Notre Dame and Florida State, the only remaining top-value teams that are not already in the Big Ten or SEC.

---

Note that Sacramento is #23 at 2.7 million and if considered with the Bay Area easily puts the Northern California market at #3, jumping Chicago and DC (essentially tied otherwise) by millions.

Note also that LA does not include Orange County, where USC is huge and would have LA rival NYC.

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

That would be quite unprecedented, if not incredible, that one or more schools of the Pac10 were to request admission to an athletic conference, be denied, and then sue to force admission. I think, this too, is far fetched. No school with any sense of pride or fear of embarrassment would do such a thing.

Also, comparing the Big 10 to a cartel as a mechanism of/for monopoly isn't realistic. Who's to say, with that rationale, we shouldn't join the SEC? It is, after all, the best conference in terms of teams and market value.

I think a poster on page 9 indicated that USC and UCLA didn't want us in the B1G and I agree. They left the Pac12 and got away from us for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that USC felt they brought most of the value without being compensated for it. Whether we would go in as full or even half shares, they wouldn't want us. It would dilute their brand. They would once again have to share recruitment ground with us.

It is better for the B1G to stand pat, wait to see what happens to the P10 in 4-5 years and if it collapses, they can then pick who they want. This is different from the Big12 who are trying to press for expansion now and likely hasten the P10's demise.

---

With the Supreme Court affirming that the laws of commerce, especially the antitrust laws, apply to college sports, we are in a brave new world. Paying players above the table was unprecedented too. But here we are.

The issue will be if the PAC-12 craters and schools are locked out of TV contracts and membership in the conferences that have contracts. It is not "suing to get in" it is the risk of being sued for damages if they are excluded and suffer irreparable harm as a result.

---

The problem with your analysis is that you think a court is going to rule that we belong in the B1G when we have the MWC available. The fact is our football and basketball teams do not perform up to the B1G standards and are far below USC and Southern Branch. How about Air Force? How about Nevada? How about Idaho? How about Montana? How about Fresno? There are many schools (many with teams that out perform ours) that could also whine that they were excluded.

---

First, MWC schools have not been impacted at all by B1G actions. It is much tougher for them to claim damages. It is tough for them to claim they fit the B1G academic profile.

If the PAC-12 dies, the B1G, Fox and ESPN will be easily be portrayed as the perpetrators and probably as part of a conspiracy. If the B1G refuses to admit, at any value, the left over PAC-10 teams, and those teams are forced to drop down to a much lower revenue level, there will be a basis for damages and the B1G will need to have a good basis for their decision. What is their criteria? Their schools are largely land grant public schools in relatively populous states that are their state's flagship school with good academics. Same as the PAC-12, but not the same as the MWC, which is why the PAC-12 is having trouble finding replacements. The B1G used to only have Midwest schools but now the have Rutgers, Maryland, USC and UCLA. The B1G can argue WSU and OSU don't fit, and easily argue MWC teams don't fit, but they cannot argue Cal and UW don't fit. They can only argue we are not worth full membership $. They cannot argue our value is zero. If they offer less, and we walk because we only want full membership $, then they are off tge hook, they did not refuse to deal, we did.

Similarly, if Cal does not ask to get in, and try to negotiate, we will have no basis to claim they refused to deal with us. For the reasons I stated above, the initiative needs to come from our side, working with Stanford, UCLA and USC especially, plus, UW and Oregon. Or the entire PAC-10.

---

These are athletic conferences. We are not a good fit in the B1G because our football and mens basketball teams are terrible. Frankly, they suck. The B1G can exclude us for the same reason the Pac 12 excluded Fresno State, Boise State, BYU, and (until recently) SDSU. And don't forget the Pac 12 recently denied membership to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

---

The pac-12 did not exclude Boise State et al because their football teams "suck" in fact they were usually far better than us. They were excluded because the academic institutions were not a good fit.

Cal and Stanford clearly fit the B1G from an academic standpoint. Exceedingly so. The question is what value our football team (mostly) and basketball (secondarily) would bring. It is clearly not the full share, not in the short run, but it is clearly more than zero. There should be a value that it works, that is how markets work. It is really unfortunate that our teams have gone through the worst 6 years in our history. It is a really bad time for all this to be happening.

I have been saying since he was hired that Jim Knowlton was possibly the worst hire as AD to guide Cal through this critical time in the history of college athletics and after Christ gave him an 8 year extension that we would be lucky to have an athletics program when he is done.

---

So you think it is acceptable for an athletic conference to exclude a team for mediocre academics but not for mediocre athletics.

I get that you think Cal is a good fit in the B1G. The point is that the B1G does not think we are a good fit. If they expand they will add Oregon and Washington before us. They will certainly add ND if possible and maybe even Stanford. They will add some southern teams if possible before us.

You are like the high school kid who thinks they are hot stuff but can't understand why they have no date on a Saturday night. Our administration has not supported athletics for the most of the past 60 years. We are not an attractive candidate for the B1G.

---

Why are you making it about me? I don't think we are "hot stuff" I am one of the people on this board that has pointed out that the last 6 years were the worst 6 years in our history and Knowlton is a horrible fit. If we do get left out it is largely due to his incompetence.

It is not about what I think.

It is not what I find "acceptable," it is what a court would decide is "reasonable." There has to be a good reason for the exclusion. When the NFL absorbed the AFC, there was a "minimum stadium size" requirement, but in the end, everyone got in and that was when most money came from ticket sakes.

If the B1G causes the PAC-12 to collapse and they admit some schools but not others they will need to have a defensible standard by which some are included and some are excluded to defend against lawsuits by the excluded schools. The B1G has some teams that are not very good, they recently admitted Rutgers and Maryland. The B1G lawyers (and Fox and Disney lawyers) all know this. We are currently so bad maybe there is an attendance test we would fail.

All I am saying is that, since the 2021 Supreme Court decision, the antitrust laws fully apply and the B1G knows this.

The USFL example is only applicable if the NFL admitted some of the USFL teams, with the intent of causing the league to collapse, but excluded others without good reason. You can bet those owners would sue.

---

We are being excluded because (a) our teams are not competitive, and (b) our fans don't come to games.

And it's not just the last 6 years. With brief and rare exceptions our teams in revenue sports have been mediocre at best for over 60 years.

---

Unlike Rutgers?

---

Yes. First of all, Rutgers allowed the B1G to expand their footprint to the East coast, just as adding the two LA schools permitted their presence on the West Coast. Mission accomplished: the B1G does not have to add other teams such as Buffalo in the east or us on the west. Second, Rutgers has a decent basketball team; we don't.

Compare Rutgers's #35 ranking to our #304:
https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/ncaab/updated-college-basketball-net-rankings-for-ncaa-tournament-bm10/

We would be at the bottom of the MWC or the Big Sky. We would be near the bottom of the Big West (above only Northridge and Cal Poly). We would be second from the bottom in the Ivy League (above only Columbia).

