RobertHedrock said:

---

Clemson will not receive an offer from the Big Ten as the universities' academics and cultures are so at variance with that of the conference (indeed, Clemson is a prototype SEC school). I must concede that I was confident that Oregon would never be invited to the Big Ten to give some context to my credibility on these matters.

Florida State and Clemson may have had some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" conversations with individuals that have informal ties to the Big Ten and the SEC, but I highly doubt that there has been any official contact or secure invitations; such activities would open the conferences to tortious interference lawsuits. There will not be any official discussions between the conferences and the schools until all legal issues are resolved.

If Florida State does not receive a Big Ten invitation it will not be because of AAU status; Florida State's academics have been rapidly improving, and by any reasonable measure their academics are (and certainly will be in the future) superior to those of Oregon. My impression is that AAU status is much preferred by the Big Ten presidents, but is not an absolute. Every Big Ten president knew that Nebraska's AAU status was hanging by a thread for the previous decade (Wisconsin and Michigan provided the crucial votes to expel the Cornhuskers!), yet they were invited anyway, and an AAU-less Notre Dame clearly had a standing invitation for the last quarter century (at least).

I believe that all of the "Florida State/Clemson to the Big Ten" discussion is nonsensical; the locations of each university are deep in the heart of Dixie (the panhandle of Florida is not "Florida"), and in any case I cannot imagine that ESPN, who holds the whip hand in this situation, will allow two valuable schools they have under contract to move to the Big Ten. The most likely outcome in my view is that there will be a negotiated settlement where the two schools move to the SEC and the remaining ACC schools soldier on with the current conference membership.

I continue to be disappointed and puzzled as to why the Big Ten did not invite Stanford and Cal to the conference last summer. Even if FOX/CBS/NBC would not increase their payments on the current contract, opening a fourth window ("Big Ten After Dark") would have surely produced sufficient additional income to pay for the two schools (even ESPN might have bid on this package) given their acceptance of the limited ACC payout. Perhaps the Big Ten presidents were concerned about swallowing six new schools, all with close internal ties, simultaneously; this group would be a formidable voting bloc whose impact would be unpredictable. I still hold out hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the Bay Area schools will receive an invitation to the Big Ten.

---

In 2017, I dealt with the Clemson science department on the Eclipse... some incredible folks, and a long ways from from the athletic department.
I love the academia pablum while dollars rule the day.
But, yes, Clemson would have a hard time matching up with those academic giants at Nebraska, Iowa, and Michigan State.
If we have learned anything over the past year, geography means nothing to this money grab. Maybe the Clemson/SCarolina rivalry helps in convincing the powers of the SEC to pick up the Tigers, but I don't want to get too collegiate here...irony intended.
There has to be economic motivation to invite Cal and Furd. I don't think that happens anytime soon.

RobertHedrock said:

---

Clemson will not receive an offer from the Big Ten as the universities' academics and cultures are so at variance with that of the conference (indeed, Clemson is a prototype SEC school). I must concede that I was confident that Oregon would never be invited to the Big Ten to give some context to my credibility on these matters.

Florida State and Clemson may have had some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" conversations with individuals that have informal ties to the Big Ten and the SEC, but I highly doubt that there has been any official contact or secure invitations; such activities would open the conferences to tortious interference lawsuits. There will not be any official discussions between the conferences and the schools until all legal issues are resolved.

If Florida State does not receive a Big Ten invitation it will not be because of AAU status; Florida State's academics have been rapidly improving, and by any reasonable measure their academics are (and certainly will be in the future) superior to those of Oregon. My impression is that AAU status is much preferred by the Big Ten presidents, but is not an absolute. Every Big Ten president knew that Nebraska's AAU status was hanging by a thread for the previous decade (Wisconsin and Michigan provided the crucial votes to expel the Cornhuskers!), yet they were invited anyway, and an AAU-less Notre Dame clearly had a standing invitation for the last quarter century (at least).

I believe that all of the "Florida State/Clemson to the Big Ten" discussion is nonsensical; the locations of each university are deep in the heart of Dixie (the panhandle of Florida is not "Florida"), and in any case I cannot imagine that ESPN, who holds the whip hand in this situation, will allow two valuable schools they have under contract to move to the Big Ten. The most likely outcome in my view is that there will be a negotiated settlement where the two schools move to the SEC and the remaining ACC schools soldier on with the current conference membership.

I continue to be disappointed and puzzled as to why the Big Ten did not invite Stanford and Cal to the conference last summer. Even if FOX/CBS/NBC would not increase their payments on the current contract, opening a fourth window ("Big Ten After Dark") would have surely produced sufficient additional income to pay for the two schools (even ESPN might have bid on this package) given their acceptance of the limited ACC payout. Perhaps the Big Ten presidents were concerned about swallowing six new schools, all with close internal ties, simultaneously; this group would be a formidable voting bloc whose impact would be unpredictable. I still hold out hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the Bay Area schools will receive an invitation to the Big Ten.

---

The reason Cal and Stanford did not get a B1G invite is:

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

2) Fox Sports offered the B1G zero dollars for us whereas ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million(?) for us. Why? Almost certainly because Cal tried to block UCLA from going to the B1G. The architect of the UCLA and USC move to the B1G is Fox Sports COO Mark Silverman, a UCLA grad who created the Big-10 Network and who lives 5 minutes from the UCLA campus and is a season ticket holder and major donor.

Mark Silverman
https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/bios/on-air/mark-silverman/

calumnus said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Clemson will not receive an offer from the Big Ten as the universities' academics and cultures are so at variance with that of the conference (indeed, Clemson is a prototype SEC school). I must concede that I was confident that Oregon would never be invited to the Big Ten to give some context to my credibility on these matters.

Florida State and Clemson may have had some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" conversations with individuals that have informal ties to the Big Ten and the SEC, but I highly doubt that there has been any official contact or secure invitations; such activities would open the conferences to tortious interference lawsuits. There will not be any official discussions between the conferences and the schools until all legal issues are resolved.

If Florida State does not receive a Big Ten invitation it will not be because of AAU status; Florida State's academics have been rapidly improving, and by any reasonable measure their academics are (and certainly will be in the future) superior to those of Oregon. My impression is that AAU status is much preferred by the Big Ten presidents, but is not an absolute. Every Big Ten president knew that Nebraska's AAU status was hanging by a thread for the previous decade (Wisconsin and Michigan provided the crucial votes to expel the Cornhuskers!), yet they were invited anyway, and an AAU-less Notre Dame clearly had a standing invitation for the last quarter century (at least).

I believe that all of the "Florida State/Clemson to the Big Ten" discussion is nonsensical; the locations of each university are deep in the heart of Dixie (the panhandle of Florida is not "Florida"), and in any case I cannot imagine that ESPN, who holds the whip hand in this situation, will allow two valuable schools they have under contract to move to the Big Ten. The most likely outcome in my view is that there will be a negotiated settlement where the two schools move to the SEC and the remaining ACC schools soldier on with the current conference membership.

I continue to be disappointed and puzzled as to why the Big Ten did not invite Stanford and Cal to the conference last summer. Even if FOX/CBS/NBC would not increase their payments on the current contract, opening a fourth window ("Big Ten After Dark") would have surely produced sufficient additional income to pay for the two schools (even ESPN might have bid on this package) given their acceptance of the limited ACC payout. Perhaps the Big Ten presidents were concerned about swallowing six new schools, all with close internal ties, simultaneously; this group would be a formidable voting bloc whose impact would be unpredictable. I still hold out hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the Bay Area schools will receive an invitation to the Big Ten.

---

The reason Cal and Stanford did not get a B1G invite is:

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

2) Fox Sports offered the B1G zero dollars for us whereas ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million(?) for us. Why? Almost certainly because Cal tried to block UCLA from going to the B1G. The architect of the UCLA and USC move to the B1G is Fox Sports COO Mark Silverman, a UCLA grad who created the Big-10 Network and who lives 5 minutes from the UCLA campus and is a season ticket holder and major donor.

Mark Silverman
https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/bios/on-air/mark-silverman/

---

The ACC's contract with ESPN requires ESPN to pay a flat rate for any new member, so long as the member schools vote to add them. All we had to do with the ACC was convince enough schools to vote us in.

The B1G's contract with Fox has no such automatic provision. To add new members, Fox needs to agree to pony up the money to pay them, or the existing members have to agree to cut their own shares in order to let in a new member under the same overall payout (which they'd never do). So it wasn't just a matter of convincing the B1G presidents; we also had to convince Fox, and they weren't budging.

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Clemson will not receive an offer from the Big Ten as the universities' academics and cultures are so at variance with that of the conference (indeed, Clemson is a prototype SEC school). I must concede that I was confident that Oregon would never be invited to the Big Ten to give some context to my credibility on these matters.

Florida State and Clemson may have had some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" conversations with individuals that have informal ties to the Big Ten and the SEC, but I highly doubt that there has been any official contact or secure invitations; such activities would open the conferences to tortious interference lawsuits. There will not be any official discussions between the conferences and the schools until all legal issues are resolved.

If Florida State does not receive a Big Ten invitation it will not be because of AAU status; Florida State's academics have been rapidly improving, and by any reasonable measure their academics are (and certainly will be in the future) superior to those of Oregon. My impression is that AAU status is much preferred by the Big Ten presidents, but is not an absolute. Every Big Ten president knew that Nebraska's AAU status was hanging by a thread for the previous decade (Wisconsin and Michigan provided the crucial votes to expel the Cornhuskers!), yet they were invited anyway, and an AAU-less Notre Dame clearly had a standing invitation for the last quarter century (at least).

I believe that all of the "Florida State/Clemson to the Big Ten" discussion is nonsensical; the locations of each university are deep in the heart of Dixie (the panhandle of Florida is not "Florida"), and in any case I cannot imagine that ESPN, who holds the whip hand in this situation, will allow two valuable schools they have under contract to move to the Big Ten. The most likely outcome in my view is that there will be a negotiated settlement where the two schools move to the SEC and the remaining ACC schools soldier on with the current conference membership.

I continue to be disappointed and puzzled as to why the Big Ten did not invite Stanford and Cal to the conference last summer. Even if FOX/CBS/NBC would not increase their payments on the current contract, opening a fourth window ("Big Ten After Dark") would have surely produced sufficient additional income to pay for the two schools (even ESPN might have bid on this package) given their acceptance of the limited ACC payout. Perhaps the Big Ten presidents were concerned about swallowing six new schools, all with close internal ties, simultaneously; this group would be a formidable voting bloc whose impact would be unpredictable. I still hold out hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the Bay Area schools will receive an invitation to the Big Ten.

---

The reason Cal and Stanford did not get a B1G invite is:

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

2) Fox Sports offered the B1G zero dollars for us whereas ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million(?) for us. Why? Almost certainly because Cal tried to block UCLA from going to the B1G. The architect of the UCLA and USC move to the B1G is Fox Sports COO Mark Silverman, a UCLA grad who created the Big-10 Network and who lives 5 minutes from the UCLA campus and is a season ticket holder and major donor.

Mark Silverman
https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/bios/on-air/mark-silverman/

---

The ACC's contract with ESPN requires ESPN to pay a flat rate for any new member, so long as the member schools vote to add them. All we had to do with the ACC was convince enough schools to vote us in.

