southseasbear said:
calumnus said:
southseasbear said:
calumnus said:
southseasbear said:
calumnus said:
southseasbear said:
calumnus said:
southseasbear said:
calumnus said:
philly1121 said:
That would be quite unprecedented, if not incredible, that one or more schools of the Pac10 were to request admission to an athletic conference, be denied, and then sue to force admission. I think, this too, is far fetched. No school with any sense of pride or fear of embarrassment would do such a thing.
Also, comparing the Big 10 to a cartel as a mechanism of/for monopoly isn't realistic. Who's to say, with that rationale, we shouldn't join the SEC? It is, after all, the best conference in terms of teams and market value.
I think a poster on page 9 indicated that USC and UCLA didn't want us in the B1G and I agree. They left the Pac12 and got away from us for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that USC felt they brought most of the value without being compensated for it. Whether we would go in as full or even half shares, they wouldn't want us. It would dilute their brand. They would once again have to share recruitment ground with us.
It is better for the B1G to stand pat, wait to see what happens to the P10 in 4-5 years and if it collapses, they can then pick who they want. This is different from the Big12 who are trying to press for expansion now and likely hasten the P10's demise.
With the Supreme Court affirming that the laws of commerce, especially the antitrust laws, apply to college sports, we are in a brave new world. Paying players above the table was unprecedented too. But here we are.
The issue will be if the PAC-12 craters and schools are locked out of TV contracts and membership in the conferences that have contracts. It is not "suing to get in" it is the risk of being sued for damages if they are excluded and suffer irreparable harm as a result.
The problem with your analysis is that you think a court is going to rule that we belong in the B1G when we have the MWC available. The fact is our football and basketball teams do not perform up to the B1G standards and are far below USC and Southern Branch. How about Air Force? How about Nevada? How about Idaho? How about Montana? How about Fresno? There are many schools (many with teams that out perform ours) that could also whine that they were excluded.
First, MWC schools have not been impacted at all by B1G actions. It is much tougher for them to claim damages. It is tough for them to claim they fit the B1G academic profile.
If the PAC-12 dies, the B1G, Fox and ESPN will be easily be portrayed as the perpetrators and probably as part of a conspiracy. If the B1G refuses to admit, at any value, the left over PAC-10 teams, and those teams are forced to drop down to a much lower revenue level, there will be a basis for damages and the B1G will need to have a good basis for their decision. What is their criteria? Their schools are largely land grant public schools in relatively populous states that are their state's flagship school with good academics. Same as the PAC-12, but not the same as the MWC, which is why the PAC-12 is having trouble finding replacements. The B1G used to only have Midwest schools but now the have Rutgers, Maryland, USC and UCLA. The B1G can argue WSU and OSU don't fit, and easily argue MWC teams don't fit, but they cannot argue Cal and UW don't fit. They can only argue we are not worth full membership $. They cannot argue our value is zero. If they offer less, and we walk because we only want full membership $, then they are off tge hook, they did not refuse to deal, we did.
Similarly, if Cal does not ask to get in, and try to negotiate, we will have no basis to claim they refused to deal with us. For the reasons I stated above, the initiative needs to come from our side, working with Stanford, UCLA and USC especially, plus, UW and Oregon. Or the entire PAC-10.
These are athletic conferences. We are not a good fit in the B1G because our football and mens basketball teams are terrible. Frankly, they suck. The B1G can exclude us for the same reason the Pac 12 excluded Fresno State, Boise State, BYU, and (until recently) SDSU. And don't forget the Pac 12 recently denied membership to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
The pac-12 did not exclude Boise State et al because their football teams "suck" in fact they were usually far better than us. They were excluded because the academic institutions were not a good fit.
Cal and Stanford clearly fit the B1G from an academic standpoint. Exceedingly so. The question is what value our football team (mostly) and basketball (secondarily) would bring. It is clearly not the full share, not in the short run, but it is clearly more than zero. There should be a value that it works, that is how markets work. It is really unfortunate that our teams have gone through the worst 6 years in our history. It is a really bad time for all this to be happening.
I have been saying since he was hired that Jim Knowlton was possibly the worst hire as AD to guide Cal through this critical time in the history of college athletics and after Christ gave him an 8 year extension that we would be lucky to have an athletics program when he is done.
So you think it is acceptable for an athletic conference to exclude a team for mediocre academics but not for mediocre athletics.
