WalterSobchak said:

---

You guys are vastly overestimating Ucla's (and USC's) power in the B1G. They can't get us in and they can't keep us out.

---

philly1121 said:

---

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.

---

Honestly, does it matter? No is going to argue that USC was the driver in the B1G deal. What people seem to have a hard time with is that USC brought the majority of value to the conference. We can debate UCLA's pull or whether the B1G really wanted them. But its irrelevant. They were competent enough to understand what was at stake. And to understand that for non-revenue sports to survive and to eliminate their debt, a hard choice had to be made. And they were covert experts about the move. No one cares about how it happened. It happened.

---

BearSD 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.

---

Yeah, UCLA probably can't get away with openly opposing a Big Ten invitation to Cal, but they have clearly decided that it is in UCLA's best interests as a university, not just an athletic department, if they are in the Big Ten and Cal is not.

---

91Cal said:

---

BearSD 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.

---

Yeah, UCLA probably can't get away with openly opposing a Big Ten invitation to Cal, but they have clearly decided that it is in UCLA's best interests as a university, not just an athletic department, if they are in the Big Ten and Cal is not.

---

BearinSD called it out just a bit later in the thread...UCLA had NO say and was a complete follower. They had no chance to make any demands or have any influence on who was getting invited and who not. They were looking out for themselves having spent their way to huge AD deficits, coasting on USC's coattails was exactly the lifeline they needed. Cal was not in their thinking at all.

---

philly1121 said:

---

91Cal said:

---

BearSD 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.

---

Yeah, UCLA probably can't get away with openly opposing a Big Ten invitation to Cal, but they have clearly decided that it is in UCLA's best interests as a university, not just an athletic department, if they are in the Big Ten and Cal is not.

---

BearinSD called it out just a bit later in the thread...UCLA had NO say and was a complete follower. They had no chance to make any demands or have any influence on who was getting invited and who not. They were looking out for themselves having spent their way to huge AD deficits, coasting on USC's coattails was exactly the lifeline they needed. Cal was not in their thinking at all.

---

And why should UCLA think about us now? To help us or negotiate for us to get into the B1G? Seriously?

And I said all along - USC brought at least 30% of the value to the conference. UCLA was closer to 9%. Who cares how it happened. They saw the chance, kept it close, and then bolted. Those coattails have alot of cash in them.

---

Alkiadt said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

91Cal said:

---

BearSD 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.

---

Yeah, UCLA probably can't get away with openly opposing a Big Ten invitation to Cal, but they have clearly decided that it is in UCLA's best interests as a university, not just an athletic department, if they are in the Big Ten and Cal is not.

---

BearinSD called it out just a bit later in the thread...UCLA had NO say and was a complete follower. They had no chance to make any demands or have any influence on who was getting invited and who not. They were looking out for themselves having spent their way to huge AD deficits, coasting on USC's coattails was exactly the lifeline they needed. Cal was not in their thinking at all.

---

And why should UCLA think about us now? To help us or negotiate for us to get into the B1G? Seriously?

And I said all along - USC brought at least 30% of the value to the conference. UCLA was closer to 9%. Who cares how it happened. They saw the chance, kept it close, and then bolted. Those coattails have alot of cash in them.

---

You'd think they'd want to help.
It appears they could be giving Cal up to $10M annually if they don't.
Sounds like a no brainer to me.

---

calumnus said:

---

Alkiadt said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

91Cal said:

---

BearSD 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.

---

Yeah, UCLA probably can't get away with openly opposing a Big Ten invitation to Cal, but they have clearly decided that it is in UCLA's best interests as a university, not just an athletic department, if they are in the Big Ten and Cal is not.

---

BearinSD called it out just a bit later in the thread...UCLA had NO say and was a complete follower. They had no chance to make any demands or have any influence on who was getting invited and who not. They were looking out for themselves having spent their way to huge AD deficits, coasting on USC's coattails was exactly the lifeline they needed. Cal was not in their thinking at all.

---

And why should UCLA think about us now? To help us or negotiate for us to get into the B1G? Seriously?

