There isn't a deal to be made. Pac teams that hope to be invited to the Big Ten won't sign on to the ACC grant of rights that doesn't end until 2036. The ACC won't agree to shorten their GOR to a length that might satisfy Oregon (say, 2028) because that would let Florida State leave in five years, or make it easier for FSU to leave even earlier because it would cut 8 years off the time they'd have to buy out of their ACC contract.calumnus said:BigDaddy said:Jim Delaney always coveted UNC and UVA. But the Tarheels want an SEC invite for the regional connection UNC upper management feels like it's a better fit.CaliforniaEternal said:
The B1G is going to scoop up UNC and Virginia if the ACC doesn't stabilize in the next decade. Then they will have a nationwide conference with all the top academic public schools. Cal's only path forward is to join that group or basically give up on athletics. Alumni are not going to support a glorified MWC football team playing Fresno State, Nevada, Oregon State, and Washington State. That would be the absolute end, no question about it.
Virginia very likely to go the B1G route when the ACC finally breaks up.
It is clearly in the interest of both the PAC-12 and ACC commissioners to come up with a deal.
Pac-12 commish George Kliavkoff visiiting SMU
117,327 Views |
1094 Replies |
Last: 4 mo ago by calumnus
Its Pac10 or 11 or 12 for the next 4 years. Though it begs the question as to whether any additions would even want 4 years of this conference and then likely have to find a new home all over again.
BearSD said:There isn't a deal to be made. Pac teams that hope to be invited to the Big Ten won't sign on to the ACC grant of rights that doesn't end until 2036. The ACC won't agree to shorten their GOR to a length that might satisfy Oregon (say, 2028) because that would let Florida State leave in five years, or make it easier for FSU to leave even earlier because it would cut 8 years off the time they'd have to buy out of their ACC contract.calumnus said:BigDaddy said:Jim Delaney always coveted UNC and UVA. But the Tarheels want an SEC invite for the regional connection UNC upper management feels like it's a better fit.CaliforniaEternal said:
The B1G is going to scoop up UNC and Virginia if the ACC doesn't stabilize in the next decade. Then they will have a nationwide conference with all the top academic public schools. Cal's only path forward is to join that group or basically give up on athletics. Alumni are not going to support a glorified MWC football team playing Fresno State, Nevada, Oregon State, and Washington State. That would be the absolute end, no question about it.
Virginia very likely to go the B1G route when the ACC finally breaks up.
It is clearly in the interest of both the PAC-12 and ACC commissioners to come up with a deal.
The PACC would be a joint venture between two separate entities: the ACC, which retains its GORs, and the Pac. The key is the new TV contract (likely with ESPN) based on the new schedule for football, and to a lesser extent, basketball with the $$$ increase based on the additional national relevant content created. The Pac GORs would be shorter term, but the money would be greater than the PAC could get otherwise and would allow additional payments to the ACC teams. Non-revenue sports stay in separate leagues with only OOC play. This keeps the two leagues intact and allows the two commissioners to keep their jobs, which is why they have an incentive to do a deal.
Is this actually being actively discussed?
And why is the Sacramento-Stockton-Modedto TV market ignored? Do the TV types lump it in with SF Bay Area? My guess is that area is also growing.
And why is the Sacramento-Stockton-Modedto TV market ignored? Do the TV types lump it in with SF Bay Area? My guess is that area is also growing.
movielover said:
Is this actually being actively discussed?
And why is the Sacramento-Stockton-Modedto TV market ignored? Do the TV types lump it in with SF Bay Area? My guess is that area is also growing.
Supposedly the Pac and ACC have been talking on and off for months, but we don't have much insight. I am just laying out a logical plan. I hope they figure it out but I wouldn't bet on it. Odds are we just keep watering down the Pac-12. If we are really lucky we get invited to the B1G in spite of the incompetence of our leadership.
If you combined Sacramento with the Bay Area it would comprise the third largest market in the United States after New York and Los Angeles and well ahead of DC-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc combined MSA and the Chicago (with parts of Indians and Wisconsin) combined MSA.
This. I don't want Fresno State but it seems we have to figure this out. That market is NOT a Cal/Stanford market as many people outside California (and even in LA) think.calumnus said:movielover said:
Is this actually being actively discussed?
And why is the Sacramento-Stockton-Modedto TV market ignored? Do the TV types lump it in with SF Bay Area? My guess is that area is also growing.
Supposedly the Pac and ACC have been talking on and off for months, but we don't have much insight. I am just laying out a logical plan. I hope they figure it out but I wouldn't bet on it. Odds are we just keep watering down the Pac-12. If we are really lucky we get invited to the B1G in spite of the incompetence of our leadership.
If you combined Sacramento with the Bay Area it would comprise the third largest market in the United States after New York and Los Angeles and well ahead of DC-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc combined MSA and the Chicago (with parts of Indians and Wisconsin) combined MSA.
University of Oregon has hired John Karl Scholz as its new president. He’s an economist, professor and provost at University of Wisconsin-Madison.
— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) March 13, 2023
He starts July 1.
Newest member of the Pac-12 CEO Group.
Scholz has three daughters, one of whom is a PhD student at… Oregon.
I'm sure this has nothing to do with Oregon wanting to move the B1G.
From the hinter lands of ohio.
Not only was he Provost. But he was Interim Chancellor (during this time the Chancellor was dying of cancer - within the last month she died). He also voted on the USC/UCLA addition as this occurred when he was Interim Chancellor (remember any addition has to be voted on by the Presidents of the Universities).
He was Provost. Meaning he represented Wisconsin on the the Big Ten Academic Alliance. The Big Ten Academic Alliance is governed by the Provosts of the member universities who act as a "board of the whole" to lead, guide, and fund the enterprise.
Thus he was actively involved with the other provosts from the other Big 10 universities including the University of Chicago. And he was the Chair of the board.
The Big Ten Academic Alliance is governed by the Provosts of the member universities who act as a "board of the whole" to lead, guide, and fund the enterprise.
Karl Scholz became Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs of the University of Wisconsin-Madison on August 5, 2019. His undergraduate degree is from Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota, and his PhD is from Stanford University.
Not only was he Provost. But he was Interim Chancellor (during this time the Chancellor was dying of cancer - within the last month she died). He also voted on the USC/UCLA addition as this occurred when he was Interim Chancellor (remember any addition has to be voted on by the Presidents of the Universities).
He was Provost. Meaning he represented Wisconsin on the the Big Ten Academic Alliance. The Big Ten Academic Alliance is governed by the Provosts of the member universities who act as a "board of the whole" to lead, guide, and fund the enterprise.
