The latest on Conference Realignment and Cal - Saturday the 19th

198,879 Views | 1043 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by annarborbear
berserkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big Dog said:

ferCALgm2 said:

golden sloth said:

LodeBear said:

hell no to UCLA or USC for that matter. let them make their trips to the B10.
I get the emotion, but Cal shouldn't make decisions based on anger and spite. The long term health of the program requires good players from LA. Good players from LA are easier to get with consistent games there.

The only instance of not having ucla on the schedule long-term is if Cal and SDSU agree to play a game at SOFI (or another LA based stadium) every year for a decade).

Also, its good to maintain a presence with alumni down there.


It's not mostly anger and spite. What do we have to gain? For the next few years we'll likely be a $20-30 million program vs a $75 million program. Screw them. Maybe in 5-10 years if/when we're in the same conference.
agree. And for those pro on playing the former schools that can no longer be named in decent company, don't forget that either woudl be our A game in an OOC schedule. And that means no Auburn, no Tennessee, no Northwestern or tOSU. If we want to raise the national profile we need to go beat some of these other teams.


For a team playing virtually all of their conference road games 3 times zones away, if we go to the ACC, our A game in OOC should be a West Coast team. In fact, all of our OOC games should be Western teams.
Sactowndog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

calumnus said:

Dothechop2 said:




"In all sports in which the ACC competes."

Wow.
I agree on 'Wow', but I would also be surprised if at the end of this decade we don't see conference affiliations for non-revenue sports break off from the revenue sports (or just football).


I don't unless you and the PAC 6 self fund a conference. Without revenue you have nothing to fund conference operations. I would guess the delay stemmed from you approaching the WCC and Big West and both told you hell no.

We all hope this deal gets done soon and I can stop coming by for updates.
berserkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LOL

The ACC is dictating whether we park our other sports in their conference or not.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berserkeley said:

LOL

The ACC is dictating whether we park our other sports in their conference or not.


Exactly. The guy is leaning heavily into his trolling and hatred now.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sactowndog said:

golden sloth said:

calumnus said:

Dothechop2 said:




"In all sports in which the ACC competes."

Wow.
I agree on 'Wow', but I would also be surprised if at the end of this decade we don't see conference affiliations for non-revenue sports break off from the revenue sports (or just football).


I don't unless you and the PAC 6 self fund a conference. Without revenue you have nothing to fund conference operations. I would guess the delay stemmed from you approaching the WCC and Big West and both told you hell no.

We all hope this deal gets done soon and I can stop coming by for updates.


One day you should actually come by to get updates instead of coming by to post your butthurt nonsense.
Big Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sactowndog said:

golden sloth said:

calumnus said:

Dothechop2 said:




"In all sports in which the ACC competes."

Wow.
I agree on 'Wow', but I would also be surprised if at the end of this decade we don't see conference affiliations for non-revenue sports break off from the revenue sports (or just football).


I don't unless you and the PAC 6 self fund a conference. Without revenue you have nothing to fund conference operations. I would guess the delay stemmed from you approaching the WCC and Big West and both told you hell no.

We all hope this deal gets done soon and I can stop coming by for updates.
you could always just stop coming by......
Cabin14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

LodeBear said:

hell no to UCLA or USC for that matter. let them make their trips to the B10.
I get the emotion, but Cal shouldn't make decisions based on anger and spite. The long term health of the program requires good players from LA. Good players from LA are easier to get with consistent games there.

The only instance of not having ucla on the schedule long-term is if Cal and SDSU agree to play a game at SOFI (or another LA based stadium) every year for a decade).

Also, its good to maintain a presence with alumni down there.
Well, it requires good players, period.

If those players come from LA, great.

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

Big Dog said:

ferCALgm2 said:

golden sloth said:

LodeBear said:

hell no to UCLA or USC for that matter. let them make their trips to the B10.
I get the emotion, but Cal shouldn't make decisions based on anger and spite. The long term health of the program requires good players from LA. Good players from LA are easier to get with consistent games there.

The only instance of not having ucla on the schedule long-term is if Cal and SDSU agree to play a game at SOFI (or another LA based stadium) every year for a decade).

Also, its good to maintain a presence with alumni down there.


