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

202,362 Views | 1043 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by annarborbear
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Shocky1 • 11:19p, 8/27/23
Shocky1 said:
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



UCLA recruits NorCal too, and with all the traveling they will ge doing, also needs quality West Coast opponents. Here are UCLA's longest series:

1T Cal 93 games
1T Stanford 93 games
3. USC 92 games
4. UW 76 games
5. Oregon 72 games
6. OSU 64 games
7. WSU 62 games
8. Arizona 45 games
9. ASU 39 games
10. Utah 20 games

And here is USC:
1. Cal 102 games
2. Stanford 98 games
3. Notre Dame 93 games
4. UCLA 92 games
5. UW 85 games
6. OSU 77 games
7. WSU 76 games
8. Oregon 61 games
9T Arizona 39 games
9T ASU 39 games

And finally here is Cal:
1T USC 102 games
1T Stanford 102 games
3. UW 98 games
4. UCLA 93 games
5. WSU 83 games
6. Oregon 81 games
7. OSU 74 games
8. Arizona 36 games
9. ASU 35 games
10. San Jose State 33 games

The idea that UCLA and USC don't want to play us is preposterous. Why wouldn't they? It is a long-standing series that their fans enjoy and travel to, in an area with their most alumni outside of SoCal, a prime recruiting area and they almost always win. What's not to like? They need the local OOC games just like we do. You honestly think they are afraid Justin Wilcox is going to out recruit them in SoCal? Especially given the impending income gap?

Now if we decide to end the series for good reasons, fine, but we should not do it just do it out of spite and in any case we should be honest enough to say we are the ones ending the series instead of saying Jarmond is lying about wanting to continue the series.
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
BearHunter
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Shocky1 • 11:24p, 8/27/23
Shocky1 said:
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


Bye bye USC.
Reply Quote
2
golden sloth
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Shocky1 • 11:26p, 8/27/23
Shocky1 said:
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

You are talking in a lot of absolutes which is typically dangerous. A couple of points:

1. The LA schools have to schedule someone with their home dates.
2. The LA schools probably probably don't want to add another cross-country trip to their teams current travel load, so a West coast opponent makes sense.
3. Let's be honest, the LA schools don't fear Cal or Stanford in recruiting or on the field. Stanford no longer has Harbaugh and recruits nationally anyway. UCLA was literally able to buy two of our best underclassmen, and USC targets the 5 star players not who Cal targets. This lack of fear will only be exacerbated by the pending income gap.
4. Cal still has a large alumni base in SoCal and therefore travels better to LA than most other schools they could schedule.
5. Both the alumni and the networks would welcome these games, as they are fan favorites and historically draw good ratings. They are the two most important elements.

And again, I am more promoting the idea of playing UCLA every year, not USC.
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
Strykur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:27p, 8/27/23
For the LA schools the breakdown is simple, SC already has 1 non-conference matchup locked in with Notre Dame and they don't need a NorCal trip for recruiting, fluke la has no interest in playing the Trees and is 2nd in SoCal recruiting versus SC, so they might want to play us to get into NorCal, presuming we don't get into the Big Ten in the short term, but would we want to reciprocate is the question (I have said this repeatedly, not playing SC is going to be a big loss for us since that is the one big name that was on our schedule every year).
Reply Quote
1
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to golden sloth • 11:54p, 8/27/23
golden sloth said:
Shocky1 said:
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

You are talking in a lot of absolutes which is typically dangerous. A couple of points:

1. The LA schools have to schedule someone with their home dates.
2. The LA schools probably probably don't want to add another cross-country trip to their teams current travel load, so a West coast opponent makes sense.
3. Let's be honest, the LA schools don't fear Cal or Stanford in recruiting or on the field. Stanford no longer has Harbaugh and recruits nationally anyway. UCLA was literally able to buy two of our best underclassmen, and USC targets the 5 star players not who Cal targets. This lack of fear will only be exacerbated by the pending income gap.
4. Cal still has a large alumni base in SoCal and therefore travels better to LA than most other schools they could schedule.
5. Both the alumni and the networks would welcome these games, as they are fan favorites and historically draw good ratings. They are the two most important elements.