Rutgers is a good match for the B1G; we are not.

---

Rutgers has made the NCAA tourney 2 times this century. Cal made it 9 times. By your logic, Cal is a good match for the B1G, Rutgers is not.

---

Make no mistake, Rutgers was added to expand the conference to the east coast. No other team was added or needed to be included. With the addition of the LA schools, the B1G has expanded to the west coast. They do not need any other team. If they change their minds, Oregon and Washington are in line ahead of us.

Could the B1G add us? Sure. Will a federal judge find antitrust violation in not adding us? I don't think so. Again, we have only ourselves to blame for being comfortable with mediocrity.

---

I know exactly why the B1G added Rutgers and it had absolutely nothing to do with Rutgers athletics.

My only point is don't try to bring up Rutgers athletics as an argument for why the B1G would invite Rutgers and not Cal because it's a losing argument. For as terrible as Cal athletics has been over the past 60 years, Rutgers has been worse. Far worse.

---

I think Southseas is saying is that the B1G already has what they want - two West coast teams. They don't need us. They already have the top2 media markets in the country. Stanford and us and probably 6 other teams in the P10 don't tick a box for the B1G. Us and Stanford have academics. Nothing else.

---

Again, I am ONLY correcting the incredibly myopic statement Southseas made that the B1G added Rutgers for its superior basketball team. When the B1G added Rutgers, Rutgers had not made the tourney for 23 years and wouldn't make it for another 8. In any hypothetical antitrust lawsuit, the B1G lawyers would have to concede that athletic strength was not part of the criteria for admission.

Also, what's up with the "no other team was added." Um, what? The B1G added Maryland. How did we forget this? Rutgers was added for the NYC market and Maryland for the DC market. USC and UCLA do not deliver the West Coast. They deliver LA. LA may very well be the only West Coast city the B1G (aka Fox) is interested in, but the West Coast and LA are decidedly not the same thing.

Will the B1G ever invite Cal? No one on this boards knows. There are argument on both sides and everyone is just guessing. You say Cal and Stanford offer academics and nothing else. Well, the former President of Fox Sports said that Cal + Stanford were more valuable to TV than Oregon + Washington. So it's not "nothing else." Is that enough? Not a clue. The only thing that seems certain is that the B1G is not making the next move.

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

6956bear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Basketball (and academics) is largely irrelevant to conference realignment. It is about football brands and tv markets being valuable enough to generate revenue. That is all.

---

I think that is largely true. Cal being in the Bay Area market is its most attractive quality. It is a great market that has a very large upside potential. But being strong academically certainly is helpful for conference PR and perception. The presidents do want to portray the conference as strong academically. Even if it is simply window dressing.

But sure TV does not care. They are writing the checks. But the Bay Area is a big and largely untapped market. With a lot of wealth.

---

Maybe the TV guys think that market size doesn't always translate into being a great market for college football TV broadcasts.

Six largest metro areas in US, per Wikipedia
NYC 23.2 million
LA 18.5
DC 9.9
Chicago 9.9
SF 9.5
Boston 8.4

Out of those, are any of them other than Chicago prime markets for college football? Or are they primarily pro sports markets?

Yes, the Big Ten has recently hoovered up teams in the NYC, LA, and DC markets, but except for USC, the teams they've added are largely for "potential" rather than proven ability to draw large college football audiences. And the Big Ten seems to have added those new markets defensively, against the growing power of the SEC who has added teams that have much more college football drawing power.

Further Big Ten expansion in the west rests on the hope that the Big Ten will double, triple, and quadruple down on the strategy of "big market, hopefully someday they'll be big in college football".

But the Big Ten could, instead, wait things out until they have a chance to acquire Notre Dame and Florida State, the only remaining top-value teams that are not already in the Big Ten or SEC.

---

Note that Sacramento is #23 at 2.7 million and if considered with the Bay Area easily puts the Northern California market at #3, jumping Chicago and DC (essentially tied otherwise) by millions.

Note also that LA does not include Orange County, where USC is huge and would have LA rival NYC.

---

If you click through the first Wikipedia page to the one regarding LA, it does include Orange County.

But including Sacramento as possible 'Cal Territory' in regards to media markets seems fair. If Cal were winning and drawing excitement, it certainly would be.

Is the pac12 net on basic cable in Sac? I thought not, but was on their premiun and sports packages. If steaming pays decent $$$ compared to cable, I think it could be beneficial for fans in territories like sacramento - anyone can spend a few bucks a month durring FB season. Which is cheaper than upgrading a cable package, which also requires $100+/mo for cable to start with.

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Colorado and Utah may be on their way out the door. Stay tuned...

---

philly1121 said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Colorado and Utah may be on their way out the door. Stay tuned...

---

Well in a brief moment of free time, I perused Twitter and saw what Mack Rhoades, the AD of Baylor, said about the P12 and the prospective media deal. Others have jumped on it. The du jour schools now seem to be Colorado and Utah to jump ship. Everyone on Twitter seems to be talking about "brand". The brand of the school. The brand of the conference. And how it affects recruiting and NIL.

In short, with Texas and Oklahoma leaving, there is no brand name school for the Big12. And that's what's driving possible expansion.

I do get the impression that while the pundits on Twitter have no doubts that there will be a media deal, there is great doubt as to what it will be worth. And it seems to me, and of course I could be wrong, that things are leaking out that are cause for concern as to media partner(s) and the deal's value. And perhaps this is why it seems like the vultures are circling.

---

philbert said:

---

Interesting if true....

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-expansion-big-ten-targeting-pac-12-schools

---

philbert said:

---

This is probably the perfect time to strike and get the teams you want at a reduced payout...unless the Pac12 media deal is much better than believed.

---

berserkeley said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

That would be quite unprecedented, if not incredible, that one or more schools of the Pac10 were to request admission to an athletic conference, be denied, and then sue to force admission. I think, this too, is far fetched. No school with any sense of pride or fear of embarrassment would do such a thing.

Also, comparing the Big 10 to a cartel as a mechanism of/for monopoly isn't realistic. Who's to say, with that rationale, we shouldn't join the SEC? It is, after all, the best conference in terms of teams and market value.

I think a poster on page 9 indicated that USC and UCLA didn't want us in the B1G and I agree. They left the Pac12 and got away from us for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that USC felt they brought most of the value without being compensated for it. Whether we would go in as full or even half shares, they wouldn't want us. It would dilute their brand. They would once again have to share recruitment ground with us.

It is better for the B1G to stand pat, wait to see what happens to the P10 in 4-5 years and if it collapses, they can then pick who they want. This is different from the Big12 who are trying to press for expansion now and likely hasten the P10's demise.

