Is the Pac 9 now looking for 3 new members?

TandemBear said:

---

Man, this is looking bad. CU to jump ship BEFORE UW and OR? How does THAT happen? Who wants them over the two NW schools? If Colorado is gone, then it's a foregone conclusion that the NW schools are outta here.

Man, it's so discouraging to see $$$ rule the day - in an "amateur" league no less - at the expense of tradition, geography, rivalries and basically what college ball used to stand for.

Instead of "hope springs eternal," I'd say "delusion springs eternal" for many around here. What on earth would give a Cal fan hope? Endless bad news if you ask me. All while we have massive stadium debt to service. Looks like the financial crisis and Covid were the LEAST of our worries! The very destruction of our conference and standing as a P5 program is at hand.

Woe is us.

---

Buh.

Rushinbear said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

How much would CO have to pay if they leave the Pac-12? Rather than worry about CO tomorrow, I think I might go see Oppenheimer and decide if he was really a communist.

"The evidence of Oppenheimer's membership in the Communist Party in the 1930s is 'overwhelming,' but it doesn't mean he was a spy, says a retired Stanford history professor."

---

Laughable. Furd prof thinks it's ok to be a Communist as long as you're not a spy? Being a Communist infects everything you do! Good thing that Furd prof is retired; better he should sequester himself.

Sorry, but my dear grandmother taught me that silence equals consent.

---

Geez wake me up when it's no longer 1951.

---

So, you're not responding to the substance? Looks like silence to me.

---

I see it as he is making fun of your McCarthy rhetoric.

Is SDS the only MWC team that is viable?

BearoutEast67 said:

---

Out here in Florida, the news is about Disney and ESPN having budget issues and needing to cut costs. With the race toward bigger-is-better super conferences, and grumbling from SEC and Big10 fans about the removal of true rivalries, it'll be interesting to see the growing/travel pains from these expansions.
Cal will be fine as long as it learns to exploit every NIL $ advantage. Just look at how Gonzaga, ND, and BYU have made brands as independents or in weak conferences.

---

So, lean our deeply religious alumni base?

Robber Baron said:

---

I hope you guys don't mind my hopping in here. I come in peace.

Many fans have been talking about Stanford and Cal getting a Big Ten invite, but I just don't see it. People have thrown up academic reputation as a reason, but nobody cares about that. Maybe a generation ago they did, but in today's world conferences care about two things: how many TV sets and other screens will you bring and relatedly, how much ad revenue can you attract. No one watches TV to watch GPAs, test scores, Nobel laureates, Fulbrights, Rhodes scholarships, Silicon Valley startups, or any other marks of academic excellence. They don't even care about Stanford's stellar non-revenue sports program (that's a monetary drain). Stanford and Cal are not football or basketball blue bloods and are unlikely to attract the top conferences.

It would be great to be picked up by one of the bigger conferences, but I certainly don't expect it.

---

Thanks for the post. You're probably right, especially as far as the SEC is concerned. I DO think there are schools in the B1G who'd like to have Cal and Stanford for their academic reps. We'll see what happens.

juarezbear said:

---

Robber Baron said:

---

I hope you guys don't mind my hopping in here. I come in peace.

Many fans have been talking about Stanford and Cal getting a Big Ten invite, but I just don't see it. People have thrown up academic reputation as a reason, but nobody cares about that. Maybe a generation ago they did, but in today's world conferences care about two things: how many TV sets and other screens will you bring and relatedly, how much ad revenue can you attract. No one watches TV to watch GPAs, test scores, Nobel laureates, Fulbrights, Rhodes scholarships, Silicon Valley startups, or any other marks of academic excellence. They don't even care about Stanford's stellar non-revenue sports program (that's a monetary drain). Stanford and Cal are not football or basketball blue bloods and are unlikely to attract the top conferences.

It would be great to be picked up by one of the bigger conferences, but I certainly don't expect it.

---

Thanks for the post. You're probably right, especially as far as the SEC is concerned. I DO think there are schools in the B1G who'd like to have Cal and Stanford for their academic reps. We'll see what happens.

---

Remember it's what Fox wants not what the schools want

Basketball Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

How much would CO have to pay if they leave the Pac-12? Rather than worry about CO tomorrow, I think I might go see Oppenheimer and decide if he was really a communist.

"The evidence of Oppenheimer's membership in the Communist Party in the 1930s is 'overwhelming,' but it doesn't mean he was a spy, says a retired Stanford history professor."

---

Laughable. Furd prof thinks it's ok to be a Communist as long as you're not a spy? Being a Communist infects everything you do! Good thing that Furd prof is retired; better he should sequester himself.

Sorry, but my dear grandmother taught me that silence equals consent.

---

Geez wake me up when it's no longer 1951.

---

So, you're not responding to the substance? Looks like silence to me.

---

I see it as he is making fun of your McCarthy rhetoric.

---

I know. I was trying to turn the tables on him, since there are always so many cries by the other side to "prove it." I don't know how many got it.

As to McCarthy, you know, of course, that he was right in his proof of commies in the government - 700, I think it was.

91Cal said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Robber Baron said:

---

I hope you guys don't mind my hopping in here. I come in peace.

Many fans have been talking about Stanford and Cal getting a Big Ten invite, but I just don't see it. People have thrown up academic reputation as a reason, but nobody cares about that. Maybe a generation ago they did, but in today's world conferences care about two things: how many TV sets and other screens will you bring and relatedly, how much ad revenue can you attract. No one watches TV to watch GPAs, test scores, Nobel laureates, Fulbrights, Rhodes scholarships, Silicon Valley startups, or any other marks of academic excellence. They don't even care about Stanford's stellar non-revenue sports program (that's a monetary drain). Stanford and Cal are not football or basketball blue bloods and are unlikely to attract the top conferences.