And again, I am more promoting the idea of playing UCLA every year, not USC.

FUcla. I don't give two poops about what UCLA or USC want or need.

What is best for Cal? That is all that mattters.

In football, it is 100% obviously best for Cal to not play out of conference games with UCLA or USC annually (if ever). Cal has forever followed the A/B/C model for scheduling out of conference games. UCLA and USC are both "A" level - Cal is much better finding other types of games such as the recent matchups with SEC teams. And depending on how ACC scheduling works out, maybe you just drop the A team.

If Cal wants to play in So Cal, schedule SDSU (which is an alternate A-/B+ type of game).

And in terms of what USC/UCLA alumni value, I think that they've made things pretty clear on that front. Both schools (and their alumni) led the charge to blow up the Pac. And the economics of those types of games (TV ratings and ticket sales) are far worse than you're suggesting - if they were strong we'd still have the Pac12 or Cal would be in the B1G. The networks didn't find those matchups at all compelling. And have you been to the empty Rose Bowl where UCLA plays Cal and pretty much every other team? USC will sell out if they're good regardless of who they play. Ticket sales are irrelevant.

Again - F those schools. We don't want or need them. And F Oregon and UW too. Nothing to be gained in playing them in football either. And for the record, I don't put Utah, Colorado, ASU or AZ in the same category.

And to be clear, I do feel a bit differently about basketball because there are many more out of conference games. But Cal is going to have a TON of big time matchups in the ACC - no need to schedule USC/UCLA unless you really want to.

Reply Quote
14
1 edit
CaliforniaEternal
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:27a, 8/28/23
Cal might be able to schedule LA for a home and home once a decade. There isn't enough room on the schedule for either school to do much more than that. There's always a chance that Cal could play SC or LA in the Mayo Bowl or Pinstripe Bowl. How fun would that be?
Reply Quote
2
dimitrig
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Strykur • 12:50a, 8/28/23
Strykur said:
For the LA schools the breakdown is simple, SC already has 1 non-conference matchup locked in with Notre Dame and they don't need a NorCal trip for recruiting, fluke la has no interest in playing the Trees and is 2nd in SoCal recruiting versus SC, so they might want to play us to get into NorCal, presuming we don't get into the Big Ten in the short term, but would we want to reciprocate is the question (I have said this repeatedly, not playing SC is going to be a big loss for us since that is the one big name that was on our schedule every year).

Well, if we make it into the ACC then we will have FSU, Miami, and Clemson on our schedule.

Reply Quote
2
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 1:04a, 8/28/23
BearGoggles said:
golden sloth said:
Shocky1 said:
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

You are talking in a lot of absolutes which is typically dangerous. A couple of points:

1. The LA schools have to schedule someone with their home dates.
2. The LA schools probably probably don't want to add another cross-country trip to their teams current travel load, so a West coast opponent makes sense.
3. Let's be honest, the LA schools don't fear Cal or Stanford in recruiting or on the field. Stanford no longer has Harbaugh and recruits nationally anyway. UCLA was literally able to buy two of our best underclassmen, and USC targets the 5 star players not who Cal targets. This lack of fear will only be exacerbated by the pending income gap.
4. Cal still has a large alumni base in SoCal and therefore travels better to LA than most other schools they could schedule.
5. Both the alumni and the networks would welcome these games, as they are fan favorites and historically draw good ratings. They are the two most important elements.

And again, I am more promoting the idea of playing UCLA every year, not USC.

FUcla. I don't give two poops about what UCLA or USC want or need.

What is best for Cal? That is all that mattters.

In football, it is 100% obviously best for Cal to not play out of conference games with UCLA or USC annually (if ever). Cal has forever followed the A/B/C model for scheduling out of conference games. UCLA and USC are both "A" level - Cal is much better finding other types of games such as the recent matchups with SEC teams. And depending on how ACC scheduling works out, maybe you just drop the A team.

If Cal wants to play in So Cal, schedule SDSU (which is an alternate A-/B+ type of game).