And I said all along - USC brought at least 30% of the value to the conference. UCLA was closer to 9%. Who cares how it happened. They saw the chance, kept it close, and then bolted. Those coattails have alot of cash in them.

---

You'd think they'd want to help.
It appears they could be giving Cal up to $10M annually if they don't.
Sounds like a no brainer to me.

---

Exactly. The logic is there for cooperation if people don't let emotions get in the way.

---

calumnus said:

---

Alkiadt said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

91Cal said:

---

BearSD 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.

---

Yeah, UCLA probably can't get away with openly opposing a Big Ten invitation to Cal, but they have clearly decided that it is in UCLA's best interests as a university, not just an athletic department, if they are in the Big Ten and Cal is not.

---

BearinSD called it out just a bit later in the thread...UCLA had NO say and was a complete follower. They had no chance to make any demands or have any influence on who was getting invited and who not. They were looking out for themselves having spent their way to huge AD deficits, coasting on USC's coattails was exactly the lifeline they needed. Cal was not in their thinking at all.

---

And why should UCLA think about us now? To help us or negotiate for us to get into the B1G? Seriously?

And I said all along - USC brought at least 30% of the value to the conference. UCLA was closer to 9%. Who cares how it happened. They saw the chance, kept it close, and then bolted. Those coattails have alot of cash in them.

---

You'd think they'd want to help.
It appears they could be giving Cal up to $10M annually if they don't.
Sounds like a no brainer to me.

---

Exactly. The logic is there for cooperation if people don't let emotions get in the way.

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Alkiadt said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

91Cal said:

---

BearSD 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.

---

Yeah, UCLA probably can't get away with openly opposing a Big Ten invitation to Cal, but they have clearly decided that it is in UCLA's best interests as a university, not just an athletic department, if they are in the Big Ten and Cal is not.

---

BearinSD called it out just a bit later in the thread...UCLA had NO say and was a complete follower. They had no chance to make any demands or have any influence on who was getting invited and who not. They were looking out for themselves having spent their way to huge AD deficits, coasting on USC's coattails was exactly the lifeline they needed. Cal was not in their thinking at all.

---

And why should UCLA think about us now? To help us or negotiate for us to get into the B1G? Seriously?

And I said all along - USC brought at least 30% of the value to the conference. UCLA was closer to 9%. Who cares how it happened. They saw the chance, kept it close, and then bolted. Those coattails have alot of cash in them.

---

You'd think they'd want to help.
It appears they could be giving Cal up to $10M annually if they don't.
Sounds like a no brainer to me.

---

Exactly. The logic is there for cooperation if people don't let emotions get in the way.

---

And of course the fact that having another in-state in-conference opponent would be more convenient for players, fans, and alumni to travel to.

---

philly1121 said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Alkiadt said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

91Cal said:

---

BearSD 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.

---

Yeah, UCLA probably can't get away with openly opposing a Big Ten invitation to Cal, but they have clearly decided that it is in UCLA's best interests as a university, not just an athletic department, if they are in the Big Ten and Cal is not.

---

BearinSD called it out just a bit later in the thread...UCLA had NO say and was a complete follower. They had no chance to make any demands or have any influence on who was getting invited and who not. They were looking out for themselves having spent their way to huge AD deficits, coasting on USC's coattails was exactly the lifeline they needed. Cal was not in their thinking at all.

---

And why should UCLA think about us now? To help us or negotiate for us to get into the B1G? Seriously?

And I said all along - USC brought at least 30% of the value to the conference. UCLA was closer to 9%. Who cares how it happened. They saw the chance, kept it close, and then bolted. Those coattails have alot of cash in them.

---

You'd think they'd want to help.
It appears they could be giving Cal up to $10M annually if they don't.
Sounds like a no brainer to me.

---

Exactly. The logic is there for cooperation if people don't let emotions get in the way.

---

And of course the fact that having another in-state in-conference opponent would be more convenient for players, fans, and alumni to travel to.

---

To USC and UCLA - they would say "been there, done that". Don't you think they would have looked at pros and cons of fans and alumni? Sorry. They're not gonna give us a game.