It would be great to be picked up by one of the bigger conferences, but I certainly don't expect it.

---

Thanks for the post. You're probably right, especially as far as the SEC is concerned. I DO think there are schools in the B1G who'd like to have Cal and Stanford for their academic reps. We'll see what happens.

---

Remember it's what Fox wants not what the schools want

---

This is a very key point. Fox was involved heavily in the USC/UCLA move. They apparently would love UW and UO in the B1G. Not so much for Cal/Stanford.

There are a few B1G Presidents that would love to be affiliated with Cal/Stanford. But finding the money to keep everyone at their current payouts will be difficult. The networks may throw in extra dollars to get UO/UW at a partial share for now. But how much more would they throw in for Cal/Stanford?

They also want Notre Dame. To date that has not happened and looks like it wont happen this cycle. Would the B1G go to 20 now? Not sure, but if the P12 dies (possible) the networks may throw a small lifeline to Cal and Stanford.

If someone else bolts to the Big 12 (Arizona) then I expect the floodgates to open. Getting a media deal very soon needs to happen if the P12 hopes to survive. There are schools with options. And while most or all would prefer to stay, the uncertainty of the P12 could get some folks to move.

6956bear said:

---

91Cal said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Robber Baron said:

---

I hope you guys don't mind my hopping in here. I come in peace.

Many fans have been talking about Stanford and Cal getting a Big Ten invite, but I just don't see it. People have thrown up academic reputation as a reason, but nobody cares about that. Maybe a generation ago they did, but in today's world conferences care about two things: how many TV sets and other screens will you bring and relatedly, how much ad revenue can you attract. No one watches TV to watch GPAs, test scores, Nobel laureates, Fulbrights, Rhodes scholarships, Silicon Valley startups, or any other marks of academic excellence. They don't even care about Stanford's stellar non-revenue sports program (that's a monetary drain). Stanford and Cal are not football or basketball blue bloods and are unlikely to attract the top conferences.

It would be great to be picked up by one of the bigger conferences, but I certainly don't expect it.

---

Thanks for the post. You're probably right, especially as far as the SEC is concerned. I DO think there are schools in the B1G who'd like to have Cal and Stanford for their academic reps. We'll see what happens.

---

Remember it's what Fox wants not what the schools want

---

This is a very key point. Fox was involved heavily in the USC/UCLA move. They apparently would love UW and UO in the B1G. Not so much for Cal/Stanford.

There are a few B1G Presidents that would love to be affiliated with Cal/Stanford. But finding the money to keep everyone at their current payouts will be difficult. The networks may throw in extra dollars to get UO/UW at a partial share for now. But how much more would they throw in for Cal/Stanford?

They also want Notre Dame. To date that has not happened and looks like it wont happen this cycle. Would the B1G go to 20 now? Not sure, but if the P12 dies (possible) the networks may throw a small lifeline to Cal and Stanford.

If someone else bolts to the Big 12 (Arizona) then I expect the floodgates to open. Getting a media deal very soon needs to happen if the P12 hopes to survive. There are schools with options. And while most or all would prefer to stay, the uncertainty of the P12 could get some folks to move.

---

But here's the deal. Does Oregon and Washington have a strong following outside of their local market when they are just mediocre? There are tons of Cal alumni all over the world and they are ready to watch mediocre football and will come out on droves to watch when we are good (see Tedford years).

Now if b1G is smart, they take Cal/Stanford to please their presidents and get us for cheap but still pay us more than Oregon and UW in the watered down PAC.

So where do the good coaches and players go? Anywhere besides Oregon and UW and hopefully some of that goes to cal / Stanford. In the medium to long term, we would have just as good programs as Oregon and UW plus larger media market and richer alums.

That's the smart way to think and of course I'm not biased or anything.

Edit: my point is that I think you can make any team good - just invest in them. And if any team can be good, take the ones from the largest markets or those with huge upside (lost of potential fans, viewers).

91Cal said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Robber Baron said:

---

I hope you guys don't mind my hopping in here. I come in peace.

Many fans have been talking about Stanford and Cal getting a Big Ten invite, but I just don't see it. People have thrown up academic reputation as a reason, but nobody cares about that. Maybe a generation ago they did, but in today's world conferences care about two things: how many TV sets and other screens will you bring and relatedly, how much ad revenue can you attract. No one watches TV to watch GPAs, test scores, Nobel laureates, Fulbrights, Rhodes scholarships, Silicon Valley startups, or any other marks of academic excellence. They don't even care about Stanford's stellar non-revenue sports program (that's a monetary drain). Stanford and Cal are not football or basketball blue bloods and are unlikely to attract the top conferences.

It would be great to be picked up by one of the bigger conferences, but I certainly don't expect it.

---

Thanks for the post. You're probably right, especially as far as the SEC is concerned. I DO think there are schools in the B1G who'd like to have Cal and Stanford for their academic reps. We'll see what happens.

---

Remember it's what Fox wants not what the schools want

---

Fox reportedly refusing to even negotiate with the PAC-10 is highly suspicious, since they funded the poaching of USC and UCLA.

Econ141 said:

---

6956bear said:

---

91Cal said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Robber Baron said:

---

I hope you guys don't mind my hopping in here. I come in peace.