The B1G's contract with Fox has no such automatic provision. To add new members, Fox needs to agree to pony up the money to pay them, or the existing members have to agree to cut their own shares in order to let in a new member under the same overall payout (which they'd never do). So it wasn't just a matter of convincing the B1G presidents; we also had to convince Fox, and they weren't budging.

---

Regardless of whatever the reason was, the question is what does it take now to get in when realignment comes around again? Is a flash-in-the-pan great season or even several get us in? Both us and Stanford have had those seasons in the not to distant past. That wasn't enough. So what will it take?

Econ141 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Clemson will not receive an offer from the Big Ten as the universities' academics and cultures are so at variance with that of the conference (indeed, Clemson is a prototype SEC school). I must concede that I was confident that Oregon would never be invited to the Big Ten to give some context to my credibility on these matters.

Florida State and Clemson may have had some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" conversations with individuals that have informal ties to the Big Ten and the SEC, but I highly doubt that there has been any official contact or secure invitations; such activities would open the conferences to tortious interference lawsuits. There will not be any official discussions between the conferences and the schools until all legal issues are resolved.

If Florida State does not receive a Big Ten invitation it will not be because of AAU status; Florida State's academics have been rapidly improving, and by any reasonable measure their academics are (and certainly will be in the future) superior to those of Oregon. My impression is that AAU status is much preferred by the Big Ten presidents, but is not an absolute. Every Big Ten president knew that Nebraska's AAU status was hanging by a thread for the previous decade (Wisconsin and Michigan provided the crucial votes to expel the Cornhuskers!), yet they were invited anyway, and an AAU-less Notre Dame clearly had a standing invitation for the last quarter century (at least).

I believe that all of the "Florida State/Clemson to the Big Ten" discussion is nonsensical; the locations of each university are deep in the heart of Dixie (the panhandle of Florida is not "Florida"), and in any case I cannot imagine that ESPN, who holds the whip hand in this situation, will allow two valuable schools they have under contract to move to the Big Ten. The most likely outcome in my view is that there will be a negotiated settlement where the two schools move to the SEC and the remaining ACC schools soldier on with the current conference membership.

I continue to be disappointed and puzzled as to why the Big Ten did not invite Stanford and Cal to the conference last summer. Even if FOX/CBS/NBC would not increase their payments on the current contract, opening a fourth window ("Big Ten After Dark") would have surely produced sufficient additional income to pay for the two schools (even ESPN might have bid on this package) given their acceptance of the limited ACC payout. Perhaps the Big Ten presidents were concerned about swallowing six new schools, all with close internal ties, simultaneously; this group would be a formidable voting bloc whose impact would be unpredictable. I still hold out hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the Bay Area schools will receive an invitation to the Big Ten.

---

The reason Cal and Stanford did not get a B1G invite is:

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

2) Fox Sports offered the B1G zero dollars for us whereas ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million(?) for us. Why? Almost certainly because Cal tried to block UCLA from going to the B1G. The architect of the UCLA and USC move to the B1G is Fox Sports COO Mark Silverman, a UCLA grad who created the Big-10 Network and who lives 5 minutes from the UCLA campus and is a season ticket holder and major donor.

Mark Silverman
https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/bios/on-air/mark-silverman/

---

The ACC's contract with ESPN requires ESPN to pay a flat rate for any new member, so long as the member schools vote to add them. All we had to do with the ACC was convince enough schools to vote us in.

The B1G's contract with Fox has no such automatic provision. To add new members, Fox needs to agree to pony up the money to pay them, or the existing members have to agree to cut their own shares in order to let in a new member under the same overall payout (which they'd never do). So it wasn't just a matter of convincing the B1G presidents; we also had to convince Fox, and they weren't budging.

---

Regardless of whatever the reason was, the question is what does it take now to get in when realignment comes around again? Is a flash-in-the-pan great season or even several get us in? Both us and Stanford have had those seasons in the not to distant past. That wasn't enough. So what will it take?

---

A financial up-tick for the member schools. Are they splitting the pie into more pieces, or making a bigger pie.
Washington and Oregon were seen better as possibly making the pie bigger, because of perceived national brands. The Furd national brand is stronger than Cal's, so that's a good question. If we would like to feel good about ourselves, and think Cal would have been added if they spoke up sooner, if only the Fox guys liked the Bears more, etc. well, have had it; there are people in pretty high places that find those theories laughable.

The more "idealistic" approach, meaning adding schools relative to their academic standing, left the Big 10 the moment former commissioner Jim Delaney walked out the door. He was an incredible man, one of the smartest individuals I have ever met, period. Small example of who he was: he was supporting women's sports in a very visible way, paying for their league championships to be on TV, including production costs, with no hope of recouping said costs without any kind of "need" to do that. Meaning, it was the "right" thing to do, not a Title IX requirement etc...

Econ141 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Clemson will not receive an offer from the Big Ten as the universities' academics and cultures are so at variance with that of the conference (indeed, Clemson is a prototype SEC school). I must concede that I was confident that Oregon would never be invited to the Big Ten to give some context to my credibility on these matters.

Florida State and Clemson may have had some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" conversations with individuals that have informal ties to the Big Ten and the SEC, but I highly doubt that there has been any official contact or secure invitations; such activities would open the conferences to tortious interference lawsuits. There will not be any official discussions between the conferences and the schools until all legal issues are resolved.

If Florida State does not receive a Big Ten invitation it will not be because of AAU status; Florida State's academics have been rapidly improving, and by any reasonable measure their academics are (and certainly will be in the future) superior to those of Oregon. My impression is that AAU status is much preferred by the Big Ten presidents, but is not an absolute. Every Big Ten president knew that Nebraska's AAU status was hanging by a thread for the previous decade (Wisconsin and Michigan provided the crucial votes to expel the Cornhuskers!), yet they were invited anyway, and an AAU-less Notre Dame clearly had a standing invitation for the last quarter century (at least).

I believe that all of the "Florida State/Clemson to the Big Ten" discussion is nonsensical; the locations of each university are deep in the heart of Dixie (the panhandle of Florida is not "Florida"), and in any case I cannot imagine that ESPN, who holds the whip hand in this situation, will allow two valuable schools they have under contract to move to the Big Ten. The most likely outcome in my view is that there will be a negotiated settlement where the two schools move to the SEC and the remaining ACC schools soldier on with the current conference membership.

I continue to be disappointed and puzzled as to why the Big Ten did not invite Stanford and Cal to the conference last summer. Even if FOX/CBS/NBC would not increase their payments on the current contract, opening a fourth window ("Big Ten After Dark") would have surely produced sufficient additional income to pay for the two schools (even ESPN might have bid on this package) given their acceptance of the limited ACC payout. Perhaps the Big Ten presidents were concerned about swallowing six new schools, all with close internal ties, simultaneously; this group would be a formidable voting bloc whose impact would be unpredictable. I still hold out hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the Bay Area schools will receive an invitation to the Big Ten.

---

The reason Cal and Stanford did not get a B1G invite is:

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

2) Fox Sports offered the B1G zero dollars for us whereas ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million(?) for us. Why? Almost certainly because Cal tried to block UCLA from going to the B1G. The architect of the UCLA and USC move to the B1G is Fox Sports COO Mark Silverman, a UCLA grad who created the Big-10 Network and who lives 5 minutes from the UCLA campus and is a season ticket holder and major donor.

Mark Silverman
https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/bios/on-air/mark-silverman/

---

The ACC's contract with ESPN requires ESPN to pay a flat rate for any new member, so long as the member schools vote to add them. All we had to do with the ACC was convince enough schools to vote us in.

The B1G's contract with Fox has no such automatic provision. To add new members, Fox needs to agree to pony up the money to pay them, or the existing members have to agree to cut their own shares in order to let in a new member under the same overall payout (which they'd never do). So it wasn't just a matter of convincing the B1G presidents; we also had to convince Fox, and they weren't budging.

---

Regardless of whatever the reason was, the question is what does it take now to get in when realignment comes around again? Is a flash-in-the-pan great season or even several get us in? Both us and Stanford have had those seasons in the not to distant past. That wasn't enough. So what will it take?

---

It's really hard to predict, because who knows what kind of money will be available and from what carriers when the next round of negotiations comes up? It's possible that Fox was being tight-fisted with their cash because they think they won't be able to afford the same payouts next time.

The thing that would best help our case would be having winning seasons in football (and also the higher attendance and viewership that would come with that), obviously. These networks seem to have particularly short-sighted views, so I do think a few flash-in-the-pan seasons would do it if the timing was right.

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Clemson will not receive an offer from the Big Ten as the universities' academics and cultures are so at variance with that of the conference (indeed, Clemson is a prototype SEC school). I must concede that I was confident that Oregon would never be invited to the Big Ten to give some context to my credibility on these matters.

Florida State and Clemson may have had some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" conversations with individuals that have informal ties to the Big Ten and the SEC, but I highly doubt that there has been any official contact or secure invitations; such activities would open the conferences to tortious interference lawsuits. There will not be any official discussions between the conferences and the schools until all legal issues are resolved.

If Florida State does not receive a Big Ten invitation it will not be because of AAU status; Florida State's academics have been rapidly improving, and by any reasonable measure their academics are (and certainly will be in the future) superior to those of Oregon. My impression is that AAU status is much preferred by the Big Ten presidents, but is not an absolute. Every Big Ten president knew that Nebraska's AAU status was hanging by a thread for the previous decade (Wisconsin and Michigan provided the crucial votes to expel the Cornhuskers!), yet they were invited anyway, and an AAU-less Notre Dame clearly had a standing invitation for the last quarter century (at least).

I believe that all of the "Florida State/Clemson to the Big Ten" discussion is nonsensical; the locations of each university are deep in the heart of Dixie (the panhandle of Florida is not "Florida"), and in any case I cannot imagine that ESPN, who holds the whip hand in this situation, will allow two valuable schools they have under contract to move to the Big Ten. The most likely outcome in my view is that there will be a negotiated settlement where the two schools move to the SEC and the remaining ACC schools soldier on with the current conference membership.

I continue to be disappointed and puzzled as to why the Big Ten did not invite Stanford and Cal to the conference last summer. Even if FOX/CBS/NBC would not increase their payments on the current contract, opening a fourth window ("Big Ten After Dark") would have surely produced sufficient additional income to pay for the two schools (even ESPN might have bid on this package) given their acceptance of the limited ACC payout. Perhaps the Big Ten presidents were concerned about swallowing six new schools, all with close internal ties, simultaneously; this group would be a formidable voting bloc whose impact would be unpredictable. I still hold out hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the Bay Area schools will receive an invitation to the Big Ten.

---

The reason Cal and Stanford did not get a B1G invite is:

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

2) Fox Sports offered the B1G zero dollars for us whereas ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million(?) for us. Why? Almost certainly because Cal tried to block UCLA from going to the B1G. The architect of the UCLA and USC move to the B1G is Fox Sports COO Mark Silverman, a UCLA grad who created the Big-10 Network and who lives 5 minutes from the UCLA campus and is a season ticket holder and major donor.

Mark Silverman
https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/bios/on-air/mark-silverman/

---

The ACC's contract with ESPN requires ESPN to pay a flat rate for any new member, so long as the member schools vote to add them. All we had to do with the ACC was convince enough schools to vote us in.

