One thing I think you're not considering is that many of the non-revenue sports are not affected significantly by realignment. Either they play in a different, regional-based conference (Mountain Pacific Sports Federation), or their seasons are based primarily on playing tournaments/meets (golf, tennis, aquatics, track) rather than dual competitions within a conference. If that's the case, and they're not going to get any revenue from football/basketball, they may not care whether we're relegated or not.

I want to see football and basketball be in a major conference, and thrive. I have long argued that if donors want to see those sports supported, then they have to be willing to pull their academic contributions to force that, something that usually results in horrified reactions from others here. What we're basically dealing with here is pure power politics, and we're now going to see who really has power in relation to athletics.

What do you all think is the difference in what Stanford needs to do to get on the right side of realignment? Their admin is far more competent and better connected. They saved our butts. They were awesome from 2010 to 2018 and still got left out.

They are somehow in the same boat as us.

From now until the next realignment, it seems that ratings (which drive $$$) is the primary thing. Everything being discussed about cutting sports doesn't change this. We just need to win and hope that that results in more viewers. That we are out of the pac-12 networks should already boost viewership. The fact that we are outcasts in a new conference will also add some intrigue and eyeballs we just need to how that significantly more eyeballs will come so long as we win 8+ games from here until realignment. I guess the other big factor here is marketing. Word needs to get out to the broader Bay area that both Stanford and Cal are football teams worth watching.

Am I wrong?

Econ141 said:

---

What do you all think is the difference in what Stanford needs to do to get on the right side of realignment? Their admin is far more competent and better connected. They saved our butts. They were awesome from 2010 to 2018 and still got left out.

They are somehow in the same boat as us.

From now until the next realignment, it seems that ratings (which drive $$$) is the primary thing. Everything being discussed about cutting sports doesn't change this. We just need to win and hope that that results in more viewers. That we are out of the pac-12 networks should already boost viewership. The fact that we are outcasts in a new conference will also add some intrigue and eyeballs we just need to how that significantly more eyeballs will come so long as we win 8+ games from here until realignment. I guess the other big factor here is marketing. Word needs to get out to the broader Bay area that both Stanford and Cal are football teams worth watching.

Am I wrong?

---

Just have to win games. Stringing together multiple winning seasons (not just one in four) increases attendance. It's not an overnight thing. College football TV ratings are driven by two things: (1) Name brand, any time, and (2) Being ranked and having a really good W-L record in the second half of the season. If you don't have (1), better have (2), and if you don't have either, you get a disproportionate number of games on Pac-12 Network (going forward, I guess, the equivalent will be streaming-only ACC Network Extra).

BearSD said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

What do you all think is the difference in what Stanford needs to do to get on the right side of realignment? Their admin is far more competent and better connected. They saved our butts. They were awesome from 2010 to 2018 and still got left out.

They are somehow in the same boat as us.

From now until the next realignment, it seems that ratings (which drive $$$) is the primary thing. Everything being discussed about cutting sports doesn't change this. We just need to win and hope that that results in more viewers. That we are out of the pac-12 networks should already boost viewership. The fact that we are outcasts in a new conference will also add some intrigue and eyeballs we just need to how that significantly more eyeballs will come so long as we win 8+ games from here until realignment. I guess the other big factor here is marketing. Word needs to get out to the broader Bay area that both Stanford and Cal are football teams worth watching.

Am I wrong?

---

Just have to win games. Stringing together multiple winning seasons (not just one in four) increases attendance. It's not an overnight thing. College football TV ratings are driven by two things: (1) Name brand, any time, and (2) Being ranked and having a really good W-L record in the second half of the season. If you don't have (1), better have (2), and if you don't have either, you get a disproportionate number of games on Pac-12 Network (going forward, I guess, the equivalent will be streaming-only ACC Network Extra).

---

I have to question, given our marketing and the whole are we Cal, Berkeley or UC Berkeley or California that we definitely don't have 1. And may never given again marketing despite being one of the best universities in the world.

Econ141 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

What do you all think is the difference in what Stanford needs to do to get on the right side of realignment? Their admin is far more competent and better connected. They saved our butts. They were awesome from 2010 to 2018 and still got left out.

They are somehow in the same boat as us.

From now until the next realignment, it seems that ratings (which drive $$$) is the primary thing. Everything being discussed about cutting sports doesn't change this. We just need to win and hope that that results in more viewers. That we are out of the pac-12 networks should already boost viewership. The fact that we are outcasts in a new conference will also add some intrigue and eyeballs we just need to how that significantly more eyeballs will come so long as we win 8+ games from here until realignment. I guess the other big factor here is marketing. Word needs to get out to the broader Bay area that both Stanford and Cal are football teams worth watching.

Am I wrong?

---

Just have to win games. Stringing together multiple winning seasons (not just one in four) increases attendance. It's not an overnight thing. College football TV ratings are driven by two things: (1) Name brand, any time, and (2) Being ranked and having a really good W-L record in the second half of the season. If you don't have (1), better have (2), and if you don't have either, you get a disproportionate number of games on Pac-12 Network (going forward, I guess, the equivalent will be streaming-only ACC Network Extra).

---

I have to question, given our marketing and the whole are we Cal, Berkeley or UC Berkeley or California that we definitely don't have 1. And may never given again marketing despite being one of the best universities in the world.

---

Marketing, schmarketing. Win lots of games and the media pays attention. Win almost every year and people buy more tickets. When a college football team has only 3 (barely) winning seasons in the last 12 years, especially in a pro-sports-focused media market, the best marketing in the world can't make people want to buy lots of tickets or religiously watch every game on TV.

BearSD said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

What do you all think is the difference in what Stanford needs to do to get on the right side of realignment? Their admin is far more competent and better connected. They saved our butts. They were awesome from 2010 to 2018 and still got left out.

They are somehow in the same boat as us.

From now until the next realignment, it seems that ratings (which drive $$$) is the primary thing. Everything being discussed about cutting sports doesn't change this. We just need to win and hope that that results in more viewers. That we are out of the pac-12 networks should already boost viewership. The fact that we are outcasts in a new conference will also add some intrigue and eyeballs we just need to how that significantly more eyeballs will come so long as we win 8+ games from here until realignment. I guess the other big factor here is marketing. Word needs to get out to the broader Bay area that both Stanford and Cal are football teams worth watching.

Am I wrong?

---

Just have to win games. Stringing together multiple winning seasons (not just one in four) increases attendance. It's not an overnight thing. College football TV ratings are driven by two things: (1) Name brand, any time, and (2) Being ranked and having a really good W-L record in the second half of the season. If you don't have (1), better have (2), and if you don't have either, you get a disproportionate number of games on Pac-12 Network (going forward, I guess, the equivalent will be streaming-only ACC Network Extra).

---

I have to question, given our marketing and the whole are we Cal, Berkeley or UC Berkeley or California that we definitely don't have 1. And may never given again marketing despite being one of the best universities in the world.

---

Marketing, schmarketing. Win lots of games and the media pays attention. Win almost every year and people buy more tickets. When a college football team has only 3 (barely) winning seasons in the last 12 years, especially in a pro-sports-focused media market, the best marketing in the world can't make people want to buy lots of tickets or religiously watch every game on TV.

---

And our last winning season was 5 years ago.