Econ141 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

SadbutTrue999 said:

---

the big 10 presidents know the value of stanford and cal. idiots on the internet do not.

i could definitely see the big 10 presidents telling the networks they can have UW and UO if they take Cal and Stanford too.

and frankly UO and UW don't have the markets everyone seems to think they do.

---

Right. And then FOX tells the B1G Presidents, "No problem, you can have Cal and Stanford too, but every program in the B1G is going to have to take less money to accomodate them entering the league", and then guess what happens?

---

If Utah and AZ schools jump to the Big XII, the B1G only need to secure $130M to invite the 4 and the 4 would accept. On the spot. If the 4 don't accept, the B1G is off the hook.

AppleTV would make that deal.

---

UW and UO get 40 each and Cal/Stan get 25?

---

That was 31.7M each. But in the B1G where eventually you will earn more instead of the Big XIi where eventually you get squeezed out.

SadbutTrue999 said:

---

the big 10 presidents know the value of stanford and cal. idiots on the internet do not.

i could definitely see the big 10 presidents telling the networks they can have UW and UO if they take Cal and Stanford too.

and frankly UO and UW don't have the markets everyone seems to think they do.

---

What does this mean exactly? Yeah, you aren't the first person to make this statement, but, I don't get it: you mean with Furd and Cal in the conference, Purdue is somehow elevated academically (and whatever that means) and that association means more in dollars and cents than what they will be losing in splitting the pie more ways?
Okay, I will even confess to being one of the "idiots on the internet," but open minded to trying to understand this. I mean, even if it's not strictly tied to dollars, is there a marketing component that I am missing? Have Oregon St and Washington St. benefited in this way from being in the Pac-12 with Furd/Cal?

Just to add as an aside: the Big 10 Network/Big 10 Presidents promising educational programming when they first started up...

mbBear said:

---

SadbutTrue999 said:

---

the big 10 presidents know the value of stanford and cal. idiots on the internet do not.

i could definitely see the big 10 presidents telling the networks they can have UW and UO if they take Cal and Stanford too.

and frankly UO and UW don't have the markets everyone seems to think they do.

---

What does this mean exactly? Yeah, you aren't the first person to make this statement, but, I don't get it: you mean with Furd and Cal in the conference, Purdue is somehow elevated academically (and whatever that means) and that association means more in dollars and cents than what they will be losing in splitting the pie more ways?

---

1) I don't want to turn this into a dichtomy but likely one one side are people who are largely academic administrators who like the prestige, association, and rubbing of elbows (up to and including futgure academic cooperation) with 2 of the most selective institutions in the country.

On the other side are ADs. Remember, one of the intersting facts of this is that the differnce between 20 and 31 million is pretty much peanuts at a place like cal that is like a 3 BILLION enterprise. But it is probably the difference between our AD getting a summer home in Vail. These things matter ;-)

2) the unknown (or at least I have never gotten good data and I have tried as part of my professional life) is publically accessible data on TV viewerships by media market for specific games and properties. Not that 3 million watched U of W's game against Oregon but how those 3 milllion parsed out between Seatte, Portland and everywhere else. It costs several tens of thousands to get that data from Neilson and its competitors.

But the universities likely pay that (or at the very least the conference) and of course the media companies do. This is the GREAT unknown in all of this and why the speculation is a bit mastabatory - no one really knows the value of the most important cards in the game and so fans and others wildly discuss metrics that have no bearing on the actual VALUE of a possible expansion target.

socaltownie said:

---

mbBear said:

---

SadbutTrue999 said:

---

the big 10 presidents know the value of stanford and cal. idiots on the internet do not.

i could definitely see the big 10 presidents telling the networks they can have UW and UO if they take Cal and Stanford too.

and frankly UO and UW don't have the markets everyone seems to think they do.

---

What does this mean exactly? Yeah, you aren't the first person to make this statement, but, I don't get it: you mean with Furd and Cal in the conference, Purdue is somehow elevated academically (and whatever that means) and that association means more in dollars and cents than what they will be losing in splitting the pie more ways?