The B1G's contract with Fox has no such automatic provision. To add new members, Fox needs to agree to pony up the money to pay them, or the existing members have to agree to cut their own shares in order to let in a new member under the same overall payout (which they'd never do). So it wasn't just a matter of convincing the B1G presidents; we also had to convince Fox, and they weren't budging.

---

Regardless of whatever the reason was, the question is what does it take now to get in when realignment comes around again? Is a flash-in-the-pan great season or even several get us in? Both us and Stanford have had those seasons in the not to distant past. That wasn't enough. So what will it take?

---

It's really hard to predict, because who knows what kind of money will be available and from what carriers when the next round of negotiations comes up? It's possible that Fox was being tight-fisted with their cash because they think they won't be able to afford the same payouts next time.

The thing that would best help our case would be having winning seasons in football (and also the higher attendance and viewership that would come with that), obviously. These networks seem to have particularly short-sighted views, so I do think a few flash-in-the-pan seasons would do it if the timing was right.

---

Good post, good points. The networks have folks who are "longer thinkers" but the landscape has never changed faster than it is now.
I also think flash in the pan needs to include the factors you talk about, but now, some buzz too, ie. social media in the broadest terms possible...

mbBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Clemson will not receive an offer from the Big Ten as the universities' academics and cultures are so at variance with that of the conference (indeed, Clemson is a prototype SEC school). I must concede that I was confident that Oregon would never be invited to the Big Ten to give some context to my credibility on these matters.

Florida State and Clemson may have had some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" conversations with individuals that have informal ties to the Big Ten and the SEC, but I highly doubt that there has been any official contact or secure invitations; such activities would open the conferences to tortious interference lawsuits. There will not be any official discussions between the conferences and the schools until all legal issues are resolved.

If Florida State does not receive a Big Ten invitation it will not be because of AAU status; Florida State's academics have been rapidly improving, and by any reasonable measure their academics are (and certainly will be in the future) superior to those of Oregon. My impression is that AAU status is much preferred by the Big Ten presidents, but is not an absolute. Every Big Ten president knew that Nebraska's AAU status was hanging by a thread for the previous decade (Wisconsin and Michigan provided the crucial votes to expel the Cornhuskers!), yet they were invited anyway, and an AAU-less Notre Dame clearly had a standing invitation for the last quarter century (at least).

I believe that all of the "Florida State/Clemson to the Big Ten" discussion is nonsensical; the locations of each university are deep in the heart of Dixie (the panhandle of Florida is not "Florida"), and in any case I cannot imagine that ESPN, who holds the whip hand in this situation, will allow two valuable schools they have under contract to move to the Big Ten. The most likely outcome in my view is that there will be a negotiated settlement where the two schools move to the SEC and the remaining ACC schools soldier on with the current conference membership.

I continue to be disappointed and puzzled as to why the Big Ten did not invite Stanford and Cal to the conference last summer. Even if FOX/CBS/NBC would not increase their payments on the current contract, opening a fourth window ("Big Ten After Dark") would have surely produced sufficient additional income to pay for the two schools (even ESPN might have bid on this package) given their acceptance of the limited ACC payout. Perhaps the Big Ten presidents were concerned about swallowing six new schools, all with close internal ties, simultaneously; this group would be a formidable voting bloc whose impact would be unpredictable. I still hold out hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the Bay Area schools will receive an invitation to the Big Ten.

---

The reason Cal and Stanford did not get a B1G invite is:

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

2) Fox Sports offered the B1G zero dollars for us whereas ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million(?) for us. Why? Almost certainly because Cal tried to block UCLA from going to the B1G. The architect of the UCLA and USC move to the B1G is Fox Sports COO Mark Silverman, a UCLA grad who created the Big-10 Network and who lives 5 minutes from the UCLA campus and is a season ticket holder and major donor.

Mark Silverman
https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/bios/on-air/mark-silverman/

---

The ACC's contract with ESPN requires ESPN to pay a flat rate for any new member, so long as the member schools vote to add them. All we had to do with the ACC was convince enough schools to vote us in.

The B1G's contract with Fox has no such automatic provision. To add new members, Fox needs to agree to pony up the money to pay them, or the existing members have to agree to cut their own shares in order to let in a new member under the same overall payout (which they'd never do). So it wasn't just a matter of convincing the B1G presidents; we also had to convince Fox, and they weren't budging.

---

Regardless of whatever the reason was, the question is what does it take now to get in when realignment comes around again? Is a flash-in-the-pan great season or even several get us in? Both us and Stanford have had those seasons in the not to distant past. That wasn't enough. So what will it take?

---

It's really hard to predict, because who knows what kind of money will be available and from what carriers when the next round of negotiations comes up? It's possible that Fox was being tight-fisted with their cash because they think they won't be able to afford the same payouts next time.

The thing that would best help our case would be having winning seasons in football (and also the higher attendance and viewership that would come with that), obviously. These networks seem to have particularly short-sighted views, so I do think a few flash-in-the-pan seasons would do it if the timing was right.

---

Good post, good points. The networks have folks who are "longer thinkers" but the landscape has never changed faster than it is now.
I also think flash in the pan needs to include the factors you talk about, but now, some buzz too, ie. social media in the broadest terms possible...

---

My thinking on this is that almost every other part of Cal's "profile" for a conference is a positive:

1. Large flagship state school
2. Provides access to a high-population state
3. Biggest draw in a large, Top 10 media market
4. Top-notch academics (maybe not important for every conference, but for the B1G and ACC it seems to matter)
5. Strong support for non-revenue sports

The problem is that the revenue sports haven't won, and that is a pretty big problem. If we can show ANY signs of life there I'd expect it can go a long way. (The other problem is that while CA/The Bay is a large market it's not that big on college football. But I think the historical evidence for how Cal can get people to show up when they win indicates that there is good opportunity here.)

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Clemson will not receive an offer from the Big Ten as the universities' academics and cultures are so at variance with that of the conference (indeed, Clemson is a prototype SEC school). I must concede that I was confident that Oregon would never be invited to the Big Ten to give some context to my credibility on these matters.

Florida State and Clemson may have had some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" conversations with individuals that have informal ties to the Big Ten and the SEC, but I highly doubt that there has been any official contact or secure invitations; such activities would open the conferences to tortious interference lawsuits. There will not be any official discussions between the conferences and the schools until all legal issues are resolved.

If Florida State does not receive a Big Ten invitation it will not be because of AAU status; Florida State's academics have been rapidly improving, and by any reasonable measure their academics are (and certainly will be in the future) superior to those of Oregon. My impression is that AAU status is much preferred by the Big Ten presidents, but is not an absolute. Every Big Ten president knew that Nebraska's AAU status was hanging by a thread for the previous decade (Wisconsin and Michigan provided the crucial votes to expel the Cornhuskers!), yet they were invited anyway, and an AAU-less Notre Dame clearly had a standing invitation for the last quarter century (at least).

I believe that all of the "Florida State/Clemson to the Big Ten" discussion is nonsensical; the locations of each university are deep in the heart of Dixie (the panhandle of Florida is not "Florida"), and in any case I cannot imagine that ESPN, who holds the whip hand in this situation, will allow two valuable schools they have under contract to move to the Big Ten. The most likely outcome in my view is that there will be a negotiated settlement where the two schools move to the SEC and the remaining ACC schools soldier on with the current conference membership.

I continue to be disappointed and puzzled as to why the Big Ten did not invite Stanford and Cal to the conference last summer. Even if FOX/CBS/NBC would not increase their payments on the current contract, opening a fourth window ("Big Ten After Dark") would have surely produced sufficient additional income to pay for the two schools (even ESPN might have bid on this package) given their acceptance of the limited ACC payout. Perhaps the Big Ten presidents were concerned about swallowing six new schools, all with close internal ties, simultaneously; this group would be a formidable voting bloc whose impact would be unpredictable. I still hold out hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the Bay Area schools will receive an invitation to the Big Ten.

---

The reason Cal and Stanford did not get a B1G invite is:

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

2) Fox Sports offered the B1G zero dollars for us whereas ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million(?) for us. Why? Almost certainly because Cal tried to block UCLA from going to the B1G. The architect of the UCLA and USC move to the B1G is Fox Sports COO Mark Silverman, a UCLA grad who created the Big-10 Network and who lives 5 minutes from the UCLA campus and is a season ticket holder and major donor.

Mark Silverman
https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/bios/on-air/mark-silverman/

---

The ACC's contract with ESPN requires ESPN to pay a flat rate for any new member, so long as the member schools vote to add them. All we had to do with the ACC was convince enough schools to vote us in.

The B1G's contract with Fox has no such automatic provision. To add new members, Fox needs to agree to pony up the money to pay them, or the existing members have to agree to cut their own shares in order to let in a new member under the same overall payout (which they'd never do). So it wasn't just a matter of convincing the B1G presidents; we also had to convince Fox, and they weren't budging.

---

Regardless of whatever the reason was, the question is what does it take now to get in when realignment comes around again? Is a flash-in-the-pan great season or even several get us in? Both us and Stanford have had those seasons in the not to distant past. That wasn't enough. So what will it take?

---

It's really hard to predict, because who knows what kind of money will be available and from what carriers when the next round of negotiations comes up? It's possible that Fox was being tight-fisted with their cash because they think they won't be able to afford the same payouts next time.

The thing that would best help our case would be having winning seasons in football (and also the higher attendance and viewership that would come with that), obviously. These networks seem to have particularly short-sighted views, so I do think a few flash-in-the-pan seasons would do it if the timing was right.

---

Good post, good points. The networks have folks who are "longer thinkers" but the landscape has never changed faster than it is now.
I also think flash in the pan needs to include the factors you talk about, but now, some buzz too, ie. social media in the broadest terms possible...

---

My thinking on this is that almost every other part of Cal's "profile" for a conference is a positive:

1. Large flagship state school
2. Provides access to a high-population state
3. Biggest draw in a large, Top 10 media market
4. Top-notch academics (maybe not important for every conference, but for the B1G and ACC it seems to matter)
5. Strong support for non-revenue sports

The problem is that the revenue sports haven't won, and that is a pretty big problem. If we can show ANY signs of life there I'd expect it can go a long way. (The other problem is that while CA/The Bay is a large market it's not that big on college football. But I think the historical evidence for how Cal can get people to show up when they win indicates that there is good opportunity here.)

---

We have a huge opportunity with the Raiders gone and the Niners in Santa Clara and a fresh start with Cal in the ACC to build a fan base, but yes, winning is the critical part of that. Rich Lyons as chancellor is a great start.

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Clemson will not receive an offer from the Big Ten as the universities' academics and cultures are so at variance with that of the conference (indeed, Clemson is a prototype SEC school). I must concede that I was confident that Oregon would never be invited to the Big Ten to give some context to my credibility on these matters.

Florida State and Clemson may have had some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" conversations with individuals that have informal ties to the Big Ten and the SEC, but I highly doubt that there has been any official contact or secure invitations; such activities would open the conferences to tortious interference lawsuits. There will not be any official discussions between the conferences and the schools until all legal issues are resolved.

If Florida State does not receive a Big Ten invitation it will not be because of AAU status; Florida State's academics have been rapidly improving, and by any reasonable measure their academics are (and certainly will be in the future) superior to those of Oregon. My impression is that AAU status is much preferred by the Big Ten presidents, but is not an absolute. Every Big Ten president knew that Nebraska's AAU status was hanging by a thread for the previous decade (Wisconsin and Michigan provided the crucial votes to expel the Cornhuskers!), yet they were invited anyway, and an AAU-less Notre Dame clearly had a standing invitation for the last quarter century (at least).