I get that you think Cal is a good fit in the B1G. The point is that the B1G does not think we are a good fit. If they expand they will add Oregon and Washington before us. They will certainly add ND if possible and maybe even Stanford. They will add some southern teams if possible before us.
You are like the high school kid who thinks they are hot stuff but can't understand why they have no date on a Saturday night. Our administration has not supported athletics for the most of the past 60 years. We are not an attractive candidate for the B1G.
Why are you making it about me? I don't think we are "hot stuff" I am one of the people on this board that has pointed out that the last 6 years were the worst 6 years in our history and Knowlton is a horrible fit. If we do get left out it is largely due to his incompetence.
It is not about what I think.
It is not what I find "acceptable," it is what a court would decide is "reasonable." There has to be a good reason for the exclusion. When the NFL absorbed the AFC, there was a "minimum stadium size" requirement, but in the end, everyone got in and that was when most money came from ticket sakes.
If the B1G causes the PAC-12 to collapse and they admit some schools but not others they will need to have a defensible standard by which some are included and some are excluded to defend against lawsuits by the excluded schools. The B1G has some teams that are not very good, they recently admitted Rutgers and Maryland. The B1G lawyers (and Fox and Disney lawyers) all know this. We are currently so bad maybe there is an attendance test we would fail.
All I am saying is that, since the 2021 Supreme Court decision, the antitrust laws fully apply and the B1G knows this.
The USFL example is only applicable if the NFL admitted some of the USFL teams, with the intent of causing the league to collapse, but excluded others without good reason. You can bet those owners would sue.
We are being excluded because (a) our teams are not competitive, and (b) our fans don't come to games.
And it's not just the last 6 years. With brief and rare exceptions our teams in revenue sports have been mediocre at best for over 60 years.
Unlike Rutgers?
Yes. First of all, Rutgers allowed the B1G to expand their footprint to the East coast, just as adding the two LA schools permitted their presence on the West Coast. Mission accomplished: the B1G does not have to add other teams such as Buffalo in the east or us on the west. Second, Rutgers has a decent basketball team; we don't.
Compare Rutgers's #35 ranking to our #304:
https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/ncaab/updated-college-basketball-net-rankings-for-ncaa-tournament-bm10/
We would be at the bottom of the MWC or the Big Sky. We would be near the bottom of the Big West (above only Northridge and Cal Poly). We would be second from the bottom in the Ivy League (above only Columbia).
Rutgers is a good match for the B1G; we are not.
Rutgers has not always been good for basketball. They are much better recently and have made steady progress since they gained entry to the B1G. Their first season they were 3-15 in league. And they are bad in football (worse than Cal).
There are other measures besides athletic acheivement. Quality of the University as a whole, alumni, location all matter to the B1G Presidents. Fox may not care but if another Media partner wants in it could change things. Amazon is rumored to still be talking with the B1G about a small package of games. Likely that would be for late window games where there is little real competition for now.
TV loves winning and viewership. Cal has some concerns in that regard. But lets look at who they will play if they enter the B1G. No more games vs OSU, WSU, UA etc that do not draw TV viewers. Those games will be replaced by adding back USC, UCLA and keeping high viewership matchups with UO, UW and Furd. While adding the B1G members who watch in large numbers. TV ratings will be improved simply by changing conference affiliations.
There are cost considerations that matter when adding to your league. Adding additional western partners reduces the burden. But there likely needs to be another TV partner added to get the revenues and late window required to make the B1G Presidents more amendable to adding to the league. They also likely want to allow Notre Dame a long window to make a definitive decision. They want to stay independent but will NBC pay them what they really want to stay independent? They will move some day, but that day may still be a few years away.
The Bay Area is a significant market as is Seattle. Yes they have the big market in SoCal, but taking the entire west coast is a big coup if they can swing it. There are a lot of non sports reasons for adding Cal, Furd, UW and UO. But the B1G presidents made it clear they will not forgoe significant (any?) revenues at this time to make it happen. So hopefully there are real talks to get another media partner to pay for the addition of the western programs.
The P12 is not a long term solution any longer. IMO it is an overall benefit to all of college sports if the B1G takes Cal, Stanford, UO and UW and the Big 12 takes UA, ASU, Utah and Colorado. OSU and WSU could end up in the MWC. And SDSU could find its way into the Big 12 as well.
IMO this is best for as many schools as possible. The P12 remaining as is for around $30M per just delays the inevitable.