---

1) I don't want to turn this into a dichtomy but likely one one side are people who are largely academic administrators who like the prestige, association, and rubbing of elbows (up to and including futgure academic cooperation) with 2 of the most selective institutions in the country.

On the other side are ADs. Remember, one of the intersting facts of this is that the differnce between 20 and 31 million is pretty much peanuts at a place like cal that is like a 3 BILLION enterprise. But it is probably the difference between our AD getting a summer home in Vail. These things matter ;-)

2) the unknown (or at least I have never gotten good data and I have tried as part of my professional life) is publically accessible data on TV viewerships by media market for specific games and properties. Not that 3 million watched U of W's game against Oregon but how those 3 milllion parsed out between Seatte, Portland and everywhere else. It costs several tens of thousands to get that data from Neilson and its competitors.

But the universities likely pay that (or at the very least the conference) and of course the media companies do. This is the GREAT unknown in all of this and why the speculation is a bit mastabatory - no one really knows the value of the most important cards in the game and so fans and others wildly discuss metrics that have no bearing on the actual VALUE of a possible expansion target.

---

I take it that you are implying that having a very large tv market is not as important as the viewing, or not, habits of entities in said tv homes.

And a deal is uncertain. There’s a political thicket with the potential additions because the moves don’t offer the current Big Ten schools any additional money. USC doesn’t have a vote, but they’ve been vocal in the past about not wanting other West Coast Big Ten teams.

— Pete Thamel (@PeteThamel) August 3, 2023

U$C isn't our friend, they don't even want Oregon or Washington in

DoubtfulBear said:

---

And a deal is uncertain. There’s a political thicket with the potential additions because the moves don’t offer the current Big Ten schools any additional money. USC doesn’t have a vote, but they’ve been vocal in the past about not wanting other West Coast Big Ten teams.

— Pete Thamel (@PeteThamel) August 3, 2023

U$C isn't our friend, they don't even want Oregon or Washington in

---

They' definitely don't want Oregon. They would probably rather have Cal/Furd than OU/UW because of their distaste of OU.

ferCALgm2 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

And a deal is uncertain. There’s a political thicket with the potential additions because the moves don’t offer the current Big Ten schools any additional money. USC doesn’t have a vote, but they’ve been vocal in the past about not wanting other West Coast Big Ten teams.

— Pete Thamel (@PeteThamel) August 3, 2023

U$C isn't our friend, they don't even want Oregon or Washington in

---

They' definitely don't want Oregon. They would probably rather have Cal/Furd than OU/UW because of their distaste of OU.

---

That would be an even worse value prop. Why would they dilute their revenue sharing for Northwestern and Wisconsin part 2?

DoubtfulBear said:

---

ferCALgm2 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

And a deal is uncertain. There’s a political thicket with the potential additions because the moves don’t offer the current Big Ten schools any additional money. USC doesn’t have a vote, but they’ve been vocal in the past about not wanting other West Coast Big Ten teams.

— Pete Thamel (@PeteThamel) August 3, 2023

U$C isn't our friend, they don't even want Oregon or Washington in

---

They' definitely don't want Oregon. They would probably rather have Cal/Furd than OU/UW because of their distaste of OU.

---

That would be an even worse value prop. Why would they dilute their revenue sharing for Northwestern and Wisconsin part 2?

---

Main point is that they hate OU and don't want to be in the same conference as them. And if Cal/Furd take partial vs full shares, it might not dilute the revenue much anyway.

IF we end up getting a B1G invite at the behest of the presidents, it'll be hilarious to know that it's largely because of our academics

I'm not buying that there's any possibility of taking Georgie's turd media deal, but…

* Big Ten hesitant about offering expansion bids to Oregon and Washington (and perhaps Cal and Stanford) unless Pac 12 further deteriorates. If P12 sticks together, B10 likely to just stay at 16 and wait.

— Dan Wetzel (@DanWetzel) August 3, 2023

What is odd is why they are going through a vetting process with UO and UW. Didn't they already do this?

Cal should proactively tell them we will take a permanent less share until some date like 2035 when they can be re-evaluated based on how much they invested in the program. Show out or get out at that point. Full share or increased share if they showed significant investment and respectable product on the field, get tossed if otherwise to make room for a program that cares.