I believe that all of the "Florida State/Clemson to the Big Ten" discussion is nonsensical; the locations of each university are deep in the heart of Dixie (the panhandle of Florida is not "Florida"), and in any case I cannot imagine that ESPN, who holds the whip hand in this situation, will allow two valuable schools they have under contract to move to the Big Ten. The most likely outcome in my view is that there will be a negotiated settlement where the two schools move to the SEC and the remaining ACC schools soldier on with the current conference membership.

I continue to be disappointed and puzzled as to why the Big Ten did not invite Stanford and Cal to the conference last summer. Even if FOX/CBS/NBC would not increase their payments on the current contract, opening a fourth window ("Big Ten After Dark") would have surely produced sufficient additional income to pay for the two schools (even ESPN might have bid on this package) given their acceptance of the limited ACC payout. Perhaps the Big Ten presidents were concerned about swallowing six new schools, all with close internal ties, simultaneously; this group would be a formidable voting bloc whose impact would be unpredictable. I still hold out hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the Bay Area schools will receive an invitation to the Big Ten.

---

The reason Cal and Stanford did not get a B1G invite is:

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

2) Fox Sports offered the B1G zero dollars for us whereas ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million(?) for us. Why? Almost certainly because Cal tried to block UCLA from going to the B1G. The architect of the UCLA and USC move to the B1G is Fox Sports COO Mark Silverman, a UCLA grad who created the Big-10 Network and who lives 5 minutes from the UCLA campus and is a season ticket holder and major donor.

Mark Silverman
https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/bios/on-air/mark-silverman/

---

The ACC's contract with ESPN requires ESPN to pay a flat rate for any new member, so long as the member schools vote to add them. All we had to do with the ACC was convince enough schools to vote us in.

The B1G's contract with Fox has no such automatic provision. To add new members, Fox needs to agree to pony up the money to pay them, or the existing members have to agree to cut their own shares in order to let in a new member under the same overall payout (which they'd never do). So it wasn't just a matter of convincing the B1G presidents; we also had to convince Fox, and they weren't budging.

---

Regardless of whatever the reason was, the question is what does it take now to get in when realignment comes around again? Is a flash-in-the-pan great season or even several get us in? Both us and Stanford have had those seasons in the not to distant past. That wasn't enough. So what will it take?

---

It's really hard to predict, because who knows what kind of money will be available and from what carriers when the next round of negotiations comes up? It's possible that Fox was being tight-fisted with their cash because they think they won't be able to afford the same payouts next time.

The thing that would best help our case would be having winning seasons in football (and also the higher attendance and viewership that would come with that), obviously. These networks seem to have particularly short-sighted views, so I do think a few flash-in-the-pan seasons would do it if the timing was right.

---

Good post, good points. The networks have folks who are "longer thinkers" but the landscape has never changed faster than it is now.
I also think flash in the pan needs to include the factors you talk about, but now, some buzz too, ie. social media in the broadest terms possible...

---

My thinking on this is that almost every other part of Cal's "profile" for a conference is a positive:

1. Large flagship state school
2. Provides access to a high-population state
3. Biggest draw in a large, Top 10 media market
4. Top-notch academics (maybe not important for every conference, but for the B1G and ACC it seems to matter)
5. Strong support for non-revenue sports

The problem is that the revenue sports haven't won, and that is a pretty big problem. If we can show ANY signs of life there I'd expect it can go a long way. (The other problem is that while CA/The Bay is a large market it's not that big on college football. But I think the historical evidence for how Cal can get people to show up when they win indicates that there is good opportunity here.)

---

I think the academics aspect, it's a good talking point at best....but in reality, means close to nothing....

mbBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Clemson will not receive an offer from the Big Ten as the universities' academics and cultures are so at variance with that of the conference (indeed, Clemson is a prototype SEC school). I must concede that I was confident that Oregon would never be invited to the Big Ten to give some context to my credibility on these matters.

Florida State and Clemson may have had some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" conversations with individuals that have informal ties to the Big Ten and the SEC, but I highly doubt that there has been any official contact or secure invitations; such activities would open the conferences to tortious interference lawsuits. There will not be any official discussions between the conferences and the schools until all legal issues are resolved.

If Florida State does not receive a Big Ten invitation it will not be because of AAU status; Florida State's academics have been rapidly improving, and by any reasonable measure their academics are (and certainly will be in the future) superior to those of Oregon. My impression is that AAU status is much preferred by the Big Ten presidents, but is not an absolute. Every Big Ten president knew that Nebraska's AAU status was hanging by a thread for the previous decade (Wisconsin and Michigan provided the crucial votes to expel the Cornhuskers!), yet they were invited anyway, and an AAU-less Notre Dame clearly had a standing invitation for the last quarter century (at least).

I believe that all of the "Florida State/Clemson to the Big Ten" discussion is nonsensical; the locations of each university are deep in the heart of Dixie (the panhandle of Florida is not "Florida"), and in any case I cannot imagine that ESPN, who holds the whip hand in this situation, will allow two valuable schools they have under contract to move to the Big Ten. The most likely outcome in my view is that there will be a negotiated settlement where the two schools move to the SEC and the remaining ACC schools soldier on with the current conference membership.

I continue to be disappointed and puzzled as to why the Big Ten did not invite Stanford and Cal to the conference last summer. Even if FOX/CBS/NBC would not increase their payments on the current contract, opening a fourth window ("Big Ten After Dark") would have surely produced sufficient additional income to pay for the two schools (even ESPN might have bid on this package) given their acceptance of the limited ACC payout. Perhaps the Big Ten presidents were concerned about swallowing six new schools, all with close internal ties, simultaneously; this group would be a formidable voting bloc whose impact would be unpredictable. I still hold out hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the Bay Area schools will receive an invitation to the Big Ten.

---

The reason Cal and Stanford did not get a B1G invite is:

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

2) Fox Sports offered the B1G zero dollars for us whereas ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million(?) for us. Why? Almost certainly because Cal tried to block UCLA from going to the B1G. The architect of the UCLA and USC move to the B1G is Fox Sports COO Mark Silverman, a UCLA grad who created the Big-10 Network and who lives 5 minutes from the UCLA campus and is a season ticket holder and major donor.

Mark Silverman
https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/bios/on-air/mark-silverman/

---

The ACC's contract with ESPN requires ESPN to pay a flat rate for any new member, so long as the member schools vote to add them. All we had to do with the ACC was convince enough schools to vote us in.

The B1G's contract with Fox has no such automatic provision. To add new members, Fox needs to agree to pony up the money to pay them, or the existing members have to agree to cut their own shares in order to let in a new member under the same overall payout (which they'd never do). So it wasn't just a matter of convincing the B1G presidents; we also had to convince Fox, and they weren't budging.

---

Regardless of whatever the reason was, the question is what does it take now to get in when realignment comes around again? Is a flash-in-the-pan great season or even several get us in? Both us and Stanford have had those seasons in the not to distant past. That wasn't enough. So what will it take?

---

It's really hard to predict, because who knows what kind of money will be available and from what carriers when the next round of negotiations comes up? It's possible that Fox was being tight-fisted with their cash because they think they won't be able to afford the same payouts next time.

The thing that would best help our case would be having winning seasons in football (and also the higher attendance and viewership that would come with that), obviously. These networks seem to have particularly short-sighted views, so I do think a few flash-in-the-pan seasons would do it if the timing was right.

---

Good post, good points. The networks have folks who are "longer thinkers" but the landscape has never changed faster than it is now.
I also think flash in the pan needs to include the factors you talk about, but now, some buzz too, ie. social media in the broadest terms possible...

---

My thinking on this is that almost every other part of Cal's "profile" for a conference is a positive:

1. Large flagship state school
2. Provides access to a high-population state
3. Biggest draw in a large, Top 10 media market
4. Top-notch academics (maybe not important for every conference, but for the B1G and ACC it seems to matter)
5. Strong support for non-revenue sports

The problem is that the revenue sports haven't won, and that is a pretty big problem. If we can show ANY signs of life there I'd expect it can go a long way. (The other problem is that while CA/The Bay is a large market it's not that big on college football. But I think the historical evidence for how Cal can get people to show up when they win indicates that there is good opportunity here.)

---

I think the academics aspect, it's a good talking point at best....but in reality, means close to nothing....

---

Again, it clearly means something to certain conferences and certain school presidents. It's not near the top of the list but it is a positive.

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Clemson will not receive an offer from the Big Ten as the universities' academics and cultures are so at variance with that of the conference (indeed, Clemson is a prototype SEC school). I must concede that I was confident that Oregon would never be invited to the Big Ten to give some context to my credibility on these matters.

Florida State and Clemson may have had some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" conversations with individuals that have informal ties to the Big Ten and the SEC, but I highly doubt that there has been any official contact or secure invitations; such activities would open the conferences to tortious interference lawsuits. There will not be any official discussions between the conferences and the schools until all legal issues are resolved.

If Florida State does not receive a Big Ten invitation it will not be because of AAU status; Florida State's academics have been rapidly improving, and by any reasonable measure their academics are (and certainly will be in the future) superior to those of Oregon. My impression is that AAU status is much preferred by the Big Ten presidents, but is not an absolute. Every Big Ten president knew that Nebraska's AAU status was hanging by a thread for the previous decade (Wisconsin and Michigan provided the crucial votes to expel the Cornhuskers!), yet they were invited anyway, and an AAU-less Notre Dame clearly had a standing invitation for the last quarter century (at least).

I believe that all of the "Florida State/Clemson to the Big Ten" discussion is nonsensical; the locations of each university are deep in the heart of Dixie (the panhandle of Florida is not "Florida"), and in any case I cannot imagine that ESPN, who holds the whip hand in this situation, will allow two valuable schools they have under contract to move to the Big Ten. The most likely outcome in my view is that there will be a negotiated settlement where the two schools move to the SEC and the remaining ACC schools soldier on with the current conference membership.

I continue to be disappointed and puzzled as to why the Big Ten did not invite Stanford and Cal to the conference last summer. Even if FOX/CBS/NBC would not increase their payments on the current contract, opening a fourth window ("Big Ten After Dark") would have surely produced sufficient additional income to pay for the two schools (even ESPN might have bid on this package) given their acceptance of the limited ACC payout. Perhaps the Big Ten presidents were concerned about swallowing six new schools, all with close internal ties, simultaneously; this group would be a formidable voting bloc whose impact would be unpredictable. I still hold out hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the Bay Area schools will receive an invitation to the Big Ten.

---

The reason Cal and Stanford did not get a B1G invite is:

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

2) Fox Sports offered the B1G zero dollars for us whereas ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million(?) for us. Why? Almost certainly because Cal tried to block UCLA from going to the B1G. The architect of the UCLA and USC move to the B1G is Fox Sports COO Mark Silverman, a UCLA grad who created the Big-10 Network and who lives 5 minutes from the UCLA campus and is a season ticket holder and major donor.

Mark Silverman
https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/bios/on-air/mark-silverman/

---

The ACC's contract with ESPN requires ESPN to pay a flat rate for any new member, so long as the member schools vote to add them. All we had to do with the ACC was convince enough schools to vote us in.