Thus he was actively involved with the other provosts from the other Big 10 universities including the University of Chicago. And he was the Chair of the board.
The Big Ten Academic Alliance is governed by the Provosts of the member universities who act as a "board of the whole" to lead, guide, and fund the enterprise.
- Chair - Karl Scholz - University of Wisconsin-Madison
- Vice-Chair - Rachel Croson - University of Minnesota
- William Bernhard - University of Illinois
- Rahul Shrivastav - Indiana University
- Kevin Kregel - University of Iowa
- Jennifer King Rice - University of Maryland
- Laurie McCauley - University of Michigan
- Thomas D. Jeitschko - Michigan State University
- Katherine Ankerson - University of Nebraska-Lincoln
- Kathleen Hagerty - Northwestern University
- Melissa Gilliam - Ohio State University
- Justin Schwartz - Pennsylvania State University
- Patrick Wolfe - Purdue University
- Prabhas Moghe - Rutgers University-New Brunswick
- Ka Yee C. Lee - University of Chicago (Affiliate)
Karl Scholz became Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs of the University of Wisconsin-Madison on August 5, 2019. His undergraduate degree is from Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota, and his PhD is from Stanford University.
airspace said:
From the hinter lands of ohio.
Not only was he Provost. But he was Interim Chancellor (during this time the Chancellor was dying of cancer - within the last month she died). He also voted on the USC/UCLA addition as this occurred when he was Interim Chancellor (remember any addition has to be voted on by the Presidents of the Universities).
He was Provost. Meaning he represented Wisconsin on the the Big Ten Academic Alliance. The Big Ten Academic Alliance is governed by the Provosts of the member universities who act as a "board of the whole" to lead, guide, and fund the enterprise.
Thus he was actively involved with the other provosts from the other Big 10 universities including the University of Chicago. And he was the Chair of the board.
The Big Ten Academic Alliance is governed by the Provosts of the member universities who act as a "board of the whole" to lead, guide, and fund the enterprise.
- Chair - Karl Scholz - University of Wisconsin-Madison
- Vice-Chair - Rachel Croson - University of Minnesota
- William Bernhard - University of Illinois
- Rahul Shrivastav - Indiana University
- Kevin Kregel - University of Iowa
- Jennifer King Rice - University of Maryland
- Laurie McCauley - University of Michigan
- Thomas D. Jeitschko - Michigan State University
- Katherine Ankerson - University of Nebraska-Lincoln
- Kathleen Hagerty - Northwestern University
- Melissa Gilliam - Ohio State University
- Justin Schwartz - Pennsylvania State University
- Patrick Wolfe - Purdue University
- Prabhas Moghe - Rutgers University-New Brunswick
- Ka Yee C. Lee - University of Chicago (Affiliate)
Karl Scholz became Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs of the University of Wisconsin-Madison on August 5, 2019. His undergraduate degree is from Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota, and his PhD is from Stanford University.
Thanks for the insight. How much weight does the Academic Alliance weigh into this whole B1G expansion equation? I have a tough time reconciling between the benefits of adding Cal/Stanford (sporadic at best football results with world class academic reputation + 6th largest media market) versus UW/Oregon (second tier academics and media markets but strong football).
The fact of the matter is, if the B1G put pressure on Cal and Stanford to up their football investment, their ROI to the B1G would be way higher no?
airspace said:
From the hinter lands of ohio.
Not only was he Provost. But he was Interim Chancellor (during this time the Chancellor was dying of cancer - within the last month she died). He also voted on the USC/UCLA addition as this occurred when he was Interim Chancellor (remember any addition has to be voted on by the Presidents of the Universities).
He was Provost. Meaning he represented Wisconsin on the the Big Ten Academic Alliance. The Big Ten Academic Alliance is governed by the Provosts of the member universities who act as a "board of the whole" to lead, guide, and fund the enterprise.
Thus he was actively involved with the other provosts from the other Big 10 universities including the University of Chicago. And he was the Chair of the board.
The Big Ten Academic Alliance is governed by the Provosts of the member universities who act as a "board of the whole" to lead, guide, and fund the enterprise.
- Chair - Karl Scholz - University of Wisconsin-Madison
- Vice-Chair - Rachel Croson - University of Minnesota
- William Bernhard - University of Illinois
- Rahul Shrivastav - Indiana University
- Kevin Kregel - University of Iowa
- Jennifer King Rice - University of Maryland
- Laurie McCauley - University of Michigan
- Thomas D. Jeitschko - Michigan State University
- Katherine Ankerson - University of Nebraska-Lincoln
- Kathleen Hagerty - Northwestern University
- Melissa Gilliam - Ohio State University
- Justin Schwartz - Pennsylvania State University
- Patrick Wolfe - Purdue University
- Prabhas Moghe - Rutgers University-New Brunswick
- Ka Yee C. Lee - University of Chicago (Affiliate)
Karl Scholz became Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs of the University of Wisconsin-Madison on August 5, 2019. His undergraduate degree is from Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota, and his PhD is from Stanford University.
Hagerty at Northwestern was a Cal undergrad, Stanford grad.
Econ141, in the past, access to the Big Ten Academic Alliance (previously it was the CIC) was only through entry into the Athletic Conference. The two are linked and the schools that have been added, were more interested in the Big Ten Academic Alliance and could not wait to get into it. It is the Academic arm of the Big Ten.
It was through the BTAA that the Big Ten Cancer Consortium was formed. All 14 schools are part of the cancer consortium where they share research and trials. Saw an article out of New Jersey where the professor at Rutgers was running a trial on a rare cancer. Because of the reach of the Big Ten, he was able to get enough patients to be able to run the trial he wanted to run.
The library project is another famous project of the BTAA. All the libraries are linked and students have access to any books within the entire system. They have been moving more and more into the ability of the students within the Big Ten to be able to take a course at another Big Ten school that is not available at their school.
This where the Big Ten presidents would droll over California and Stanford. Thus why I believe in the long run, California and Stanford will gain entry, IF they want it.
It was through the BTAA that the Big Ten Cancer Consortium was formed. All 14 schools are part of the cancer consortium where they share research and trials. Saw an article out of New Jersey where the professor at Rutgers was running a trial on a rare cancer. Because of the reach of the Big Ten, he was able to get enough patients to be able to run the trial he wanted to run.
The library project is another famous project of the BTAA. All the libraries are linked and students have access to any books within the entire system. They have been moving more and more into the ability of the students within the Big Ten to be able to take a course at another Big Ten school that is not available at their school.