Many fans have been talking about Stanford and Cal getting a Big Ten invite, but I just don't see it. People have thrown up academic reputation as a reason, but nobody cares about that. Maybe a generation ago they did, but in today's world conferences care about two things: how many TV sets and other screens will you bring and relatedly, how much ad revenue can you attract. No one watches TV to watch GPAs, test scores, Nobel laureates, Fulbrights, Rhodes scholarships, Silicon Valley startups, or any other marks of academic excellence. They don't even care about Stanford's stellar non-revenue sports program (that's a monetary drain). Stanford and Cal are not football or basketball blue bloods and are unlikely to attract the top conferences.

It would be great to be picked up by one of the bigger conferences, but I certainly don't expect it.

---

Thanks for the post. You're probably right, especially as far as the SEC is concerned. I DO think there are schools in the B1G who'd like to have Cal and Stanford for their academic reps. We'll see what happens.

---

Remember it's what Fox wants not what the schools want

---

This is a very key point. Fox was involved heavily in the USC/UCLA move. They apparently would love UW and UO in the B1G. Not so much for Cal/Stanford.

There are a few B1G Presidents that would love to be affiliated with Cal/Stanford. But finding the money to keep everyone at their current payouts will be difficult. The networks may throw in extra dollars to get UO/UW at a partial share for now. But how much more would they throw in for Cal/Stanford?

They also want Notre Dame. To date that has not happened and looks like it wont happen this cycle. Would the B1G go to 20 now? Not sure, but if the P12 dies (possible) the networks may throw a small lifeline to Cal and Stanford.

If someone else bolts to the Big 12 (Arizona) then I expect the floodgates to open. Getting a media deal very soon needs to happen if the P12 hopes to survive. There are schools with options. And while most or all would prefer to stay, the uncertainty of the P12 could get some folks to move.

---

But here's the deal. Does Oregon and Washington have a strong following outside of their local market when they are just mediocre? There are tons of Cal alumni all over the world and they are ready to watch mediocre football and will come out on droves to watch when we are good (see Tedford years).

Now if b1G is smart, they take Cal/Stanford to please their presidents and get us for cheap but still pay us more than Oregon and UW in the watered down PAC.

So where do the good coaches and players go? Anywhere besides Oregon and UW and hopefully some of that goes to cal / Stanford. In the medium to long term, we would have just as good programs as Oregon and UW plus larger media market and richer alums.

That's the smart way to think and of course I'm not biased or anything.

Edit: my point is that I think you can make any team good - just invest in them. And if any team can be good, take the ones from the largest markets or those with huge upside (lost of potential fans, viewers).

---

JMO but the B1G Presidents can want whatever/whoever they want. But Fox, NBC and CBS will need to agree to pay more. The rumor is they will for UW and UO. No idea if accurate. But not for Cal/Stanford. At least as we sit here today. The B1G schools are not going to give up revenue to add anyone at this time.

What we have seen from UO and UW (especially UO) is a willingness to invest in the product and much more recent on field success. Cal has had few good seasons over the last 3 decades and recent seasons have not been good. UO and UW are the only P12 schools to make an appearance in the CFP.

The confidence that the B1G would have in taking UW and UO is that they will continue to invest and are more likely to flourish in the B1G than either Cal or Stanford.

What may need to happen is for the P12 to find a short term media deal and have Cal invest in the program, win some games and be better situated to join a strong league like the B1G in future seasons. Cal has had many decades to invest in football and have not done so. The facilities were a good start, but it has not shown to be helpful in regards to winning.

They could hire an up and coming coach, like Madsen or Troy Taylor...

calumnus said:

---

91Cal said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Robber Baron said:

---

I hope you guys don't mind my hopping in here. I come in peace.

Many fans have been talking about Stanford and Cal getting a Big Ten invite, but I just don't see it. People have thrown up academic reputation as a reason, but nobody cares about that. Maybe a generation ago they did, but in today's world conferences care about two things: how many TV sets and other screens will you bring and relatedly, how much ad revenue can you attract. No one watches TV to watch GPAs, test scores, Nobel laureates, Fulbrights, Rhodes scholarships, Silicon Valley startups, or any other marks of academic excellence. They don't even care about Stanford's stellar non-revenue sports program (that's a monetary drain). Stanford and Cal are not football or basketball blue bloods and are unlikely to attract the top conferences.

It would be great to be picked up by one of the bigger conferences, but I certainly don't expect it.

---

Thanks for the post. You're probably right, especially as far as the SEC is concerned. I DO think there are schools in the B1G who'd like to have Cal and Stanford for their academic reps. We'll see what happens.

---

Remember it's what Fox wants not what the schools want

---

Fox reportedly refusing to even negotiate with the PAC-10 is highly suspicious, since they funded the poaching of USC and UCLA.

---

My personal speculation is that the networks want only 4 power conferences, as it makes it easier for the conferences to lose some of the 'lesser teams', break away from the other half of college football and set up a playoff system. It's hard to have a good non-complicated playoff with 5 conferences, 4 conferences is much easier.

golden sloth said:

---

calumnus said:

---

91Cal said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Robber Baron said:

---

I hope you guys don't mind my hopping in here. I come in peace.

Many fans have been talking about Stanford and Cal getting a Big Ten invite, but I just don't see it. People have thrown up academic reputation as a reason, but nobody cares about that. Maybe a generation ago they did, but in today's world conferences care about two things: how many TV sets and other screens will you bring and relatedly, how much ad revenue can you attract. No one watches TV to watch GPAs, test scores, Nobel laureates, Fulbrights, Rhodes scholarships, Silicon Valley startups, or any other marks of academic excellence. They don't even care about Stanford's stellar non-revenue sports program (that's a monetary drain). Stanford and Cal are not football or basketball blue bloods and are unlikely to attract the top conferences.