---

With the Supreme Court affirming that the laws of commerce, especially the antitrust laws, apply to college sports, we are in a brave new world. Paying players above the table was unprecedented too. But here we are.

The issue will be if the PAC-12 craters and schools are locked out of TV contracts and membership in the conferences that have contracts. It is not "suing to get in" it is the risk of being sued for damages if they are excluded and suffer irreparable harm as a result.

---

The problem with your analysis is that you think a court is going to rule that we belong in the B1G when we have the MWC available. The fact is our football and basketball teams do not perform up to the B1G standards and are far below USC and Southern Branch. How about Air Force? How about Nevada? How about Idaho? How about Montana? How about Fresno? There are many schools (many with teams that out perform ours) that could also whine that they were excluded.

---

First, MWC schools have not been impacted at all by B1G actions. It is much tougher for them to claim damages. It is tough for them to claim they fit the B1G academic profile.

If the PAC-12 dies, the B1G, Fox and ESPN will be easily be portrayed as the perpetrators and probably as part of a conspiracy. If the B1G refuses to admit, at any value, the left over PAC-10 teams, and those teams are forced to drop down to a much lower revenue level, there will be a basis for damages and the B1G will need to have a good basis for their decision. What is their criteria? Their schools are largely land grant public schools in relatively populous states that are their state's flagship school with good academics. Same as the PAC-12, but not the same as the MWC, which is why the PAC-12 is having trouble finding replacements. The B1G used to only have Midwest schools but now the have Rutgers, Maryland, USC and UCLA. The B1G can argue WSU and OSU don't fit, and easily argue MWC teams don't fit, but they cannot argue Cal and UW don't fit. They can only argue we are not worth full membership $. They cannot argue our value is zero. If they offer less, and we walk because we only want full membership $, then they are off tge hook, they did not refuse to deal, we did.

Similarly, if Cal does not ask to get in, and try to negotiate, we will have no basis to claim they refused to deal with us. For the reasons I stated above, the initiative needs to come from our side, working with Stanford, UCLA and USC especially, plus, UW and Oregon. Or the entire PAC-10.

---

These are athletic conferences. We are not a good fit in the B1G because our football and mens basketball teams are terrible. Frankly, they suck. The B1G can exclude us for the same reason the Pac 12 excluded Fresno State, Boise State, BYU, and (until recently) SDSU. And don't forget the Pac 12 recently denied membership to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

---

The pac-12 did not exclude Boise State et al because their football teams "suck" in fact they were usually far better than us. They were excluded because the academic institutions were not a good fit.

Cal and Stanford clearly fit the B1G from an academic standpoint. Exceedingly so. The question is what value our football team (mostly) and basketball (secondarily) would bring. It is clearly not the full share, not in the short run, but it is clearly more than zero. There should be a value that it works, that is how markets work. It is really unfortunate that our teams have gone through the worst 6 years in our history. It is a really bad time for all this to be happening.

I have been saying since he was hired that Jim Knowlton was possibly the worst hire as AD to guide Cal through this critical time in the history of college athletics and after Christ gave him an 8 year extension that we would be lucky to have an athletics program when he is done.

---

So you think it is acceptable for an athletic conference to exclude a team for mediocre academics but not for mediocre athletics.

I get that you think Cal is a good fit in the B1G. The point is that the B1G does not think we are a good fit. If they expand they will add Oregon and Washington before us. They will certainly add ND if possible and maybe even Stanford. They will add some southern teams if possible before us.

You are like the high school kid who thinks they are hot stuff but can't understand why they have no date on a Saturday night. Our administration has not supported athletics for the most of the past 60 years. We are not an attractive candidate for the B1G.

---

Why are you making it about me? I don't think we are "hot stuff" I am one of the people on this board that has pointed out that the last 6 years were the worst 6 years in our history and Knowlton is a horrible fit. If we do get left out it is largely due to his incompetence.

It is not about what I think.

It is not what I find "acceptable," it is what a court would decide is "reasonable." There has to be a good reason for the exclusion. When the NFL absorbed the AFC, there was a "minimum stadium size" requirement, but in the end, everyone got in and that was when most money came from ticket sakes.

If the B1G causes the PAC-12 to collapse and they admit some schools but not others they will need to have a defensible standard by which some are included and some are excluded to defend against lawsuits by the excluded schools. The B1G has some teams that are not very good, they recently admitted Rutgers and Maryland. The B1G lawyers (and Fox and Disney lawyers) all know this. We are currently so bad maybe there is an attendance test we would fail.

All I am saying is that, since the 2021 Supreme Court decision, the antitrust laws fully apply and the B1G knows this.

The USFL example is only applicable if the NFL admitted some of the USFL teams, with the intent of causing the league to collapse, but excluded others without good reason. You can bet those owners would sue.

---

We are being excluded because (a) our teams are not competitive, and (b) our fans don't come to games.

And it's not just the last 6 years. With brief and rare exceptions our teams in revenue sports have been mediocre at best for over 60 years.

---

Unlike Rutgers?

---

Yes. First of all, Rutgers allowed the B1G to expand their footprint to the East coast, just as adding the two LA schools permitted their presence on the West Coast. Mission accomplished: the B1G does not have to add other teams such as Buffalo in the east or us on the west. Second, Rutgers has a decent basketball team; we don't.

Compare Rutgers's #35 ranking to our #304:
https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/ncaab/updated-college-basketball-net-rankings-for-ncaa-tournament-bm10/

We would be at the bottom of the MWC or the Big Sky. We would be near the bottom of the Big West (above only Northridge and Cal Poly). We would be second from the bottom in the Ivy League (above only Columbia).

Rutgers is a good match for the B1G; we are not.

---

Rutgers has made the NCAA tourney 2 times this century. Cal made it 9 times. By your logic, Cal is a good match for the B1G, Rutgers is not.

---

Make no mistake, Rutgers was added to expand the conference to the east coast. No other team was added or needed to be included. With the addition of the LA schools, the B1G has expanded to the west coast. They do not need any other team. If they change their minds, Oregon and Washington are in line ahead of us.

Could the B1G add us? Sure. Will a federal judge find antitrust violation in not adding us? I don't think so. Again, we have only ourselves to blame for being comfortable with mediocrity.

---

I know exactly why the B1G added Rutgers and it had absolutely nothing to do with Rutgers athletics.

My only point is don't try to bring up Rutgers athletics as an argument for why the B1G would invite Rutgers and not Cal because it's a losing argument. For as terrible as Cal athletics has been over the past 60 years, Rutgers has been worse. Far worse.

---

I think Southseas is saying is that the B1G already has what they want - two West coast teams. They don't need us. They already have the top2 media markets in the country. Stanford and us and probably 6 other teams in the P10 don't tick a box for the B1G. Us and Stanford have academics. Nothing else.