The B1G's contract with Fox has no such automatic provision. To add new members, Fox needs to agree to pony up the money to pay them, or the existing members have to agree to cut their own shares in order to let in a new member under the same overall payout (which they'd never do). So it wasn't just a matter of convincing the B1G presidents; we also had to convince Fox, and they weren't budging.

---

Regardless of whatever the reason was, the question is what does it take now to get in when realignment comes around again? Is a flash-in-the-pan great season or even several get us in? Both us and Stanford have had those seasons in the not to distant past. That wasn't enough. So what will it take?

---

It's really hard to predict, because who knows what kind of money will be available and from what carriers when the next round of negotiations comes up? It's possible that Fox was being tight-fisted with their cash because they think they won't be able to afford the same payouts next time.

The thing that would best help our case would be having winning seasons in football (and also the higher attendance and viewership that would come with that), obviously. These networks seem to have particularly short-sighted views, so I do think a few flash-in-the-pan seasons would do it if the timing was right.

---

Good post, good points. The networks have folks who are "longer thinkers" but the landscape has never changed faster than it is now.
I also think flash in the pan needs to include the factors you talk about, but now, some buzz too, ie. social media in the broadest terms possible...

---

My thinking on this is that almost every other part of Cal's "profile" for a conference is a positive:

1. Large flagship state school
2. Provides access to a high-population state
3. Biggest draw in a large, Top 10 media market
4. Top-notch academics (maybe not important for every conference, but for the B1G and ACC it seems to matter)
5. Strong support for non-revenue sports

The problem is that the revenue sports haven't won, and that is a pretty big problem. If we can show ANY signs of life there I'd expect it can go a long way. (The other problem is that while CA/The Bay is a large market it's not that big on college football. But I think the historical evidence for how Cal can get people to show up when they win indicates that there is good opportunity here.)

---

I think the academics aspect, it's a good talking point at best....but in reality, means close to nothing....

---

Again, it clearly means something to certain conferences and certain school presidents. It's not near the top of the list but it is a positive.

---

It is definitely more than nothing especially with the school presidents. It is the main reason OSU and WSU got left behind and we didn't. Well, that and market size.

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Clemson will not receive an offer from the Big Ten as the universities' academics and cultures are so at variance with that of the conference (indeed, Clemson is a prototype SEC school). I must concede that I was confident that Oregon would never be invited to the Big Ten to give some context to my credibility on these matters.

Florida State and Clemson may have had some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" conversations with individuals that have informal ties to the Big Ten and the SEC, but I highly doubt that there has been any official contact or secure invitations; such activities would open the conferences to tortious interference lawsuits. There will not be any official discussions between the conferences and the schools until all legal issues are resolved.

If Florida State does not receive a Big Ten invitation it will not be because of AAU status; Florida State's academics have been rapidly improving, and by any reasonable measure their academics are (and certainly will be in the future) superior to those of Oregon. My impression is that AAU status is much preferred by the Big Ten presidents, but is not an absolute. Every Big Ten president knew that Nebraska's AAU status was hanging by a thread for the previous decade (Wisconsin and Michigan provided the crucial votes to expel the Cornhuskers!), yet they were invited anyway, and an AAU-less Notre Dame clearly had a standing invitation for the last quarter century (at least).

I believe that all of the "Florida State/Clemson to the Big Ten" discussion is nonsensical; the locations of each university are deep in the heart of Dixie (the panhandle of Florida is not "Florida"), and in any case I cannot imagine that ESPN, who holds the whip hand in this situation, will allow two valuable schools they have under contract to move to the Big Ten. The most likely outcome in my view is that there will be a negotiated settlement where the two schools move to the SEC and the remaining ACC schools soldier on with the current conference membership.

I continue to be disappointed and puzzled as to why the Big Ten did not invite Stanford and Cal to the conference last summer. Even if FOX/CBS/NBC would not increase their payments on the current contract, opening a fourth window ("Big Ten After Dark") would have surely produced sufficient additional income to pay for the two schools (even ESPN might have bid on this package) given their acceptance of the limited ACC payout. Perhaps the Big Ten presidents were concerned about swallowing six new schools, all with close internal ties, simultaneously; this group would be a formidable voting bloc whose impact would be unpredictable. I still hold out hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the Bay Area schools will receive an invitation to the Big Ten.

---

The reason Cal and Stanford did not get a B1G invite is:

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

2) Fox Sports offered the B1G zero dollars for us whereas ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million(?) for us. Why? Almost certainly because Cal tried to block UCLA from going to the B1G. The architect of the UCLA and USC move to the B1G is Fox Sports COO Mark Silverman, a UCLA grad who created the Big-10 Network and who lives 5 minutes from the UCLA campus and is a season ticket holder and major donor.

Mark Silverman
https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/bios/on-air/mark-silverman/

---

The ACC's contract with ESPN requires ESPN to pay a flat rate for any new member, so long as the member schools vote to add them. All we had to do with the ACC was convince enough schools to vote us in.

The B1G's contract with Fox has no such automatic provision. To add new members, Fox needs to agree to pony up the money to pay them, or the existing members have to agree to cut their own shares in order to let in a new member under the same overall payout (which they'd never do). So it wasn't just a matter of convincing the B1G presidents; we also had to convince Fox, and they weren't budging.

---

Regardless of whatever the reason was, the question is what does it take now to get in when realignment comes around again? Is a flash-in-the-pan great season or even several get us in? Both us and Stanford have had those seasons in the not to distant past. That wasn't enough. So what will it take?

---

It's really hard to predict, because who knows what kind of money will be available and from what carriers when the next round of negotiations comes up? It's possible that Fox was being tight-fisted with their cash because they think they won't be able to afford the same payouts next time.

The thing that would best help our case would be having winning seasons in football (and also the higher attendance and viewership that would come with that), obviously. These networks seem to have particularly short-sighted views, so I do think a few flash-in-the-pan seasons would do it if the timing was right.

---

Good post, good points. The networks have folks who are "longer thinkers" but the landscape has never changed faster than it is now.
I also think flash in the pan needs to include the factors you talk about, but now, some buzz too, ie. social media in the broadest terms possible...

---

My thinking on this is that almost every other part of Cal's "profile" for a conference is a positive:

1. Large flagship state school
2. Provides access to a high-population state
3. Biggest draw in a large, Top 10 media market
4. Top-notch academics (maybe not important for every conference, but for the B1G and ACC it seems to matter)
5. Strong support for non-revenue sports

The problem is that the revenue sports haven't won, and that is a pretty big problem. If we can show ANY signs of life there I'd expect it can go a long way. (The other problem is that while CA/The Bay is a large market it's not that big on college football. But I think the historical evidence for how Cal can get people to show up when they win indicates that there is good opportunity here.)

---

I think the academics aspect, it's a good talking point at best....but in reality, means close to nothing....

---

Again, it clearly means something to certain conferences and certain school presidents. It's not near the top of the list but it is a positive.

---

It is definitely more than nothing especially with the school presidents. It is the main reason OSU and WSU got left behind and we didn't. Well, that and market size.

---

Notre Dame's president repeatedly cited academics as a reason to bring Cal and Stanford into the ACC. Sure, they had other reasons to support expansion but we only get their first look because of the academic standing (that they'd like to be associated with).

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Clemson will not receive an offer from the Big Ten as the universities' academics and cultures are so at variance with that of the conference (indeed, Clemson is a prototype SEC school). I must concede that I was confident that Oregon would never be invited to the Big Ten to give some context to my credibility on these matters.

Florida State and Clemson may have had some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" conversations with individuals that have informal ties to the Big Ten and the SEC, but I highly doubt that there has been any official contact or secure invitations; such activities would open the conferences to tortious interference lawsuits. There will not be any official discussions between the conferences and the schools until all legal issues are resolved.

If Florida State does not receive a Big Ten invitation it will not be because of AAU status; Florida State's academics have been rapidly improving, and by any reasonable measure their academics are (and certainly will be in the future) superior to those of Oregon. My impression is that AAU status is much preferred by the Big Ten presidents, but is not an absolute. Every Big Ten president knew that Nebraska's AAU status was hanging by a thread for the previous decade (Wisconsin and Michigan provided the crucial votes to expel the Cornhuskers!), yet they were invited anyway, and an AAU-less Notre Dame clearly had a standing invitation for the last quarter century (at least).

I believe that all of the "Florida State/Clemson to the Big Ten" discussion is nonsensical; the locations of each university are deep in the heart of Dixie (the panhandle of Florida is not "Florida"), and in any case I cannot imagine that ESPN, who holds the whip hand in this situation, will allow two valuable schools they have under contract to move to the Big Ten. The most likely outcome in my view is that there will be a negotiated settlement where the two schools move to the SEC and the remaining ACC schools soldier on with the current conference membership.

I continue to be disappointed and puzzled as to why the Big Ten did not invite Stanford and Cal to the conference last summer. Even if FOX/CBS/NBC would not increase their payments on the current contract, opening a fourth window ("Big Ten After Dark") would have surely produced sufficient additional income to pay for the two schools (even ESPN might have bid on this package) given their acceptance of the limited ACC payout. Perhaps the Big Ten presidents were concerned about swallowing six new schools, all with close internal ties, simultaneously; this group would be a formidable voting bloc whose impact would be unpredictable. I still hold out hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the Bay Area schools will receive an invitation to the Big Ten.

---

The reason Cal and Stanford did not get a B1G invite is:

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

2) Fox Sports offered the B1G zero dollars for us whereas ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million(?) for us. Why? Almost certainly because Cal tried to block UCLA from going to the B1G. The architect of the UCLA and USC move to the B1G is Fox Sports COO Mark Silverman, a UCLA grad who created the Big-10 Network and who lives 5 minutes from the UCLA campus and is a season ticket holder and major donor.

Mark Silverman
https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/bios/on-air/mark-silverman/

---

The ACC's contract with ESPN requires ESPN to pay a flat rate for any new member, so long as the member schools vote to add them. All we had to do with the ACC was convince enough schools to vote us in.

The B1G's contract with Fox has no such automatic provision. To add new members, Fox needs to agree to pony up the money to pay them, or the existing members have to agree to cut their own shares in order to let in a new member under the same overall payout (which they'd never do). So it wasn't just a matter of convincing the B1G presidents; we also had to convince Fox, and they weren't budging.

---

Regardless of whatever the reason was, the question is what does it take now to get in when realignment comes around again? Is a flash-in-the-pan great season or even several get us in? Both us and Stanford have had those seasons in the not to distant past. That wasn't enough. So what will it take?

---

It's really hard to predict, because who knows what kind of money will be available and from what carriers when the next round of negotiations comes up? It's possible that Fox was being tight-fisted with their cash because they think they won't be able to afford the same payouts next time.

The thing that would best help our case would be having winning seasons in football (and also the higher attendance and viewership that would come with that), obviously. These networks seem to have particularly short-sighted views, so I do think a few flash-in-the-pan seasons would do it if the timing was right.

---

Good post, good points. The networks have folks who are "longer thinkers" but the landscape has never changed faster than it is now.
I also think flash in the pan needs to include the factors you talk about, but now, some buzz too, ie. social media in the broadest terms possible...