It would be great to be picked up by one of the bigger conferences, but I certainly don't expect it.

---

Thanks for the post. You're probably right, especially as far as the SEC is concerned. I DO think there are schools in the B1G who'd like to have Cal and Stanford for their academic reps. We'll see what happens.

---

Remember it's what Fox wants not what the schools want

---

Fox reportedly refusing to even negotiate with the PAC-10 is highly suspicious, since they funded the poaching of USC and UCLA.

---

My personal speculation is that the networks want only 4 power conferences, as it makes it easier for the conferences to lose some of the 'lesser teams', break away from the from other half of college football and set up a playoff system. It's hard to have a good non-complicated playoff with 5 conferences, 4 conferences is much easier.

---

Except there are 11 conferences.

I agree with your premise, that 4 conferences is better, but ideally they would be East Coast, South, Midwest and West. That corresponds to the ACC, the SEC, the Big 10 and the PAC-12. It is the B-12 that is redundant.

Rushinbear said:

---

Basketball Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

How much would CO have to pay if they leave the Pac-12? Rather than worry about CO tomorrow, I think I might go see Oppenheimer and decide if he was really a communist.

"The evidence of Oppenheimer's membership in the Communist Party in the 1930s is 'overwhelming,' but it doesn't mean he was a spy, says a retired Stanford history professor."

---

Laughable. Furd prof thinks it's ok to be a Communist as long as you're not a spy? Being a Communist infects everything you do! Good thing that Furd prof is retired; better he should sequester himself.

Sorry, but my dear grandmother taught me that silence equals consent.

---

Geez wake me up when it's no longer 1951.

---

So, you're not responding to the substance? Looks like silence to me.

---

I see it as he is making fun of your McCarthy rhetoric.

---

I know. I was trying to turn the tables on him, since there are always so many cries by the other side to "prove it." I don't know how many got it.

As to McCarthy, you know, of course, that he was right in his proof of commies in the government - 700, I think it was.

---

Are you talking about Quinn McCarthy - the O Lineman for Washington State?

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

calumnus said:

---

91Cal said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Robber Baron said:

---

I hope you guys don't mind my hopping in here. I come in peace.

Many fans have been talking about Stanford and Cal getting a Big Ten invite, but I just don't see it. People have thrown up academic reputation as a reason, but nobody cares about that. Maybe a generation ago they did, but in today's world conferences care about two things: how many TV sets and other screens will you bring and relatedly, how much ad revenue can you attract. No one watches TV to watch GPAs, test scores, Nobel laureates, Fulbrights, Rhodes scholarships, Silicon Valley startups, or any other marks of academic excellence. They don't even care about Stanford's stellar non-revenue sports program (that's a monetary drain). Stanford and Cal are not football or basketball blue bloods and are unlikely to attract the top conferences.

It would be great to be picked up by one of the bigger conferences, but I certainly don't expect it.

---

Thanks for the post. You're probably right, especially as far as the SEC is concerned. I DO think there are schools in the B1G who'd like to have Cal and Stanford for their academic reps. We'll see what happens.

---

Remember it's what Fox wants not what the schools want

---

Fox reportedly refusing to even negotiate with the PAC-10 is highly suspicious, since they funded the poaching of USC and UCLA.

---

My personal speculation is that the networks want only 4 power conferences, as it makes it easier for the conferences to lose some of the 'lesser teams', break away from the from other half of college football and set up a playoff system. It's hard to have a good non-complicated playoff with 5 conferences, 4 conferences is much easier.

---

Except there are 11 conferences.

I agree with your premise, that 4 conferences is better, but ideally they would be East Coast, South, Midwest and West. That corresponds to the ACC, the SEC, the Big 10 and the PAC-12. It is the B-12 that is redundant.

---

I know there are 11 conferences, which is where the 'break away from the other half of college football' comment came from (even if i flubbed it a bit by typing 'from' twice). But the networks dont care about the Macs, wacs, or aacs of the world. They want the college football world to striate and to only pay for the top tier.

SoFlaBear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Basketball Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

How much would CO have to pay if they leave the Pac-12? Rather than worry about CO tomorrow, I think I might go see Oppenheimer and decide if he was really a communist.

"The evidence of Oppenheimer's membership in the Communist Party in the 1930s is 'overwhelming,' but it doesn't mean he was a spy, says a retired Stanford history professor."

---

Laughable. Furd prof thinks it's ok to be a Communist as long as you're not a spy? Being a Communist infects everything you do! Good thing that Furd prof is retired; better he should sequester himself.

Sorry, but my dear grandmother taught me that silence equals consent.

---

Geez wake me up when it's no longer 1951.

---

So, you're not responding to the substance? Looks like silence to me.

---

I see it as he is making fun of your McCarthy rhetoric.

---

I know. I was trying to turn the tables on him, since there are always so many cries by the other side to "prove it." I don't know how many got it.

As to McCarthy, you know, of course, that he was right in his proof of commies in the government - 700, I think it was.

---

Are you talking about Quinn McCarthy - the O Lineman for Washington State?

---

Thank you for bringing us back to football.

6956bear said:

---

91Cal said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Robber Baron said:

---

I hope you guys don't mind my hopping in here. I come in peace.

Many fans have been talking about Stanford and Cal getting a Big Ten invite, but I just don't see it. People have thrown up academic reputation as a reason, but nobody cares about that. Maybe a generation ago they did, but in today's world conferences care about two things: how many TV sets and other screens will you bring and relatedly, how much ad revenue can you attract. No one watches TV to watch GPAs, test scores, Nobel laureates, Fulbrights, Rhodes scholarships, Silicon Valley startups, or any other marks of academic excellence. They don't even care about Stanford's stellar non-revenue sports program (that's a monetary drain). Stanford and Cal are not football or basketball blue bloods and are unlikely to attract the top conferences.