This where the Big Ten presidents would droll over California and Stanford. Thus why I believe in the long run, California and Stanford will gain entry, IF they want it.
The academic leadership of all the Big Ten schools are quite active in the BTAA. The presidents, provosts, and deans regularly meet, and they have a future academic leaders program where, e.g., associate deans and department heads interested in careers in academic administration are named BTAA fellows and have a series of meetings over a year on Big Ten campuses to examine the ways the various institutions run. The BTAA leaders frequently meet to devise common responses to issues that arise.
Despite what many people (and some journalists!) believe, the BTAA does not dispense any funds (well, not any significant funds) to member institutions.
Cal would fit in perfectly with the BTAA and I'm certain that the Presidents would love to have Cal (and Stanford and Washington) as members of the Big Ten in this regard. The primary problem is that the addition of any of the three schools, as far as I can tell (and I have no special insights in this regard), would result in a reduction of media payments to the individual schools. Other than this (admittedly crucial) issue, Cal would be an ideal addition to the Big Ten. I believe your best hope is that ESPN would pay $120M for a "Big Ten After Dark" slot, and two of the three aforementioned schools would agree to accept half shares for the length of the current media contract (becoming "full" members when the next agreement is negotiated).
Despite what many people (and some journalists!) believe, the BTAA does not dispense any funds (well, not any significant funds) to member institutions.
Cal would fit in perfectly with the BTAA and I'm certain that the Presidents would love to have Cal (and Stanford and Washington) as members of the Big Ten in this regard. The primary problem is that the addition of any of the three schools, as far as I can tell (and I have no special insights in this regard), would result in a reduction of media payments to the individual schools. Other than this (admittedly crucial) issue, Cal would be an ideal addition to the Big Ten. I believe your best hope is that ESPN would pay $120M for a "Big Ten After Dark" slot, and two of the three aforementioned schools would agree to accept half shares for the length of the current media contract (becoming "full" members when the next agreement is negotiated).
This is where I think the issue with UCLA is weird. Does the Big 10 get access to Cal without it being in the consortium? Do the Big 10 folks have access to the full UC library? Or do we shut UCLA out of the library access...airspace said:
Econ141, in the past, access to the Big Ten Academic Alliance (previously it was the CIC) was only through entry into the Athletic Conference. The two are linked and the schools that have been added, were more interested in the Big Ten Academic Alliance and could not wait to get into it. It is the Academic arm of the Big Ten.
It was through the BTAA that the Big Ten Cancer Consortium was formed. All 14 schools are part of the cancer consortium where they share research and trials. Saw an article out of New Jersey where the professor at Rutgers was running a trial on a rare cancer. Because of the reach of the Big Ten, he was able to get enough patients to be able to run the trial he wanted to run.
The library project is another famous project of the BTAA. All the libraries are linked and students have access to any books within the entire system. They have been moving more and more into the ability of the students within the Big Ten to be able to take a course at another Big Ten school that is not available at their school.
This where the Big Ten presidents would droll over California and Stanford. Thus why I believe in the long run, California and Stanford will gain entry, IF they want it.
RobertHedrock said:
The academic leadership of all the Big Ten schools are quite active in the BTAA. The presidents, provosts, and deans regularly meet, and they have a future academic leaders program where, e.g., associate deans and department heads interested in careers in academic administration are named BTAA fellows and have a series of meetings over a year on Big Ten campuses to examine the ways the various institutions run. The BTAA leaders frequently meet to devise common responses to issues that arise.
Despite what many people (and some journalists!) believe, the BTAA does not dispense any funds (well, not any significant funds) to member institutions.
Cal would fit in perfectly with the BTAA and I'm certain that the Presidents would love to have Cal (and Stanford and Washington) as members of the Big Ten in this regard. The primary problem is that the addition of any of the three schools, as far as I can tell (and I have no special insights in this regard), would result in a reduction of media payments to the individual schools. Other than this (admittedly crucial) issue, Cal would be an ideal addition to the Big Ten. I believe your best hope is that ESPN would pay $120M for a "Big Ten After Dark" slot, and two of the three aforementioned schools would agree to accept half shares for the length of the current media contract (becoming "full" members when the next agreement is negotiated).
Thanks for the input - so I get BTAA value add (or lack thereof) but do you think the B1G is looking at this long-term? If cal can hire the right AD, the sports can be fixed pretty quickly. All it took was for us to hire Tedford to get the place sold out and ranked for multiple years. Stanford is one coach away. Given the size of the media market relative to UW/Ore isn't cal/Stanford a better play? Let's say you only took 2 schools - if you take Cal/Stanford you get them dirt cheap but once the money flows into them and at some point completely dwarf Oregon and Washington by virtue of being left out - doesn't the B1G ultimately win with the larger media market?
Just trying to assess how the B1G might be thinking through this if it is only considering 2 more schools on the west coast.
Econ141, what I believe.
I agree with you about the athletic potential of California & Stanford in the long run (just athletics). This does not factor in the Academics where California and Stanford outshine everyone else.
Currently, Oregon and Washington (more so) are of greater value than California and Stanford. This is based on what has been reported. If California and Stanford made the changes necessary, they could flip the script.
What we do know is that Oregon and Washington both approached the Big Ten about membership. They were very public about it. I have not heard anything about California and Stanford approaching the Big Ten. Maybe they have, just have heard nothing but crickets.
Say they have. Given how the Big Ten operates, you will not hear anything until it is announced. Look at Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers, USC and UCLA. Outside of Maryland where it broke a week or two before the announcement, crickets until it became public.
As I have said before, my observations of the Big Ten is that they are very slow to act. They like to integrate the new university into the system of how the Big Ten operates (see what was said about the BTAA).
Given the limited funds available to the media partners at this time, it may require creative programming (Friday night and/or Saturday night games) to create a window to generate additional funds for the new members. Add in, that the Big Ten does not want members to unfairly bear the burden of this. Is it fair that Indiana or Minnesota or California get stuck with multiple Friday/Saturday night games.
Also add in, we don't know what is really happening inside Big Ten headquarters. Are they active or are we operating with a lame duck administration. Again crickets.
How do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time. Plus, I believe the Big Ten is being cautious as to not kill the PAC. Now if it collapses, it will be interesting to see what they do.
I agree with you about the athletic potential of California & Stanford in the long run (just athletics). This does not factor in the Academics where California and Stanford outshine everyone else.
Currently, Oregon and Washington (more so) are of greater value than California and Stanford. This is based on what has been reported. If California and Stanford made the changes necessary, they could flip the script.
