ducktilldeath said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

TomBear said:

---

To me, looking at this strictly through idealistic glasses, my overwhelming preference would be for the B1G to take in the final 4 Pac schools, and create (as it always should have been) the Pac 8, reconstituted as the western division.

By doing this, the B1G would be nodding to tradition. By doing this, the B1g would be restoring rivalries. By doing this, the B1g would be respecting the history between these two conferences largely revolving around the history of the Rose Bowl. And by doing this, the B1G could set up an east/west conference championship, played at the Rose Bowl, thus restoring the history, tradition and relationship the two proud conferences once had.

I would like to see the final four push hard for ALL of them to be included in order to make this the old Pac 8, a conference I never wanted to see expand in the first place.

---

Sadly, that ship has sailed.

---

Ships can sail in both directions.

If we play as the PAC-4 in 2024 and maybe again in 2025, we keep the possibility of negotiating for a Pac-8 West Coast pod open. USC, UCLA, UW, Oregon and the rest of the B1G may see the logic by then.

---

You can't play as a 4 team conference. Also, what logic is there in adding a debt burdened program with little fan support or national presence, and a program with zero fan support or national presence?

---

You can play for two seasons "below 8" so we don't need to add teams until 2026.

Why is anyone so down on MWC teams? I mean, Cal consistently plays like one, and as for national exposure, Cal should get to a post-season bowl almost every year! I mean a team doesn't get any name recognition when everyone is watching other teams play during the holidays.

College football power and money is a club run by a few folks in the media companies. The real customers are them.

Their business models and prospects have changed. They can't support as many mouths.

There are also new entrants that are taking business away in other areas. The Streamers. Cord cutting.

The value of the MWC is a construct of this club relative to other conferences. Is it 1/4, 1/3 as valuable as the current PAC or Big12? That is a valuation based on supply and demand.

The West Coast had the PAC-12, so that made the MWC not as valuable to the networks.

Again, supply and demand. The PAC-12 is largely gone. The B1G has LA, Portland, Seattle. There is the potential for a conference in the West that takes the rest.

In my back of the envelope calc, I assumed around $10MM for the next MWC media deal in 2026. Wilner's article today had it around $9MM-$10MM. Lucky guess.

My back of the envelope calc with Calimony, is almost a wash what Oregon is getting after factoring in travel. Sure there is better perks in the B1G - marketing and distribution - and "product" but I'm here talking about the short term start up period for a West Coast based power conference by merging with the MWC.

Long term, the B1G at full shares is the most lucrative, but that's not an option now.

IDEA

Have Apple replace the PAC-12 Network on cable. Rename the PAC-12 Network on cable to the Apple PAC Network. Get carriage fees. I pay for the P12 network on Xfinity. It's next to the playboy channels.

And then have Apple do their streaming of PAC-MWC games. Double dip. What's the marginal cost for Apple? (Right Amazon is opening Bookstores?)

Solves part of the "linear" problem.

Some games will be on CBS Sports and FS1 under the MWC deal. Ok. Supply and demand. West Coast night football. There will be a big reduction in West Coast night games now that USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon are traveling East at least half the time for games. Those few games will be on Big Fox and Big ABC. It is what it is.

Eventually though conference standings will matter and a Cal-Fresno game that has playoff implications will sell out War Memorial and be in Big ABC/Fox.

Eventually.

The Apple taking over P12 Network bridges the cable to streaming transition period (which cable will be around for a long time), and reduces the premium price needed (maybe - or charge 'em $20/month the hard core fans will pay). Have a few games on Apple+ exclusively.

I already calculated that short term, financially, Cal is not going to face as steep of a revenue gap as the UW/UO deal, due to Calimony ($10MM) and reduced travel expenses. $5MM contingency factor is pocket change for UC.

Plus, by taking over the carriage fees from the PAC 12 Network, there is going to be a sticky-ness in most of the traditional Western markets for cable bundles. $$$

Right, production costs for cable or streaming, it's the same (I think).

Ok, so why PAC-MWC merger, again? Both concentrated, Western markets and drivable games. The MWC had a down year last year, but they don't get a lot of credit by the "big boys". That's a mental construct - and things mental can change sometimes quickly.

Especially when supply and demand is in your favor.

Forget about academic Rice, Tulane adds. Different game now. Double down in California. It's sad, we will try to be 2nd class citizens in a conference far away that does not have stability for an extra - what? College football is a club. The market is in flux. Time to take control. Big mistake leaving the Bay Area to the MWC+PAC4. But if they do, here's the way.

Before I go to bed, Biggest hypocrisies I've observed:

1) we need to make more revenue or else the non-football sports will suffer or be cut

- since when did people care about those sports. Far flung conferences, all for what? What is an extra $20MM to a multi billion dollar institution paid by taxpayers? Bottom line, cost optimization. There was no discipline. $5MM/year football head coach, that's ridiculous if you think about it. And the vast majority of athletic depts lose money. Where do you think that shortfall is made up by?