It's not mostly anger and spite. What do we have to gain? For the next few years we'll likely be a $20-30 million program vs a $75 million program. Screw them. Maybe in 5-10 years if/when we're in the same conference.
agree. And for those pro on playing the former schools that can no longer be named in decent company, don't forget that either woudl be our A game in an OOC schedule. And that means no Auburn, no Tennessee, no Northwestern or tOSU. If we want to raise the national profile we need to go beat some of these other teams.


For a team playing virtually all of their conference road games 3 times zones away, if we go to the ACC, our A game in OOC should be a West Coast team. In fact, all of our OOC games should be Western teams.


West Coast A teams: USC, UCLA, UW, Oregon, Utah, ASU, Arizona, Colorado.

West Coast B teams: WSU, OSU, San Diego State, Nevada, UNLV, San Jose State, Fresno State, Boise State, Hawaii

West Coast C teams: UC Davis, Sac State, Portland State, Cal Poly….
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

berserkeley said:

Big Dog said:

ferCALgm2 said:

golden sloth said:

LodeBear said:

hell no to UCLA or USC for that matter. let them make their trips to the B10.
I get the emotion, but Cal shouldn't make decisions based on anger and spite. The long term health of the program requires good players from LA. Good players from LA are easier to get with consistent games there.

The only instance of not having ucla on the schedule long-term is if Cal and SDSU agree to play a game at SOFI (or another LA based stadium) every year for a decade).

Also, its good to maintain a presence with alumni down there.


It's not mostly anger and spite. What do we have to gain? For the next few years we'll likely be a $20-30 million program vs a $75 million program. Screw them. Maybe in 5-10 years if/when we're in the same conference.
agree. And for those pro on playing the former schools that can no longer be named in decent company, don't forget that either woudl be our A game in an OOC schedule. And that means no Auburn, no Tennessee, no Northwestern or tOSU. If we want to raise the national profile we need to go beat some of these other teams.


For a team playing virtually all of their conference road games 3 times zones away, if we go to the ACC, our A game in OOC should be a West Coast team. In fact, all of our OOC games should be Western teams.


West Coast A teams: USC, UCLA, UW, Oregon, Utah, ASU, Arizona, Colorado.

West Coast B teams: WSU, OSU, San Diego State, Nevada, UNLV, San Jose State, Fresno State, Boise State, Hawaii

West Coast C teams: UC Davis, Sac State, Portland State, Cal Poly….



BYU?

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

berserkeley said:

Big Dog said:

ferCALgm2 said:

golden sloth said:

LodeBear said:

hell no to UCLA or USC for that matter. let them make their trips to the B10.
I get the emotion, but Cal shouldn't make decisions based on anger and spite. The long term health of the program requires good players from LA. Good players from LA are easier to get with consistent games there.

The only instance of not having ucla on the schedule long-term is if Cal and SDSU agree to play a game at SOFI (or another LA based stadium) every year for a decade).

Also, its good to maintain a presence with alumni down there.


It's not mostly anger and spite. What do we have to gain? For the next few years we'll likely be a $20-30 million program vs a $75 million program. Screw them. Maybe in 5-10 years if/when we're in the same conference.
agree. And for those pro on playing the former schools that can no longer be named in decent company, don't forget that either woudl be our A game in an OOC schedule. And that means no Auburn, no Tennessee, no Northwestern or tOSU. If we want to raise the national profile we need to go beat some of these other teams.


For a team playing virtually all of their conference road games 3 times zones away, if we go to the ACC, our A game in OOC should be a West Coast team. In fact, all of our OOC games should be Western teams.


West Coast A teams: USC, UCLA, UW, Oregon, Utah, ASU, Arizona, Colorado.

West Coast B teams: WSU, OSU, San Diego State, Nevada, UNLV, San Jose State, Fresno State, Boise State, Hawaii

West Coast C teams: UC Davis, Sac State, Portland State, Cal Poly….



Colorado? In what sport?
philly1121
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

berserkeley said:

Big Dog said:

ferCALgm2 said:

golden sloth said:

LodeBear said:

hell no to UCLA or USC for that matter. let them make their trips to the B10.
I get the emotion, but Cal shouldn't make decisions based on anger and spite. The long term health of the program requires good players from LA. Good players from LA are easier to get with consistent games there.