What we do know is that Oregon and Washington both approached the Big Ten about membership. They were very public about it. I have not heard anything about California and Stanford approaching the Big Ten. Maybe they have, just have heard nothing but crickets.
Say they have. Given how the Big Ten operates, you will not hear anything until it is announced. Look at Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers, USC and UCLA. Outside of Maryland where it broke a week or two before the announcement, crickets until it became public.
As I have said before, my observations of the Big Ten is that they are very slow to act. They like to integrate the new university into the system of how the Big Ten operates (see what was said about the BTAA).
Given the limited funds available to the media partners at this time, it may require creative programming (Friday night and/or Saturday night games) to create a window to generate additional funds for the new members. Add in, that the Big Ten does not want members to unfairly bear the burden of this. Is it fair that Indiana or Minnesota or California get stuck with multiple Friday/Saturday night games.
Also add in, we don't know what is really happening inside Big Ten headquarters. Are they active or are we operating with a lame duck administration. Again crickets.
How do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time. Plus, I believe the Big Ten is being cautious as to not kill the PAC. Now if it collapses, it will be interesting to see what they do.
airspace said:
Econ141, what I believe.
I agree with you about the athletic potential of California & Stanford in the long run (just athletics). This does not factor in the Academics where California and Stanford outshine everyone else.
Currently, Oregon and Washington (more so) are of greater value than California and Stanford. This is based on what has been reported. If California and Stanford made the changes necessary, they could flip the script.
What we do know is that Oregon and Washington both approached the Big Ten about membership. They were very public about it. I have not heard anything about California and Stanford approaching the Big Ten. Maybe they have, just have heard nothing but crickets.
Say they have. Given how the Big Ten operates, you will not hear anything until it is announced. Look at Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers, USC and UCLA. Outside of Maryland where it broke a week or two before the announcement, crickets until it became public.
As I have said before, my observations of the Big Ten is that they are very slow to act. They like to integrate the new university into the system of how the Big Ten operates (see what was said about the BTAA).
Given the limited funds available to the media partners at this time, it may require creative programming (Friday night and/or Saturday night games) to create a window to generate additional funds for the new members. Add in, that the Big Ten does not want members to unfairly bear the burden of this. Is it fair that Indiana or Minnesota or California get stuck with multiple Friday/Saturday night games.
Also add in, we don't know what is really happening inside Big Ten headquarters. Are they active or are we operating with a lame duck administration. Again crickets.
How do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time. Plus, I believe the Big Ten is being cautious as to not kill the PAC. Now if it collapses, it will be interesting to see what they do.
The reports are that the Big Ten, for legal reasons, is not going to pursue the additional schools (and cause the PAC-12 to collapse), they need the schools to go to them, to ask for admission, and even if told last year "not now" to keep on asking, and offer to take less. I'm not sure Cal and Stanford are doing that. Some on this board say our chancellor is, but I need more public confirmation than that to be convinced.
95bears said:This. I don't want Fresno State but it seems we have to figure this out. That market is NOT a Cal/Stanford market as many people outside California (and even in LA) think.calumnus said:movielover said:
Is this actually being actively discussed?
And why is the Sacramento-Stockton-Modedto TV market ignored? Do the TV types lump it in with SF Bay Area? My guess is that area is also growing.
Supposedly the Pac and ACC have been talking on and off for months, but we don't have much insight. I am just laying out a logical plan. I hope they figure it out but I wouldn't bet on it. Odds are we just keep watering down the Pac-12. If we are really lucky we get invited to the B1G in spite of the incompetence of our leadership.
If you combined Sacramento with the Bay Area it would comprise the third largest market in the United States after New York and Los Angeles and well ahead of DC-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc combined MSA and the Chicago (with parts of Indians and Wisconsin) combined MSA.
FYI: Fresno is a separate TV market from Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto.
Cal_79 said:95bears said:This. I don't want Fresno State but it seems we have to figure this out. That market is NOT a Cal/Stanford market as many people outside California (and even in LA) think.calumnus said:movielover said:
Is this actually being actively discussed?
And why is the Sacramento-Stockton-Modedto TV market ignored? Do the TV types lump it in with SF Bay Area? My guess is that area is also growing.
Supposedly the Pac and ACC have been talking on and off for months, but we don't have much insight. I am just laying out a logical plan. I hope they figure it out but I wouldn't bet on it. Odds are we just keep watering down the Pac-12. If we are really lucky we get invited to the B1G in spite of the incompetence of our leadership.
If you combined Sacramento with the Bay Area it would comprise the third largest market in the United States after New York and Los Angeles and well ahead of DC-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc combined MSA and the Chicago (with parts of Indians and Wisconsin) combined MSA.
FYI: Fresno is a separate TV market from Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto.
Sacramento to Berkeley: 77 miles
Sacramento to Fresno: 169 miles
Eugene to Portland: 109 miles
Some of the best Cal fans I know are from Sacramento.
I think Sacramento should be considered in the calculation for Cal's market size. Davis and Sac St are FCS, so no competition from closer schools.
Cal_79 said:95bears said:This. I don't want Fresno State but it seems we have to figure this out. That market is NOT a Cal/Stanford market as many people outside California (and even in LA) think.calumnus said:movielover said:
Is this actually being actively discussed?
And why is the Sacramento-Stockton-Modedto TV market ignored? Do the TV types lump it in with SF Bay Area? My guess is that area is also growing.
Supposedly the Pac and ACC have been talking on and off for months, but we don't have much insight. I am just laying out a logical plan. I hope they figure it out but I wouldn't bet on it. Odds are we just keep watering down the Pac-12. If we are really lucky we get invited to the B1G in spite of the incompetence of our leadership.
If you combined Sacramento with the Bay Area it would comprise the third largest market in the United States after New York and Los Angeles and well ahead of DC-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc combined MSA and the Chicago (with parts of Indians and Wisconsin) combined MSA.
FYI: Fresno is a separate TV market from Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto.
What is crazy is Modesto and Stockton are included in the Bay Area's Combined Statistical Area but Sacramento is not. If it is, the Bay Area is third behind only New York and LA.
airspace said:
Econ141, what I believe.
I agree with you about the athletic potential of California & Stanford in the long run (just athletics). This does not factor in the Academics where California and Stanford outshine everyone else.
Currently, Oregon and Washington (more so) are of greater value than California and Stanford. This is based on what has been reported. If California and Stanford made the changes necessary, they could flip the script.
What we do know is that Oregon and Washington both approached the Big Ten about membership. They were very public about it. I have not heard anything about California and Stanford approaching the Big Ten. Maybe they have, just have heard nothing but crickets.
