Dennis Dodd thinks Cal and Stanford would get left out

8,898 Views | 48 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by ColoradoBear
philly1121
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Again "If the Pac-10 is dissolved" is a fallacious premise.

The Pac-10 is a stronger brand than the MWC and in the WORST case will survive by gobbling up the best MWC teams.

Most likely we retain the major flagship universities of the Western States. If we can maintain the auto bid to the CFP, we will be in good shape.
This is already where we are at. "the Rest of the West". The RW Conference.

Its a done deal with SDSU because they are the only G5 team left in California. And in SoCal. Its a done deal because its a deal that MUST be done. The only question is - who becomes #12?

Its survival mode. Or weather the storm mode. Hold it together for 4-5 years and then see where we are at. The only caveat to that is if the media deal is crap.

one question I have is - what will the length of the new media deal be?
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HearstMining said:

So, a lot of people think that Oregon and UDub are likely B1G candidates at some point. I agree that UW fits - a large university in a major city with a strong economic base, a strong football heritage and large alumni following. Oregon, on the other hand has . . . an 84 year-old Phil Knight and the last ~20 years of pretty strong football heritage. Prior to that, their best known athlete was probably Steve Prefontaine.

What happens to UO when Knight is no longer around? Has he seeded the Nike executive team with enough UO alums that they will continue to pour $$ into the institution? UO's last three football HC hires have not been successful (coaches either fired or bailed after just a year or two). Eugene is 100 miles from Portland which is the only major population center (and much smaller than metro Seattle).

Can UO really be a long-term success as a member of the B1G?


I think Oregon has created enough of a brand for themselves to survive a while without Knight's money as long as the product is good. I see a lot of Oregon stickers, clothing, flags, etc here in SoCal - more than Washington for sure.

However, they definitely could fall back into mediocrity quickly if they stop winning for some reason.

BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Again "If the Pac-10 is dissolved" is a fallacious premise.

The Pac-10 is a stronger brand than the MWC and in the WORST case will survive by gobbling up the best MWC teams.

Most likely we retain the major flagship universities of the Western States. If we can maintain the auto bid to the CFP, we will be in good shape.
There are no autobids to the CFP when it expands to 12 teams.

The format is that the 6 highest-ranked conference champions get bids to the 12-team tournament. "... the expanded 12-team playoff will be made up of the six conference champions ranked highest by the committee (no minimum ranking requirement), and the six highest-ranked teams not among the conference champions."

Note that those bids do NOT automatically go to the champions of the 6 highest-rated conferences. Thus, a "power" conference champ that has 3 losses could be left out in favor of an undefeated champ from a weaker conference.

The idea for the Pac going forward will be to have a strong-enough football reputation that its champ will always be in if that team has 2 or fewer losses. For example, we want the media and the poll voters to think that the Pac's reputation justifies ranking a 2-loss Pac champ ahead of a 1-loss Mountain West champ.
Big Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

GivemTheAxe said:

dimitrig said:

nwbear84 said:

CALiforniALUM said:

Econ141 said:

If PAC is dissolved

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/will-the-pac-12-break-up-where-each-team-would-go-if-league-disintegrates-over-media-rights-deal/

Hard to imagine the 6th largest media market being left out but hey, we have only ourselves to blame.

We place a lot of blame on the commissioner, the coach, the AD, and the chancellor for our problems, but when should we blame the fans?

If we had a rabid fanbase that demanded accountability none of this would even be a problem. The problem is that we don't have what it takes as a fanbase. Apathy has been part of Cal athletics since I graduated, and apparently with the exception for the few years I was on campus has also been the status quo since before my time back to the Pappy Waldorf's days.

I'm not holding my breath for anything to change with Cal Athletics. I've written too many letters to people who never respond. I don't give enough to warrant anything other than a cut and paste email response. I don't live close enough to Berkeley to spend on the product.

I think a streaming service will just point out what is obvious to the media companies is that we think we are worth more than we really are. You can't claim your wealthy alumni base as a valuable asset if nobody tunes in. Furd is even worse.


