Econ141 said:
juarezbear said:
Hawaii Haas said:
southseasbear said:
Hawaii Haas said:
philly1121 said:
berserkeley said:
philly1121 said:
berserkeley said:
philly1121 said:
berserkeley said:
Hawaii Haas said:
I did not write this, but this is the opportunity staring us in the face. Wake up!
Fresno would be a great add for the PAC. Cal and Stanford would sell out every Fresno home game for years and Cal v Fresno is the ultimate rivalry game rarely played.
Cal is the ultimate snob public school and Fresno is the ultimate chip on your shoulder school. Cal sits in Pelosi's district v Fresno in McCarthy's. Cal is UC v Fresno is Cal State. Cal is Coastal City v Fresno is Central Valley. Cal is 14.4% acceptance rate v Fresno 97.3%.
It's the kind of rivalry that is any marketers wet dream residing in the largest state in the nation. But the snob academics that run the PAC-12 are too +++++ing stupid to realize their athletic conference is in the entertainment business. They deserve to be destroyed for their arrogance and could well be.
There is so much wrong with this statement.
First, Cal has played Fresno State and the games do NOT sell out nor do they sell particularly well. The game might sell out at Fresno where they feel particularly bitter towards Cal, but not at Cal where we have more seats to fill and aren't particularly concerned about Fresno.
Second, Cal is not in Pelosi's district. Cal is in Barbara Lee's district.
At least the Pac-12 snobs know how to count and read a map ....
Ok, let's dissect the statement and your inaccuracies.
Hawaii Haas wrote that it would sell out every Fresno home game. Well, the poster is right. It sold out in 1995. Back when, then, Bulldog Stadium, held 42,000 seats - it was sold out. And I was at that game.
Cal as snob school and Fresno State as chip school. Partly accurate. We're academic snobs. Fresno State's more mainstream now that it can and will play P12 and other OOC teams. So the chip is diminishing.
I'm not sure there's any bitterness towards Cal. If anything, its the "chip" to all schools that Fresno wants to "play up" to.
As for congressional districts - poster has it wrong. Fresno metro area and suburbs are in the 21st Cong. District. That's Jim Costa - a Democrat.
As for the rest, I think one thing posters on here are forgetting - well, some posters - is that there is no school in the P12's reach that enhances or brings more value to the brand. So, these rumors about SDSU, or SMU or UNLV - they're right - it likely won't bring more value to the brand than USC or UCLA. But value doesn't seem to be the focus anymore, its a regional imperative now. That is the only reason the B12 is looking at Fresno State.
So, if by some miracle the B12 takes Fresno State - what then? We just let the B12 cross a bridge into California. We have to start thinking that if we hear about one move, there's 3-4 moves behind the one we know about.
I get what everyone is saying about Fresno State. There's no upside. But, is there any upside where we are right now?
I'm not sure if that was directed at me or Hawaii Hass, but if you read my post, I said the game might sell out in Fresno so not sure which inaccuracies you're referring to there.
I said it wouldn't sell out at Cal and hasn't sold well in the past. Cal's interest in conference partners isn't how well Cal can help sell out their stadium, but how well they can help sell out Cal's stadium. That should be self-explanatory.
And in 1995, Fresno State played at Cal, not the other way around. And the attendance was 35,500. That is far from a sell out. Not sure what game you were at in 1995, but if it was in Fresno, it wasn't the Cal game.
And, according to the US Congress website, the Fresno State campus is in Kevin McCarthy's district, but, fair, the stadium is the only part of campus not in his district. Which is actually quite comical.
I also made no statement on Fresno State's value as a Pac-12 team. I just pointed out the ridiculous claim that playing Fresno State would increase fan interest in Berkeley. We've played Fresno Sate in Berkeley and it did no such thing.
My bad. I got the date wrong. It was 2000. And it did sell out. Might sell out? Come on bro. Games sell out when San Diego State comes here.
Oh man. Well, yeah its in his district. But he wins because the bulk of his district resides in foothills and in Bakersfield. That's what he reps. Bakersfield, not Fresno.
And the OP made no claim that it would increase fan interest in Berkeley. He said Cal and Stanford would sell out in Fresno.
I also made no statement that Fresno State added value. But while we're at it - they don't. What I did say is that the B12 isn't looking for value in the sense we are all talking about it - which is media value. Its looking at Fresno state as a regional in-road to California.
I wasn't speaking hesitantly like I was unsure whether Fresno State would sell out games against Cal. I was being intentionally flippant when I used the word "might" because no one in the Pac-12 cares how we'd help Fresno State sell out their games. It's immaterial.
It makes zero sense to mention that as a reason to add Fresno State to the conference. And your statement that the original poster made no claim that Fresno would increase fan interest in Berkeley is categorically false. Read his earlier post.
Quote:
Cal playing Stanford, SJSU, Fresno, Nevada and Hawaii every year (your place or mine) would do a lot to making Cal football more popular locally. Higher attendance, more regional viewership and following.
It's right there dude. The post is about how adding Fresno State would boost Cal.
Not sure where that quote came from. It didn't come from the post he wrote on 3/8/23 at 11:44am - and that's the one I've been going off of. Since you brought categories into this.
I can't tell the difference between your flippancy and seriousness. And no sh*t no one would care about Fresno State. This isn't about value. Get that through your head. There is no value to be added to the P12 by adding SDSU, Boise, SMU or Fresno State.
But just for kicks and giggles - since Fresno State travels quite well - we could probably get close to 40k into our stadium for a game like that. I mean - we rank 9th in the P12 in average attendance at around 38k for 2022. Fresno's good for about 2-5k traveling fans. Just sayin.