And in terms of what USC/UCLA alumni value, I think that they've made things pretty clear on that front. Both schools (and their alumni) led the charge to blow up the Pac. And the economics of those types of games (TV ratings and ticket sales) are far worse than you're suggesting - if they were strong we'd still have the Pac12 or Cal would be in the B1G. The networks didn't find those matchups at all compelling. And have you been to the empty Rose Bowl where UCLA plays Cal and pretty much every other team? USC will sell out if they're good regardless of who they play. Ticket sales are irrelevant.

Again - F those schools. We don't want or need them. And F Oregon and UW too. Nothing to be gained in playing them in football either. And for the record, I don't put Utah, Colorado, ASU or AZ in the same category.

And to be clear, I do feel a bit differently about basketball because there are many more out of conference games. But Cal is going to have a TON of big time matchups in the ACC - no need to schedule USC/UCLA unless you really want to.



ACC is 8 games so we will have 4 OOC games. I think A-B-B-B/C makes sense. It depends on our ACC schedule. Other than UC Davis, I'd rather stop playing FCS teams, at least stop playing them every year.

If we can get a series with Notre Dame as part of the ACC and play them every year, then they are the A. Otherwise I strongly believe playing an LA school is in our interest if the payout is good. The SEC and ACC OOC games were good when we were in the PAC-12. Once we are in the ACC, we really don't want to add more cross country travel than we will already have if a West Coast A team that will draw big crowds is available.

USC comes to Memorial Stadium on October 28. Are the "Hell No" people going to boycott that game?

This is what I personally want for OOC going forward:
A Notre Dame/USC/UCLA
B San Diego State
B OSU/WSU/UW/Oregon
B Hawaii

With SMU and Stanford that gives us 6 "western" opponents every year with regular trips to Texas, SoCal and Hawaii for recruiting. Our other 6 games are with East Coast opponents. By maintaining ties with the original PAC-8 we retain some tradition and leave a possibility for a future B1G West Coast pod with us in it if the ACC collapses.

Reply Quote
2
4 edits
Big Dog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calumnus • 7:24a, 8/28/23
calumnus said:
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.
put on your Cal critical thinking hat..... the Bruins AD is playing politics/pandering to the Regents, trying to diminish CaliMoney. No way UCLA's FB coach wants their OOC A game to be low-eyeball Cal. It does nothing for their rankings/visibility.

Even if the ACC stays with 8 conference games, why would any FB coach want to schedule two A games OOC. It's all about Wins; no bonus points for a close loss to Alabama or tOSU (or UCLA).
Thanks to Shocky for demonstrating his critical thinking skills.
Reply Quote
3
4 edits
berserkeley
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calumnus • 7:37a, 8/28/23
I would not categorize Oregon/Washington as B. They're both A games.
Reply Quote
5
RedlessWardrobe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:43a, 8/28/23

ACC is 8 games so we will have 4 OOC games. I think A-B-B-B/C makes sense. It depends on our ACC schedule

Kind of hard to assume that if the ACC adds 3 teams their conference schedule will stay at 8. Could very likely be 9.
Reply Quote
1
ducky23
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calumnus • 7:48a, 8/28/23
calumnus said:
BearGoggles said:
golden sloth said:
Shocky1 said:
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

You are talking in a lot of absolutes which is typically dangerous. A couple of points:

1. The LA schools have to schedule someone with their home dates.
2. The LA schools probably probably don't want to add another cross-country trip to their teams current travel load, so a West coast opponent makes sense.
3. Let's be honest, the LA schools don't fear Cal or Stanford in recruiting or on the field. Stanford no longer has Harbaugh and recruits nationally anyway. UCLA was literally able to buy two of our best underclassmen, and USC targets the 5 star players not who Cal targets. This lack of fear will only be exacerbated by the pending income gap.
4. Cal still has a large alumni base in SoCal and therefore travels better to LA than most other schools they could schedule.
5. Both the alumni and the networks would welcome these games, as they are fan favorites and historically draw good ratings. They are the two most important elements.