The only instance of not having ucla on the schedule long-term is if Cal and SDSU agree to play a game at SOFI (or another LA based stadium) every year for a decade).

Also, its good to maintain a presence with alumni down there.


It's not mostly anger and spite. What do we have to gain? For the next few years we'll likely be a $20-30 million program vs a $75 million program. Screw them. Maybe in 5-10 years if/when we're in the same conference.
agree. And for those pro on playing the former schools that can no longer be named in decent company, don't forget that either woudl be our A game in an OOC schedule. And that means no Auburn, no Tennessee, no Northwestern or tOSU. If we want to raise the national profile we need to go beat some of these other teams.


For a team playing virtually all of their conference road games 3 times zones away, if we go to the ACC, our A game in OOC should be a West Coast team. In fact, all of our OOC games should be Western teams.


West Coast A teams: USC, UCLA, UW, Oregon, Utah, ASU, Arizona, Colorado.

West Coast B teams: WSU, OSU, San Diego State, Nevada, UNLV, San Jose State, Fresno State, Boise State, Hawaii

West Coast C teams: UC Davis, Sac State, Portland State, Cal Poly….

I doubt any of those A teams would play us. Their schedules are likely being set. And...do we want to reward any of those with a game? Especially the ones that went to the B12? Its all pettiness and sour grapes at this point but, its there front and center.

On a personal note I'm tired of the ACC haggling over how they are going to slice up the shares. I think Clemson, FSU and UNC, NC State are making it very difficult. They want more shares and don't care if the argument blows the conference away. What do they care? They're losing money already. None of this really matters to them.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

berserkeley said:

Big Dog said:

ferCALgm2 said:

golden sloth said:

LodeBear said:

hell no to UCLA or USC for that matter. let them make their trips to the B10.
I get the emotion, but Cal shouldn't make decisions based on anger and spite. The long term health of the program requires good players from LA. Good players from LA are easier to get with consistent games there.

The only instance of not having ucla on the schedule long-term is if Cal and SDSU agree to play a game at SOFI (or another LA based stadium) every year for a decade).

Also, its good to maintain a presence with alumni down there.


It's not mostly anger and spite. What do we have to gain? For the next few years we'll likely be a $20-30 million program vs a $75 million program. Screw them. Maybe in 5-10 years if/when we're in the same conference.
agree. And for those pro on playing the former schools that can no longer be named in decent company, don't forget that either woudl be our A game in an OOC schedule. And that means no Auburn, no Tennessee, no Northwestern or tOSU. If we want to raise the national profile we need to go beat some of these other teams.


For a team playing virtually all of their conference road games 3 times zones away, if we go to the ACC, our A game in OOC should be a West Coast team. In fact, all of our OOC games should be Western teams.


West Coast A teams: USC, UCLA, UW, Oregon, Utah, ASU, Arizona, Colorado.

West Coast B teams: WSU, OSU, San Diego State, Nevada, UNLV, San Jose State, Fresno State, Boise State, Hawaii

West Coast C teams: UC Davis, Sac State, Portland State, Cal Poly….

I doubt any of those A teams would play us. Their schedules are likely being set. And...do we want to reward any of those with a game? Especially the ones that went to the B12? Its all pettiness and sour grapes at this point but, its there front and center.

On a personal note I'm tired of the ACC haggling over how they are going to slice up the shares. I think Clemson, FSU and UNC, NC State are making it very difficult. They want more shares and don't care if the argument blows the conference away. What do they care? They're losing money already. None of this really matters to them.



Clemson and FSU will find a home.

NC and NC State should be looking long and hard at how Arizona is faring.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

berserkeley said:

Big Dog said:

ferCALgm2 said:

golden sloth said:

LodeBear said:

hell no to UCLA or USC for that matter. let them make their trips to the B10.
I get the emotion, but Cal shouldn't make decisions based on anger and spite. The long term health of the program requires good players from LA. Good players from LA are easier to get with consistent games there.

The only instance of not having ucla on the schedule long-term is if Cal and SDSU agree to play a game at SOFI (or another LA based stadium) every year for a decade).

Also, its good to maintain a presence with alumni down there.