2) Let take the top teams from the MWC and AAC and rebuild the PAC

- so destroy other conferences (and programs), just like you yourself got destroyed - at some point the cost-benefit reaches par - we are there. I realize that I love college football more with 130 FBS teams than 60.

3) The MWC is beneath us.

- There's a hierarchy within the PAC-12. Either you look at it as the PAC4 is moving down, or the MWC is moving up. Or the PAC4 is staying still. It all means the same thing. Posters on here can't even fathom being in the same conference with MWC schools. I get the decades of feeling superior because of conference affiliation. It's great to not have to play football against them. You don't want to play. I don't get academic snobbery in a sport that causes brain damage. How much more brain damage will you get playing Ohio State than UNLV? Is there a difference? Somehow the football guys will get dumber playing Fresno State?

4) The B1G, even the Big 12 and ACC are our only chance, or else I'm out

- yes now, due to money. This is the least hypocritical. But it's totally blinded what I think are smart people because of the emotion, status game. This geographic mess is tulip-crypto mania. Over time, budgets will adjust. Fans will either love their team, school or do something else. Win some or lose some. I hope you stay.

5) Can't compete nationally in the MWC (per San Diego State fan)

- National Championship appearance in NCAA basketball. The football playoffs provide a small chance to compete. But there's a lot to still play for. How programs' boosters spend their NIL (remember not the schools themselves) will determine if you can keep or attract proven playmakers. The other factor is only 11 players on the field. Rose Bowl dreams are more realistic. The new Rose Bowl is Jimmy Kimmel.


If I can think of more, I'll post.

Trumpanzee said:

---

I hate to say it, but if we don't want to become and obscured conference (might be too late) we should poach the MWC of San Diego St., San Jose St., Boise State, and Nevada. Regionally it makes sense and travel cost doesn't really change much. Conference is definitely weaker, but it became weaker when USC and UCLA bolted......Oregon and Washington may have put the nail in the coffin

---

Cal Strong is reliably informed that senior leadership would rather shutter intercollegiate athletics at Cal than do something like this.

Hawaii Haas said:

---

Before I go to bed, Biggest hypocrisies I've observed:

1) we need to make more revenue or else the non-football sports will suffer or be cut

- since when did people care about those sports. Far flung conferences, all for what? What is an extra $20MM to a multi billion dollar institution paid by taxpayers? Bottom line, cost optimization. There was no discipline. $5MM/year football head coach, that's ridiculous if you think about it. And the vast majority of athletic depts lose money. Where do you think that shortfall is made up by?

2) Let take the top teams from the MWC and AAC and rebuild the PAC

- so destroy other conferences (and programs), just like you yourself got destroyed - at some point the cost-benefit reaches par - we are there. I realize that I love college football more with 130 FBS teams than 60.

3) The MWC is beneath us.

- There's a hierarchy within the PAC-12. Either you look at it as the PAC4 is moving down, or the MWC is moving up. Or the PAC4 is staying still. It all means the same thing. Posters on here can't even fathom being in the same conference with MWC schools. I get the decades of feeling superior because of conference affiliation. It's great to not have to play football against them. You don't want to play. I don't get academic snobbery in a sport that causes brain damage. How much more brain damage will you get playing Ohio State than UNLV? Is there a difference? Somehow the football guys will get dumber playing Fresno State?

4) The B1G, even the Big 12 and ACC are our only chance, or else I'm out

- yes now, due to money. This is the least hypocritical. But it's totally blinded what I think are smart people because of the emotion, status game. This geographic mess is tulip-crypto mania. Over time, budgets will adjust. Fans will either love their team, school or do something else. Win some or lose some. I hope you stay.

5) Can't compete nationally in the MWC (per San Diego State fan)

- National Championship appearance in NCAA basketball. The football playoffs provide a small chance to compete. But there's a lot to still play for. How programs' boosters spend their NIL (remember not the schools themselves) will determine if you can keep or attract proven playmakers. The other factor is only 11 players on the field. Rose Bowl dreams are more realistic. The new Rose Bowl is Jimmy Kimmel.


If I can think of more, I'll post.

---

I do agree that beyond say $10 million the conference payout from the media contract is really a Cal AD budget issue, not a football issue.

We are in the NIL era. I now care more about having a conference situation where we have compelling matchups that inspire donors to poney up money and where players want to come and get that NIL to represent Cal in those matchups.

What makes college football great is tradition, rivalries. Thankfully it appears we are staying close to Stanford, our biggest rival. Our next most important rivals are USC and UCLA. The Cal-USC series is one of the longest in college football. The B1G needs to be our top goal.

Cal has been in a P5 conference, forever.