---

My thinking on this is that almost every other part of Cal's "profile" for a conference is a positive:

1. Large flagship state school
2. Provides access to a high-population state
3. Biggest draw in a large, Top 10 media market
4. Top-notch academics (maybe not important for every conference, but for the B1G and ACC it seems to matter)
5. Strong support for non-revenue sports

The problem is that the revenue sports haven't won, and that is a pretty big problem. If we can show ANY signs of life there I'd expect it can go a long way. (The other problem is that while CA/The Bay is a large market it's not that big on college football. But I think the historical evidence for how Cal can get people to show up when they win indicates that there is good opportunity here.)

---

I think the academics aspect, it's a good talking point at best....but in reality, means close to nothing....

---

Again, it clearly means something to certain conferences and certain school presidents. It's not near the top of the list but it is a positive.

---

It is definitely more than nothing especially with the school presidents. It is the main reason OSU and WSU got left behind and we didn't. Well, that and market size.

---

Notre Dame's president repeatedly cited academics as a reason to bring Cal and Stanford into the ACC. Sure, they had other reasons to support expansion but we only get their first look because of the academic standing (that they'd like to be associated with).

---

Notre Dame wants the ACC to stay alive to keep their independence. They know the moment super conferences become a thing they have to pick and choose.

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Clemson will not receive an offer from the Big Ten as the universities' academics and cultures are so at variance with that of the conference (indeed, Clemson is a prototype SEC school). I must concede that I was confident that Oregon would never be invited to the Big Ten to give some context to my credibility on these matters.

Florida State and Clemson may have had some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" conversations with individuals that have informal ties to the Big Ten and the SEC, but I highly doubt that there has been any official contact or secure invitations; such activities would open the conferences to tortious interference lawsuits. There will not be any official discussions between the conferences and the schools until all legal issues are resolved.

If Florida State does not receive a Big Ten invitation it will not be because of AAU status; Florida State's academics have been rapidly improving, and by any reasonable measure their academics are (and certainly will be in the future) superior to those of Oregon. My impression is that AAU status is much preferred by the Big Ten presidents, but is not an absolute. Every Big Ten president knew that Nebraska's AAU status was hanging by a thread for the previous decade (Wisconsin and Michigan provided the crucial votes to expel the Cornhuskers!), yet they were invited anyway, and an AAU-less Notre Dame clearly had a standing invitation for the last quarter century (at least).

I believe that all of the "Florida State/Clemson to the Big Ten" discussion is nonsensical; the locations of each university are deep in the heart of Dixie (the panhandle of Florida is not "Florida"), and in any case I cannot imagine that ESPN, who holds the whip hand in this situation, will allow two valuable schools they have under contract to move to the Big Ten. The most likely outcome in my view is that there will be a negotiated settlement where the two schools move to the SEC and the remaining ACC schools soldier on with the current conference membership.

I continue to be disappointed and puzzled as to why the Big Ten did not invite Stanford and Cal to the conference last summer. Even if FOX/CBS/NBC would not increase their payments on the current contract, opening a fourth window ("Big Ten After Dark") would have surely produced sufficient additional income to pay for the two schools (even ESPN might have bid on this package) given their acceptance of the limited ACC payout. Perhaps the Big Ten presidents were concerned about swallowing six new schools, all with close internal ties, simultaneously; this group would be a formidable voting bloc whose impact would be unpredictable. I still hold out hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the Bay Area schools will receive an invitation to the Big Ten.

---

The reason Cal and Stanford did not get a B1G invite is:

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

2) Fox Sports offered the B1G zero dollars for us whereas ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million(?) for us. Why? Almost certainly because Cal tried to block UCLA from going to the B1G. The architect of the UCLA and USC move to the B1G is Fox Sports COO Mark Silverman, a UCLA grad who created the Big-10 Network and who lives 5 minutes from the UCLA campus and is a season ticket holder and major donor.

Mark Silverman
https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/bios/on-air/mark-silverman/

---

The ACC's contract with ESPN requires ESPN to pay a flat rate for any new member, so long as the member schools vote to add them. All we had to do with the ACC was convince enough schools to vote us in.

The B1G's contract with Fox has no such automatic provision. To add new members, Fox needs to agree to pony up the money to pay them, or the existing members have to agree to cut their own shares in order to let in a new member under the same overall payout (which they'd never do). So it wasn't just a matter of convincing the B1G presidents; we also had to convince Fox, and they weren't budging.

---

Regardless of whatever the reason was, the question is what does it take now to get in when realignment comes around again? Is a flash-in-the-pan great season or even several get us in? Both us and Stanford have had those seasons in the not to distant past. That wasn't enough. So what will it take?

---

It's really hard to predict, because who knows what kind of money will be available and from what carriers when the next round of negotiations comes up? It's possible that Fox was being tight-fisted with their cash because they think they won't be able to afford the same payouts next time.

The thing that would best help our case would be having winning seasons in football (and also the higher attendance and viewership that would come with that), obviously. These networks seem to have particularly short-sighted views, so I do think a few flash-in-the-pan seasons would do it if the timing was right.

---

Good post, good points. The networks have folks who are "longer thinkers" but the landscape has never changed faster than it is now.
I also think flash in the pan needs to include the factors you talk about, but now, some buzz too, ie. social media in the broadest terms possible...

---

My thinking on this is that almost every other part of Cal's "profile" for a conference is a positive:

1. Large flagship state school
2. Provides access to a high-population state
3. Biggest draw in a large, Top 10 media market
4. Top-notch academics (maybe not important for every conference, but for the B1G and ACC it seems to matter)
5. Strong support for non-revenue sports

The problem is that the revenue sports haven't won, and that is a pretty big problem. If we can show ANY signs of life there I'd expect it can go a long way. (The other problem is that while CA/The Bay is a large market it's not that big on college football. But I think the historical evidence for how Cal can get people to show up when they win indicates that there is good opportunity here.)

---

I think the academics aspect, it's a good talking point at best....but in reality, means close to nothing....

---

Again, it clearly means something to certain conferences and certain school presidents. It's not near the top of the list but it is a positive.

---

It is definitely more than nothing especially with the school presidents. It is the main reason OSU and WSU got left behind and we didn't. Well, that and market size.

---

Notre Dame's president repeatedly cited academics as a reason to bring Cal and Stanford into the ACC. Sure, they had other reasons to support expansion but we only get their first look because of the academic standing (that they'd like to be associated with).

---

Notre Dame wants the ACC to stay alive to keep their independence. They know the moment super conferences become a thing they have to pick and choose.

---

Notre Dame did not help bring us into the ACC to save the ACC.

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Clemson will not receive an offer from the Big Ten as the universities' academics and cultures are so at variance with that of the conference (indeed, Clemson is a prototype SEC school). I must concede that I was confident that Oregon would never be invited to the Big Ten to give some context to my credibility on these matters.

Florida State and Clemson may have had some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" conversations with individuals that have informal ties to the Big Ten and the SEC, but I highly doubt that there has been any official contact or secure invitations; such activities would open the conferences to tortious interference lawsuits. There will not be any official discussions between the conferences and the schools until all legal issues are resolved.

If Florida State does not receive a Big Ten invitation it will not be because of AAU status; Florida State's academics have been rapidly improving, and by any reasonable measure their academics are (and certainly will be in the future) superior to those of Oregon. My impression is that AAU status is much preferred by the Big Ten presidents, but is not an absolute. Every Big Ten president knew that Nebraska's AAU status was hanging by a thread for the previous decade (Wisconsin and Michigan provided the crucial votes to expel the Cornhuskers!), yet they were invited anyway, and an AAU-less Notre Dame clearly had a standing invitation for the last quarter century (at least).

I believe that all of the "Florida State/Clemson to the Big Ten" discussion is nonsensical; the locations of each university are deep in the heart of Dixie (the panhandle of Florida is not "Florida"), and in any case I cannot imagine that ESPN, who holds the whip hand in this situation, will allow two valuable schools they have under contract to move to the Big Ten. The most likely outcome in my view is that there will be a negotiated settlement where the two schools move to the SEC and the remaining ACC schools soldier on with the current conference membership.

I continue to be disappointed and puzzled as to why the Big Ten did not invite Stanford and Cal to the conference last summer. Even if FOX/CBS/NBC would not increase their payments on the current contract, opening a fourth window ("Big Ten After Dark") would have surely produced sufficient additional income to pay for the two schools (even ESPN might have bid on this package) given their acceptance of the limited ACC payout. Perhaps the Big Ten presidents were concerned about swallowing six new schools, all with close internal ties, simultaneously; this group would be a formidable voting bloc whose impact would be unpredictable. I still hold out hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the Bay Area schools will receive an invitation to the Big Ten.

---

The reason Cal and Stanford did not get a B1G invite is:

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

2) Fox Sports offered the B1G zero dollars for us whereas ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million(?) for us. Why? Almost certainly because Cal tried to block UCLA from going to the B1G. The architect of the UCLA and USC move to the B1G is Fox Sports COO Mark Silverman, a UCLA grad who created the Big-10 Network and who lives 5 minutes from the UCLA campus and is a season ticket holder and major donor.

Mark Silverman
https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/bios/on-air/mark-silverman/

---

The ACC's contract with ESPN requires ESPN to pay a flat rate for any new member, so long as the member schools vote to add them. All we had to do with the ACC was convince enough schools to vote us in.

The B1G's contract with Fox has no such automatic provision. To add new members, Fox needs to agree to pony up the money to pay them, or the existing members have to agree to cut their own shares in order to let in a new member under the same overall payout (which they'd never do). So it wasn't just a matter of convincing the B1G presidents; we also had to convince Fox, and they weren't budging.

---

Regardless of whatever the reason was, the question is what does it take now to get in when realignment comes around again? Is a flash-in-the-pan great season or even several get us in? Both us and Stanford have had those seasons in the not to distant past. That wasn't enough. So what will it take?

---

It's really hard to predict, because who knows what kind of money will be available and from what carriers when the next round of negotiations comes up? It's possible that Fox was being tight-fisted with their cash because they think they won't be able to afford the same payouts next time.

The thing that would best help our case would be having winning seasons in football (and also the higher attendance and viewership that would come with that), obviously. These networks seem to have particularly short-sighted views, so I do think a few flash-in-the-pan seasons would do it if the timing was right.

---

Good post, good points. The networks have folks who are "longer thinkers" but the landscape has never changed faster than it is now.
I also think flash in the pan needs to include the factors you talk about, but now, some buzz too, ie. social media in the broadest terms possible...

---

My thinking on this is that almost every other part of Cal's "profile" for a conference is a positive:

1. Large flagship state school
2. Provides access to a high-population state
3. Biggest draw in a large, Top 10 media market
4. Top-notch academics (maybe not important for every conference, but for the B1G and ACC it seems to matter)
5. Strong support for non-revenue sports

The problem is that the revenue sports haven't won, and that is a pretty big problem. If we can show ANY signs of life there I'd expect it can go a long way. (The other problem is that while CA/The Bay is a large market it's not that big on college football. But I think the historical evidence for how Cal can get people to show up when they win indicates that there is good opportunity here.)

---

I think the academics aspect, it's a good talking point at best....but in reality, means close to nothing....

---

Again, it clearly means something to certain conferences and certain school presidents. It's not near the top of the list but it is a positive.

---

It is definitely more than nothing especially with the school presidents. It is the main reason OSU and WSU got left behind and we didn't. Well, that and market size.

---

Notre Dame's president repeatedly cited academics as a reason to bring Cal and Stanford into the ACC. Sure, they had other reasons to support expansion but we only get their first look because of the academic standing (that they'd like to be associated with).