It's not mostly anger and spite. What do we have to gain? For the next few years we'll likely be a $20-30 million program vs a $75 million program. Screw them. Maybe in 5-10 years if/when we're in the same conference.
agree. And for those pro on playing the former schools that can no longer be named in decent company, don't forget that either woudl be our A game in an OOC schedule. And that means no Auburn, no Tennessee, no Northwestern or tOSU. If we want to raise the national profile we need to go beat some of these other teams.


For a team playing virtually all of their conference road games 3 times zones away, if we go to the ACC, our A game in OOC should be a West Coast team. In fact, all of our OOC games should be Western teams.


West Coast A teams: USC, UCLA, UW, Oregon, Utah, ASU, Arizona, Colorado.

West Coast B teams: WSU, OSU, San Diego State, Nevada, UNLV, San Jose State, Fresno State, Boise State, Hawaii

West Coast C teams: UC Davis, Sac State, Portland State, Cal Poly….

I doubt any of those A teams would play us. Their schedules are likely being set. And...do we want to reward any of those with a game? Especially the ones that went to the B12? Its all pettiness and sour grapes at this point but, its there front and center.

On a personal note I'm tired of the ACC haggling over how they are going to slice up the shares. I think Clemson, FSU and UNC, NC State are making it very difficult. They want more shares and don't care if the argument blows the conference away. What do they care? They're losing money already. None of this really matters to them.

Anybody holding a grudge against Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Washington or Oregon needs to grow up. The conference was imploding, hating on them for jumping into the nearest lifeboat is completely ridiculous.
TheBearWontDie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

berserkeley said:

Big Dog said:

ferCALgm2 said:

golden sloth said:

LodeBear said:

hell no to UCLA or USC for that matter. let them make their trips to the B10.
I get the emotion, but Cal shouldn't make decisions based on anger and spite. The long term health of the program requires good players from LA. Good players from LA are easier to get with consistent games there.

The only instance of not having ucla on the schedule long-term is if Cal and SDSU agree to play a game at SOFI (or another LA based stadium) every year for a decade).

Also, its good to maintain a presence with alumni down there.


It's not mostly anger and spite. What do we have to gain? For the next few years we'll likely be a $20-30 million program vs a $75 million program. Screw them. Maybe in 5-10 years if/when we're in the same conference.
agree. And for those pro on playing the former schools that can no longer be named in decent company, don't forget that either woudl be our A game in an OOC schedule. And that means no Auburn, no Tennessee, no Northwestern or tOSU. If we want to raise the national profile we need to go beat some of these other teams.


For a team playing virtually all of their conference road games 3 times zones away, if we go to the ACC, our A game in OOC should be a West Coast team. In fact, all of our OOC games should be Western teams.


West Coast A teams: USC, UCLA, UW, Oregon, Utah, ASU, Arizona, Colorado.

West Coast B teams: WSU, OSU, San Diego State, Nevada, UNLV, San Jose State, Fresno State, Boise State, Hawaii

West Coast C teams: UC Davis, Sac State, Portland State, Cal Poly….

I doubt any of those A teams would play us. Their schedules are likely being set. And...do we want to reward any of those with a game? Especially the ones that went to the B12? Its all pettiness and sour grapes at this point but, its there front and center.

On a personal note I'm tired of the ACC haggling over how they are going to slice up the shares. I think Clemson, FSU and UNC, NC State are making it very difficult. They want more shares and don't care if the argument blows the conference away. What do they care? They're losing money already. None of this really matters to them.

Anybody holding a grudge against Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Washington or Oregon needs to grow up. The conference was imploding, hating on them for jumping into the nearest lifeboat is completely ridiculous.
Who do you blame for defecting in the prisoner's dilemma? I suppose it's a matter of philosophy.
philly1121
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree. If it makes it easier for travel - play them. I just see a lot of "eff UCLA, SC and the other 6 that left". The money don't know where it came from. Why should we.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

I agree. If it makes it easier for travel - play them. I just see a lot of "eff UCLA, SC and the other 6 that left". The money don't know where it came from. Why should we.