It would be great to be picked up by one of the bigger conferences, but I certainly don't expect it.

---

Thanks for the post. You're probably right, especially as far as the SEC is concerned. I DO think there are schools in the B1G who'd like to have Cal and Stanford for their academic reps. We'll see what happens.

---

Remember it's what Fox wants not what the schools want

---

This is a very key point. Fox was involved heavily in the USC/UCLA move. They apparently would love UW and UO in the B1G. Not so much for Cal/Stanford.

There are a few B1G Presidents that would love to be affiliated with Cal/Stanford. But finding the money to keep everyone at their current payouts will be difficult. The networks may throw in extra dollars to get UO/UW at a partial share for now. But how much more would they throw in for Cal/Stanford?

They also want Notre Dame. To date that has not happened and looks like it wont happen this cycle. Would the B1G go to 20 now? Not sure, but if the P12 dies (possible) the networks may throw a small lifeline to Cal and Stanford.

If someone else bolts to the Big 12 (Arizona) then I expect the floodgates to open. Getting a media deal very soon needs to happen if the P12 hopes to survive. There are schools with options. And while most or all would prefer to stay, the uncertainty of the P12 could get some folks to move.

---

I don't see ND going to the B1G. Everyone agrees that it seems like a natural fit, but they want the freedom to schedule their west coast home/away games with Stanford & SC, and to continue to keep matches with service academies and peer Catholic institutions like Boston College on their schedule. Putting it another way, they don't want the yearly grind of a B1G schedule -- even if it does include SC. If they were forced to pick a conference, my thought is they grit their teeth and go to the ACC (where they already are for basketball) with the sincere hope that Florida State, Clemson, and The U leave for the SEC and they get to be the big fish in the pond (I read that they each would need to pony up half a billion to escape their deal). Otherwise, I think they'd look at aligning with a conference like the AAC, but making a deal in a way where they essentially keep their own media deal and a great deal of control over their schedule. I don't see Notre Dame going to any conference they can't be guaranteed to win 9 times out of 10, and (at least for the time being) there is no college football playoff model that will lock them out.

Also - let's be real - the whole issue of conferences and playoff spots will diminish as the college football playoff inevitably grows to 16, 24, or 32 teams. People will cry about the diminished product, but the games will have far more attraction than the current crop of Bowl Week games.

I don't get the attraction with UW. With Oregon it's simple - Nike. I don't know how many people actually follow Oregon outside the West, but a lot of people buy Oregon merch. And since Nike supplies so many top programs with uniforms and fan wear, they'd be a great addition to any conference. And the Nike money guarantees a competitive program in the NIL era. I'm surprised the SEC hasn't reached out.

6956bear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

6956bear said:

---

91Cal said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Robber Baron said:

---

I hope you guys don't mind my hopping in here. I come in peace.

Many fans have been talking about Stanford and Cal getting a Big Ten invite, but I just don't see it. People have thrown up academic reputation as a reason, but nobody cares about that. Maybe a generation ago they did, but in today's world conferences care about two things: how many TV sets and other screens will you bring and relatedly, how much ad revenue can you attract. No one watches TV to watch GPAs, test scores, Nobel laureates, Fulbrights, Rhodes scholarships, Silicon Valley startups, or any other marks of academic excellence. They don't even care about Stanford's stellar non-revenue sports program (that's a monetary drain). Stanford and Cal are not football or basketball blue bloods and are unlikely to attract the top conferences.

It would be great to be picked up by one of the bigger conferences, but I certainly don't expect it.

---

Thanks for the post. You're probably right, especially as far as the SEC is concerned. I DO think there are schools in the B1G who'd like to have Cal and Stanford for their academic reps. We'll see what happens.

---

Remember it's what Fox wants not what the schools want

---

This is a very key point. Fox was involved heavily in the USC/UCLA move. They apparently would love UW and UO in the B1G. Not so much for Cal/Stanford.

There are a few B1G Presidents that would love to be affiliated with Cal/Stanford. But finding the money to keep everyone at their current payouts will be difficult. The networks may throw in extra dollars to get UO/UW at a partial share for now. But how much more would they throw in for Cal/Stanford?

They also want Notre Dame. To date that has not happened and looks like it wont happen this cycle. Would the B1G go to 20 now? Not sure, but if the P12 dies (possible) the networks may throw a small lifeline to Cal and Stanford.

If someone else bolts to the Big 12 (Arizona) then I expect the floodgates to open. Getting a media deal very soon needs to happen if the P12 hopes to survive. There are schools with options. And while most or all would prefer to stay, the uncertainty of the P12 could get some folks to move.

---

But here's the deal. Does Oregon and Washington have a strong following outside of their local market when they are just mediocre? There are tons of Cal alumni all over the world and they are ready to watch mediocre football and will come out on droves to watch when we are good (see Tedford years).

Now if b1G is smart, they take Cal/Stanford to please their presidents and get us for cheap but still pay us more than Oregon and UW in the watered down PAC.

So where do the good coaches and players go? Anywhere besides Oregon and UW and hopefully some of that goes to cal / Stanford. In the medium to long term, we would have just as good programs as Oregon and UW plus larger media market and richer alums.

That's the smart way to think and of course I'm not biased or anything.

Edit: my point is that I think you can make any team good - just invest in them. And if any team can be good, take the ones from the largest markets or those with huge upside (lost of potential fans, viewers).