---

Notre Dame wants the ACC to stay alive to keep their independence. They know the moment super conferences become a thing they have to pick and choose.

---

That's why I said they had other reasons. But there were other schools they could have pushed for expansion. Cal and Stanford were pushed because of the academic prestige they bring.

There was no other reason except to keep their independence. As long as the ACC stays alive, in nearly any form, Notre Dame can keep their independence. They saw us in desperation mode and used us to make more difficult any attempt to dismantle the ACC. That we happened to fit the academic profile of Notre Dame was, perhaps, coincidental.

philly1121 said:

---

That we happened to fit the academic profile of Notre Dame was, perhaps, coincidental.

---

I'd say it was pretty material as to why WE were chosen as the schools to push for.

It helped. But no two teams, besides OSU and WSU, were in the circumstances that we were in. ACC wasn't taking those two. We fit the academic profile and the emotional desperation.

philly1121 said:

---

There was no other reason except to keep their independence. As long as the ACC stays alive, in nearly any form, Notre Dame can keep their independence. They saw us in desperation mode and used us to make more difficult any attempt to dismantle the ACC. That we happened to fit the academic profile of Notre Dame was, perhaps, coincidental.

---

I actually think we make the ACC LESS stable. If the B1G decided "Ok, we are ready to enlarge our West Coast pod" and through back channels made it known Cal and Stanford were welcome, reconstituting the PAC-6, Cal and and Stanford would vote to dissolve the ACC in a second. We are not natural members of the ACC.

If Notre Dame primarily wanted stability they would have added schools like UConn, Coastal Carolina, UNC Charlotte, East Carolina, Army, Navy…..East Coast schools like Wake Forest that if admitted would NEVER vote to dissolve the ACC.

The primary reason Norte Dame's president pushed for us is: 1) It is the right thing to do. He is a Jesuit priest after all. 2) He went to seminary at the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley just north of campus in the late 80's, easy walking distance from Memorial. He grew up an athlete in Nebraska where football is huge. He might have even attended some games in Berkeley. Maybe Boston College? 3) He was big part of initiating the long running series with Stanford, which he clearly valued. 4) He is considered to be liberal, allowing gay films on campus, the Vagina Monologues, and inviting President Obama to give the 2009 commencement address and receive an honorary degree which was all vehemently opposed by right-wing bishops.

We have such a big hill to climb to get the fan base back and get TV numbers up. My company has been hiring recently and we've interviewed at least 40 twenty /thirty something Cal grads from sales to engineering. Only two knew who our coach was, and one of those thought his name was Dustin. And that was from the guy who played lacrosse as a frosh.

Back to the OP. The question that needs to be answered is:

Is a settlement possible? One that ESPN, the ACC, the SEC, FSU and Clemsen would all agree to?

It might look something like;
1. ESPN agrees to the ACC's current per school payout without Clemson and FSU through 2036.
2. ESPN pays the SEC the same amount for Clemsen and FSU what they would have paid the ACC for them.

That makes it cost neutral for ESPN and revenue neutral for the ACC.

Likely there would still be a large exit fee paid to the ACC, but it would be far less than the contract would require. Maybe $50-100 million?

The SEC might just pay Clemsen and FSU the lower amount they receive from ESPN. The next question is whether the SEC really wants FSU and Clemson or whether they would make them buy in with an even lower payout? Assume the former.

FSU and Clemson could then presumably start playing in the SEC as long as they pay a negotiated exit fee and agree to a lower payout (equal to the ACC payout) than that received by their new SEC peers. With the prospect of becoming fully paid members in 2036.

I wouldn't do it, but if they want into the SEC badly enough, that is what it would probably take to happen.

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

Clemson will not receive an offer from the Big Ten as the universities' academics and cultures are so at variance with that of the conference (indeed, Clemson is a prototype SEC school). I must concede that I was confident that Oregon would never be invited to the Big Ten to give some context to my credibility on these matters.

Florida State and Clemson may have had some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" conversations with individuals that have informal ties to the Big Ten and the SEC, but I highly doubt that there has been any official contact or secure invitations; such activities would open the conferences to tortious interference lawsuits. There will not be any official discussions between the conferences and the schools until all legal issues are resolved.

If Florida State does not receive a Big Ten invitation it will not be because of AAU status; Florida State's academics have been rapidly improving, and by any reasonable measure their academics are (and certainly will be in the future) superior to those of Oregon. My impression is that AAU status is much preferred by the Big Ten presidents, but is not an absolute. Every Big Ten president knew that Nebraska's AAU status was hanging by a thread for the previous decade (Wisconsin and Michigan provided the crucial votes to expel the Cornhuskers!), yet they were invited anyway, and an AAU-less Notre Dame clearly had a standing invitation for the last quarter century (at least).

I believe that all of the "Florida State/Clemson to the Big Ten" discussion is nonsensical; the locations of each university are deep in the heart of Dixie (the panhandle of Florida is not "Florida"), and in any case I cannot imagine that ESPN, who holds the whip hand in this situation, will allow two valuable schools they have under contract to move to the Big Ten. The most likely outcome in my view is that there will be a negotiated settlement where the two schools move to the SEC and the remaining ACC schools soldier on with the current conference membership.

I continue to be disappointed and puzzled as to why the Big Ten did not invite Stanford and Cal to the conference last summer. Even if FOX/CBS/NBC would not increase their payments on the current contract, opening a fourth window ("Big Ten After Dark") would have surely produced sufficient additional income to pay for the two schools (even ESPN might have bid on this package) given their acceptance of the limited ACC payout. Perhaps the Big Ten presidents were concerned about swallowing six new schools, all with close internal ties, simultaneously; this group would be a formidable voting bloc whose impact would be unpredictable. I still hold out hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the Bay Area schools will receive an invitation to the Big Ten.

---

The reason Cal and Stanford did not get a B1G invite is:

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

2) Fox Sports offered the B1G zero dollars for us whereas ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million(?) for us. Why? Almost certainly because Cal tried to block UCLA from going to the B1G. The architect of the UCLA and USC move to the B1G is Fox Sports COO Mark Silverman, a UCLA grad who created the Big-10 Network and who lives 5 minutes from the UCLA campus and is a season ticket holder and major donor.

Mark Silverman
https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/bios/on-air/mark-silverman/

---

The ACC's contract with ESPN requires ESPN to pay a flat rate for any new member, so long as the member schools vote to add them. All we had to do with the ACC was convince enough schools to vote us in.

The B1G's contract with Fox has no such automatic provision. To add new members, Fox needs to agree to pony up the money to pay them, or the existing members have to agree to cut their own shares in order to let in a new member under the same overall payout (which they'd never do). So it wasn't just a matter of convincing the B1G presidents; we also had to convince Fox, and they weren't budging.

---

Regardless of whatever the reason was, the question is what does it take now to get in when realignment comes around again? Is a flash-in-the-pan great season or even several get us in? Both us and Stanford have had those seasons in the not to distant past. That wasn't enough. So what will it take?

---

It's really hard to predict, because who knows what kind of money will be available and from what carriers when the next round of negotiations comes up? It's possible that Fox was being tight-fisted with their cash because they think they won't be able to afford the same payouts next time.

The thing that would best help our case would be having winning seasons in football (and also the higher attendance and viewership that would come with that), obviously. These networks seem to have particularly short-sighted views, so I do think a few flash-in-the-pan seasons would do it if the timing was right.

---

Good post, good points. The networks have folks who are "longer thinkers" but the landscape has never changed faster than it is now.
I also think flash in the pan needs to include the factors you talk about, but now, some buzz too, ie. social media in the broadest terms possible...

---

My thinking on this is that almost every other part of Cal's "profile" for a conference is a positive:

1. Large flagship state school
2. Provides access to a high-population state
3. Biggest draw in a large, Top 10 media market
4. Top-notch academics (maybe not important for every conference, but for the B1G and ACC it seems to matter)
5. Strong support for non-revenue sports

The problem is that the revenue sports haven't won, and that is a pretty big problem. If we can show ANY signs of life there I'd expect it can go a long way. (The other problem is that while CA/The Bay is a large market it's not that big on college football. But I think the historical evidence for how Cal can get people to show up when they win indicates that there is good opportunity here.)

---

I think the academics aspect, it's a good talking point at best....but in reality, means close to nothing....

---

Again, it clearly means something to certain conferences and certain school presidents. It's not near the top of the list but it is a positive.

---

It is definitely more than nothing especially with the school presidents. It is the main reason OSU and WSU got left behind and we didn't. Well, that and market size.

---

Notre Dame's president repeatedly cited academics as a reason to bring Cal and Stanford into the ACC. Sure, they had other reasons to support expansion but we only get their first look because of the academic standing (that they'd like to be associated with).

---

Notre Dame wants the ACC to stay alive to keep their independence. They know the moment super conferences become a thing they have to pick and choose.

---

This.

If the ACC ever becomes so diminished that Notre Dame sees it as not worthy of their sports other than football, and/or the football playoff format gives Big Ten and SEC teams intolerable advantages over everyone else, then Notre Dame will join the Big Ten.

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

There was no other reason except to keep their independence. As long as the ACC stays alive, in nearly any form, Notre Dame can keep their independence. They saw us in desperation mode and used us to make more difficult any attempt to dismantle the ACC. That we happened to fit the academic profile of Notre Dame was, perhaps, coincidental.

---

I actually think we make the ACC LESS stable. If the B1G decided "Ok, we are ready to enlarge our West Coast pod" and through back channels made it known Cal and Stanford were welcome, reconstituting the PAC-6, Cal and and Stanford would vote to dissolve the ACC in a second. We are not natural members of the ACC.

If Notre Dame primarily wanted stability they would have added schools like UConn, Coastal Carolina, UNC Charlotte, East Carolina, Army, Navy…..East Coast schools like Wake Forest that if admitted would NEVER vote to dissolve the ACC.

The primary reason Norte Dame's president pushed for us is: 1) It is the right thing to do. He is a Jesuit priest after all. 2) He went to seminary at the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley just north of campus in the late 80's, easy walking distance from Memorial. He grew up an athlete in Nebraska where football is huge. He might have even attended some games in Berkeley. Maybe Boston College? 3) He was big part of initiating the long running series with Stanford, which he clearly valued. 4) He is considered to be liberal, allowing gay films on campus, the Vagina Monologues, and inviting President Obama to give the 2009 commencement address and receive an honorary degree which was all vehemently opposed by right-wing bishops.

---

Notre Dame doesn't get to unilaterally add schools; all those you mention would have gotten just about zero support from almost anyone else, PLUS they would have pissed off Clemson and FSU even more then Cal/Stanford/SMU did. Notre Dame absolutely is largely motivated by keeping the ACC intact. A couple of available P5 schools that have solid reputations in many sports and world class reputations in academics >>>>>>> East Coast G5s that have neither (UConn being an exception on the sports front).

MTbear22 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

---

False.

---

Are you saying Carol Christ was secretly applying to get into the B1G at the same time she was publicly trying to block UCLA at the Regents and saying that going to the B1G was horrible for UCLA's student athletes? Or is the party line now that never happened and all along she was trying to get into the B1G too, because that was what UW and a Oregon were reportedly doing from the get go.

calumnus said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

---

False.