Say they have. Given how the Big Ten operates, you will not hear anything until it is announced. Look at Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers, USC and UCLA. Outside of Maryland where it broke a week or two before the announcement, crickets until it became public.
As I have said before, my observations of the Big Ten is that they are very slow to act. They like to integrate the new university into the system of how the Big Ten operates (see what was said about the BTAA).
Given the limited funds available to the media partners at this time, it may require creative programming (Friday night and/or Saturday night games) to create a window to generate additional funds for the new members. Add in, that the Big Ten does not want members to unfairly bear the burden of this. Is it fair that Indiana or Minnesota or California get stuck with multiple Friday/Saturday night games.
Also add in, we don't know what is really happening inside Big Ten headquarters. Are they active or are we operating with a lame duck administration. Again crickets.
How do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time. Plus, I believe the Big Ten is being cautious as to not kill the PAC. Now if it collapses, it will be interesting to see what they do.
Thanks for sharing your views. It is going to be quite a stressful ride from here on out for Cal which seems to scratch the surface of relevancy every now and then. That said, there is a dormant rabid fan base waiting for a coach and an administration to mirror their passion.
Hard to imagine college football without representation from the bay area but can't argue with the football results over the past decade.
If the B12 gets to count San Antonio we should get to count Sacramento, if not other parts of the state.ColoradoBear said:Cal_79 said:95bears said:This. I don't want Fresno State but it seems we have to figure this out. That market is NOT a Cal/Stanford market as many people outside California (and even in LA) think.calumnus said:movielover said:
Is this actually being actively discussed?
And why is the Sacramento-Stockton-Modedto TV market ignored? Do the TV types lump it in with SF Bay Area? My guess is that area is also growing.
Supposedly the Pac and ACC have been talking on and off for months, but we don't have much insight. I am just laying out a logical plan. I hope they figure it out but I wouldn't bet on it. Odds are we just keep watering down the Pac-12. If we are really lucky we get invited to the B1G in spite of the incompetence of our leadership.
If you combined Sacramento with the Bay Area it would comprise the third largest market in the United States after New York and Los Angeles and well ahead of DC-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc combined MSA and the Chicago (with parts of Indians and Wisconsin) combined MSA.
FYI: Fresno is a separate TV market from Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto.
Sacramento to Berkeley: 77 miles
Sacramento to Fresno: 169 miles
Eugene to Portland: 109 miles
Some of the best Cal fans I know are from Sacramento.
I think Sacramento should be considered in the calculation for Cal's market size. Davis and Sac St are FCS, so no competition from closer schools.
I live outside Sac in Granite Bay/Roseville. I rarely see anybody with a Cal shirt/hat on, and when I do, they're in their 70s. Maybe there is good-sized alumni base here, but I don't see people who advertise their connection to Cal. Almost nonexistent coverage of Cal sports in the Sac Bee. This is a much stronger pro/49er area. Example: in yesterday's Bee, there is a full-page article (from the Washington Post) on why NFL teams might trade the #1 draft pick. I'd love to be wrong, but I'd be surprised if many TV sets tune into Cal football around here.ColoradoBear said:Cal_79 said:95bears said:This. I don't want Fresno State but it seems we have to figure this out. That market is NOT a Cal/Stanford market as many people outside California (and even in LA) think.calumnus said:movielover said:
Is this actually being actively discussed?
And why is the Sacramento-Stockton-Modedto TV market ignored? Do the TV types lump it in with SF Bay Area? My guess is that area is also growing.
Supposedly the Pac and ACC have been talking on and off for months, but we don't have much insight. I am just laying out a logical plan. I hope they figure it out but I wouldn't bet on it. Odds are we just keep watering down the Pac-12. If we are really lucky we get invited to the B1G in spite of the incompetence of our leadership.
If you combined Sacramento with the Bay Area it would comprise the third largest market in the United States after New York and Los Angeles and well ahead of DC-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc combined MSA and the Chicago (with parts of Indians and Wisconsin) combined MSA.
FYI: Fresno is a separate TV market from Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto.
Sacramento to Berkeley: 77 miles
Sacramento to Fresno: 169 miles
Eugene to Portland: 109 miles
Some of the best Cal fans I know are from Sacramento.
I think Sacramento should be considered in the calculation for Cal's market size. Davis and Sac St are FCS, so no competition from closer schools.
I agree with this analysis. When the Big Ten is in serious discussions with a school, they operate under a non-disclosure agreement. The fact that the Washington/Oregon contacts have been so visibly publicized says to me that the purported negotiations are non-existent. The key tidbit, in my view, was the response last July of a Stanford official when asked about conference expansion: We have not had any official contacts with the Big Ten. This non-denial denial strongly implies that there has been some off-the-record discussions on the matter.airspace said:
Econ141, what I believe.
I agree with you about the athletic potential of California & Stanford in the long run (just athletics). This does not factor in the Academics where California and Stanford outshine everyone else.
Currently, Oregon and Washington (more so) are of greater value than California and Stanford. This is based on what has been reported. If California and Stanford made the changes necessary, they could flip the script.
What we do know is that Oregon and Washington both approached the Big Ten about membership. They were very public about it. I have not heard anything about California and Stanford approaching the Big Ten. Maybe they have, just have heard nothing but crickets.
Say they have. Given how the Big Ten operates, you will not hear anything until it is announced. Look at Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers, USC and UCLA. Outside of Maryland where it broke a week or two before the announcement, crickets until it became public.
As I have said before, my observations of the Big Ten is that they are very slow to act. They like to integrate the new university into the system of how the Big Ten operates (see what was said about the BTAA).
Given the limited funds available to the media partners at this time, it may require creative programming (Friday night and/or Saturday night games) to create a window to generate additional funds for the new members. Add in, that the Big Ten does not want members to unfairly bear the burden of this. Is it fair that Indiana or Minnesota or California get stuck with multiple Friday/Saturday night games.
Also add in, we don't know what is really happening inside Big Ten headquarters. Are they active or are we operating with a lame duck administration. Again crickets.
How do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time. Plus, I believe the Big Ten is being cautious as to not kill the PAC. Now if it collapses, it will be interesting to see what they do.
I've seen nothing further (other than media speculation) on Stanford-Big Ten discussions. This is exactly what I would expect to occur if their were serious negotiations (one can also reasonably draw the conclusion that there are no negotiations!). I believe that the most likely situation is that Stanford and Cal signed a non-disclosure agreement with the Big Ten since last summer and efforts are now underway to make this expansion financially viable and resolve the logistical challenges of an 18-member conference spread across the country. I estimate (not that I have any inside information) that the chances are less than 40% of success, but larger than 10%.