---

Again, I am ONLY correcting the incredibly myopic statement Southseas made that the B1G added Rutgers for its superior basketball team. When the B1G added Rutgers, Rutgers had not made the tourney for 23 years and wouldn't make it for another 8. In any hypothetical antitrust lawsuit, the B1G lawyers would have to concede that athletic strength was not part of the criteria for admission.

Also, what's up with the "no other team was added." Um, what? The B1G added Maryland. How did we forget this? Rutgers was added for the NYC market and Maryland for the DC market. USC and UCLA do not deliver the West Coast. They deliver LA. LA may very well be the only West Coast city the B1G (aka Fox) is interested in, but the West Coast and LA are decidedly not the same thing.

Will the B1G ever invite Cal? No one on this boards knows. There are argument on both sides and everyone is just guessing. You say Cal and Stanford offer academics and nothing else. Well, the former President of Fox Sports said that Cal + Stanford were more valuable to TV than Oregon + Washington. So it's not "nothing else." Is that enough? Not a clue. The only thing that seems certain is that the B1G is not making the next move.

---

You misread my post. I'm not saying that Rutgers deserved the B1G invite. It is an odd fit, but I think a better fit than Cal. So the B1G added two east coast teams and now two west coast teams. Specifically, they took the best 2 east coast teams and best 2 west coast teams available. I do not believe they will be required to add more, specifically Cal. Cal and Stanford may be more valuable to Fox, but are they more valuable to B1G? And to what extent are they more valuable becuase of Stanford which has a connection to Notre Dame and a bigger national brand. Yes there is a west coast beyond LA, but they got the 2 biggest teams.

I think if we want to be invited to a major conference (as we are slipping to mid-major status) our best bet is to clean up our act, cease tolerating mediocrity (or worse), and demand that our AD and coaches deliver results, as opposed to hoping a federal agency or court takes pity on us.

---

I did not misread your post. I simply disagree with your characterization.

First, Rutgers was not stronger athletically than Cal. Full stop.

The B1G did not invite Rutgers and Maryland because they wanted two East Coast teams and they were the best two. They invited Rutgers and Maryland because they were located within the #1 (NYC) and #9 (DC) TV markets and the terms of the Big Ten Network meant the Big Ten would get paid $1 more per TV subscriber in those markets regardless of whether they watched college football or not.

I am sure it helped that NYC and DC were two of only four cities with at least 1% alums from every Big Ten school; the other two cities are LA and SF. I am sure it also helped that Rutgers and Maryland became the two closest schools to Penn State.

It's important to get the details correct if you're trying to use them to draw comparisons to today.

• Cal's value exists beyond academics. It's a large flagship public university with a huge alumni base. Something the B1G has clearly valued in expansion.
• Cal resides within the #6 TV market. Something the B1G has clearly valued in expansion.
• Cal, at least according to the former President of Fox Sports, is worth more in TV money than Oregon or Washington - probably thanks to that #6 TV market and large alumni base.
• SF is one of only 4 cities in the entire country with such a large and representative B1G alumni base. Something the B1G has clearly valued in expansion.
• Cal is one of the few schools that meet these criteria in proximity to other B1G schools that otherwise exist on an island. Something the B1G has clearly valued in expansion.
• Cal doesn't have a strong revenue sports presence. Something the B1G has clearly not required in expansion.

And none of this means the B1G is going to invite Cal. But there's no reason to mischaracterize these facts to conclude that the B1G won't invite Cal because you're missing all the valid arguments.

The college football world is different today than it was then. The B1G wasn't worth $60M/team then so maybe the value Rutgers and Maryland added wouldn't be enough to get invites today. Academics was so important then that, if rumors are true, the B1G turned away Texas because they wouldn't consider Oklahoma. Oklahoma! And yet, the B1G is allegedly considering Florida State today. Athletic brand may be more valuable to the B1G today than it was then. Kevin Warren is gone and he seemed to be the driving force behind continued expansion. The B1G may simply have no appetite to expand beyond 16 teams. Ever.

I don't know where the B1G presidents values lie. You don't know. No one on this board knows. And none of the sports writers, who all claim to know, know. We're all just guessing.

The B1G could add none of Cal, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon. The B1G could add all 4. The B1G could add just Oregon and Washington. They could add just Cal and Stanford. They could add Washington, Oregon, and Stanford without Cal. They would add Washington, Cal, and Stanford without Oregon. There are valid arguments for any of those scenarios. My guess is that the B1G isn't making any moves this round unless the Pac-12 implodes. And if the B1G does add more, I think it's a tossup whether Cal gets an invite.

---

calumnus said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

That would be quite unprecedented, if not incredible, that one or more schools of the Pac10 were to request admission to an athletic conference, be denied, and then sue to force admission. I think, this too, is far fetched. No school with any sense of pride or fear of embarrassment would do such a thing.

Also, comparing the Big 10 to a cartel as a mechanism of/for monopoly isn't realistic. Who's to say, with that rationale, we shouldn't join the SEC? It is, after all, the best conference in terms of teams and market value.

I think a poster on page 9 indicated that USC and UCLA didn't want us in the B1G and I agree. They left the Pac12 and got away from us for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that USC felt they brought most of the value without being compensated for it. Whether we would go in as full or even half shares, they wouldn't want us. It would dilute their brand. They would once again have to share recruitment ground with us.

It is better for the B1G to stand pat, wait to see what happens to the P10 in 4-5 years and if it collapses, they can then pick who they want. This is different from the Big12 who are trying to press for expansion now and likely hasten the P10's demise.

---

With the Supreme Court affirming that the laws of commerce, especially the antitrust laws, apply to college sports, we are in a brave new world. Paying players above the table was unprecedented too. But here we are.

The issue will be if the PAC-12 craters and schools are locked out of TV contracts and membership in the conferences that have contracts. It is not "suing to get in" it is the risk of being sued for damages if they are excluded and suffer irreparable harm as a result.

---

The problem with your analysis is that you think a court is going to rule that we belong in the B1G when we have the MWC available. The fact is our football and basketball teams do not perform up to the B1G standards and are far below USC and Southern Branch. How about Air Force? How about Nevada? How about Idaho? How about Montana? How about Fresno? There are many schools (many with teams that out perform ours) that could also whine that they were excluded.

---

First, MWC schools have not been impacted at all by B1G actions. It is much tougher for them to claim damages. It is tough for them to claim they fit the B1G academic profile.

If the PAC-12 dies, the B1G, Fox and ESPN will be easily be portrayed as the perpetrators and probably as part of a conspiracy. If the B1G refuses to admit, at any value, the left over PAC-10 teams, and those teams are forced to drop down to a much lower revenue level, there will be a basis for damages and the B1G will need to have a good basis for their decision. What is their criteria? Their schools are largely land grant public schools in relatively populous states that are their state's flagship school with good academics. Same as the PAC-12, but not the same as the MWC, which is why the PAC-12 is having trouble finding replacements. The B1G used to only have Midwest schools but now the have Rutgers, Maryland, USC and UCLA. The B1G can argue WSU and OSU don't fit, and easily argue MWC teams don't fit, but they cannot argue Cal and UW don't fit. They can only argue we are not worth full membership $. They cannot argue our value is zero. If they offer less, and we walk because we only want full membership $, then they are off tge hook, they did not refuse to deal, we did.