And again, I am more promoting the idea of playing UCLA every year, not USC.

FUcla. I don't give two poops about what UCLA or USC want or need.

What is best for Cal? That is all that mattters.

In football, it is 100% obviously best for Cal to not play out of conference games with UCLA or USC annually (if ever). Cal has forever followed the A/B/C model for scheduling out of conference games. UCLA and USC are both "A" level - Cal is much better finding other types of games such as the recent matchups with SEC teams. And depending on how ACC scheduling works out, maybe you just drop the A team.

If Cal wants to play in So Cal, schedule SDSU (which is an alternate A-/B+ type of game).

And in terms of what USC/UCLA alumni value, I think that they've made things pretty clear on that front. Both schools (and their alumni) led the charge to blow up the Pac. And the economics of those types of games (TV ratings and ticket sales) are far worse than you're suggesting - if they were strong we'd still have the Pac12 or Cal would be in the B1G. The networks didn't find those matchups at all compelling. And have you been to the empty Rose Bowl where UCLA plays Cal and pretty much every other team? USC will sell out if they're good regardless of who they play. Ticket sales are irrelevant.

Again - F those schools. We don't want or need them. And F Oregon and UW too. Nothing to be gained in playing them in football either. And for the record, I don't put Utah, Colorado, ASU or AZ in the same category.

And to be clear, I do feel a bit differently about basketball because there are many more out of conference games. But Cal is going to have a TON of big time matchups in the ACC - no need to schedule USC/UCLA unless you really want to.




This is what I personally want for OOC going forward:
A Notre Dame/USC/UCLA
B San Diego State
B OSU/WSU/UW/Oregon
B Hawaii



I think in some years that may turn out to be an A+/A/A/B schedule. No thank you. We need to be guaranteeing at least 3 OOC wins per year
Reply Quote
5
berserkeley
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RedlessWardrobe • 7:52a, 8/28/23
RedlessWardrobe said:

ACC is 8 games so we will have 4 OOC games. I think A-B-B-B/C makes sense. It depends on our ACC schedule

Kind of hard to assume that if the ACC adds 3 teams their conference schedule will stay at 8. Could very likely be 9.


If the ACC adds 3 teams, they cannot go to a 9 game conference schedule. We'd have an odd number of teams, which would require an even number of conference games.
Reply Quote
1
ninetyfourbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:54a, 8/28/23
We schedule FCS opponents every few years with only three OOC games. Is that because it is difficult for us to schedule teams? Will it get worse with four OOC games and we have to schedule one every year?
Reply Quote
1
Big Dog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to berserkeley • 8:02a, 8/28/23
berserkeley said:
RedlessWardrobe said:

ACC is 8 games so we will have 4 OOC games. I think A-B-B-B/C makes sense. It depends on our ACC schedule

Kind of hard to assume that if the ACC adds 3 teams their conference schedule will stay at 8. Could very likely be 9.


If the ACC adds 3 teams, they cannot go to a 9 game conference schedule. We'd have an odd number of teams, which would require an even number of conference games.
actually, the ACC goes to 18 teams for 5 games per year with ND (if that makes a difference?).
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
6956bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RedlessWardrobe • 8:09a, 8/28/23
RedlessWardrobe said:

ACC is 8 games so we will have 4 OOC games. I think A-B-B-B/C makes sense. It depends on our ACC schedule

Kind of hard to assume that if the ACC adds 3 teams their conference schedule will stay at 8. Could very likely be 9.
If they add Calford and SMU it would make sense to go to 9 games. With the CFP expanding 2 loss teams can still make the CFP.

If Cal gets in and the schedule stays at 4 OOC games. I suggest 1 A matchup and 3 C matchups. Cal needs to win games. I understand the attendance factor but winning will attract fans. Every year the minimum should be 7 home games with 8 some years.
Reply Quote
2
golden sloth
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big Dog • 8:12a, 8/28/23
Big Dog said:
calumnus said:
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.
put on your Cal critical thinking hat..... the Bruins AD is playing politics/pandering to the Regents, trying to diminish CaliMoney. No way UCLA's FB coach wants their OOC A game to be low-eyeball Cal. It does nothing for their rankings/visibility.