I still can't get past the fact that Oregon's football "tradition" is only about 25 years old. Their success hinges almost entirely on the $$ and influence coming from an 85 year-old Phil Knight. He's not going to live forever and where will the money come from when he dies? UCLA has a much longer and more celebrated football heritage, as well as a larger population base, and virtually everybody agrees that they really rode into the B1G on USC's coattails. How is Oregon going to make it in the long term?airspace said:
Econ141, what I believe.
I agree with you about the athletic potential of California & Stanford in the long run (just athletics). This does not factor in the Academics where California and Stanford outshine everyone else.
Currently, Oregon and Washington (more so) are of greater value than California and Stanford. This is based on what has been reported. If California and Stanford made the changes necessary, they could flip the script.
What we do know is that Oregon and Washington both approached the Big Ten about membership. They were very public about it. I have not heard anything about California and Stanford approaching the Big Ten. Maybe they have, just have heard nothing but crickets.
Say they have. Given how the Big Ten operates, you will not hear anything until it is announced. Look at Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers, USC and UCLA. Outside of Maryland where it broke a week or two before the announcement, cricket s until it became public.
As I have said before, my observations of the Big Ten is that they are very slow to act. They like to integrate the new university into the system of how the Big Ten operates (see what was said about the BTAA).
Given the limited funds available to the media partners at this time, it may require creative programming (Friday night and/or Saturday night games) to create a window to generate additional funds for the new members. Add in, that the Big Ten does not want members to unfairly bear the burden of this. Is it fair that Indiana or Minnesota or California get stuck with multiple Friday/Saturday night games.
Also add in, we don't know what is really happening inside Big Ten headquarters. Are they active or are we operating with a lame duck administration. Again crickets.
How do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time. Plus, I believe the Big Ten is being cautious as to not kill the PAC. Now if it collapses, it will be interesting to see what they do.
HearstMining said:I live outside Sac in Granite Bay/Roseville. I rarely see anybody with a Cal shirt/hat on, and when I do, they're in their 70s. Maybe there is good-sized alumni base here, but I don't see people who advertise their connection to Cal. Almost nonexistent coverage of Cal sports in the Sac Bee. This is a much stronger pro/49er area. Example: in yesterday's Bee, there is a full-page article (from the Washington Post) on why NFL teams might trade the #1 draft pick. I'd love to be wrong, but I'd be surprised if many TV sets tune into Cal football around here.ColoradoBear said:Cal_79 said:95bears said:This. I don't want Fresno State but it seems we have to figure this out. That market is NOT a Cal/Stanford market as many people outside California (and even in LA) think.calumnus said:movielover said:
Is this actually being actively discussed?
And why is the Sacramento-Stockton-Modedto TV market ignored? Do the TV types lump it in with SF Bay Area? My guess is that area is also growing.
Supposedly the Pac and ACC have been talking on and off for months, but we don't have much insight. I am just laying out a logical plan. I hope they figure it out but I wouldn't bet on it. Odds are we just keep watering down the Pac-12. If we are really lucky we get invited to the B1G in spite of the incompetence of our leadership.
If you combined Sacramento with the Bay Area it would comprise the third largest market in the United States after New York and Los Angeles and well ahead of DC-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc combined MSA and the Chicago (with parts of Indians and Wisconsin) combined MSA.
FYI: Fresno is a separate TV market from Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto.
Sacramento to Berkeley: 77 miles
Sacramento to Fresno: 169 miles
Eugene to Portland: 109 miles
Some of the best Cal fans I know are from Sacramento.
I think Sacramento should be considered in the calculation for Cal's market size. Davis and Sac St are FCS, so no competition from closer schools.
Then again, the Sac Bee is a shell of its former self and not many people tune into it, either.
Robert Hedrock
I've seen nothing further (other than media speculation) on Stanford-Big Ten discussions. This is exactly what I would expect to occur if their were serious negotiations (one can also reasonably draw the conclusion that there are no negotiations!). I believe that the most likely situation is that Stanford and Cal signed a non-disclosure agreement with the Big Ten since last summer and efforts are now underway to make this expansion financially viable and resolve the logistical challenges of an 18-member conference spread across the country. I estimate (not that I have any inside information) that the chances are less than 40% of success, but larger than 10%.
I will go a step further Robert. If there are serious negotiations going on. I would believe Stanford and California would be working together. But using Stanford as the go between since they are exempt from FOIA being a private institution. As long as the communication between Stanford and California is verbal where would be the paper trail?
I've seen nothing further (other than media speculation) on Stanford-Big Ten discussions. This is exactly what I would expect to occur if their were serious negotiations (one can also reasonably draw the conclusion that there are no negotiations!). I believe that the most likely situation is that Stanford and Cal signed a non-disclosure agreement with the Big Ten since last summer and efforts are now underway to make this expansion financially viable and resolve the logistical challenges of an 18-member conference spread across the country. I estimate (not that I have any inside information) that the chances are less than 40% of success, but larger than 10%.
I will go a step further Robert. If there are serious negotiations going on. I would believe Stanford and California would be working together. But using Stanford as the go between since they are exempt from FOIA being a private institution. As long as the communication between Stanford and California is verbal where would be the paper trail?
Agreed - it's just the only indicator I have of general sports fan interest.Cal_79 said:HearstMining said:I live outside Sac in Granite Bay/Roseville. I rarely see anybody with a Cal shirt/hat on, and when I do, they're in their 70s. Maybe there is good-sized alumni base here, but I don't see people who advertise their connection to Cal. Almost nonexistent coverage of Cal sports in the Sac Bee. This is a much stronger pro/49er area. Example: in yesterday's Bee, there is a full-page article (from the Washington Post) on why NFL teams might trade the #1 draft pick. I'd love to be wrong, but I'd be surprised if many TV sets tune into Cal football around here.ColoradoBear said:Cal_79 said:95bears said:This. I don't want Fresno State but it seems we have to figure this out. That market is NOT a Cal/Stanford market as many people outside California (and even in LA) think.calumnus said:movielover said:
Is this actually being actively discussed?
And why is the Sacramento-Stockton-Modedto TV market ignored? Do the TV types lump it in with SF Bay Area? My guess is that area is also growing.
Supposedly the Pac and ACC have been talking on and off for months, but we don't have much insight. I am just laying out a logical plan. I hope they figure it out but I wouldn't bet on it. Odds are we just keep watering down the Pac-12. If we are really lucky we get invited to the B1G in spite of the incompetence of our leadership.