---

The Big 12/Pac-12 realignment speculation is now in Month 9 - nine - and it hasn’t been a secret.

In fact, three days ago, Baylor AD Mack Rhoades publicly said it.

A resolution on Pac-12 TV rights should come within days, which should signal stability or more realignment. https://t.co/Ti0SOl0LDA

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) March 3, 2023

Strykur said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Alkiadt said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

91Cal said:

---

BearSD 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.

---

Yeah, UCLA probably can't get away with openly opposing a Big Ten invitation to Cal, but they have clearly decided that it is in UCLA's best interests as a university, not just an athletic department, if they are in the Big Ten and Cal is not.

---

BearinSD called it out just a bit later in the thread...UCLA had NO say and was a complete follower. They had no chance to make any demands or have any influence on who was getting invited and who not. They were looking out for themselves having spent their way to huge AD deficits, coasting on USC's coattails was exactly the lifeline they needed. Cal was not in their thinking at all.

---

And why should UCLA think about us now? To help us or negotiate for us to get into the B1G? Seriously?

And I said all along - USC brought at least 30% of the value to the conference. UCLA was closer to 9%. Who cares how it happened. They saw the chance, kept it close, and then bolted. Those coattails have alot of cash in them.

---

You'd think they'd want to help.
It appears they could be giving Cal up to $10M annually if they don't.
Sounds like a no brainer to me.

---

Exactly. The logic is there for cooperation if people don't let emotions get in the way.

---

And of course the fact that having another in-state in-conference opponent would be more convenient for players, fans, and alumni to travel to.

---

To USC and UCLA - they would say "been there, done that". Don't you think they would have looked at pros and cons of fans and alumni? Sorry. They're not gonna give us a game.

---

Forget the runts for a second, who would SC prefer games with, us and the trees or the mutts and the ducks? Washington aside the enmity with Oregon could swing things our way.

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Strykur said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Alkiadt said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

91Cal said:

---

BearSD 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.

---

Yeah, UCLA probably can't get away with openly opposing a Big Ten invitation to Cal, but they have clearly decided that it is in UCLA's best interests as a university, not just an athletic department, if they are in the Big Ten and Cal is not.

---

BearinSD called it out just a bit later in the thread...UCLA had NO say and was a complete follower. They had no chance to make any demands or have any influence on who was getting invited and who not. They were looking out for themselves having spent their way to huge AD deficits, coasting on USC's coattails was exactly the lifeline they needed. Cal was not in their thinking at all.

---

And why should UCLA think about us now? To help us or negotiate for us to get into the B1G? Seriously?

And I said all along - USC brought at least 30% of the value to the conference. UCLA was closer to 9%. Who cares how it happened. They saw the chance, kept it close, and then bolted. Those coattails have alot of cash in them.

---

You'd think they'd want to help.
It appears they could be giving Cal up to $10M annually if they don't.
Sounds like a no brainer to me.

---

Exactly. The logic is there for cooperation if people don't let emotions get in the way.

---

And of course the fact that having another in-state in-conference opponent would be more convenient for players, fans, and alumni to travel to.

---

To USC and UCLA - they would say "been there, done that". Don't you think they would have looked at pros and cons of fans and alumni? Sorry. They're not gonna give us a game.

---

Forget the runts for a second, who would SC prefer games with, us and the trees or the mutts and the ducks? Washington aside the enmity with Oregon could swing things our way.

---

The real question is whether USC/UCLA even have a vote at this point. They haven't joint the Big Ten yet. And if they do have votes, it's 2/16. They certainly can express their opinion, but if other members want other schools, what is USC going to do? Leave?

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Greetings from the midwest from a long-time admirer of your university. As someone who follows college athletics in general and the Big Ten Conference in particular, I've found the comments on this site to be both entertaining and enlightening. I do, however, differ from two general themes: 1) UCLA is to be blamed for this situation, and 2) the Cal athletic programs are doomed to wander in the wilderness. While the future is challenging, it is not necessarily as dire as portrayed.