Cal and Stanford are the top 2 academic schools that play D1 football. We like to compete against comparable universities. The B1G and the ACC offers competition against comparable universities. The B-12 and the MWC does not, The MWC is not a P5 conference.

So to stay in a P5 conference and compete against schools that will inspire NIL donations and inspire players to come, we need to either join the B1G or ACC or failing that, hang onto the PAC and it's status as a P5 conference. Or even go independent in alliance with Notre Dame and the ACC or former PAC-8, Those choices will always be better than joining the MWC and relegating ourselves to G5 status. We may end up there, and we will deal with it if we do, but we should not start there. It is not worth discussing at this time.

Hawaii is my second favorite team and I do think there are a lot of advantages to adding Hawaii, including Hawaii's ability to close the bars on the East Coast. I think adding Hawaii to the PAC-8 makes sense, but I don't think it makes sense to go to the PAC-8 until we are forced to in 2026.

Econ141 said:

---

Sactowndog said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

No to Fresno. No to Boise.

I like UNLV, SDSU, SMU (wants to join a conference), Rice (great school and partner to SMU), and Tulane (also a good school).

---

This thought process, shared by your admin, is why Cal is where they are…..

Fresno and Boise are the best football conference members and the biggest TV draws. Form the conference with SMU, SDSU, Rice UNLV and Tulane pulls the 4th and last draw in the MWC. Your value lies in the 7:30 western time slot.

---

For some reason this just brought home how interested I will be if we move to MWC to watch these games that have no impact on the national scene. Going out on Saturday nights and seeing these late Boise St games playing through the window as I walk past bars and not giving it a second glance because "who cares.". Ugh are we really headed there?!

How are we worth so much less than I of A and Colorado?!?! Makes no sense.

---

The question is, do you want to watch good football? Must it always be the "best" football? Or, must your team win?

I want to watch good, competitive football with my team winning most of the time. 'Course, I don't gamble. I think that changes most everything.

Blueblood said:

---

Why is anyone so down on MWC teams? I mean, Cal consistently plays like one, and as for national exposure, Cal should get to a post-season bowl almost every year! I mean a team doesn't get any name recognition when everyone is watching other teams play during the holidays.

---

Cal in the MWC will not be the same Cal that was in the Pac-12. Our top players will exit through the portal to Power 5 teams where they will get the exposure to help them land on NFL teams. The players knew they were more likely to win championships (not to mention starting positions) at schools such as Fresno St, but chose us in spite of rigorous academics because of our status in P5.

southseasbear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Why is anyone so down on MWC teams? I mean, Cal consistently plays like one, and as for national exposure, Cal should get to a post-season bowl almost every year! I mean a team doesn't get any name recognition when everyone is watching other teams play during the holidays.

---

Cal in the MWC will not be the same Cal that was in the Pac-12. Our top players will exit through the portal to Power 5 teams where they will get the exposure to help them land on NFL teams. The players knew they were more likely to win championships (not to mention starting positions) at schools such as Fresno St, but chose us in spite of rigorous academics because of our status in P5.

---

"Top players" is a relative term. How many portal players will the big32 need to poach from the mighty PAC4?

Bobodeluxe said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Why is anyone so down on MWC teams? I mean, Cal consistently plays like one, and as for national exposure, Cal should get to a post-season bowl almost every year! I mean a team doesn't get any name recognition when everyone is watching other teams play during the holidays.

---

Cal in the MWC will not be the same Cal that was in the Pac-12. Our top players will exit through the portal to Power 5 teams where they will get the exposure to help them land on NFL teams. The players knew they were more likely to win championships (not to mention starting positions) at schools such as Fresno St, but chose us in spite of rigorous academics because of our status in P5.

---

"Top players" is a relative term. How many portal players will the big32 need to poach from the mighty PAC4?

---

With top players and our current coaching staff, we are a below average team in a top conference.

With mid-level players and our current coaching staff, I suspect we will still be a below average team but in a mid-level conference.

southseasbear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Why is anyone so down on MWC teams? I mean, Cal consistently plays like one, and as for national exposure, Cal should get to a post-season bowl almost every year! I mean a team doesn't get any name recognition when everyone is watching other teams play during the holidays.

---

Cal in the MWC will not be the same Cal that was in the Pac-12. Our top players will exit through the portal to Power 5 teams where they will get the exposure to help them land on NFL teams. The players knew they were more likely to win championships (not to mention starting positions) at schools such as Fresno St, but chose us in spite of rigorous academics because of our status in P5.

---

"Top players" is a relative term. How many portal players will the big32 need to poach from the mighty PAC4?

---

With top players and our current coaching staff, we are a below average team in a top conference.

With mid-level players and our current coaching staff, I suspect we will still be a below average team but in a mid-level conference.