One more thought - we should also be willing to get paid less than what we would get if we were in the MWC. Staying in the B1G will keep recruits and transfers interested in Cal. Our on the field product will be crap of we go to MWC and we will never recover to make a case for the B1G. It really is now or never and I'm just glad Jim Knowlton is here to do just that (right?).

UW calling a special regents meeting tonight

https://www.washington.edu/regents/meetings/august-2023-special-meeting/

mbBear said:

---

SadbutTrue999 said:

---

the big 10 presidents know the value of stanford and cal. idiots on the internet do not.

i could definitely see the big 10 presidents telling the networks they can have UW and UO if they take Cal and Stanford too.

and frankly UO and UW don't have the markets everyone seems to think they do.

---

What does this mean exactly? Yeah, you aren't the first person to make this statement, but, I don't get it: you mean with Furd and Cal in the conference, Purdue is somehow elevated academically (and whatever that means) and that association means more in dollars and cents than what they will be losing in splitting the pie more ways?
Okay, I will even confess to being one of the "idiots on the internet," but open minded to trying to understand this. I mean, even if it's not strictly tied to dollars, is there a marketing component that I am missing? Have Oregon St and Washington St. benefited in this way from being in the Pac-12 with Furd/Cal?

Just to add as an aside: the Big 10 Network/Big 10 Presidents promising educational programming when they first started up...

---

Our good friends at the University of Utah believe that being affiliated with Stanford and Cal has helped elevate their academic stature. Back in 2010, they had about $450M in research funding. In 2022, they had about $686M, a very big increase. They were also invited to join the AAU in 2019.

How does Cal help its conference mates elevate their research game? Well, I forget where I read this on the internets during this conference realignment saga, but apparently Cal has a Research Support team (I forget the official name) that specializes in grant writing among other things and which is top of the line. Others have tried to replicate it but could not. Their services are apparently offered for free to our conference mates. You can see how something like that may have contributed to the increase in Utah's research funding. I'm sure there are other examples.

Now, you might say that the B1G already has their BTAA (Big Ten Academic Alliance), which includes University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins and don't need Cal. That may be true. The BTAA does even more collaboration among member schools than the Pac. I believe they're integrating their libraries (and maybe they will get access to our libraries thru UCLA anyway). They also work together on procurement for their research. As you can imagine, that improves their buying power when they are sourcing materials collectively. Other examples I've heard are joint leadership development training. Each institution can nominate new associate professors and send them to joint training courses.

I think their Presidents would view Cal as a valuable addition for all of the above.

Econ141 said:

---

One more thought - we should also be willing to get paid less than what we would get if we were in the MWC. Staying in the B1G will keep recruits and transfers interested in Cal. Our on the field product will be crap of we go to MWC and we will never recover to make a case for the B1G. It really is now or never and I'm just glad Jim Knowlton is here to do just that (right?).

---

MWC teams get $4M per year. How would Cal fund its athletic department in the interim?

In a world where NIL dollars may be decreasing donations to AD, where does AD get $ to fund many sports

AuBear81 said:

---

UW calling a special regents meeting tonight

https://www.washington.edu/regents/meetings/august-2023-special-meeting/

---

Starts at 9 pm, after the Arizona meeting ends.

As of now, Oregon's board has not given notice of any special board meeting. Their next regular meeting is in September.

How tied to stanford are we? If USC doesnt want Oregon, and the B1G doesnt want 4 schools. What about UW and Cal going to the B1G?

golden sloth said:

---

How tied to stanford are we? If USC doesnt want Oregon, and the B1G doesnt want 4 schools. What about UW and Cal going to the B1G?

---

They'd take Stanford first. The UW/ Stanford rumor has even actually floated out there multiple times.

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

mbBear said:

---

SadbutTrue999 said:

---

the big 10 presidents know the value of stanford and cal. idiots on the internet do not.

i could definitely see the big 10 presidents telling the networks they can have UW and UO if they take Cal and Stanford too.

and frankly UO and UW don't have the markets everyone seems to think they do.