I can understand the anger and frustration regarding UCLA for their "secrecy" and "betrayal", but I believe that whenever an institution approaches the Big Ten about membership, all parties must immediately sign a non-disclosure agreement and The Cone of Silence descends upon the proceedings. If USC had approached UCB a year ago and suggested that the two schools contact the Big Ten, I would be surprised if UCB would have acted any differently than did UCLA. Perhaps UCB would have declared loyalty to the PAC and declined; if so I tip my hat to their quixotic gesture but question their wisdom.

The ultimate culprit was, of course, the PAC leadership for the past generation, but the situation was made much worse by the UC Regents. When confronted by the UCLA announcement, the Regents had three choices:

1. Follow their own written policy, take no action on the move, and quietly recommend that the UCB leadership contact the Big Ten to see if there was any avenue available for Cal to join.

2. Create a public circus, prohibit UCLA's move, and remove tens of millions of dollars from the UC system (plus in this case Stanford or Washington would have received an invite).

3. Create a public circus and accomplish nothing but humiliate UCB.

Well, we all know which course of action they chose. I would have thought the choice was obvious, but then perhaps this explains why I've never been invited to these august bodies.

A year ago the general public perception of Cal was that of the flagship of the most populous state in the union, and ranked among the finest academic universities in the world, whereas UCLA was but a branch campus that had a strong basketball program. Because of the Regent's actions and the tone of the media coverage, UCLA became acknowledged as the academic peer of (in some aspects superior to) Cal, and that UCLA was forced to assist its poor hapless "Little Brother". I do not understand why the Regents chose to denigrate their crown jewel in this manner. The Regents, not UCLA, should be the target of your fury.

The chances of a Big Ten invite, while not large, are not beyond possibility. First, you can forget about Oregon, the Big Ten will never invite the Ducks; the only three PAC schools that would be considered are Washington, Stanford, and Cal. I could imagine that Stanford might decline to join the brave new college athletic world of payment of athletes that may appear. In all but one respect Cal is an ideal Big Ten institution. You have high academic standards, are a leader in research activity, possess a large alumni base, are located in one of the largest media markets in the nation, and have extremely good Olympics programs (the Big Ten does care about these sports).

The issue, of course, is that your football and men's basketball programs do not have a significant following, even among your alumni. Still, as an overall package, from the Big Ten's viewpoint UCB is clearly superior to Rutgers and at least on par with Maryland. Alas, there is indeed a tide in the affairs of men; if UCB had applied to the conference in 2010 I suspect that you would have been admitted, but the additions of USC and UCLA raise the bar such that Cal is no longer financially additive on a per-team basis.

I believe that the most likely outcome is that the Big Ten will decline to expand for the next several years. If, however, the conference can attract a partner that would pay on the order of $100M for a 10:30 pm Eastern slot, and two of Washington, Stanford, and Cal would accept $50M/year for the life of the current contract, I can envision an invitation. The Cal/Stanford pair has the great attraction that non-football contests for the two could be scheduled with one trip for the current Big Ten schools. Another possibility is a Notre Dame decision to join the Big Ten, which would assuredly lead to one (and perhaps three) current PAC schools receiving an invite.

I wish you all the best, and don't despair; you just have to trust your leadership to be take vigorous proactive actions that will position UCB to be at the head of the line of the PAC schools if an opening occurs.

---

philbert said:

---

Interesting tidbits

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-officially-exploring

---

Quote:

---

The Pac-12 Conference CEO Group voted to approve "further exploration" of four universities for possible conference expansion, I have learned.
SMU and San Diego State are in the quartet, according to one of the conference presidents. Colorado State may also be among the candidates. I'm still working to confirm that and the fourth school.
What else I know:
This does not mean the Pac-12 will definitely add four schools via expansion. It just means that the board gave the "green light" to kick the tires on four possible additions. The Pac-12 CEO Group will ultimately vote to add zero, one, two, three or four new members.