---

So you also value consistency?

southseasbear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Why is anyone so down on MWC teams? I mean, Cal consistently plays like one, and as for national exposure, Cal should get to a post-season bowl almost every year! I mean a team doesn't get any name recognition when everyone is watching other teams play during the holidays.

---

Cal in the MWC will not be the same Cal that was in the Pac-12. Our top players will exit through the portal to Power 5 teams where they will get the exposure to help them land on NFL teams. The players knew they were more likely to win championships (not to mention starting positions) at schools such as Fresno St, but chose us in spite of rigorous academics because of our status in P5.

---

I don't think guys like Rodgers, Lynch and the rest were thinking Cal was their launch into the NFL. I think it was a coach who believed in their abilities on the field not in the classroom that brought them to Cal....

A few days ago, calumnus wrote " We need a conference to work with us for 2024 scheduling."

Here is an idea. It has nothing to do with a merger. The PAC stays independent. The MWC stays independent. It is just a plan for 2024.

The MWC usually plays 4 OOC games and 8 conference games. The PAC usually plays 3 OOC games and 9 conferences games. In 2024 each PAC-4 school has 6 conference games that need to be filled. What if, for 2024, the MWC plays 6 OOC games and 6 conference games? Each MWC school would play one away game and one home game with a PAC-4 school. Each PAC school would play their already scheduled 3 OOC game, 3 PAC games, 3 away games with MWC schools and 3 home games with MWC schools.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Why is anyone so down on MWC teams? I mean, Cal consistently plays like one, and as for national exposure, Cal should get to a post-season bowl almost every year! I mean a team doesn't get any name recognition when everyone is watching other teams play during the holidays.

---

Cal in the MWC will not be the same Cal that was in the Pac-12. Our top players will exit through the portal to Power 5 teams where they will get the exposure to help them land on NFL teams. The players knew they were more likely to win championships (not to mention starting positions) at schools such as Fresno St, but chose us in spite of rigorous academics because of our status in P5.

---

"Top players" is a relative term. How many portal players will the big32 need to poach from the mighty PAC4?

---

With top players and our current coaching staff, we are a below average team in a top conference.

With mid-level players and our current coaching staff, I suspect we will still be a below average team but in a mid-level conference.

---

So you also value consistency?

---

No, I value winning. My point is, relegating ourselves to the MWC does not mean we will win more games. I think (and fear) we will achieve the same level of mediocrity unless we see a change in philosophy and leadership.

Trumpanzee said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Why is anyone so down on MWC teams? I mean, Cal consistently plays like one, and as for national exposure, Cal should get to a post-season bowl almost every year! I mean a team doesn't get any name recognition when everyone is watching other teams play during the holidays.

---

Cal in the MWC will not be the same Cal that was in the Pac-12. Our top players will exit through the portal to Power 5 teams where they will get the exposure to help them land on NFL teams. The players knew they were more likely to win championships (not to mention starting positions) at schools such as Fresno St, but chose us in spite of rigorous academics because of our status in P5.

---

I don't think guys like Rodgers, Lynch and the rest were thinking Cal was their launch into the NFL. I think it was a coach who believed in their abilities on the field not in the classroom that brought them to Cal....

---

I think it was both. Even in years where we did not have great coaches (Theder, Kapp, Gilberson, Holmoe, Dykes, Wilcox), we were able to recruit athletes who often made it to the Big League.

southseasbear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Why is anyone so down on MWC teams? I mean, Cal consistently plays like one, and as for national exposure, Cal should get to a post-season bowl almost every year! I mean a team doesn't get any name recognition when everyone is watching other teams play during the holidays.

---

Cal in the MWC will not be the same Cal that was in the Pac-12. Our top players will exit through the portal to Power 5 teams where they will get the exposure to help them land on NFL teams. The players knew they were more likely to win championships (not to mention starting positions) at schools such as Fresno St, but chose us in spite of rigorous academics because of our status in P5.

---

Dude you are already losing your top players like Remigio to teams like Fresno State. Had a great year with us and is doing well in KC as a player from Fresno State. We appreciate you all developing him for us.

rumraisin said:

---

A few days ago, calumnus wrote " We need a conference to work with us for 2024 scheduling."

Here is an idea. It has nothing to do with a merger. The PAC stays independent. The MWC stays independent. It is just a plan for 2024.

The MWC usually plays 4 OOC games and 8 conference games. The PAC usually plays 3 OOC games and 9 conferences games. In 2024 each PAC-4 school has 6 conference games that need to be filled. What if, for 2024, the MWC plays 6 OOC games and 6 conference games? Each MWC school would play one away game and one home game with a PAC-4 school. Each PAC school would play their already scheduled 3 OOC game, 3 PAC games, 3 away games with MWC schools and 3 home games with MWC schools.

---

You need 6 teams to be an official NCAA conference. Doubt you would get a football or basketball bid at 4 schools.