If you combined Sacramento with the Bay Area it would comprise the third largest market in the United States after New York and Los Angeles and well ahead of DC-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc combined MSA and the Chicago (with parts of Indians and Wisconsin) combined MSA.
FYI: Fresno is a separate TV market from Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto.
Sacramento to Berkeley: 77 miles
Sacramento to Fresno: 169 miles
Eugene to Portland: 109 miles
Some of the best Cal fans I know are from Sacramento.
I think Sacramento should be considered in the calculation for Cal's market size. Davis and Sac St are FCS, so no competition from closer schools.
Then again, the Sac Bee is a shell of its former self and not many people tune into it, either.
Its because of branding, Hearst. Which school will build or help "the brand" of the B1G. Looking at it strictly from an athletic program perspective?
Also, 7 schools in the B1G are Nike affiliated. 8 if you count Jordan. Is Nike suddenly going to pull all their money away from Oregon once Phil Knight passes away? Not going to happen.
But all things being equal, Oregon and/or Washington are the schools that the B1G would choose to enhance "the brand" from a purely athletics perspective.
Also, 7 schools in the B1G are Nike affiliated. 8 if you count Jordan. Is Nike suddenly going to pull all their money away from Oregon once Phil Knight passes away? Not going to happen.
But all things being equal, Oregon and/or Washington are the schools that the B1G would choose to enhance "the brand" from a purely athletics perspective.
There's being a Nike affiliated school and then there's this: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2021/03/knights-university-of-oregon-donations-push-1-billion-mark-with-new-hayward-field-project.htmll. It's Phil Knight doing it personally (and it's certainly legal and ethical), not Nike. This is what will stop once Phil is no longer around.philly1121 said:
Its because of branding, Hearst. Which school will build or help "the brand" of the B1G. Looking at it strictly from an athletic program perspective?
Also, 7 schools in the B1G are Nike affiliated. 8 if you count Jordan. Is Nike suddenly going to pull all their money away from Oregon once Phil Knight passes away? Not going to happen.
But all things being equal, Oregon and/or Washington are the schools that the B1G would choose to enhance "the brand" from a purely athletics perspective.
My question is: can the University of Oregon continue to attract athletes/coaches to generate the football results that support the B1G brand? I'm not arguing that UO isn't the most attractive program to the B1G right now, I'm arguing that they may be the west coast equivalent of an Iowa or Minnesota ten years from now. Stability is key and they can't retain head coaches now even when things are going well.
I think UW is different. Washington is a much more economically diverse state and UW has an extremely strong football heritage. I lived up there during the Don James era and even in an NFL town, the Huskies drew just as much attention. They have the resources, and will to support the UW football program and that it can be in the upper tier of the B1G.
HearstMining said:There's being a Nike affiliated school and then there's this: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2021/03/knights-university-of-oregon-donations-push-1-billion-mark-with-new-hayward-field-project.htmll. It's Phil Knight doing it personally (and it's certainly legal and ethical), not Nike. This is what will stop once Phil is no longer around.philly1121 said:
Its because of branding, Hearst. Which school will build or help "the brand" of the B1G. Looking at it strictly from an athletic program perspective?
Also, 7 schools in the B1G are Nike affiliated. 8 if you count Jordan. Is Nike suddenly going to pull all their money away from Oregon once Phil Knight passes away? Not going to happen.
But all things being equal, Oregon and/or Washington are the schools that the B1G would choose to enhance "the brand" from a purely athletics perspective.
My question is: can the University of Oregon continue to attract athletes/coaches to generate the football results that support the B1G brand? I'm not arguing that UO isn't the most attractive program to the B1G right now, I'm arguing that they may be the west coast equivalent of an Iowa or Minnesota ten years from now. Stability is key and they can't retain head coaches when things are going well.
I think UW is different. Washington is a much more economically diverse state and UW has an extremely strong football heritage. I lived up there during the Don James era and even in an NFL town, the Huskies drew just as much attention. They have the resources, and will to support the UW football program and that it can be in the upper tier of the B1G.
I believe/read somewhere that he is going to leave a huge endowment that should be able to sustain them. Could just be speculation but I can certainly believe it.
The article reads that his actual contributions to Oregon may never be known. He's donated to athletic and academic projects at Oregon. Given he's worth close to $41 billion, I'm sure his philanthropic legacy will be preserved for years to come. Even after he passes.
I think your question is more one of sustainability. Clearly, Oregon's future financial outlook will be positive. Will that lead to long term success in football or other sports? I don't know. But I'd rather have Oregon's bank book.
I think your question is more one of sustainability. Clearly, Oregon's future financial outlook will be positive. Will that lead to long term success in football or other sports? I don't know. But I'd rather have Oregon's bank book.
You bring up a great point about how much untapped potential there is in the Sacramento area. It has better demographics for sports culture than many parts of the Bay Area. I remember when I attended the Cal practice at Grant High School when Cal was recruiting a bunch of players there. That brings up bitter memories of the Shaq Thompson recruitment, sigh. I don't know why they stopped that kind of outreach because it makes sense on so many levels to blanket the Central Valley.HearstMining said:Agreed - it's just the only indicator I have of general sports fan interest.Cal_79 said:HearstMining said:I live outside Sac in Granite Bay/Roseville. I rarely see anybody with a Cal shirt/hat on, and when I do, they're in their 70s. Maybe there is good-sized alumni base here, but I don't see people who advertise their connection to Cal. Almost nonexistent coverage of Cal sports in the Sac Bee. This is a much stronger pro/49er area. Example: in yesterday's Bee, there is a full-page article (from the Washington Post) on why NFL teams might trade the #1 draft pick. I'd love to be wrong, but I'd be surprised if many TV sets tune into Cal football around here.ColoradoBear said:Cal_79 said:95bears said:This. I don't want Fresno State but it seems we have to figure this out. That market is NOT a Cal/Stanford market as many people outside California (and even in LA) think.calumnus said:movielover said:
Is this actually being actively discussed?
And why is the Sacramento-Stockton-Modedto TV market ignored? Do the TV types lump it in with SF Bay Area? My guess is that area is also growing.
Supposedly the Pac and ACC have been talking on and off for months, but we don't have much insight. I am just laying out a logical plan. I hope they figure it out but I wouldn't bet on it. Odds are we just keep watering down the Pac-12. If we are really lucky we get invited to the B1G in spite of the incompetence of our leadership.
If you combined Sacramento with the Bay Area it would comprise the third largest market in the United States after New York and Los Angeles and well ahead of DC-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc combined MSA and the Chicago (with parts of Indians and Wisconsin) combined MSA.
FYI: Fresno is a separate TV market from Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto.