I think you have a point. I recall going to a game in 2009, I'm pretty sure, with several alum friends. We all graduated in the mid 80s. They all went to games as students, but I got the impression they didn't go to games much anymore. They lived in the Bay area and I lived out of state. I happened to mention something specific about a player or two before the game and they all looked at me funny and said "you don't follow Cal football do you?", like I was some sort of oddball. I suspect they reflect the majority of Cal alumni.

If I see someone wearing Cal gear here in SoCal I will sometimes (not always) shout a "Go Bears!" and usually will get a good response. However, that's if the person is wearing a Cal hat or sweatshirt and so sort of self-identifying as a sports fan.

When I was maybe 4-5 years out of college I took a job at a place that had a lot of grads from around the country (around the world, actually). People took pride in their school, especially during college football bowl season or March Madness. Of course the people from Texas, USC, and Michigan were vocal fans, but even alumni of schools like NC State, Purdue, Colorado, and Northwestern tended to show school pride.

I found out this one senior guy I was working with was a Cal grad. I had no idea, but he mentioned something about "when I was at Berkeley..." which is how I found out. BTW, "the guys at Berkeley" is a common phrase and is usually followed by something to be really proud of but not related to athletics as in "the guys at Berkeley came up with a way to..."

Anyway, so this guy was about 30 years older than me, but I thought we had some kinship having both gone to Berkeley so the next time I e-mailed him about something work-related I closed by stating that I had gone to Berkeley, too, and it was nice to meet a fellow Bear. I signed off with "Go Bears!"

What I received back was the rudest, most ugly response you can imagine. This guy said that he spent most of his time at Berkeley studying and never really got into athletics or sports or anything like that. I can't really remember what he said, but it was a big put down and just really upset me at the time because there weren't that many Berkeley alums working there and I thought we had something in common. I never mentioned it again and I was glad when he switched departments. Some alumni network, huh?

Now, I don't want one jackass to define all Cal alumni, but I have to say that this attitude is a lot closer to how most Berkeley alumni feel about sports based on my experience in a technical field and as a student. There is a sort of snobbery that Stanford alumni also have as well as most Ivy League and similar schools like Caltech/MIT/Johns Hopkins, etc which don't participate in big time college sports which is that the students are either too busy doing great things to bother with sports or else they find that sort of a "normie" thing to be interested in and would rather play paintball or engage in cosplay or something rather than drink beer and tailgate at a football game.

By the way, I have to say that one of my best friends in high school hated sports. Hated it to watch them. Hated to play them. He and his circle of friends would go up into the mountains to a cabin with no TV on Super Bowl weekend to play roleplaying games without fail. After undergrad at Mudd he went to USC for grad school for two degrees and while there he actually went to a football game, because he wanted to spend time with his dad. I almost choked on my lunch when I heard that. I think that it was the height of the Pete Carroll era probably helped. So I think that there is some truth that having a winning team does matter, but unless Cal returns to its glory years I don't think that's something to count on.




Sorry to hear of your experience.

I usually have a different experience. But if I hear that someone went to "Berkeley" I begin by asking when they graduated. Were they undergraduates there and or grad students. What areas/majors did they study. What activities they participated in. Eventually I get to did they attend any sporting activities.

I normally will not give a "Go Bears" shout out or sign off unless I know they attended Cap athletic games or unless they wear "Cal" identifying paraphernalia

Even during the heights of Tedford's success there were many Berkeley students who did not attend Cal athletic events.

I remember one year I was walking past Doe Library after a jam packed Big Game (a victory). Tons of people wearing blue and gold on campus

I was stopped by a student who was exiting the library. He saw I was wearing my Cal gear.
He asked what was going on. Why were so many people wearing blue and gold. He thought there might be something going on at the Greek Theater

There are lots of students at Cal who are proud of their Berkeley education. But could not care less about Cal athletics.

So I try to connect with them as fellow Berkeley grads.



Understood.

I think that unlike some other schools there are two things working against us:

1. Our student body prides itself on being counterculture. Lots of students choose Berkeley for that reason. In that way we self-select against students that like big-time organized college athletics.

2. Our student body and administration can be actively hostile towards athletics. I have noticed that even though alums of schools like Michigan and Texas may not care about sports it is usually just apathy. At Berkeley there is an actual undercurrent of hostility, possibly because of #1 above.