Similarly, if Cal does not ask to get in, and try to negotiate, we will have no basis to claim they refused to deal with us. For the reasons I stated above, the initiative needs to come from our side, working with Stanford, UCLA and USC especially, plus, UW and Oregon. Or the entire PAC-10.

---

These are athletic conferences. We are not a good fit in the B1G because our football and mens basketball teams are terrible. Frankly, they suck. The B1G can exclude us for the same reason the Pac 12 excluded Fresno State, Boise State, BYU, and (until recently) SDSU. And don't forget the Pac 12 recently denied membership to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

---

The pac-12 did not exclude Boise State et al because their football teams "suck" in fact they were usually far better than us. They were excluded because the academic institutions were not a good fit.

Cal and Stanford clearly fit the B1G from an academic standpoint. Exceedingly so. The question is what value our football team (mostly) and basketball (secondarily) would bring. It is clearly not the full share, not in the short run, but it is clearly more than zero. There should be a value that it works, that is how markets work. It is really unfortunate that our teams have gone through the worst 6 years in our history. It is a really bad time for all this to be happening.

I have been saying since he was hired that Jim Knowlton was possibly the worst hire as AD to guide Cal through this critical time in the history of college athletics and after Christ gave him an 8 year extension that we would be lucky to have an athletics program when he is done.

---

So you think it is acceptable for an athletic conference to exclude a team for mediocre academics but not for mediocre athletics.

I get that you think Cal is a good fit in the B1G. The point is that the B1G does not think we are a good fit. If they expand they will add Oregon and Washington before us. They will certainly add ND if possible and maybe even Stanford. They will add some southern teams if possible before us.

You are like the high school kid who thinks they are hot stuff but can't understand why they have no date on a Saturday night. Our administration has not supported athletics for the most of the past 60 years. We are not an attractive candidate for the B1G.

---

Why are you making it about me? I don't think we are "hot stuff" I am one of the people on this board that has pointed out that the last 6 years were the worst 6 years in our history and Knowlton is a horrible fit. If we do get left out it is largely due to his incompetence.

It is not about what I think.

It is not what I find "acceptable," it is what a court would decide is "reasonable." There has to be a good reason for the exclusion. When the NFL absorbed the AFC, there was a "minimum stadium size" requirement, but in the end, everyone got in and that was when most money came from ticket sakes.

If the B1G causes the PAC-12 to collapse and they admit some schools but not others they will need to have a defensible standard by which some are included and some are excluded to defend against lawsuits by the excluded schools. The B1G has some teams that are not very good, they recently admitted Rutgers and Maryland. The B1G lawyers (and Fox and Disney lawyers) all know this. We are currently so bad maybe there is an attendance test we would fail.

All I am saying is that, since the 2021 Supreme Court decision, the antitrust laws fully apply and the B1G knows this.

The USFL example is only applicable if the NFL admitted some of the USFL teams, with the intent of causing the league to collapse, but excluded others without good reason. You can bet those owners would sue.

---

We are being excluded because (a) our teams are not competitive, and (b) our fans don't come to games.

And it's not just the last 6 years. With brief and rare exceptions our teams in revenue sports have been mediocre at best for over 60 years.

---

Unlike Rutgers?

---

Yes. First of all, Rutgers allowed the B1G to expand their footprint to the East coast, just as adding the two LA schools permitted their presence on the West Coast. Mission accomplished: the B1G does not have to add other teams such as Buffalo in the east or us on the west. Second, Rutgers has a decent basketball team; we don't.

Compare Rutgers's #35 ranking to our #304:
https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/ncaab/updated-college-basketball-net-rankings-for-ncaa-tournament-bm10/

We would be at the bottom of the MWC or the Big Sky. We would be near the bottom of the Big West (above only Northridge and Cal Poly). We would be second from the bottom in the Ivy League (above only Columbia).

Rutgers is a good match for the B1G; we are not.

---

Rutgers has made the NCAA tourney 2 times this century. Cal made it 9 times. By your logic, Cal is a good match for the B1G, Rutgers is not.

---

Make no mistake, Rutgers was added to expand the conference to the east coast. No other team was added or needed to be included. With the addition of the LA schools, the B1G has expanded to the west coast. They do not need any other team. If they change their minds, Oregon and Washington are in line ahead of us.

Could the B1G add us? Sure. Will a federal judge find antitrust violation in not adding us? I don't think so. Again, we have only ourselves to blame for being comfortable with mediocrity.

---

I know exactly why the B1G added Rutgers and it had absolutely nothing to do with Rutgers athletics.

My only point is don't try to bring up Rutgers athletics as an argument for why the B1G would invite Rutgers and not Cal because it's a losing argument. For as terrible as Cal athletics has been over the past 60 years, Rutgers has been worse. Far worse.

---

I think Southseas is saying is that the B1G already has what they want - two West coast teams. They don't need us. They already have the top2 media markets in the country. Stanford and us and probably 6 other teams in the P10 don't tick a box for the B1G. Us and Stanford have academics. Nothing else.

---

Again, I am ONLY correcting the incredibly myopic statement Southseas made that the B1G added Rutgers for its superior basketball team. When the B1G added Rutgers, Rutgers had not made the tourney for 23 years and wouldn't make it for another 8. In any hypothetical antitrust lawsuit, the B1G lawyers would have to concede that athletic strength was not part of the criteria for admission.

Also, what's up with the "no other team was added." Um, what? The B1G added Maryland. How did we forget this? Rutgers was added for the NYC market and Maryland for the DC market. USC and UCLA do not deliver the West Coast. They deliver LA. LA may very well be the only West Coast city the B1G (aka Fox) is interested in, but the West Coast and LA are decidedly not the same thing.

Will the B1G ever invite Cal? No one on this boards knows. There are argument on both sides and everyone is just guessing. You say Cal and Stanford offer academics and nothing else. Well, the former President of Fox Sports said that Cal + Stanford were more valuable to TV than Oregon + Washington. So it's not "nothing else." Is that enough? Not a clue. The only thing that seems certain is that the B1G is not making the next move.

---

You misread my post. I'm not saying that Rutgers deserved the B1G invite. It is an odd fit, but I think a better fit than Cal. So the B1G added two east coast teams and now two west coast teams. Specifically, they took the best 2 east coast teams and best 2 west coast teams available. I do not believe they will be required to add more, specifically Cal. Cal and Stanford may be more valuable to Fox, but are they more valuable to B1G? And to what extent are they more valuable becuase of Stanford which has a connection to Notre Dame and a bigger national brand. Yes there is a west coast beyond LA, but they got the 2 biggest teams.