Even if the ACC stays with 8 conference games, why would any FB coach want to schedule two A games OOC. It's all about Wins; no bonus points for a close loss to Alabama or tOSU (or UCLA).
Thanks to Shocky for demonstrating his critical thinking skills.


I dont know why you think Cal - UCLA is a 'low-eyeball' game. It's usually one of the better TV properties the Pac-12 had. In fact, it ranked in the top ten for viewers last year for its week. With over 3.27 million viewers. This game did better than Penn st - Michigan st, Baylor- Texas, Nebraska - Iowa, etc.

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/#:~:text=The%20Georgia%2DOhio%20State%20Peach,at%20more%20than%2021%20million.

Side note: the ratings for 2021 were terrible for college football across the board. It must have been the residual impact of covid.
Reply Quote
2
golden sloth
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big Dog • 8:15a, 8/28/23
Big Dog said:
berserkeley said:
RedlessWardrobe said:

ACC is 8 games so we will have 4 OOC games. I think A-B-B-B/C makes sense. It depends on our ACC schedule

Kind of hard to assume that if the ACC adds 3 teams their conference schedule will stay at 8. Could very likely be 9.


If the ACC adds 3 teams, they cannot go to a 9 game conference schedule. We'd have an odd number of teams, which would require an even number of conference games.
actually, the ACC goes to 18 teams for 5 games per year with ND (if that makes a difference?).


A lot of the the ACC teams have a traditional non-conference rival they want to play every year, hence the 8 game schedule. Think:

Louisville- Kentucky
Georgia tech - Georgia
Clemson - south carolina
Florida state - florida
Reply Quote
2
golden sloth
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to berserkeley • 8:17a, 8/28/23
berserkeley said:
I would not categorize Oregon/Washington as B. They're both A games.


Yea, I would define an 'A' as any Power Conference team (even if its Vanderbilt).

'B' is a mid-major.
'C' is a FCS team.
Reply Quote
1
berserkeley
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big Dog • 8:18a, 8/28/23
ND is an OOC game so the ACC will have 17 teams in football
Reply Quote
1
berserkeley
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 6956bear • 8:22a, 8/28/23
6956bear said:
RedlessWardrobe said:

ACC is 8 games so we will have 4 OOC games. I think A-B-B-B/C makes sense. It depends on our ACC schedule

Kind of hard to assume that if the ACC adds 3 teams their conference schedule will stay at 8. Could very likely be 9.
If they add Calford and SMU it would make sense to go to 9 games. With the CFP expanding 2 loss teams can still make the CFP.

If Cal gets in and the schedule stays at 4 OOC games. I suggest 1 A matchup and 3 C matchups. Cal needs to win games. I understand the attendance factor but winning will attract fans. Every year the minimum should be 7 home games with 8 some years.


The ACC cannot go to a 9 game schedule with 17 football teams. ND is not a football member of the ACC and their games against ACC teams do not count in the conference standings.
Reply Quote
2
philly1121
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Shocky1 • 8:25a, 8/28/23
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 agree. I think for a USC and UCLA, they will want to schedule a local or western patsy who is gonna stack their record.

Reply Quote
1
JimSox
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:26a, 8/28/23
This is all very interesting but I'm not going to worry about it until and unless we actually get in to the ACC. Ain't happened yet.
Reply Quote
2
Pervis_Griffith
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to golden sloth • 10:11a, 8/28/23
golden sloth said:
Big Dog said:
berserkeley said:
RedlessWardrobe said:

ACC is 8 games so we will have 4 OOC games. I think A-B-B-B/C makes sense. It depends on our ACC schedule

Kind of hard to assume that if the ACC adds 3 teams their conference schedule will stay at 8. Could very likely be 9.


If the ACC adds 3 teams, they cannot go to a 9 game conference schedule. We'd have an odd number of teams, which would require an even number of conference games.
actually, the ACC goes to 18 teams for 5 games per year with ND (if that makes a difference?).