The argument against is purely emotional. Rationally, it would make perfect sense to play these schools in nonconference games.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGreg said:

berserkeley said:

So I should stop obsessively checking for updates until Tuesday?
I think things are going to work out okay so feel free to sleep more soundly until Tuesday


Sounds like what the Commanding General of US Forces at Pearl Harbor said on Saturday night December 6, 1941 or what the Commander of the Hessian troops at Trenton said on Christmas Eve 1776
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

philly1121 said:

I agree. If it makes it easier for travel - play them. I just see a lot of "eff UCLA, SC and the other 6 that left". The money don't know where it came from. Why should we.

The argument against is purely emotional. Rationally, it would make perfect sense to play these schools in nonconference games.


Agree. Let's play USC and UCLA. If we beat them it gives us good recruiting fodder for recruits from SoCal. In any event the travel is reasonable.
Cabin14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

sycasey said:

philly1121 said:

I agree. If it makes it easier for travel - play them. I just see a lot of "eff UCLA, SC and the other 6 that left". The money don't know where it came from. Why should we.

The argument against is purely emotional. Rationally, it would make perfect sense to play these schools in nonconference games.


Agree. Let's play USC and UCLA. If we beat them it gives us good recruiting fodder for recruits from SoCal. In any event the travel is reasonable.
In the short term, we should be looking to schedule 'gimmes' in the Non Con. It will cost some money, but Cal needs to start stacking some bowl seasons together, and 3 wins are a good way to do so.

UCLA and USC are not those.

It's not an emotional F-you to the L.A. schools...but this program needs to get relevant again, and in a hurry, and while some people may not want to admit it, the LA schools are going to be L's for the foreseeable future. And those don't help.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

philly1121 said:

calumnus said:

berserkeley said:

Big Dog said:

ferCALgm2 said:

golden sloth said:

LodeBear said:

hell no to UCLA or USC for that matter. let them make their trips to the B10.
I get the emotion, but Cal shouldn't make decisions based on anger and spite. The long term health of the program requires good players from LA. Good players from LA are easier to get with consistent games there.

The only instance of not having ucla on the schedule long-term is if Cal and SDSU agree to play a game at SOFI (or another LA based stadium) every year for a decade).

Also, its good to maintain a presence with alumni down there.


It's not mostly anger and spite. What do we have to gain? For the next few years we'll likely be a $20-30 million program vs a $75 million program. Screw them. Maybe in 5-10 years if/when we're in the same conference.
agree. And for those pro on playing the former schools that can no longer be named in decent company, don't forget that either woudl be our A game in an OOC schedule. And that means no Auburn, no Tennessee, no Northwestern or tOSU. If we want to raise the national profile we need to go beat some of these other teams.


For a team playing virtually all of their conference road games 3 times zones away, if we go to the ACC, our A game in OOC should be a West Coast team. In fact, all of our OOC games should be Western teams.


West Coast A teams: USC, UCLA, UW, Oregon, Utah, ASU, Arizona, Colorado.

West Coast B teams: WSU, OSU, San Diego State, Nevada, UNLV, San Jose State, Fresno State, Boise State, Hawaii

West Coast C teams: UC Davis, Sac State, Portland State, Cal Poly….

I doubt any of those A teams would play us. Their schedules are likely being set. And...do we want to reward any of those with a game? Especially the ones that went to the B12? Its all pettiness and sour grapes at this point but, its there front and center.

On a personal note I'm tired of the ACC haggling over how they are going to slice up the shares. I think Clemson, FSU and UNC, NC State are making it very difficult. They want more shares and don't care if the argument blows the conference away. What do they care? They're losing money already. None of this really matters to them.

Anybody holding a grudge against Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Washington or Oregon needs to grow up. The conference was imploding, hating on them for jumping into the nearest lifeboat is completely ridiculous.


Right? WSU and OSU are going hate Cal and Stanford for taking pennies on the dollar to get into the ACC?
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

philly1121 said:

I agree. If it makes it easier for travel - play them. I just see a lot of "eff UCLA, SC and the other 6 that left". The money don't know where it came from. Why should we.

The argument against is purely emotional. Rationally, it would make perfect sense to play these schools in nonconference games.


Same as this year when we play them, show up sell out CMS and be loud. Have our anger at them benefit us. Refusing to play them only hurts ourselves.