I think if we want to be invited to a major conference (as we are slipping to mid-major status) our best bet is to clean up our act, cease tolerating mediocrity (or worse), and demand that our AD and coaches deliver results, as opposed to hoping a federal agency or court takes pity on us.

---

I did not misread your post. I simply disagree with your characterization.

First, Rutgers was not stronger athletically than Cal. Full stop.

The B1G did not invite Rutgers and Maryland because they wanted two East Coast teams and they were the best two. They invited Rutgers and Maryland because they were located within the #1 (NYC) and #9 (DC) TV markets and the terms of the Big Ten Network meant the Big Ten would get paid $1 more per TV subscriber in those markets regardless of whether they watched college football or not.

I am sure it helped that NYC and DC were two of only four cities with at least 1% alums from every Big Ten school; the other two cities are LA and SF. I am sure it also helped that Rutgers and Maryland became the two closest schools to Penn State.

It's important to get the details correct if you're trying to use them to draw comparisons to today.

• Cal's value exists beyond academics. It's a large flagship public university with a huge alumni base. Something the B1G has clearly valued in expansion.
• Cal resides within the #6 TV market. Something the B1G has clearly valued in expansion.
• Cal, at least according to the former President of Fox Sports, is worth more in TV money than Oregon or Washington - probably thanks to that #6 TV market and large alumni base.
• SF is one of only 4 cities in the entire country with such a large and representative B1G alumni base. Something the B1G has clearly valued in expansion.
• Cal is one of the few schools that meet these criteria in proximity to other B1G schools that otherwise exist on an island. Something the B1G has clearly valued in expansion.
• Cal doesn't have a strong revenue sports presence. Something the B1G has clearly not required in expansion.

And none of this means the B1G is going to invite Cal. But there's no reason to mischaracterize these facts to conclude that the B1G won't invite Cal because you're missing all the valid arguments.

The college football world is different today than it was then. The B1G wasn't worth $60M/team then so maybe the value Rutgers and Maryland added wouldn't be enough to get invites today. Academics was so important then that, if rumors are true, the B1G turned away Texas because they wouldn't consider Oklahoma. Oklahoma! And yet, the B1G is allegedly considering Florida State today. Athletic brand may be more valuable to the B1G today than it was then. Kevin Warren is gone and he seemed to be the driving force behind continued expansion. The B1G may simply have no appetite to expand beyond 16 teams. Ever.

I don't know where the B1G presidents values lie. You don't know. No one on this board knows. And none of the sports writers, who all claim to know, know. We're all just guessing.

The B1G could add none of Cal, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon. The B1G could add all 4. The B1G could add just Oregon and Washington. They could add just Cal and Stanford. They could add Washington, Oregon, and Stanford without Cal. They would add Washington, Cal, and Stanford without Oregon. There are valid arguments for any of those scenarios. My guess is that the B1G isn't making any moves this round unless the Pac-12 implodes. And if the B1G does add more, I think it's a tossup whether Cal gets an invite.

---

Good post. I also think that the B1G would like to be able to say "We did not blow up the PAC-10, Cal, Stanford, Washington and Oregon came to us to ask in." That is why I think Christ needs to work WITH UCLA (especially), USC and Stanford to make the case with the B1G presidents.

---

philly1121 said:

---

Calumnus, what makes you think that UCLA would work with us to ensure that we get into the B1G? If anything, recent history shows that they really don't want us with them. Moreover, all anecdotal information suggests that Cal Administration was absolutely blindsided by UCLA's move. And now we want Christ to collaborate with a school that had no interest in informing us that they were leaving? Nah, man. UCLA has a dance partner. Its USC.

---

southseasbear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

That would be quite unprecedented, if not incredible, that one or more schools of the Pac10 were to request admission to an athletic conference, be denied, and then sue to force admission. I think, this too, is far fetched. No school with any sense of pride or fear of embarrassment would do such a thing.

Also, comparing the Big 10 to a cartel as a mechanism of/for monopoly isn't realistic. Who's to say, with that rationale, we shouldn't join the SEC? It is, after all, the best conference in terms of teams and market value.

I think a poster on page 9 indicated that USC and UCLA didn't want us in the B1G and I agree. They left the Pac12 and got away from us for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that USC felt they brought most of the value without being compensated for it. Whether we would go in as full or even half shares, they wouldn't want us. It would dilute their brand. They would once again have to share recruitment ground with us.

It is better for the B1G to stand pat, wait to see what happens to the P10 in 4-5 years and if it collapses, they can then pick who they want. This is different from the Big12 who are trying to press for expansion now and likely hasten the P10's demise.

---

With the Supreme Court affirming that the laws of commerce, especially the antitrust laws, apply to college sports, we are in a brave new world. Paying players above the table was unprecedented too. But here we are.

The issue will be if the PAC-12 craters and schools are locked out of TV contracts and membership in the conferences that have contracts. It is not "suing to get in" it is the risk of being sued for damages if they are excluded and suffer irreparable harm as a result.

---

The problem with your analysis is that you think a court is going to rule that we belong in the B1G when we have the MWC available. The fact is our football and basketball teams do not perform up to the B1G standards and are far below USC and Southern Branch. How about Air Force? How about Nevada? How about Idaho? How about Montana? How about Fresno? There are many schools (many with teams that out perform ours) that could also whine that they were excluded.

---

First, MWC schools have not been impacted at all by B1G actions. It is much tougher for them to claim damages. It is tough for them to claim they fit the B1G academic profile.

If the PAC-12 dies, the B1G, Fox and ESPN will be easily be portrayed as the perpetrators and probably as part of a conspiracy. If the B1G refuses to admit, at any value, the left over PAC-10 teams, and those teams are forced to drop down to a much lower revenue level, there will be a basis for damages and the B1G will need to have a good basis for their decision. What is their criteria? Their schools are largely land grant public schools in relatively populous states that are their state's flagship school with good academics. Same as the PAC-12, but not the same as the MWC, which is why the PAC-12 is having trouble finding replacements. The B1G used to only have Midwest schools but now the have Rutgers, Maryland, USC and UCLA. The B1G can argue WSU and OSU don't fit, and easily argue MWC teams don't fit, but they cannot argue Cal and UW don't fit. They can only argue we are not worth full membership $. They cannot argue our value is zero. If they offer less, and we walk because we only want full membership $, then they are off tge hook, they did not refuse to deal, we did.

Similarly, if Cal does not ask to get in, and try to negotiate, we will have no basis to claim they refused to deal with us. For the reasons I stated above, the initiative needs to come from our side, working with Stanford, UCLA and USC especially, plus, UW and Oregon. Or the entire PAC-10.