I asked around and 15K-20K travel to LA for the games there (USC? UCLA?) for Fresno fans. Bay Area might be closer central CA population centers.
I'm not the president of the Fresno St fan club. I'm a Hawaii and Cal fan.
I don't see what I'm writing about embracing possible regionalization is any different from the Dennis Dodd article thread that Cal and Stanford stays in the P12. The result would be the same, the P12 taking the best MWC teams.
At least, I'm trying to put a positive spin on an obvious crappy monetary loss from ****tier media deal.
The fact that we have to look back at 1995 to see Fresno or San Jose St playing at Cal - that's a problem.
I think in people's minds the CA4 teams (Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA) is a rivalry for the state, but it's a smaller sliver of concern for most in CA. California college football could have way more relevance to more Californians if the Cal States and Nevada-Reno, and even UNLV with a sprinkle of Hawaii.
This is the situation if the P12 falls apart. But also a part of why the P12 is less relevant to its fan base, and I'm talking about not just alumni but more regular sports fans (ie NFL fans).
Why would anyone object to transitioning from a national team to a regional one?
To the poster lamenting going from a "national brand" to a "regional brand", I think there are some delusions. All teams regardless of conference are regional brands. Some have a body of work that warrants national prominence. That's earned by going undefeated, being highly ranked consistently, having a cool logo and identity.
If you meant "national conference" vs "regional conference", then my argument is the same. The P12 is a regional conference, that sometimes could contend on the national stage when an individual program has a run.
Since your name is HawaiiHaas I presume you're still smoking some grade a pakalolo. Before the LA schools fled, the Pac was a national conference - not regional. We've been crippled by the loss of SC/la. I agree with others who've advocated for a Pac 10/ACC Alliance. We'd then have the top 2 private schools with major sports (Furd and Duke) and 3 of the top 4 public schools (Cal, UVA, UNC).
Outside of the early days after the LA move, I haven't heard of an PAC/acc merger or alliance being discussed outside of message boards. Is there any tangible evidence that this is even a discussion point George K is looking into?
The former head of ESPN brought it up. Wilner discusses it in his recent mailbag.
What do you make of former ESPN chairman John Skipper's comments that the ACC and Pac-12 should merge and that would force a renegotiation of the ACC's deal with ESPN? @pfnnewmediaAnytime Skipper addresses college sports realignment or media matters, we listen. And the concept of a bicoastal merger has been discussed (
on the Hotline and elsewhere) since the immediate aftermath of USC and UCLA announcing their departures to the Big Ten.
However, we see a few hurdles.
The ACC's media deal with ESPN runs into 2036 and coincides with the grant-of-rights agreement that binds each school's media revenue to the conference. That, not the media contract itself, is holding the ACC together. So far, it has proven unbreakable.
As we see it, there are two outcomes to a merger:
The grant-of-rights remains in place as incoming Pac-12 schools commit to the partnership until 2036.
The grant-of-rights is broken in order to force a shorter contract cycle and a renegotiation of the ACC's current deal.
Both are problematic.
We cannot see Oregon or Washington (or Utah, for that matter) agreeing to a grant-of-rights deal into the mid-2030s. And if the agreement is broken, the ACC might collapse. Clemson and Florida State are unhappy with the revenue situation and would assuredly seek membership in the SEC.
Meanwhile, North Carolina would be a candidate for both the Big Ten and SEC.
The SEC isn't actively looking to add schools, but the dissolution of the ACC's grant-of-rights might change the landscape.
Could it happen? A majority of the ACC's 14 full-time members would need to approve it might require a supermajority vote because ESPN probably wouldn't break the deal willingly.
The terms are favorable for the network. If it can pay a reasonable amount for the Pac-12 and keep the ACC intact, why agree to a merged entity that could be more costly?
Is there a way to construct a merger that benefits ESPN in both value and duration? Perhaps. The scenario feels too complicated at the moment, but Skipper is, well, Skipper.
That said, the Hotline would not discount the potential for a merger down the road. In fact, much of the Pac-12's current calculation with its media rights negotiations is designed to set the conference up for the next stage in the evolution of college football.
That phase could begin in the late 2020s or early 2030s, at the start of the next media contract cycle for the Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12.
In that world, the Big Ten doesn't create a western arm (with Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford),
and the Pac-12 members are willing to sign a grant-of-rights deal into the mid-to-late 2030s.
If the Big Ten doesn't expand, the chances of the SEC growing again are diminished, adding stability on the ACC's side.
The Hotline has long thought the most likely future shape of college football featured
the SEC and Big Ten with 20-to-24 members after they pluck the premium remaining brands on the two coasts and a third league of 24-to-26 teams that forms around the Big 12.
Key point: Only five football programs not committed to the SEC and Big Ten carry substantially above-average valuations: Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington, Clemson and Florida State.
(Could that change by the end of the decade? Sure. Utah is the type of program that could raise its brand to the level necessary for an eventual move into the Big Ten or SEC.
(That's one reason the Utes are better off in the Pac-12: The best way to enhance long-term value is through playoff appearances, which are far easier for Kyle Whittingham and Co. in a 10-or-12 team Pac-12 that doesn't include USC than in a 16-team Big 12.)
However, we wouldn't dismiss the possibility of an alternative path featuring a merger of the coastal conferences and the Big 12, Big Ten and SEC remaining as they are.
In other words, the Power Five isn't destined to become the Power Three. It could morph into the Power Four.