That said, I am OK with USC and UCLA alternating as our "A" game. We play in LA every two years.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cabin14 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

sycasey said:

philly1121 said:

I agree. If it makes it easier for travel - play them. I just see a lot of "eff UCLA, SC and the other 6 that left". The money don't know where it came from. Why should we.

The argument against is purely emotional. Rationally, it would make perfect sense to play these schools in nonconference games.


Agree. Let's play USC and UCLA. If we beat them it gives us good recruiting fodder for recruits from SoCal. In any event the travel is reasonable.
In the short term, we should be looking to schedule 'gimmes' in the Non Con. It will cost some money, but Cal needs to start stacking some bowl seasons together, and 3 wins are a good way to do so.

UCLA and USC are not those.

It's not an emotional F-you to the L.A. schools...but this program needs to get relevant again, and in a hurry, and while some people may not want to admit it, the LA schools are going to be L's for the foreseeable future. And those don't help.


I understand that argument, but my counter is that Cal also needs better ratings and better attendance. Neither will happen against the Sac States, san Jose states and fresno states of the world. The unfortunate truth is Cal needs both wins and an inventory of high profile games to sell.

UCLA helps with the inventory.

Also, if I could choose, I'd rather play UCLA every year rather than SC. They are baby brother!
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

sycasey said:

philly1121 said:

I agree. If it makes it easier for travel - play them. I just see a lot of "eff UCLA, SC and the other 6 that left". The money don't know where it came from. Why should we.

The argument against is purely emotional. Rationally, it would make perfect sense to play these schools in nonconference games.


Same as this year when we play them, show up sell out CMS and be loud. Have our anger at them benefit us. Refusing to play them only hurts ourselves.

That said, I am OK with USC and UCLA alternating as our "A" game. We play in LA every two years.


As I've mentioned I'd prefer UCLA, but if that doesnt work, I think there would be a market with some of the other former P12 teams to play a neutral game in LA. For example, ASU, Utah or Oregon. Basically, any of the other teams that used to rely on LA for recruiting. Maybe schedule it for labor day weekend to make it easier for the fans to travel.
Shocky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

sycasey said:

philly1121 said:

I agree. If it makes it easier for travel - play them. I just see a lot of "eff UCLA, SC and the other 6 that left". The money don't know where it came from. Why should we.

The argument against is purely emotional. Rationally, it would make perfect sense to play these schools in nonconference game.


Agree. Let's play USC and UCLA. If we beat them it gives us good recruiting fodder for recruits from SoCal. In any event the travel is reasonable.
https://instagr.am/p/CtLMRC4r-SQ
givethemtheaxe, there's a near absolute ZERO chance that usc is gonna schedule us again in our lifetimes, got it?

the trojans (who wuz the catalyst of the demise of pac 12 football & thus west coast rivalries) got a future brutal big 10 schedule with heavy travel to the midwest plus their annual home/away series with notre dame

that means their 2 other future out of conference games will either be national matchups with a football factory like georiga or alabama but in most seasons likely 2 body bag games against teams like utep that want a guaranteed treasure chest plus free pizza to get their azzs kicked at the coliseum with no return game favors...playing cal got no upside for them either financially or bowl eligibility/national championship automatic wins

let me repeat the bears & the trojans are realistically NEVER gonna meet again in football after the 2023 season

that's why it's gonna be so special the epic gameday on october 28th when cal goes oppenheimer on usc in literally the most chippy & bloody ******* game in the history of memorial stadium

r u gonna be there in person for this final event of a lifetime???

1-800-gobears#

ps ucla athletic director martin jarmond is full of **** in tryna sound reasonable right now for california board of regent political reasons, the bruins are also never gonna schedule the bears again after 2023...capice, amigo?
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

Cabin14 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

sycasey said:

philly1121 said:

I agree. If it makes it easier for travel - play them. I just see a lot of "eff UCLA, SC and the other 6 that left". The money don't know where it came from. Why should we.

The argument against is purely emotional. Rationally, it would make perfect sense to play these schools in nonconference games.


Agree. Let's play USC and UCLA. If we beat them it gives us good recruiting fodder for recruits from SoCal. In any event the travel is reasonable.
In the short term, we should be looking to schedule 'gimmes' in the Non Con. It will cost some money, but Cal needs to start stacking some bowl seasons together, and 3 wins are a good way to do so.