---

What does this mean exactly? Yeah, you aren't the first person to make this statement, but, I don't get it: you mean with Furd and Cal in the conference, Purdue is somehow elevated academically (and whatever that means) and that association means more in dollars and cents than what they will be losing in splitting the pie more ways?
Okay, I will even confess to being one of the "idiots on the internet," but open minded to trying to understand this. I mean, even if it's not strictly tied to dollars, is there a marketing component that I am missing? Have Oregon St and Washington St. benefited in this way from being in the Pac-12 with Furd/Cal?

Just to add as an aside: the Big 10 Network/Big 10 Presidents promising educational programming when they first started up...

---

Our good friends at the University of Utah believe that being affiliated with Stanford and Cal has helped elevate their academic stature. Back in 2010, they had about $450M in research funding. In 2022, they had about $686M, a very big increase. They were also invited to join the AAU in 2019.

How does Cal help its conference mates elevate their research game? Well, I forget where I read this on the internets during this conference realignment saga, but apparently Cal has a Research Support team (I forget the official name) that specializes in grant writing among other things and which is top of the line. Others have tried to replicate it but could not. Their services are apparently offered for free to our conference mates. You can see how something like that may have contributed to the increase in Utah's research funding. I'm sure there are other examples.

Now, you might say that the B1G already has their BTAA (Big Ten Academic Alliance), which includes University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins and don't need Cal. That may be true. The BTAA does even more collaboration among member schools than the Pac. I believe they're integrating their libraries (and maybe they will get access to our libraries thru UCLA anyway). They also work together on procurement for their research. As you can imagine, that improves their buying power when they are sourcing materials collectively. Other examples I've heard are joint leadership development training. Each institution can nominate new associate professors and send them to joint training courses.

I think their Presidents would view Cal as a valuable addition for all of the above.

---

Wouldn't B1G already have access to the UC research program by virtue of Southern Branch?

BearSD said:

---

AuBear81 said:

---

UW calling a special regents meeting tonight

https://www.washington.edu/regents/meetings/august-2023-special-meeting/

---

Starts at 9 pm, after the Arizona meeting ends.

As of now, Oregon's board has not given notice of any special board meeting. Their next regular meeting is in September.

---

I wish our board would call a meeting....if nothing more than just to make me feel like they were actually doing something.

The UC Berkeley Bears' records are worse than the two PACx teams which never even get a mention. What leverage is there to discuss?

Econ141 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

AuBear81 said:

---

UW calling a special regents meeting tonight

https://www.washington.edu/regents/meetings/august-2023-special-meeting/

---

Starts at 9 pm, after the Arizona meeting ends.

As of now, Oregon's board has not given notice of any special board meeting. Their next regular meeting is in September.

---

I wish our board would call a meeting....if nothing more than just to make me feel like they were actually doing something.

---

Didnt ucla leave the conference without consulting the regents first?

golden sloth said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

AuBear81 said:

---

UW calling a special regents meeting tonight

https://www.washington.edu/regents/meetings/august-2023-special-meeting/

---

Starts at 9 pm, after the Arizona meeting ends.

As of now, Oregon's board has not given notice of any special board meeting. Their next regular meeting is in September.

---

I wish our board would call a meeting....if nothing more than just to make me feel like they were actually doing something.

---

Didnt ucla leave the conference without consulting the regents first?

---

Yes but there was zero leakage with that bombshell. Here we have public info that we are being vetted.

Really, I was just being sarcastic - hoping for a sign of some leadership but I think at this point we just take whatever the suits tell us to take, MWC or otherwise.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

The UC Berkeley Bears' records are worse than the two PACx teams which never even get a mention. What leverage is there to discuss?

---

Fortunately wins and losses are not the only determining factor, media market does.

golden sloth said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

The UC Berkeley Bears' records are worse than the two PACx teams which never even get a mention. What leverage is there to discuss?

---

Fortunately wins and losses are not the only determining factor, media market does.

---

If that mattered as much as people think it does, wouldn't the B1G already have locked us in?