I work with a Korean guy who got his PhD at Michigan. He could care less about sports, but he still wears a lanyard that says "Go Blue" on it and if Michigan is in a bowl he probably won't watch the game but he pays enough attention to know if they won or lost it. I think he's more engaged in athletics than many Berkeley alums are because it's just the culture of the school. I work with a lot of Texas alumni who could care less about sports, but they don't HATE them. They just shrug and say "It wouldn't be Texas without football and BBQ."

Anyway... my $0.02.
















When I was at Cal years ago, a woman I worked with off campus was a young 20-something hippy type, living in some sort of commune in Sonoma. She was from Ohio and an Ohio State grad before they added the the; she hated sports, thought they were "just dumb". That said, she knew I followed college football so every Monday she always ask me if Ohio State won or lost, bcos she knew her family back home cared. The midwest just has a different sports mentality even for those that don't like sports.
sosheezy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dodd rehashing some of the same thoughts today from the article a few weeks ago that triggered this post. Claiming 1 (and then inevitably more) of the 4 corners schools might bail, freeing up UW and Oregon (and not Stanford and Cal) to get revisited for consideration by the Big Ten.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-12-readies-to-pounce-on-four-corners-schools-as-doubt-creeps-in-about-pac-12s-viability/
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't know where some of these reporters are getting the idea that teams are going to just bolt a still-intact Pac-10 for the Big 12. (Well, I think I do know . . . it's being fed to them by Big 12 partisans.)

The B12 is a fallback position. Those four corners schools are only going there if more schools get poached by the B1G or another conference (but most likely the B1G). Until then, the play is to stay together and try to add on.

I also think it's likelier than not that Cal and Stanford also get scooped up by the B1G in a Pac-10 breakup scenario. No, the athletic brands are not strong at the moment, but (1) they have been before, (2) it's still a big TV market, and (3) the academic brands are ideal.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

I don't know where some of these reporters are getting the idea that teams are going to just bolt a still-intact Pac-10 for the Big 12. (Well, I think I do know . . . it's being fed to them by Big 12 partisans.)

The B12 is a fallback position. Those four corners schools are only going there if more schools get poached by the B1G or another conference (but most likely the B1G). Until then, the play is to stay together and try to add on.

I also think it's likelier than not that Cal and Stanford also get scooped up by the B1G in a Pac-10 breakup scenario. No, the athletic brands are not strong at the moment, but (1) they have been before, (2) it's still a big TV market, and (3) the academic brands are ideal.


The fact Cal and Stanford are great academic schools with long football traditions residing arguably the #3 market in a great recruiting area with lots of B1G alums and one of the most popular tourist destinations in the country will not be hurt by our having weak teams. In some ways, that is a bonus. The rest of the conference needs wins from somewhere.

I do think the B1G:
1. Wants the effort to come from Cal and Stanford (for legal reasons and negotiations).
2. Wants Cal and Stanford to come in at a lower share. Which is only enhanced by #1 and the fact we are not very good.

I just wish it was not Christ/Knowlton in charge of our fate.
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

sycasey said:

I don't know where some of these reporters are getting the idea that teams are going to just bolt a still-intact Pac-10 for the Big 12. (Well, I think I do know . . . it's being fed to them by Big 12 partisans.)

The B12 is a fallback position. Those four corners schools are only going there if more schools get poached by the B1G or another conference (but most likely the B1G). Until then, the play is to stay together and try to add on.

I also think it's likelier than not that Cal and Stanford also get scooped up by the B1G in a Pac-10 breakup scenario. No, the athletic brands are not strong at the moment, but (1) they have been before, (2) it's still a big TV market, and (3) the academic brands are ideal.


The fact Cal and Stanford are great academic schools with long football traditions residing arguably the #3 market in a great recruiting area with lots of B1G alums and one of the most popular tourist destinations in the country will not be hurt by our having weak teams. In some ways, that is a bonus. The rest of the conference needs wins from somewhere.

I do think the B1G:
1. Wants the effort to come from Cal and Stanford (for legal reasons and negotiations).
2. Wants Cal and Stanford to come in at a lower share. Which is only enhanced by #1 and the fact we are not very good.

I just wish it was not Christ/Knowlton in charge of our fate.