---

JMO but the B1G Presidents can want whatever/whoever they want. But Fox, NBC and CBS will need to agree to pay more. The rumor is they will for UW and UO. No idea if accurate. But not for Cal/Stanford. At least as we sit here today. The B1G schools are not going to give up revenue to add anyone at this time.

What we have seen from UO and UW (especially UO) is a willingness to invest in the product and much more recent on field success. Cal has had few good seasons over the last 3 decades and recent seasons have not been good. UO and UW are the only P12 schools to make an appearance in the CFP.

The confidence that the B1G would have in taking UW and UO is that they will continue to invest and are more likely to flourish in the B1G than either Cal or Stanford.

What may need to happen is for the P12 to find a short term media deal and have Cal invest in the program, win some games and be better situated to join a strong league like the B1G in future seasons. Cal has had many decades to invest in football and have not done so. The facilities were a good start, but it has not shown to be helpful in regards to winning.

---

I see the media environment different. ESPN is on the sale block, Iger is trying to sell NBC and could simply choose to convert it into something other than a network if he can't find a buyer. Fox doesn't want the Pac, and so if the Pac remains as a conference, it is a streamer (probably Apple who is aggressively pruning live Sports) taking the lead, and CW, which rumors have as the. buyer for ESPN. In fact, the ESPN sale is what could be holding-up the Pac media deal. The question is if there is leverage if the Pac has Apple, and merges with the ACC to get them out of a bad contract with ESPN and CW, with Apple providing big dollars to get out games, allowing ESPN/CW to take on games at the old beneficial rates, without less risk of losing Clemson and FSU, who are made more competitive by cash rich Apple money. In essence they could cut the same deal with providers they have with the Pac, to get Clemson and FSU (and all other football programs) more media money. Otherwise (1) it made no sense for the CEOs to have that long call with ACC officials yesterday, and (2) why any type of merger with schools on opposite coasts would ever be considered, Of course, this probably is idle speculation, but with the pace of the media deal, we got nothing but idle time.

Does the Pac 12 become the Pac 10? And why doesn't Sacramento count as Milliobs of added households /
TVs? Sac / Stockton / Modesto really aren't part of the Bay Area or Stanford / Cal.

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

calumnus said:

---

91Cal said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Robber Baron said:

---

I hope you guys don't mind my hopping in here. I come in peace.

Many fans have been talking about Stanford and Cal getting a Big Ten invite, but I just don't see it. People have thrown up academic reputation as a reason, but nobody cares about that. Maybe a generation ago they did, but in today's world conferences care about two things: how many TV sets and other screens will you bring and relatedly, how much ad revenue can you attract. No one watches TV to watch GPAs, test scores, Nobel laureates, Fulbrights, Rhodes scholarships, Silicon Valley startups, or any other marks of academic excellence. They don't even care about Stanford's stellar non-revenue sports program (that's a monetary drain). Stanford and Cal are not football or basketball blue bloods and are unlikely to attract the top conferences.

It would be great to be picked up by one of the bigger conferences, but I certainly don't expect it.

---

Thanks for the post. You're probably right, especially as far as the SEC is concerned. I DO think there are schools in the B1G who'd like to have Cal and Stanford for their academic reps. We'll see what happens.

---

Remember it's what Fox wants not what the schools want

---

Fox reportedly refusing to even negotiate with the PAC-10 is highly suspicious, since they funded the poaching of USC and UCLA.

---

My personal speculation is that the networks want only 4 power conferences, as it makes it easier for the conferences to lose some of the 'lesser teams', break away from the from other half of college football and set up a playoff system. It's hard to have a good non-complicated playoff with 5 conferences, 4 conferences is much easier.

---

Except there are 11 conferences.

I agree with your premise, that 4 conferences is better, but ideally they would be East Coast, South, Midwest and West. That corresponds to the ACC, the SEC, the Big 10 and the PAC-12. It is the B-12 that is redundant.

---

I agree that the networks want to pare down the number of power conferences.

In Joel Klatt's emergency pod breakdown of his alma mater defecting, which I thought was very insightful, one thing he talks about is how all the moves Yormark made in the last year has really given him credibility with ESPN and Fox.



So my speculation is that we are headed to 3 power conferences with 20 teams each.

The Big 12 will add 3 more during this cycle to get to 16 to match B1G and SEC: Oregon, Washington and either Arizona or Utah.

Then when the ACC gets carved out, B1G and SEC will split the best 8 and then the Big 12 will get the 4 best leftovers.

Would these 3 superconferences of 20 teams, with the Big 12 (Big XX ?) functioning as the catch of leftovers, have enough power to break away and form their own playoffs?

wifeisafurd said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

6956bear said:

---

91Cal said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Robber Baron said:

---

I hope you guys don't mind my hopping in here. I come in peace.

Many fans have been talking about Stanford and Cal getting a Big Ten invite, but I just don't see it. People have thrown up academic reputation as a reason, but nobody cares about that. Maybe a generation ago they did, but in today's world conferences care about two things: how many TV sets and other screens will you bring and relatedly, how much ad revenue can you attract. No one watches TV to watch GPAs, test scores, Nobel laureates, Fulbrights, Rhodes scholarships, Silicon Valley startups, or any other marks of academic excellence. They don't even care about Stanford's stellar non-revenue sports program (that's a monetary drain). Stanford and Cal are not football or basketball blue bloods and are unlikely to attract the top conferences.

It would be great to be picked up by one of the bigger conferences, but I certainly don't expect it.

