golden sloth said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Dothechop2 said:

---

It looks increasingly likely that Cal, Stanford and SMU and the ACC will close a deal to bring those three schools to the conference, in all sports in which the ACC competes https://t.co/GaWeVD2umU

— Michael Silver (@MikeSilver) August 27, 2023

---

"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).

---

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.

---

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.

---

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….

---

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….

---

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….

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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).

---

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

---

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

---