---

Are you saying Carol Christ was secretly applying to get into the B1G at the same time she was publicly trying to block UCLA at the Regents and saying that going to the B1G was horrible for UCLA's student athletes? Or is the party line now that never happened and all along she was trying to get into the B1G too, because that was what UW and a Oregon were reportedly doing from the get go.

---

100% Carol was not doing anything. Knowlton most likely didn't hear about the UCLA/USC departure until Stanford saved our behinds by dragging us into the ACC with them.

MTbear22 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

There was no other reason except to keep their independence. As long as the ACC stays alive, in nearly any form, Notre Dame can keep their independence. They saw us in desperation mode and used us to make more difficult any attempt to dismantle the ACC. That we happened to fit the academic profile of Notre Dame was, perhaps, coincidental.

---

I actually think we make the ACC LESS stable. If the B1G decided "Ok, we are ready to enlarge our West Coast pod" and through back channels made it known Cal and Stanford were welcome, reconstituting the PAC-6, Cal and and Stanford would vote to dissolve the ACC in a second. We are not natural members of the ACC.

If Notre Dame primarily wanted stability they would have added schools like UConn, Coastal Carolina, UNC Charlotte, East Carolina, Army, Navy…..East Coast schools like Wake Forest that if admitted would NEVER vote to dissolve the ACC.

The primary reason Norte Dame's president pushed for us is: 1) It is the right thing to do. He is a Jesuit priest after all. 2) He went to seminary at the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley just north of campus in the late 80's, easy walking distance from Memorial. He grew up an athlete in Nebraska where football is huge. He might have even attended some games in Berkeley. Maybe Boston College? 3) He was big part of initiating the long running series with Stanford, which he clearly valued. 4) He is considered to be liberal, allowing gay films on campus, the Vagina Monologues, and inviting President Obama to give the 2009 commencement address and receive an honorary degree which was all vehemently opposed by right-wing bishops.

---

Notre Dame doesn't get to unilaterally add schools; all those you mention would have gotten just about zero support from almost anyone else, PLUS they would have pissed off Clemson and FSU even more then Cal/Stanford/SMU did. Notre Dame absolutely is largely motivated by keeping the ACC intact. A couple of available P5 schools that have solid reputations in many sports and world class reputations in academics >>>>>>> East Coast G5s that have neither (UConn being an exception on the sports front).

---

Notre Dame's president is the one who lobbied for us and I truly believe he did it on GP because he wanted to help Cal and Stanford. He went to school in Berkeley and Oxford, England. He appreciates great universities. Plus, remember, he is a priest. Morality is supposed to be important. It is what he said and I believe him. It did not come from anywhere else. "The Notre Dame Football Community" has disagreed with him before. It did not bring stability to the ACC and that was not the intent. It pissed off the malcontents even more.

mbBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

---

False.

---

Are you saying Carol Christ was secretly applying to get into the B1G at the same time she was publicly trying to block UCLA at the Regents and saying that going to the B1G was horrible for UCLA's student athletes? Or is the party line now that never happened and all along she was trying to get into the B1G too, because that was what UW and a Oregon were reportedly doing from the get go.

---

100% Carol was not doing anything. Knowlton most likely didn't hear about the UCLA/USC departure until Stanford saved our behinds by dragging us into the ACC with them.

---

No inside info here on the Cal side. But the narrative that if only Cal "tried harder" they would have been in the Big, is a Cal feel good story. Those close to that side (Big, and knowledge of Fox) say that they were not adding Cal. Anyone wants to add "what if's" to that? Have add it, whatever makes you feel good.
The two most recent commissioners were paid really good money to know what was going on with all conference schools, and be thinking years out. Paying special attention to SC and UCLA would have been a no brainer for even a middle of the road commissioner. The best Cal chancellor of all time, combined with the best Cal AD of all time. would not have prevented everything that went down....

---

Cal easily checks all the boxes to be in the B1G except one, and that one is the most important. Viewership.

Why Cal's viewership is poor has a myriad of reasons. I do wonder if this type of realignment occurred in 2010, if Cal would already be in. I tend to think so.

golden sloth said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

---

False.

---

Are you saying Carol Christ was secretly applying to get into the B1G at the same time she was publicly trying to block UCLA at the Regents and saying that going to the B1G was horrible for UCLA's student athletes? Or is the party line now that never happened and all along she was trying to get into the B1G too, because that was what UW and a Oregon were reportedly doing from the get go.

---

100% Carol was not doing anything. Knowlton most likely didn't hear about the UCLA/USC departure until Stanford saved our behinds by dragging us into the ACC with them.

---

No inside info here on the Cal side. But the narrative that if only Cal "tried harder" they would have been in the Big, is a Cal feel good story. Those close to that side (Big, and knowledge of Fox) say that they were not adding Cal. Anyone wants to add "what if's" to that? Have add it, whatever makes you feel good.
The two most recent commissioners were paid really good money to know what was going on with all conference schools, and be thinking years out. Paying special attention to SC and UCLA would have been a no brainer for even a middle of the road commissioner. The best Cal chancellor of all time, combined with the best Cal AD of all time. would not have prevented everything that went down....

---

Cal easily checks all the boxes to be in the B1G except one, and that one is the most important. Viewership.

Why Cal's viewership is poor has a myriad of reasons. I do wonder if this type of realignment occurred in 2010, if Cal would already be in. I tend to think so.

---

It's mostly poor because we don't win. And yeah, I think that if this was happening in or near the Tedford era we would have been invited.

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

---

False.

---

Are you saying Carol Christ was secretly applying to get into the B1G at the same time she was publicly trying to block UCLA at the Regents and saying that going to the B1G was horrible for UCLA's student athletes? Or is the party line now that never happened and all along she was trying to get into the B1G too, because that was what UW and a Oregon were reportedly doing from the get go.

---

100% Carol was not doing anything. Knowlton most likely didn't hear about the UCLA/USC departure until Stanford saved our behinds by dragging us into the ACC with them.

---

No inside info here on the Cal side. But the narrative that if only Cal "tried harder" they would have been in the Big, is a Cal feel good story. Those close to that side (Big, and knowledge of Fox) say that they were not adding Cal. Anyone wants to add "what if's" to that? Have add it, whatever makes you feel good.
The two most recent commissioners were paid really good money to know what was going on with all conference schools, and be thinking years out. Paying special attention to SC and UCLA would have been a no brainer for even a middle of the road commissioner. The best Cal chancellor of all time, combined with the best Cal AD of all time. would not have prevented everything that went down....

---

Cal easily checks all the boxes to be in the B1G except one, and that one is the most important. Viewership.

Why Cal's viewership is poor has a myriad of reasons. I do wonder if this type of realignment occurred in 2010, if Cal would already be in. I tend to think so.

---

It's mostly poor because we don't win. And yeah, I think that if this was happening in or near the Tedford era we would have been invited.

---

1. We don't win.
2. Pac-12 Network (where are games are played due to #1).
3. Competition from NFL for fans.

Now that we are in the ACC (ACC Network run by ESPN) and will be one of two ESPN P4 teams on the West Coast, with the Raiders in Vegas and Niners in Santa Clara, our exposure will be greater and our chance to build a fan base is huge.

But we have to start winning. That is the most critical factor.

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

---

False.

---

Are you saying Carol Christ was secretly applying to get into the B1G at the same time she was publicly trying to block UCLA at the Regents and saying that going to the B1G was horrible for UCLA's student athletes? Or is the party line now that never happened and all along she was trying to get into the B1G too, because that was what UW and a Oregon were reportedly doing from the get go.

---

100% Carol was not doing anything. Knowlton most likely didn't hear about the UCLA/USC departure until Stanford saved our behinds by dragging us into the ACC with them.

---

No inside info here on the Cal side. But the narrative that if only Cal "tried harder" they would have been in the Big, is a Cal feel good story. Those close to that side (Big, and knowledge of Fox) say that they were not adding Cal. Anyone wants to add "what if's" to that? Have add it, whatever makes you feel good.
The two most recent commissioners were paid really good money to know what was going on with all conference schools, and be thinking years out. Paying special attention to SC and UCLA would have been a no brainer for even a middle of the road commissioner. The best Cal chancellor of all time, combined with the best Cal AD of all time. would not have prevented everything that went down....

---

Cal easily checks all the boxes to be in the B1G except one, and that one is the most important. Viewership.

Why Cal's viewership is poor has a myriad of reasons. I do wonder if this type of realignment occurred in 2010, if Cal would already be in. I tend to think so.

---

It's mostly poor because we don't win. And yeah, I think that if this was happening in or near the Tedford era we would have been invited.

---

1. We don't win.
2. Pac-12 Network (where are games are played due to #1).
3. Competition from NFL for fans.

Now that we are in the ACC (ACC Network run by ESPN) and will be one of two ESPN P4 teams on the West Coast, with the Raiders in Vegas and Niners in Santa Clara, our exposure will be greater and our chance to build a fan base is huge.

But we have to start winning. That is the most critical factor.

---

I would add marketing. I mean there is a solution no reason why we can't have a cult following from all those raiders fans. Yes winning will definitely help but we need to reach out to the rest of the Bay area and have them buy into Cal is a public university playing on behalf of them and not some exclusive school.

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

1) UW and Oregon beat us to it. We didn't apply until it was too late.

---

False.

---

Are you saying Carol Christ was secretly applying to get into the B1G at the same time she was publicly trying to block UCLA at the Regents and saying that going to the B1G was horrible for UCLA's student athletes? Or is the party line now that never happened and all along she was trying to get into the B1G too, because that was what UW and a Oregon were reportedly doing from the get go.

---

100% Carol was not doing anything. Knowlton most likely didn't hear about the UCLA/USC departure until Stanford saved our behinds by dragging us into the ACC with them.

---

No inside info here on the Cal side. But the narrative that if only Cal "tried harder" they would have been in the Big, is a Cal feel good story. Those close to that side (Big, and knowledge of Fox) say that they were not adding Cal. Anyone wants to add "what if's" to that? Have add it, whatever makes you feel good.
The two most recent commissioners were paid really good money to know what was going on with all conference schools, and be thinking years out. Paying special attention to SC and UCLA would have been a no brainer for even a middle of the road commissioner. The best Cal chancellor of all time, combined with the best Cal AD of all time. would not have prevented everything that went down....

---

Cal easily checks all the boxes to be in the B1G except one, and that one is the most important. Viewership.

Why Cal's viewership is poor has a myriad of reasons. I do wonder if this type of realignment occurred in 2010, if Cal would already be in. I tend to think so.

---

It's mostly poor because we don't win. And yeah, I think that if this was happening in or near the Tedford era we would have been invited.

---

1. We don't win.
2. Pac-12 Network (where are games are played due to #1).
3. Competition from NFL for fans.

Now that we are in the ACC (ACC Network run by ESPN) and will be one of two ESPN P4 teams on the West Coast, with the Raiders in Vegas and Niners in Santa Clara, our exposure will be greater and our chance to build a fan base is huge.

But we have to start winning. That is the most critical factor.

---

I would add marketing. I mean there is a solution no reason why we can't have a cult following from all those raiders fans. Yes winning will definitely help but we need to reach out to the rest of the Bay area and have them buy into Cal is a public university playing on behalf of them and not some exclusive school.

---

Agreed. Marketing local players too. The Jet could be a HUGE fan favorite. Already has a great highlight reel. Assuming Ott jumps to the NFL after this year, he could be the feature (1st down) back.