---

Thanks for the post. You're probably right, especially as far as the SEC is concerned. I DO think there are schools in the B1G who'd like to have Cal and Stanford for their academic reps. We'll see what happens.

---

Remember it's what Fox wants not what the schools want

---

This is a very key point. Fox was involved heavily in the USC/UCLA move. They apparently would love UW and UO in the B1G. Not so much for Cal/Stanford.

There are a few B1G Presidents that would love to be affiliated with Cal/Stanford. But finding the money to keep everyone at their current payouts will be difficult. The networks may throw in extra dollars to get UO/UW at a partial share for now. But how much more would they throw in for Cal/Stanford?

They also want Notre Dame. To date that has not happened and looks like it wont happen this cycle. Would the B1G go to 20 now? Not sure, but if the P12 dies (possible) the networks may throw a small lifeline to Cal and Stanford.

If someone else bolts to the Big 12 (Arizona) then I expect the floodgates to open. Getting a media deal very soon needs to happen if the P12 hopes to survive. There are schools with options. And while most or all would prefer to stay, the uncertainty of the P12 could get some folks to move.

---

But here's the deal. Does Oregon and Washington have a strong following outside of their local market when they are just mediocre? There are tons of Cal alumni all over the world and they are ready to watch mediocre football and will come out on droves to watch when we are good (see Tedford years).

Now if b1G is smart, they take Cal/Stanford to please their presidents and get us for cheap but still pay us more than Oregon and UW in the watered down PAC.

So where do the good coaches and players go? Anywhere besides Oregon and UW and hopefully some of that goes to cal / Stanford. In the medium to long term, we would have just as good programs as Oregon and UW plus larger media market and richer alums.

That's the smart way to think and of course I'm not biased or anything.

Edit: my point is that I think you can make any team good - just invest in them. And if any team can be good, take the ones from the largest markets or those with huge upside (lost of potential fans, viewers).

---

JMO but the B1G Presidents can want whatever/whoever they want. But Fox, NBC and CBS will need to agree to pay more. The rumor is they will for UW and UO. No idea if accurate. But not for Cal/Stanford. At least as we sit here today. The B1G schools are not going to give up revenue to add anyone at this time.

What we have seen from UO and UW (especially UO) is a willingness to invest in the product and much more recent on field success. Cal has had few good seasons over the last 3 decades and recent seasons have not been good. UO and UW are the only P12 schools to make an appearance in the CFP.

The confidence that the B1G would have in taking UW and UO is that they will continue to invest and are more likely to flourish in the B1G than either Cal or Stanford.

What may need to happen is for the P12 to find a short term media deal and have Cal invest in the program, win some games and be better situated to join a strong league like the B1G in future seasons. Cal has had many decades to invest in football and have not done so. The facilities were a good start, but it has not shown to be helpful in regards to winning.

---

I see the media environment different. ESPN is on the sale block, Iger is trying to sell NBC and could simply choose to convert it into something other than a network if he can't find a buyer. Fox doesn't want the Pac, and so if the Pac remains as a conference, it is a streamer (probably Apple who is aggressively pruning live Sports) taking the lead, and CW, which rumors have as the. buyer for ESPN. In fact, the ESPN sale is what could be holding-up the Pac media deal. The question is if there is leverage if the Pac has Apple, and merges with the ACC to get them out of a bad contract with ESPN and CW, with Apple providing big dollars to get out games, allowing ESPN/CW to take on games at the old beneficial rates, without less risk of losing Clemson and FSU, who are made more competitive by cash rich Apple money. In essence they could cut the same deal with providers they have with the Pac, to get Clemson and FSU (and all other football programs) more media money. Otherwise (1) it made no sense for the CEOs to have that long call with ACC officials yesterday, and (2) why any type of merger with schools on opposite coasts would ever be considered, Of course, this probably is idle speculation, but with the pace of the media deal, we got nothing but idle time.

---

There are a lot of possibilities. Apple is rumored to be a potential buyer of ESPN. That could benefit the P12 but may need to happen soon. Besides the ACC ESPN is also the media partner of the SEC and has approximately 63% of Big 12 media deal. And ESPN is an 80% owner of both the ACC and SEC networks. Hearst owns 20% of each as well.

With that much ownership of college football TV rights and college sports right in general if Apple buys ESPN they are now the big dog of college football broadcasting. What would they do with that much power. The ACC is stuck in a long GOR that makes them extremely uncompetitive with both the SEC and the B1G. Would Apple look to level the playing field some?

Right now there is some unrest in the ACC. FSU is actively looking for a way out of the GOR. Clemson is supposedly doing the same. FSU likely would want either the B1G or SEC if things stay as they are. But could Apple propose some sort of merger with the P12. Combine the best programs from each league. Or make it one giant super conference with over 20 programs.

Seems like a lot to get done given the fact that the P12 is out of contract in 12 months. But Apple then would also own the rights to the CFP. That would make things very interesting. At least for the next few years.

But today what I know for sure is that USC and UCLA have left the conference for the B1G. Colorado just left for the Big 12 and the conference still has no media deal. There are reports all over the place that Arizona may go next. And rumors that ASU, Utah, UO and UW are possibly involved with the Big 12 as well. And UO and UW have also been rumored to be in line for the B1G should the P12 not get a deal. Cal and Stanford have rarely been mentioned in the rumors to be headed anywhere. But we do know that both have had some discussions with the B1G. Were they fruitful? Who the heck knows.

College football is realigning. Apple could be the major player. Or they may just stand pat. It seems that ESPN needs some sort of lifeline. They may just want an equity partner. Apple seemingly wants it all or nothing. What these TV deals are doing is forcing schools to make hard decisions. I also think in the not so distant future you could see these media folks start to squeeze conferences into reviewing their members. Do they invest in the sport or just take the money. I could see schools getting dropped by conferences.