UCLA and USC are not those.

It's not an emotional F-you to the L.A. schools...but this program needs to get relevant again, and in a hurry, and while some people may not want to admit it, the LA schools are going to be L's for the foreseeable future. And those don't help.


I understand that argument, but my counter is that Cal also needs better ratings and better attendance. Neither will happen against the Sac States, san Jose states and fresno states of the world. The unfortunate truth is Cal needs both wins and an inventory of high profile games to sell.

UCLA helps with the inventory.

Also, if I could choose, I'd rather play UCLA every year rather than SC. They are baby brother!


This is stupid. Locking up an ooc game with either LA school would essentially guarantee that we would never do an A- team home and away with any school that would actually draw. No more Ohio State, no more Auburn, no more Texas, Florida, etc.

golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaliganbear said:

golden sloth said:

Cabin14 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

sycasey said:

philly1121 said:

I agree. If it makes it easier for travel - play them. I just see a lot of "eff UCLA, SC and the other 6 that left". The money don't know where it came from. Why should we.

The argument against is purely emotional. Rationally, it would make perfect sense to play these schools in nonconference games.


Agree. Let's play USC and UCLA. If we beat them it gives us good recruiting fodder for recruits from SoCal. In any event the travel is reasonable.
In the short term, we should be looking to schedule 'gimmes' in the Non Con. It will cost some money, but Cal needs to start stacking some bowl seasons together, and 3 wins are a good way to do so.

UCLA and USC are not those.

It's not an emotional F-you to the L.A. schools...but this program needs to get relevant again, and in a hurry, and while some people may not want to admit it, the LA schools are going to be L's for the foreseeable future. And those don't help.


I understand that argument, but my counter is that Cal also needs better ratings and better attendance. Neither will happen against the Sac States, san Jose states and fresno states of the world. The unfortunate truth is Cal needs both wins and an inventory of high profile games to sell.

UCLA helps with the inventory.

Also, if I could choose, I'd rather play UCLA every year rather than SC. They are baby brother!


This is stupid. Locking up an ooc game with either LA school would essentially guarantee that we would never do an A- team home and away with any school that would actually draw. No more Ohio State, no more Auburn, no more Texas, Florida, etc.




Well, if we join the ACC, we play 8 conference games compared to the 9 we play now. So, we can schedule UCLA and another 'A' team and have the same number of Power Conference opponents, which is 10.

Further, in my opinion the ACC schedule is typically slightly easier than the Pac-12 schedule (they are top heavy, with less good teams in the middle).
Shocky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth, philly & sycasey, plz explain how future games with usc & ucla are gonna happen if they refuse to schedule them, ok?

there's zero upside for them, the 2023 season is the end of the road amigos
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

socaliganbear said:

golden sloth said:

Cabin14 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

sycasey said:

philly1121 said:

I agree. If it makes it easier for travel - play them. I just see a lot of "eff UCLA, SC and the other 6 that left". The money don't know where it came from. Why should we.

The argument against is purely emotional. Rationally, it would make perfect sense to play these schools in nonconference games.


Agree. Let's play USC and UCLA. If we beat them it gives us good recruiting fodder for recruits from SoCal. In any event the travel is reasonable.
In the short term, we should be looking to schedule 'gimmes' in the Non Con. It will cost some money, but Cal needs to start stacking some bowl seasons together, and 3 wins are a good way to do so.

UCLA and USC are not those.

It's not an emotional F-you to the L.A. schools...but this program needs to get relevant again, and in a hurry, and while some people may not want to admit it, the LA schools are going to be L's for the foreseeable future. And those don't help.


I understand that argument, but my counter is that Cal also needs better ratings and better attendance. Neither will happen against the Sac States, san Jose states and fresno states of the world. The unfortunate truth is Cal needs both wins and an inventory of high profile games to sell.

UCLA helps with the inventory.

Also, if I could choose, I'd rather play UCLA every year rather than SC. They are baby brother!


This is stupid. Locking up an ooc game with either LA school would essentially guarantee that we would never do an A- team home and away with any school that would actually draw. No more Ohio State, no more Auburn, no more Texas, Florida, etc.