If there are two teams to be considered, it is UO and UW. Taking UO is the lesser of two evils for USC. They don't like UO but they aren't in California either. Picking them still preserves the west coast market for USC.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that Arizona is leaving. I think the Pac survives.
ASU leaves - I think it still survives.
Utah leaves - I think its over. That would trigger UO and UW to declare they are leaving and then se see the final dominos fall.

I would say that FSU is making a heck of a lot of noise in wanting to leave the ACC. GoR be damned. It looks like they really want to leave and if they can find a way, they would do it. I think FSU also has a keen eye to Arizona's decision and especially Utah. If FSU becomes available, the play for the B1G is to take FSU. In a heartbeat. That would give them a truly 4-corners of the nation conference.

philly1121 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

The UC Berkeley Bears' records are worse than the two PACx teams which never even get a mention. What leverage is there to discuss?

---

Fortunately wins and losses are not the only determining factor, media market does.

---

If that mattered as much as people think it does, wouldn't the B1G already have locked us in?

If there are two teams to be considered, it is UO and UW. Taking UO is the lesser of two evils for USC. They don't like UO but they aren't in California either. Picking them still preserves the west coast market for USC.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that Arizona is leaving. I think the Pac survives.
ASU leaves - I think it still survives.
Utah leaves - I think its over. That would trigger UO and UW to declare they are leaving and then se see the final dominos fall.

I would say that FSU is making a heck of a lot of noise in wanting to leave the ACC. GoR be damned. It looks like they really want to leave and if they can find a way, they would do it. I think FSU also has a keen eye to Arizona's decision and especially Utah. If FSU becomes available, the play for the B1G is to take FSU. In a heartbeat. That would give them a truly 4-corners of the nation conference.

---

No one factor is going to determine the B1G's decision, it will be a combination of factors. So, no, the media market alone will not get us in, just like wins and losses alone will not keep us out. It is about looking at all the variables in conjunction with each other and concluding if it helps or hurts. And most likely the answer will be grey or mixed. Which is why we are on the bubble.

Cal and Stanford appear to be sitting on a pendulum where either they get invited into the richest conference in the country or left completely in the wilderness.

And Stanford has a lot to lose — No. 1 athletic department in the country almost every year.

— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) August 3, 2023

in other words, this guy has no idea, no inside information and nothing to report

Some thoughts from Big Ten Country:

The breathless news releases about recent "vetting" of schools is primarily clickbait. The Big Ten undoubtedly thoroughly reviewed the four PAC schools last year.

Academics are extremely important to the Big Ten presidents; for this reason I don't believe, despite the countless proclamations, that Oregon will receive an invitation (and while USC is not yet a voting member, they will vigorously oppose the inclusion of the Ducks).

If two teams are added, the most likely pair are Cal and Stanford, because of academics, market, and relative proximity (the "two-for one" trip for non-football sports). The four California schools will have 18 home conference games per season; while USC (and to a lesser extent UCLA) will rarely appear on "Big Ten After Dark", there will be sufficient inventory to populate the 10:30 ET slot. Scheduling West Coast-West Coast and West Coast-Central Time Zone games will mitigate the impact of late starts on the current Big Ten members. Opening this slot would surely generate an additional $60M/year (if not more) for the conference.

If Cal and Stanford would be willing to accept around $30M/year for the length of the current media contract and have many (if not most) of their home games start at 10:30 ET, with perhaps a significant fraction via streaming, this would strike me as a quite attractive offer for the Big Ten!

Looks like the hurdle on Washington/Oregon will just be financials. Otherwise cleared

Big Ten just trying to figure out financials at this point on Oregon & Washington, sources told @ActionNetworkHQ. “There is no more research or information needed on Oregon & Washington,” B1G sources said. “We have everything we need.”

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) August 3, 2023

RobertHedrock said:

---

Some thoughts from Big Ten Country:

The breathless news releases about recent "vetting" of schools is primarily clickbait. The Big Ten undoubtedly thoroughly reviewed the four PAC schools last year.

Academics are extremely important to the Big Ten presidents; for this reason I don't believe, despite the countless proclamations, that Oregon will receive an invitation (and while USC is not yet a voting member, they will vigorously oppose the inclusion of the Ducks).