We have the worst leaders at the worst possible time. We have all heard it before ... TypiCal
philly1121
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think that all looks great on paper. Tourism? Check! Tradition? Check! Academics? Big check! Media market? Check (I guess). But honestly, I'm not sure the first 3 are applicable in whether we are solid "gets" for the B1G.

Tourism is one thing. Yeah there's the Golden Gate and the City and other stuff. But that's ancillary to whether we fit.

Tradition of winning? We haven't been in any conversation on a national level since 2006. Nearly 17 years ago. We have as much a winning tradition as Rutgers has had in the same time period. And tradition means less and less in college football, though I will concede that this argument can go both ways.

The big consideration is Stanford. Do they even want to go to the B1G? We here time and time again that they won't be affiliated with a dedicated NIL collective. So athletes must do it on their own or through some private collaboration. And if they don't want to do this dance, then they either don't care about tanking and/or won't go to the B1G. And if they won't play this game, then I can't see our administration straying too far from theirs.

But I do agree that the 4 corner schools will stay as long as they can. There is no greener pastures in the Big12. The play will be with the new media deal, its length, and what Oregon and UDub will do when they see it.

We speculate on!
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

I think that all looks great on paper. Tourism? Check! Tradition? Check! Academics? Big check! Media market? Check (I guess). But honestly, I'm not sure the first 3 are applicable in whether we are solid "gets" for the B1G.

Tourism is one thing. Yeah there's the Golden Gate and the City and other stuff. But that's ancillary to whether we fit.
IMO the location advantage is less about tourism and more that the other B1G members would get to make more regular trips to California and thus get the recruiting/money/exposure advantages from that. (And yes, also the TV market.)
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:


But I do agree that the 4 corner schools will stay as long as they can. There is no greener pastures in the Big12. The play will be with the new media deal, its length, and what Oregon and UDub will do when they see it.



The big issue with the big 12 is the essentially perpetual exit fee as it's not tied to the GOR lenght, but lasts until the 2110's (99 years from some contract signed last big realignment). That would cost 2x yearly per team revenue to leave, or $90-100 million.

It's clear the B12 thinks they boxed the P12 out of TV money and will be appealing. But this round of contracts lasts less than a decade, so a few million dollars lost for 5-6 years is not that much compared to that exit fee. If a school has aspirations for being in a super conference (B12 certainly will never be that) OR thinks that a Pac 10/12 could regain statute (and $$$) with a market rate contract next iteration in 5-6 years (and if not, would still have a B12 opportunity), it should be really hard to commit to the B12 and basically give up.

I'm almost certain that's what CU's thinking - going to the B12 would be a huge step back, and would be an option any time in the future if things completely fall apart. Denver is not a small market (outside of Cal fans, I know more B12 and Big Ten alum... and general fans here compared to p12), and while slightly smaller than Az or Wash in total population, there is only one P5 school in state. And it's about 2x the size of Utah's market, who will have 2 P5 schools shortly. So they fit the profile of a Big Ten school for the most part and they are 1000 miles closer compared to the west coast.

The only question - and it's a big one - is whether they can commit to football and win. But I can't see them wanting to give up before even seeing what their investment in Sanders can do and what the new optimized transfer rules can do. I'm not convinced it will even work out, or last, but again they are trying.

Oregon and Washington should be thinking they can run the new p12 and get easier playoff access.

Arizona schools are 5 and 7 hours from LA as opposed to 12 and 14 from Houston and Dallas.

It's seems like a big game of chicken, but if anyone flinches everyone loses.

Oski87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

philly1121 said:


But I do agree that the 4 corner schools will stay as long as they can. There is no greener pastures in the Big12. The play will be with the new media deal, its length, and what Oregon and UDub will do when they see it.



The big issue with the big 12 is the essentially perpetual exit fee as it's not tied to the GOR lenght, but lasts until the 2110's (99 years from some contract signed last big realignment). That would cost 2x yearly per team revenue to leave, or $90-100 million.

It's clear the B12 thinks they boxed the P12 out of TV money and will be appealing. But this round of contracts lasts less than a decade, so a few million dollars lost for 5-6 years is not that much compared to that exit fee. If a school has aspirations for being in a super conference (B12 certainly will never be that) OR thinks that a Pac 10/12 could regain statute (and $$$) with a market rate contract next iteration in 5-6 years (and if not, would still have a B12 opportunity), it should be really hard to commit to the B12 and basically give up.