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Greetings from the midwest from a long-time admirer of your university. As someone who follows college athletics in general and the Big Ten Conference in particular, I've found the comments on this site to be both entertaining and enlightening. I do, however, differ from two general themes: 1) UCLA is to be blamed for this situation, and 2) the Cal athletic programs are doomed to wander in the wilderness. While the future is challenging, it is not necessarily as dire as portrayed.

I can understand the anger and frustration regarding UCLA for their "secrecy" and "betrayal", but I believe that whenever an institution approaches the Big Ten about membership, all parties must immediately sign a non-disclosure agreement and The Cone of Silence descends upon the proceedings. If USC had approached UCB a year ago and suggested that the two schools contact the Big Ten, I would be surprised if UCB would have acted any differently than did UCLA. Perhaps UCB would have declared loyalty to the PAC and declined; if so I tip my hat to their quixotic gesture but question their wisdom.

The ultimate culprit was, of course, the PAC leadership for the past generation, but the situation was made much worse by the UC Regents. When confronted by the UCLA announcement, the Regents had three choices:

1. Follow their own written policy, take no action on the move, and quietly recommend that the UCB leadership contact the Big Ten to see if there was any avenue available for Cal to join.

2. Create a public circus, prohibit UCLA's move, and remove tens of millions of dollars from the UC system (plus in this case Stanford or Washington would have received an invite).

3. Create a public circus and accomplish nothing but humiliate UCB.

Well, we all know which course of action they chose. I would have thought the choice was obvious, but then perhaps this explains why I've never been invited to these august bodies.

A year ago the general public perception of Cal was that of the flagship of the most populous state in the union, and ranked among the finest academic universities in the world, whereas UCLA was but a branch campus that had a strong basketball program. Because of the Regent's actions and the tone of the media coverage, UCLA became acknowledged as the academic peer of (in some aspects superior to) Cal, and that UCLA was forced to assist its poor hapless "Little Brother". I do not understand why the Regents chose to denigrate their crown jewel in this manner. The Regents, not UCLA, should be the target of your fury.

The chances of a Big Ten invite, while not large, are not beyond possibility. First, you can forget about Oregon, the Big Ten will never invite the Ducks; the only three PAC schools that would be considered are Washington, Stanford, and Cal. I could imagine that Stanford might decline to join the brave new college athletic world of payment of athletes that may appear. In all but one respect Cal is an ideal Big Ten institution. You have high academic standards, are a leader in research activity, possess a large alumni base, are located in one of the largest media markets in the nation, and have extremely good Olympics programs (the Big Ten does care about these sports).

The issue, of course, is that your football and men's basketball programs do not have a significant following, even among your alumni. Still, as an overall package, from the Big Ten's viewpoint UCB is clearly superior to Rutgers and at least on par with Maryland. Alas, there is indeed a tide in the affairs of men; if UCB had applied to the conference in 2010 I suspect that you would have been admitted, but the additions of USC and UCLA raise the bar such that Cal is no longer financially additive on a per-team basis.

I believe that the most likely outcome is that the Big Ten will decline to expand for the next several years. If, however, the conference can attract a partner that would pay on the order of $100M for a 10:30 pm Eastern slot, and two of Washington, Stanford, and Cal would accept $50M/year for the life of the current contract, I can envision an invitation. The Cal/Stanford pair has the great attraction that non-football contests for the two could be scheduled with one trip for the current Big Ten schools. Another possibility is a Notre Dame decision to join the Big Ten, which would assuredly lead to one (and perhaps three) current PAC schools receiving an invite.

I wish you all the best, and don't despair; you just have to trust your leadership to be take vigorous proactive actions that will position UCB to be at the head of the line of the PAC schools if an opening occurs.

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Lol, this guy ain't from the Midwest but from LA. Glad you took the time to write that novel tho.

---

calumnus said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Greetings from the midwest from a long-time admirer of your university. As someone who follows college athletics in general and the Big Ten Conference in particular, I've found the comments on this site to be both entertaining and enlightening. I do, however, differ from two general themes: 1) UCLA is to be blamed for this situation, and 2) the Cal athletic programs are doomed to wander in the wilderness. While the future is challenging, it is not necessarily as dire as portrayed.