---

These are athletic conferences. We are not a good fit in the B1G because our football and mens basketball teams are terrible. Frankly, they suck. The B1G can exclude us for the same reason the Pac 12 excluded Fresno State, Boise State, BYU, and (until recently) SDSU. And don't forget the Pac 12 recently denied membership to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

---

The pac-12 did not exclude Boise State et al because their football teams "suck" in fact they were usually far better than us. They were excluded because the academic institutions were not a good fit.

Cal and Stanford clearly fit the B1G from an academic standpoint. Exceedingly so. The question is what value our football team (mostly) and basketball (secondarily) would bring. It is clearly not the full share, not in the short run, but it is clearly more than zero. There should be a value that it works, that is how markets work. It is really unfortunate that our teams have gone through the worst 6 years in our history. It is a really bad time for all this to be happening.

I have been saying since he was hired that Jim Knowlton was possibly the worst hire as AD to guide Cal through this critical time in the history of college athletics and after Christ gave him an 8 year extension that we would be lucky to have an athletics program when he is done.

---

So you think it is acceptable for an athletic conference to exclude a team for mediocre academics but not for mediocre athletics.

I get that you think Cal is a good fit in the B1G. The point is that the B1G does not think we are a good fit. If they expand they will add Oregon and Washington before us. They will certainly add ND if possible and maybe even Stanford. They will add some southern teams if possible before us.

You are like the high school kid who thinks they are hot stuff but can't understand why they have no date on a Saturday night. Our administration has not supported athletics for the most of the past 60 years. We are not an attractive candidate for the B1G.

---

Why are you making it about me? I don't think we are "hot stuff" I am one of the people on this board that has pointed out that the last 6 years were the worst 6 years in our history and Knowlton is a horrible fit. If we do get left out it is largely due to his incompetence.

It is not about what I think.

It is not what I find "acceptable," it is what a court would decide is "reasonable." There has to be a good reason for the exclusion. When the NFL absorbed the AFC, there was a "minimum stadium size" requirement, but in the end, everyone got in and that was when most money came from ticket sakes.

If the B1G causes the PAC-12 to collapse and they admit some schools but not others they will need to have a defensible standard by which some are included and some are excluded to defend against lawsuits by the excluded schools. The B1G has some teams that are not very good, they recently admitted Rutgers and Maryland. The B1G lawyers (and Fox and Disney lawyers) all know this. We are currently so bad maybe there is an attendance test we would fail.

All I am saying is that, since the 2021 Supreme Court decision, the antitrust laws fully apply and the B1G knows this.

The USFL example is only applicable if the NFL admitted some of the USFL teams, with the intent of causing the league to collapse, but excluded others without good reason. You can bet those owners would sue.

---

We are being excluded because (a) our teams are not competitive, and (b) our fans don't come to games.

And it's not just the last 6 years. With brief and rare exceptions our teams in revenue sports have been mediocre at best for over 60 years.

---

Unlike Rutgers?

---

Yes. First of all, Rutgers allowed the B1G to expand their footprint to the East coast, just as adding the two LA schools permitted their presence on the West Coast. Mission accomplished: the B1G does not have to add other teams such as Buffalo in the east or us on the west. Second, Rutgers has a decent basketball team; we don't.

Compare Rutgers's #35 ranking to our #304:
https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/ncaab/updated-college-basketball-net-rankings-for-ncaa-tournament-bm10/

We would be at the bottom of the MWC or the Big Sky. We would be near the bottom of the Big West (above only Northridge and Cal Poly). We would be second from the bottom in the Ivy League (above only Columbia).

Rutgers is a good match for the B1G; we are not.

---

Rutgers has made the NCAA tourney 2 times this century. Cal made it 9 times. By your logic, Cal is a good match for the B1G, Rutgers is not.

---

Make no mistake, Rutgers was added to expand the conference to the east coast. No other team was added or needed to be included. With the addition of the LA schools, the B1G has expanded to the west coast. They do not need any other team. If they change their minds, Oregon and Washington are in line ahead of us.

Could the B1G add us? Sure. Will a federal judge find antitrust violation in not adding us? I don't think so. Again, we have only ourselves to blame for being comfortable with mediocrity.

---

I know exactly why the B1G added Rutgers and it had absolutely nothing to do with Rutgers athletics.

My only point is don't try to bring up Rutgers athletics as an argument for why the B1G would invite Rutgers and not Cal because it's a losing argument. For as terrible as Cal athletics has been over the past 60 years, Rutgers has been worse. Far worse.

---

I think Southseas is saying is that the B1G already has what they want - two West coast teams. They don't need us. They already have the top2 media markets in the country. Stanford and us and probably 6 other teams in the P10 don't tick a box for the B1G. Us and Stanford have academics. Nothing else.

---

Again, I am ONLY correcting the incredibly myopic statement Southseas made that the B1G added Rutgers for its superior basketball team. When the B1G added Rutgers, Rutgers had not made the tourney for 23 years and wouldn't make it for another 8. In any hypothetical antitrust lawsuit, the B1G lawyers would have to concede that athletic strength was not part of the criteria for admission.

Also, what's up with the "no other team was added." Um, what? The B1G added Maryland. How did we forget this? Rutgers was added for the NYC market and Maryland for the DC market. USC and UCLA do not deliver the West Coast. They deliver LA. LA may very well be the only West Coast city the B1G (aka Fox) is interested in, but the West Coast and LA are decidedly not the same thing.

Will the B1G ever invite Cal? No one on this boards knows. There are argument on both sides and everyone is just guessing. You say Cal and Stanford offer academics and nothing else. Well, the former President of Fox Sports said that Cal + Stanford were more valuable to TV than Oregon + Washington. So it's not "nothing else." Is that enough? Not a clue. The only thing that seems certain is that the B1G is not making the next move.

---

You misread my post. I'm not saying that Rutgers deserved the B1G invite. It is an odd fit, but I think a better fit than Cal. So the B1G added two east coast teams and now two west coast teams. Specifically, they took the best 2 east coast teams and best 2 west coast teams available. I do not believe they will be required to add more, specifically Cal. Cal and Stanford may be more valuable to Fox, but are they more valuable to B1G? And to what extent are they more valuable becuase of Stanford which has a connection to Notre Dame and a bigger national brand. Yes there is a west coast beyond LA, but they got the 2 biggest teams.

I think if we want to be invited to a major conference (as we are slipping to mid-major status) our best bet is to clean up our act, cease tolerating mediocrity (or worse), and demand that our AD and coaches deliver results, as opposed to hoping a federal agency or court takes pity on us.

---

I did not misread your post. I simply disagree with your characterization.

First, Rutgers was not stronger athletically than Cal. Full stop.