I'm almost certain that's what CU's thinking - going to the B12 would be a huge step back, and would be an option any time in the future if things completely fall apart. Denver is not a small market (outside of Cal fans, I know more B12 and Big Ten alum... and general fans here compared to p12), and while slightly smaller than Az or Wash in total population, there is only one P5 school in state. And it's about 2x the size of Utah's market, who will have 2 P5 schools shortly. So they fit the profile of a Big Ten school for the most part and they are 1000 miles closer compared to the west coast.

The only question - and it's a big one - is whether they can commit to football and win. But I can't see them wanting to give up before even seeing what their investment in Sanders can do and what the new optimized transfer rules can do. I'm not convinced it will even work out, or last, but again they are trying.

Oregon and Washington should be thinking they can run the new p12 and get easier playoff access.

Arizona schools are 5 and 7 hours from LA as opposed to 12 and 14 from Houston and Dallas.

It's seems like a big game of chicken, but if anyone flinches everyone loses.


2 X is 63 million for them. Not 100. They got a deal at 31.7 million. For the next 7 years. I think frankly that if the PAC 12 wanted, say, to add TCU at the next go round, they could do that and generate a greater following in Texas. Maybe another Texas school. And bring back in UCLA - but then UCLA would ask Cal to subsidize the difference from the Big 10 paycheck....
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oski87 said:

ColoradoBear said:

philly1121 said:


But I do agree that the 4 corner schools will stay as long as they can. There is no greener pastures in the Big12. The play will be with the new media deal, its length, and what Oregon and UDub will do when they see it.



The big issue with the big 12 is the essentially perpetual exit fee as it's not tied to the GOR lenght, but lasts until the 2110's (99 years from some contract signed last big realignment). That would cost 2x yearly per team revenue to leave, or $90-100 million.

It's clear the B12 thinks they boxed the P12 out of TV money and will be appealing. But this round of contracts lasts less than a decade, so a few million dollars lost for 5-6 years is not that much compared to that exit fee. If a school has aspirations for being in a super conference (B12 certainly will never be that) OR thinks that a Pac 10/12 could regain statute (and $$$) with a market rate contract next iteration in 5-6 years (and if not, would still have a B12 opportunity), it should be really hard to commit to the B12 and basically give up.

I'm almost certain that's what CU's thinking - going to the B12 would be a huge step back, and would be an option any time in the future if things completely fall apart. Denver is not a small market (outside of Cal fans, I know more B12 and Big Ten alum... and general fans here compared to p12), and while slightly smaller than Az or Wash in total population, there is only one P5 school in state. And it's about 2x the size of Utah's market, who will have 2 P5 schools shortly. So they fit the profile of a Big Ten school for the most part and they are 1000 miles closer compared to the west coast.

The only question - and it's a big one - is whether they can commit to football and win. But I can't see them wanting to give up before even seeing what their investment in Sanders can do and what the new optimized transfer rules can do. I'm not convinced it will even work out, or last, but again they are trying.

Oregon and Washington should be thinking they can run the new p12 and get easier playoff access.

Arizona schools are 5 and 7 hours from LA as opposed to 12 and 14 from Houston and Dallas.

It's seems like a big game of chicken, but if anyone flinches everyone loses.


2 X is 63 million for them. Not 100. They got a deal at 31.7 million. For the next 7 years. I think frankly that if the PAC 12 wanted, say, to add TCU at the next go round, they could do that and generate a greater following in Texas. Maybe another Texas school. And bring back in UCLA - but then UCLA would ask Cal to subsidize the difference from the Big 10 paycheck....
$31.7million is the average value for their TV contract. The Big 12 Bylaws state the basis of the withdrawal buyout is total conference distribution which includes MBB Tourney Shares, Bowl Payouts, and CFB Playoff payouts. The 2022 payout was around $43 million with the old TV contract. With the new playoff and escalator clauses in the TV contract, it could easily go well north of $50 million per year by the end of the current TV contract/GOR. Teams are not going to want to leave mid TV contract due to the GOR - the buyout is on top of that.
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.