Well, if we join the ACC, we play 8 conference games compared to the 9 we play now. So, we can schedule UCLA and another 'A' team and have the same number of Power Conference opponents, which is 10.

Further, in my opinion the ACC schedule is typically slightly easier than the Pac-12 schedule (they are top heavy, with less good teams in the middle).

This doesn't do anything for us. Playing them every year would do absolutely nothing for recruiting. Just as it does nothing now. It's not 15 years ago. Cal should focus on the equation that gets it the most wins and brings a fun show for fans. The UCLA game hasn't been that in a long time.
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shocky1 said:

socaligan & golden sloth, plz explain how future games with usc & ucla are gonna happen if the refuse to schedule them, ok?

there's zero upside for them, the 2023 season is the end of the road amigos


Why the f would I do that?
Shocky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
my bad including u with those in fantasy scheduling land
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

socaliganbear said:

golden sloth said:

Cabin14 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

sycasey said:

philly1121 said:

I agree. If it makes it easier for travel - play them. I just see a lot of "eff UCLA, SC and the other 6 that left". The money don't know where it came from. Why should we.

The argument against is purely emotional. Rationally, it would make perfect sense to play these schools in nonconference games.


Agree. Let's play USC and UCLA. If we beat them it gives us good recruiting fodder for recruits from SoCal. In any event the travel is reasonable.
In the short term, we should be looking to schedule 'gimmes' in the Non Con. It will cost some money, but Cal needs to start stacking some bowl seasons together, and 3 wins are a good way to do so.

UCLA and USC are not those.

It's not an emotional F-you to the L.A. schools...but this program needs to get relevant again, and in a hurry, and while some people may not want to admit it, the LA schools are going to be L's for the foreseeable future. And those don't help.


I understand that argument, but my counter is that Cal also needs better ratings and better attendance. Neither will happen against the Sac States, san Jose states and fresno states of the world. The unfortunate truth is Cal needs both wins and an inventory of high profile games to sell.

UCLA helps with the inventory.

Also, if I could choose, I'd rather play UCLA every year rather than SC. They are baby brother!


This is stupid. Locking up an ooc game with either LA school would essentially guarantee that we would never do an A- team home and away with any school that would actually draw. No more Ohio State, no more Auburn, no more Texas, Florida, etc.




Well, if we join the ACC, we play 8 conference games compared to the 9 we play now. So, we can schedule UCLA and another 'A' team and have the same number of Power Conference opponents, which is 10.

Further, in my opinion the ACC schedule is typically slightly easier than the Pac-12 schedule (they are top heavy, with less good teams in the middle).

Yeah, in ACC football I think you are getting one or two more B/C games in the conference schedule anyway. If you can, make it up with extra games against old conference rivals.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shocky1 said:

golden sloth, philly & sycasey, plz explain how future games with usc & ucla are gonna happen if they refuse to schedule them, ok?

there's zero upside for them, the 2023 season is the end of the road amigos

I don't believe I ever predicted it would happen, just saying that IF they wanted to play we should not refuse the games.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shocky1 said:

golden sloth, philly & sycasey, plz explain how future games with usc & ucla are gonna happen if they refuse to schedule them, ok?

there's zero upside for them, the 2023 season is the end of the road amigos


Shocky, UCLA's AD has publicly stated that UCLA wants to continuing playing Cal annually. I don't see why he would lie. I have dozens of friends from UCLA that make the annual trip to the Bay Area.

Back when we added Utah and Colorado, it was USC and UCLA that insisted the series with Cal and Stanford continue.

Their fans want the series to continue. If the series is discontinued it will be because we chose to, mostly out of spite, not because USC and UCLA chose to.
Shocky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
understood but unfortunately usc & ucla are never gonna schedule us again in football in our lifetimes, west coast rivalries are gone for good

october 28th=the oppenheimer game at memorial stadium
Shocky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calalum, jarmond got no intention of ever scheduling cal again in football, he's saying the right things now because of the specter of calimony

wut cal (or ucla fans want unless their last name is wasserman) is 100% irrelevant in today's college football biz

there is zero upside for ucla financially, allowing cal to compete recruiting wise in so cal or automatic wins to ensure bruins bowl eligibility by scheduling cal

it's an end of an era...period

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.