If two teams are added, the most likely pair are Cal and Stanford, because of academics, market, and relative proximity (the "two-for one" trip for non-football sports). The four California schools will have 18 home conference games per season; while USC (and to a lesser extent UCLA) will rarely appear on "Big Ten After Dark", there will be sufficient inventory to populate the 10:30 ET slot. Scheduling West Coast-West Coast and West Coast-Central Time Zone games will mitigate the impact of late starts on the current Big Ten members. Opening this slot would surely generate an additional $60M/year (if not more) for the conference.

If Cal and Stanford would be willing to accept around $30M/year for the length of the current media contract and have many (if not most) of their home games start at 10:30 ET, with perhaps a significant fraction via streaming, this would strike me as a quite attractive offer for the Big Ten!

---

Late night starts are very problematic, but it would work if ticket prices were lowered dramatically, just to get live bodies in the stands. Although, (lol), "the value of the product would be lowered."

Fox is in charge of the Big Ten's media deal. If there is any "new money" to pay for expansion, then it's either coming from Fox, or Fox is persuading one of the junior partners (likely NBC) to kick in more money. Fox wants to keep ESPN out.

IMO, the question that determines what Fox wants is: What happens if the Big Ten doesn't expand further at this time? And (IMO) the answer is: Oregon and Washington would join the Big 12. It's possible that Oregon and Washington already have Big 12 offers and are using them to try to persuade the Big Ten to act now before the Ducks and Huskies go to the Big 12.

So, Fox basically has to decide whether they want to let ESPN have access to UO and UW, via the Big 12, or whether they want to lock ESPN out of the west coast entirely. (ESPN doesn't even have any Mountain West rights; those are with Fox and CBS.) If it's the latter, Fox will find enough money to let the Big Ten presidents know that UO and UW are paid for, and that the presidents are on their own if they want to also add Cal and Stanford.

BearSD said:

---

Fox is in charge of the Big Ten's media deal. If there is any "new money" to pay for expansion, then it's either coming from Fox, or Fox is persuading one of the junior partners (likely NBC) to kick in more money. Fox wants to keep ESPN out.

IMO, the question that determines what Fox wants is: What happens if the Big Ten doesn't expand further at this time? And (IMO) the answer is: Oregon and Washington would join the Big 12. It's possible that Oregon and Washington already have Big 12 offers and are using them to try to persuade the Big Ten to act now before the Ducks and Huskies go to the Big 12.

So, Fox basically has to decide whether they want to let ESPN have access to UO and UW, via the Big 12, or whether they want to lock ESPN out of the west coast entirely. (ESPN doesn't even have any Mountain West rights; those are with Fox and CBS.) If it's the latter, Fox will find enough money to let the Big Ten presidents know that UO and UW are paid for, and that the presidents are on their own if they want to also add Cal and Stanford.

---

Is ESPN too cash-strapped to even try to provide a competing offer to Apple? They have to realize that they are going to lose that late night slot entirely if the B1G expands.

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Fox is in charge of the Big Ten's media deal. If there is any "new money" to pay for expansion, then it's either coming from Fox, or Fox is persuading one of the junior partners (likely NBC) to kick in more money. Fox wants to keep ESPN out.

IMO, the question that determines what Fox wants is: What happens if the Big Ten doesn't expand further at this time? And (IMO) the answer is: Oregon and Washington would join the Big 12. It's possible that Oregon and Washington already have Big 12 offers and are using them to try to persuade the Big Ten to act now before the Ducks and Huskies go to the Big 12.

So, Fox basically has to decide whether they want to let ESPN have access to UO and UW, via the Big 12, or whether they want to lock ESPN out of the west coast entirely. (ESPN doesn't even have any Mountain West rights; those are with Fox and CBS.) If it's the latter, Fox will find enough money to let the Big Ten presidents know that UO and UW are paid for, and that the presidents are on their own if they want to also add Cal and Stanford.

---

Is ESPN too cash-strapped to even try to provide a competing offer to Apple? They have to realize that they are going to lose that late night slot entirely if the B1G expands.

---

ESPN will still have the after dark slot with Arizona schools