A lot of the the ACC teams have a traditional non-conference rival they want to play every year, hence the 8 game schedule. Think:

Louisville- Kentucky
Georgia tech - Georgia
Clemson - south carolina
Florida state - florida

And to further complicate things, Clemson likes to play Georgia and Auburn regularly (not every year though).

So 8 conference games, plus So Carolina, plus Auburn or Georgia ... that's 10.

They are a boisterous yes vote to keeping things at 8 conference games so they have flexibility to play those SEC foes.
Reply Quote
1
jdgaucho
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Shocky1 • 10:16a, 8/28/23
Shocky1 said:
^^ 100% re: the elimination of sports

^ jd, ur stating inaccurate information is gonna raise ur malpractice coverage rates, cal non rev teams are heading to the west coast conference


https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38277062/sources-continued-momentum-acc-add-schools

"All three schools would be expected to enter for the 2024-25 season in all sports."

You'll be all in with the ACC, Shocks. Including non rev teams
Reply Quote
1
nikeykid
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:27a, 8/28/23
too much smoke now not to happen.

but i still have this feeling of dread because nothing good ever happens to our program.
Reply Quote
9
youngbear1992
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to berserkeley • 10:30a, 8/28/23
berserkeley said:
6956bear said:
RedlessWardrobe said:

ACC is 8 games so we will have 4 OOC games. I think A-B-B-B/C makes sense. It depends on our ACC schedule

Kind of hard to assume that if the ACC adds 3 teams their conference schedule will stay at 8. Could very likely be 9.
If they add Calford and SMU it would make sense to go to 9 games. With the CFP expanding 2 loss teams can still make the CFP.

If Cal gets in and the schedule stays at 4 OOC games. I suggest 1 A matchup and 3 C matchups. Cal needs to win games. I understand the attendance factor but winning will attract fans. Every year the minimum should be 7 home games with 8 some years.


The ACC cannot go to a 9 game schedule with 17 football teams. ND is not a football member of the ACC and their games against ACC teams do not count in the conference standings.

Seems like the ACC could easily go with 9 conf games with 2 permanent rivals and a 7-7 rotation, playing all ACC teams every 2 years. That's similar to the current 3-5-5 schedule they have now with 14 teams and 8 conf games. However, Notre Dame is an OOC game for 5 ACC teams every year, and there are the OOC rivals as mentioned above (add Stanford-Notre Dame too). I don't believe the ACC will want to go to 9 conf games anytime soon unless ESPN backs up a dump truck of money (which they won't).

One interesting wrinkle is the ACC's financial benefit of adding a biannual Notre Dame-Stanford OOC game. With Stanford in the ACC, ESPN gains the broadcast rights to that game every other year. I haven't seen it mentioned but I wonder if that's being factored into the $$'s.
Reply Quote
Cabin14
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nikeykid • 10:36a, 8/28/23
nikeykid said:
too much smoke now not to happen.

but i still have this feeling of dread because nothing good ever happens to our program.
Fair
Reply Quote
1
JB was a Chieftain
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:39a, 8/28/23
At first I was all in on playing UCLA but screw them!


"A" tier (Home/Away): SDSU, OSU, WSU, Boise St., BYU, Utah, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, ASU (maybe occasional SEC/Big10 school like Texas, MSU, etc.)
"B" tier (Home/Home/Away): SJSU, Hawaii, Fresno St., UNLV, UNR,
"C" tier (Home/Home): Davis, Sac St., N. Arizona, E. Washington, Cal Poly, Portland St., Idaho St., Montana
Reply Quote
4
berserkeley
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to youngbear1992 • 11:27a, 8/28/23
It is mathematically impossible to have a odd number of teams play an odd number of conference matches.

"# of Teams" "Number of Games" 2 = "Total # of Games." If you have 6 teams playing 5 games each, then you have 15 games. 17 teams playing 9 games each would be 76.5 games. You can't have a game featuring only one team.
Reply Quote
2
Strykur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to berserkeley • 11:31a, 8/28/23
berserkeley said:
It is mathematically impossible to have a odd number of teams play an odd number of conference matches.