Things are changing. Lots of moving pieces. But right now the moving has just been schools leaving the P12.

linebiz said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

calumnus said:

---

91Cal said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Robber Baron said:

---

I hope you guys don't mind my hopping in here. I come in peace.

Many fans have been talking about Stanford and Cal getting a Big Ten invite, but I just don't see it. People have thrown up academic reputation as a reason, but nobody cares about that. Maybe a generation ago they did, but in today's world conferences care about two things: how many TV sets and other screens will you bring and relatedly, how much ad revenue can you attract. No one watches TV to watch GPAs, test scores, Nobel laureates, Fulbrights, Rhodes scholarships, Silicon Valley startups, or any other marks of academic excellence. They don't even care about Stanford's stellar non-revenue sports program (that's a monetary drain). Stanford and Cal are not football or basketball blue bloods and are unlikely to attract the top conferences.

It would be great to be picked up by one of the bigger conferences, but I certainly don't expect it.

---

Thanks for the post. You're probably right, especially as far as the SEC is concerned. I DO think there are schools in the B1G who'd like to have Cal and Stanford for their academic reps. We'll see what happens.

---

Remember it's what Fox wants not what the schools want

---

Fox reportedly refusing to even negotiate with the PAC-10 is highly suspicious, since they funded the poaching of USC and UCLA.

---

My personal speculation is that the networks want only 4 power conferences, as it makes it easier for the conferences to lose some of the 'lesser teams', break away from the from other half of college football and set up a playoff system. It's hard to have a good non-complicated playoff with 5 conferences, 4 conferences is much easier.

---

Except there are 11 conferences.

I agree with your premise, that 4 conferences is better, but ideally they would be East Coast, South, Midwest and West. That corresponds to the ACC, the SEC, the Big 10 and the PAC-12. It is the B-12 that is redundant.

---

I agree that the networks want to pare down the number of power conferences.

In Joel Klatt's emergency pod breakdown of his alma mater defecting, which I thought was very insightful, one thing he talks about is how all the moves Yormark made in the last year has really given him credibility with ESPN and Fox.



So my speculation is that we are headed to 3 power conferences with 20 teams each.

The Big 12 will add 3 more during this cycle to get to 16 to match B1G and SEC: Oregon, Washington and either Arizona or Utah.

Then when the ACC gets carved out, B1G and SEC will split the best 8 and then the Big 12 will get the 4 best leftovers.

Would these 3 superconferences of 20 teams, with the Big 12 (Big XX ?) functioning as the catch of leftovers, have enough power to break away and form their own playoffs?

---

This basically sounds like ESPN/FOX was trying to find a conference that would be a willing partner/pawn in keeping its current TV model going. Pac-12 was obviously not friendly with that and was willing to push the envelope on streaming so the Big 12 became the natural partner.

In a war between the TV networks and Apple/Amazon I would put my bets on Apple/Amazon in the long term though.

linebiz said:

---

I agree that the networks want to pare down the number of power conferences.

In Joel Klatt's emergency pod breakdown of his alma mater defecting, which I thought was very insightful, one thing he talks about is how all the moves Yormark made in the last year has really given him credibility with ESPN and Fox.



So my speculation is that we are headed to 3 power conferences with 20 teams each.

The Big 12 will add 3 more during this cycle to get to 16 to match B1G and SEC: Oregon, Washington and either Arizona or Utah.

Then when the ACC gets carved out, B1G and SEC will split the best 8 and then the Big 12 will get the 4 best leftovers.

Would these 3 superconferences of 20 teams, with the Big 12 (Big XX ?) functioning as the catch of leftovers, have enough power to break away and form their own playoffs?

---

I forgot to mention that I think Yormark will add a number of the best basketball brands on top of the 20 football schools. Maybe UConn, Gonzaga, St Johns, Villanova, Georgetown, etc to add to Kansas, Houston and Arizona and perhaps even Duke if available after B1G and SEC dine on the ACC. This will make the Big 12 the undisputed basketball king.

He is going to do this as a hedge to prevent the B1G and SEC from breaking football away without the Big 12. Basketball is not as important as football but it is the second most important sport and usually the only other profitable one.

I think his reasoning is that B1G and SEC will definitely want the basketball competition from the Big 12 for any future breakaway basketball tournament so they will have to be included in the football discussions as well.

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

This basically sounds like ESPN/FOX was trying to find a conference that would be a willing partner/pawn in keeping its current TV model going. Pac-12 was obviously not friendly with that and was willing to push the envelope on streaming so the Big 12 became the natural partner.

In a war between the TV networks and Apple/Amazon I would put my bets on Apple/Amazon in the long term though.

---

Yeah I'm seeing it that way as well.

I think early on ESPN/FOX were trying to get the Pac-12 and Big 12 to merge but the Pac balked at that suggestion.

And then, I think the biggest lynchpin is the fall of the Pac was when Kliavkoff refused their best offer wanting to take his chances on the open market. Yormark shrewdly stepped in and snagged the deal the Pac turned down.

Now Yormark has the two most powerful sports networks as partners helping guide his moves while Kliavkoff's doing his clown impersonation.

I think you may be right about the overwhelming power Apple/Amazon have.

Whatever happens, conference realignment is crazy fascinating.

Deion wont last long at CU. Diabetes is eating him up. But CU will have a better chance of winning in their old conference now that Texas and OU are gone.

Is the moral of the story of the Pac12 demise " be careful putting outsiders in charge"?