I can understand the anger and frustration regarding UCLA for their "secrecy" and "betrayal", but I believe that whenever an institution approaches the Big Ten about membership, all parties must immediately sign a non-disclosure agreement and The Cone of Silence descends upon the proceedings. If USC had approached UCB a year ago and suggested that the two schools contact the Big Ten, I would be surprised if UCB would have acted any differently than did UCLA. Perhaps UCB would have declared loyalty to the PAC and declined; if so I tip my hat to their quixotic gesture but question their wisdom.

The ultimate culprit was, of course, the PAC leadership for the past generation, but the situation was made much worse by the UC Regents. When confronted by the UCLA announcement, the Regents had three choices:

1. Follow their own written policy, take no action on the move, and quietly recommend that the UCB leadership contact the Big Ten to see if there was any avenue available for Cal to join.

2. Create a public circus, prohibit UCLA's move, and remove tens of millions of dollars from the UC system (plus in this case Stanford or Washington would have received an invite).

3. Create a public circus and accomplish nothing but humiliate UCB.

Well, we all know which course of action they chose. I would have thought the choice was obvious, but then perhaps this explains why I've never been invited to these august bodies.

A year ago the general public perception of Cal was that of the flagship of the most populous state in the union, and ranked among the finest academic universities in the world, whereas UCLA was but a branch campus that had a strong basketball program. Because of the Regent's actions and the tone of the media coverage, UCLA became acknowledged as the academic peer of (in some aspects superior to) Cal, and that UCLA was forced to assist its poor hapless "Little Brother". I do not understand why the Regents chose to denigrate their crown jewel in this manner. The Regents, not UCLA, should be the target of your fury.

The chances of a Big Ten invite, while not large, are not beyond possibility. First, you can forget about Oregon, the Big Ten will never invite the Ducks; the only three PAC schools that would be considered are Washington, Stanford, and Cal. I could imagine that Stanford might decline to join the brave new college athletic world of payment of athletes that may appear. In all but one respect Cal is an ideal Big Ten institution. You have high academic standards, are a leader in research activity, possess a large alumni base, are located in one of the largest media markets in the nation, and have extremely good Olympics programs (the Big Ten does care about these sports).

The issue, of course, is that your football and men's basketball programs do not have a significant following, even among your alumni. Still, as an overall package, from the Big Ten's viewpoint UCB is clearly superior to Rutgers and at least on par with Maryland. Alas, there is indeed a tide in the affairs of men; if UCB had applied to the conference in 2010 I suspect that you would have been admitted, but the additions of USC and UCLA raise the bar such that Cal is no longer financially additive on a per-team basis.

I believe that the most likely outcome is that the Big Ten will decline to expand for the next several years. If, however, the conference can attract a partner that would pay on the order of $100M for a 10:30 pm Eastern slot, and two of Washington, Stanford, and Cal would accept $50M/year for the life of the current contract, I can envision an invitation. The Cal/Stanford pair has the great attraction that non-football contests for the two could be scheduled with one trip for the current Big Ten schools. Another possibility is a Notre Dame decision to join the Big Ten, which would assuredly lead to one (and perhaps three) current PAC schools receiving an invite.

I wish you all the best, and don't despair; you just have to trust your leadership to be take vigorous proactive actions that will position UCB to be at the head of the line of the PAC schools if an opening occurs.

---

Thanks for your thoughts. I apologize for my brothers. I don't know why some can't be more polite and return good intentions with good.

---

sonofabear51 said:

---

I'd take the 101

---

sonofabear51 said:

---

I'd take the 101

---

BigDaddy said:

---

There are now four targets for league expansion. San Diego State and SMU have been well publicized.

Colorado State and Tulane have also had discussions with the Pac-12.

---

wc22 said:

---

The idea that taking UCLA's money makes us look weak is... nonsensical. This is the first time it has happened in all the shuffling of college sports. And it is happening because despite the rhetoric of equality in the UC system, Cal has more institutional power than UCLA. You didn't see it when Oklahoma left for the SEC. You won't see it anywhere else.

---