"# of Teams" "Number of Games" 2 = "Total # of Games." If you have 6 teams playing 5 games each, then you have 15 games. 17 teams playing 9 games each would be 76.5 games. You can't have a game featuring only one team.
Also worth pointing out that several ACC teams have long-running OOC rivalries (Clemson and South Carolina, Florida State and Florida, Louisville and Kentucky, Georgia Tech and Georgia) so less inclination to push to more conference games, until the next realignment shuffle.
Reply Quote
1 edit
philly1121
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:37a, 8/28/23
I was reading this article:

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-acc-presidents-to-meet-on-conference-expansion-on-monday-night-173527541.html

Perhaps I missed this earlier. If this is correct, we are only going to receive $8 million in the first year with the possibility of an escalation in forthcoming years? And we have to sign the GoR which locks us in until 2036?

Reply Quote
stech81
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:46a, 8/28/23
First Tech guy here (and when you get in the ACC which I hope you do Tech is Georgia Tech not that other school in Virgina they are VPI)

I really hope Stanford, SMU, and Y'all ( Cal ) get voted into the ACC. I'm not sure what the heck UNC and NC State are thinking so far. They don't vote the same way on anything.

Clemson I could see them coming around they really are good people. Great fans to tailgate with always nice.

As far as FSU I wish they would pay the money and go. They still are living in the Bobby Bowden days. Last year was the first year they had a winning record since 2017 and they were only 7-6 that year. (and they think they should get more money than the rest of the conference hell they should give part of their money back)
All the rest of the schools are fine good fans.

I know Y'all are sick of this thing taking so long.

And I get sick of the TV and sportswriters saying we are looking at the leftovers. I think all 3 are great schools who care about academics first.

I don't like to get someone's hopes up but the word we are hearing they will get all the presidents on the phone tonight ( and we will see if the vote tonight)

No matter what happens I wish Y'all and the other 2 schools the best of luck.

We finally got the last coach fired (he was a trip or clown) and have someone Brent Key ( past player as a new head coach so I'm feeling he will turn thing around for us, being a past player he knows what it takes the go to schoo; at Tech and play football, guess we will see Friday night.
Reply Quote
23
Fire Starkey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to philly1121 • 11:50a, 8/28/23
philly1121 said:
I was reading this article:

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-acc-presidents-to-meet-on-conference-expansion-on-monday-night-173527541.html

Perhaps I missed this earlier. If this is correct, we are only going to receive $8 million in the first year with the possibility of an escalation in forthcoming years? And we have to sign the GoR which locks us in until 2036?

yep, you've got it
Reply Quote
socaliganbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to stech81 • 11:50a, 8/28/23
stech81 said:
First Tech guy here (and when you get in the ACC which I hope you do Tech is Georgia Tech not that other school in Virgina they are VPI)

I really hope Stanford, SMU, and Y'all ( Cal ) get voted into the ACC. I'm not sure what the heck UNC and NC State are thinking so far. They don't vote the same way on anything.

Clemson I could see them coming around they really are good people. Great fans to tailgate with always nice.

As far as FSU I wish they would pay the money and go. They still are living in the Bobby Bowden days. Last year was the first year they had a winning record since 2017 and they were only 7-6 that year. (and they think they should get more money than the rest of the conference hell they should give part of their money back)
All the rest of the schools are fine good fans.

I know Y'all are sick of this thing taking so long.

And I get sick of the TV and sportswriters saying we are looking at the leftovers. I think all 3 are great schools who care about academics first.

I don't like to get someone's hopes up but the word we are hearing they will get all the presidents on the phone tonight ( and we will see if the vote tonight)

No matter what happens I wish Y'all and the other 2 schools the best of luck.

We finally got the last coach fired (he was a trip or clown) and have someone Brent Key ( past player as a new head coach so I'm feeling he will turn thing around for us, being a past player he knows what it takes the go to schoo; at Tech and play football, guess we will see Friday night.
Welcome, as an east coaster, I'm looking forward to this. NYC to ATL is easy peasy.
Reply Quote
2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.