Sacramento to Berkeley: 77 miles
Sacramento to Fresno: 169 miles
Eugene to Portland: 109 miles
Some of the best Cal fans I know are from Sacramento.
I think Sacramento should be considered in the calculation for Cal's market size. Davis and Sac St are FCS, so no competition from closer schools.
Then again, the Sac Bee is a shell of its former self and not many people tune into it, either.
Even before the Bee went downhill, Sunday's paper's lead article was almost always the top 20 high school programs in hoops or football. You'd have whole articles/pages about the high school programs, kind of like what CoCo Times used to write about DLS. Then it would focus on the Kings (or 9ers because they practice in Rocklin). Then Sac State and Davis. Bay Area and LA colleges were back page with the same "rank".HearstMining said:Agreed - it's just the only indicator I have of general sports fan interest.Cal_79 said:HearstMining said:I live outside Sac in Granite Bay/Roseville. I rarely see anybody with a Cal shirt/hat on, and when I do, they're in their 70s. Maybe there is good-sized alumni base here, but I don't see people who advertise their connection to Cal. Almost nonexistent coverage of Cal sports in the Sac Bee. This is a much stronger pro/49er area. Example: in yesterday's Bee, there is a full-page article (from the Washington Post) on why NFL teams might trade the #1 draft pick. I'd love to be wrong, but I'd be surprised if many TV sets tune into Cal football around here.ColoradoBear said:Cal_79 said:95bears said:This. I don't want Fresno State but it seems we have to figure this out. That market is NOT a Cal/Stanford market as many people outside California (and even in LA) think.calumnus said:movielover said:
Is this actually being actively discussed?
And why is the Sacramento-Stockton-Modedto TV market ignored? Do the TV types lump it in with SF Bay Area? My guess is that area is also growing.
Supposedly the Pac and ACC have been talking on and off for months, but we don't have much insight. I am just laying out a logical plan. I hope they figure it out but I wouldn't bet on it. Odds are we just keep watering down the Pac-12. If we are really lucky we get invited to the B1G in spite of the incompetence of our leadership.
If you combined Sacramento with the Bay Area it would comprise the third largest market in the United States after New York and Los Angeles and well ahead of DC-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc combined MSA and the Chicago (with parts of Indians and Wisconsin) combined MSA.
FYI: Fresno is a separate TV market from Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto.
Sacramento to Berkeley: 77 miles
Sacramento to Fresno: 169 miles
Eugene to Portland: 109 miles
Some of the best Cal fans I know are from Sacramento.
I think Sacramento should be considered in the calculation for Cal's market size. Davis and Sac St are FCS, so no competition from closer schools.
Then again, the Sac Bee is a shell of its former self and not many people tune into it, either.
His importance transcends money. There are no moments of indecision about purpose. There is no concern about too much emphasis on on winning. When in doubt, Uncle Phil drives people to act.Econ141 said:I believe/read somewhere that he is going to leave a huge endowment that should be able to sustain them. Could just be speculation but I can certainly believe it.HearstMining said:There's being a Nike affiliated school and then there's this: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2021/03/knights-university-of-oregon-donations-push-1-billion-mark-with-new-hayward-field-project.htmll. It's Phil Knight doing it personally (and it's certainly legal and ethical), not Nike. This is what will stop once Phil is no longer around.philly1121 said:
Its because of branding, Hearst. Which school will build or help "the brand" of the B1G. Looking at it strictly from an athletic program perspective?
Also, 7 schools in the B1G are Nike affiliated. 8 if you count Jordan. Is Nike suddenly going to pull all their money away from Oregon once Phil Knight passes away? Not going to happen.
But all things being equal, Oregon and/or Washington are the schools that the B1G would choose to enhance "the brand" from a purely athletics perspective.
My question is: can the University of Oregon continue to attract athletes/coaches to generate the football results that support the B1G brand? I'm not arguing that UO isn't the most attractive program to the B1G right now, I'm arguing that they may be the west coast equivalent of an Iowa or Minnesota ten years from now. Stability is key and they can't retain head coaches when things are going well.
I think UW is different. Washington is a much more economically diverse state and UW has an extremely strong football heritage. I lived up there during the Don James era and even in an NFL town, the Huskies drew just as much attention. They have the resources, and will to support the UW football program and that it can be in the upper tier of the B1G.
HearstMining said:I live outside Sac in Granite Bay/Roseville. I rarely see anybody with a Cal shirt/hat on, and when I do, they're in their 70s. Maybe there is good-sized alumni base here, but I don't see people who advertise their connection to Cal. Almost nonexistent coverage of Cal sports in the Sac Bee. This is a much stronger pro/49er area. Example: in yesterday's Bee, there is a full-page article (from the Washington Post) on why NFL teams might trade the #1 draft pick. I'd love to be wrong, but I'd be surprised if many TV sets tune into Cal football around here.ColoradoBear said:Cal_79 said:95bears said:This. I don't want Fresno State but it seems we have to figure this out. That market is NOT a Cal/Stanford market as many people outside California (and even in LA) think.calumnus said:movielover said:
Is this actually being actively discussed?
And why is the Sacramento-Stockton-Modedto TV market ignored? Do the TV types lump it in with SF Bay Area? My guess is that area is also growing.
Supposedly the Pac and ACC have been talking on and off for months, but we don't have much insight. I am just laying out a logical plan. I hope they figure it out but I wouldn't bet on it. Odds are we just keep watering down the Pac-12. If we are really lucky we get invited to the B1G in spite of the incompetence of our leadership.
If you combined Sacramento with the Bay Area it would comprise the third largest market in the United States after New York and Los Angeles and well ahead of DC-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc combined MSA and the Chicago (with parts of Indians and Wisconsin) combined MSA.
FYI: Fresno is a separate TV market from Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto.
Sacramento to Berkeley: 77 miles
Sacramento to Fresno: 169 miles
Eugene to Portland: 109 miles
Some of the best Cal fans I know are from Sacramento.
I think Sacramento should be considered in the calculation for Cal's market size. Davis and Sac St are FCS, so no competition from closer schools.
The <potential> market for the California Golden Bears FAR exceeds our current market due to poor results and poor marketing, not just in Sacramento but even in San Francisco and the East Bay.
However the fact that Sacramento is very strong San Francisco 49ers and SF Giants territory is evidence that it is <potentially> Cal territory. I think there was probably some inroads during the Tedford era when we had name players from the area, certainly Rodgers from Chico and Butte.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Add Portal Edge Defender Deamontae Diggs
by Jim McGill
NFL Draft results and their relation to Collegiate success
by Bear Insider