The B1G did not invite Rutgers and Maryland because they wanted two East Coast teams and they were the best two. They invited Rutgers and Maryland because they were located within the #1 (NYC) and #9 (DC) TV markets and the terms of the Big Ten Network meant the Big Ten would get paid $1 more per TV subscriber in those markets regardless of whether they watched college football or not.

I am sure it helped that NYC and DC were two of only four cities with at least 1% alums from every Big Ten school; the other two cities are LA and SF. I am sure it also helped that Rutgers and Maryland became the two closest schools to Penn State.

It's important to get the details correct if you're trying to use them to draw comparisons to today.

• Cal's value exists beyond academics. It's a large flagship public university with a huge alumni base. Something the B1G has clearly valued in expansion.
• Cal resides within the #6 TV market. Something the B1G has clearly valued in expansion.
• Cal, at least according to the former President of Fox Sports, is worth more in TV money than Oregon or Washington - probably thanks to that #6 TV market and large alumni base.
• SF is one of only 4 cities in the entire country with such a large and representative B1G alumni base. Something the B1G has clearly valued in expansion.
• Cal is one of the few schools that meet these criteria in proximity to other B1G schools that otherwise exist on an island. Something the B1G has clearly valued in expansion.
• Cal doesn't have a strong revenue sports presence. Something the B1G has clearly not required in expansion.

And none of this means the B1G is going to invite Cal. But there's no reason to mischaracterize these facts to conclude that the B1G won't invite Cal because you're missing all the valid arguments.

The college football world is different today than it was then. The B1G wasn't worth $60M/team then so maybe the value Rutgers and Maryland added wouldn't be enough to get invites today. Academics was so important then that, if rumors are true, the B1G turned away Texas because they wouldn't consider Oklahoma. Oklahoma! And yet, the B1G is allegedly considering Florida State today. Athletic brand may be more valuable to the B1G today than it was then. Kevin Warren is gone and he seemed to be the driving force behind continued expansion. The B1G may simply have no appetite to expand beyond 16 teams. Ever.

I don't know where the B1G presidents values lie. You don't know. No one on this board knows. And none of the sports writers, who all claim to know, know. We're all just guessing.

The B1G could add none of Cal, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon. The B1G could add all 4. The B1G could add just Oregon and Washington. They could add just Cal and Stanford. They could add Washington, Oregon, and Stanford without Cal. They would add Washington, Cal, and Stanford without Oregon. There are valid arguments for any of those scenarios. My guess is that the B1G isn't making any moves this round unless the Pac-12 implodes. And if the B1G does add more, I think it's a tossup whether Cal gets an invite.

---

You have completely misread and misinterpreted my post. I actually agree with most of what you said in the paragraph I bolded (though I think the chances are remote for us getting invited over Oregon). My point is that B1G has valid reasons if it chooses not to invite Cal. I disagree with calumnus that denying Cal entry would be an antitrust violation as there are good reasons to support our (lawfully) not being invited. From all accounts we would be the 5th choice among Notre Dame, Washington, Oregon, Stanford, and us. You have provided a list of reasons to support our inclusion (though Southern Branch may have supplanted us as the "flagship" considering they annually receive more applications, have a lower acceptance rate, and have a more well known brand). We are not as attractive on a national scale as we think we are (in part because our revenue sports have not performed and many in the midwest and east don't know that Cal is Berkeley).

---

philly1121 said:

---

Calumnus, what makes you think that UCLA would work with us to ensure that we get into the B1G? If anything, recent history shows that they really don't want us with them. Moreover, all anecdotal information suggests that Cal Administration was absolutely blindsided by UCLA's move. And now we want Christ to collaborate with a school that had no interest in informing us that they were leaving? Nah, man. UCLA has a dance partner. Its USC.

---

BearSD said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Calumnus, what makes you think that UCLA would work with us to ensure that we get into the B1G? If anything, recent history shows that they really don't want us with them. Moreover, all anecdotal information suggests that Cal Administration was absolutely blindsided by UCLA's move. And now we want Christ to collaborate with a school that had no interest in informing us that they were leaving? Nah, man. UCLA has a dance partner. Its USC.

---

Cal admin/AD did not do themselves any favors with their reaction and subsequent actions over the last 9 months, re: the UCLA move to the B1G. At this point, I doubt very much that UCLA will do anything to assist Cal in a move to the B1G. USC, for their part, does not want any other Western schools moving to their new league. They like the idea of being the B1G Pacific coast flagship.

I'm sure Crist and company were blindsided. But after watching how it all played out, and the reaction by both the current admin and the Regents, UCLA played it perfectly maintaining radio silence during the negotiations and subsequent exit to the B1G. Still amazed that they were able to keep it all under wraps.

---

Exactly - UCLA is just far more competent then Cal and explains why they have taken over as the flagship UC. Unless we get a chancellor who is aggressive about change we are going to continue downhill in both academics and athletics.

---

You are wrongly giving far too much credit to UCLA. All they did was get lucky and piggyback on USC's work.

USC spent two years laying the groundwork with the Big Ten. They let everyone in the Big Ten know they were interested, they worked their contacts and network at Fox Sports. When the Big Ten decided the time was right -- when the Big Ten decided they needed an answer for the SEC's acquisition of Texas and Oklahoma -- USC was ready, they worked with Fox to convince the Big Ten that it was a financially lucrative move, and the Big Ten voted them in.

UCLA was just the spare part in the deal that works for multiple reasons. They are also in LA, so Big Ten members griping about travel to the west coast could be sold on being able to have their teams (other than football, baseball, or softball) play two games in LA on one trip. Adding both USC and UCLA is appealing to Fox as a F-U to ESPN, because it locks ESPN's college sports broadcasts out of the LA TV market of nearly 20 million people.

UCLA is going to the Big Ten because the Big Ten and Fox wanted USC in the Big Ten. Not because the Big Ten sees huge value in UCLA.

---

BigDaddy said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Calumnus, what makes you think that UCLA would work with us to ensure that we get into the B1G? If anything, recent history shows that they really don't want us with them. Moreover, all anecdotal information suggests that Cal Administration was absolutely blindsided by UCLA's move. And now we want Christ to collaborate with a school that had no interest in informing us that they were leaving? Nah, man. UCLA has a dance partner. Its USC.

---

Cal admin/AD did not do themselves any favors with their reaction and subsequent actions over the last 9 months, re: the UCLA move to the B1G. At this point, I doubt very much that UCLA will do anything to assist Cal in a move to the B1G. USC, for their part, does not want any other Western schools moving to their new league. They like the idea of being the B1G Pacific coast flagship.

I'm sure Crist and company were blindsided. But after watching how it all played out, and the reaction by both the current admin and the Regents, UCLA played it perfectly maintaining radio silence during the negotiations and subsequent exit to the B1G. Still amazed that they were able to keep it all under wraps.

---