If it's a Pac-12 full of ex-MWC teams? No.

Trumpanzee said:

---

Or wait and win a ACC title? Does it help or hinder our recruiting by staying in the ACC or going back to Pac12?

---

going back hinders, it means we gave up

In a word - nope.

Would you let your ex-wife move back in with you after she took up with Manny, Moe, and Jack who live in a mobile home down by the river?

There is a new excitement around the program since joining the ACC and I think it is (and will in the future) helping recruiting. Playing Miami, Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, et al, or playing Boise, Fresno and Wazzo? Is this seriously a choise?

Plan A: Settle in to the ACC, keep building, and make our case for the next round of realignment

Plan B: ACC blows up early or immediately, we plead our case to the B10 with some allies now there and a chancellor who will actually give them a call to apply. In this scenario I think Notre Dame might finally join and go to bat for us. I think Washington and Oregon might as well now that it's not "every man for themself". UC Los Angeles would probably be on our side too to get rid of Caliminy payments

Plan C: ACC blows up sparking a new round of realignment. Building a lower-tier P4 conference with the leftovers from the ACC and B12 that's still a much better and more marketable conference than the new PAC as it currently stands. Cal, Stanford, NC State, Louisville, Houston, SMU, Duke, Utah, ASU, Arizona, Ga Tech, Pitt, Virginia, Va Tech, Pitt, Wake, Louisville, OK State, Texas Tech, West Virginia, service academies, and then some better G6 teams like Memphis could all be possibilities in this scenario as well as possibly bringing OSU/WSU back into the P4 fold even though it would mean abandoning the PAC banner and history

Plan D: settle for going back to the PAC and their significantly lower payout and level of competition and accepting our fate as a G6 school

So I would consider it a very distant 4th option but something we'd have to consider if it got to that point. It would be extremely bad though and not something we should look for willingly

If the PAC-12 added more Power 4 teams, then I'm up for returning back to the PAC.

This would be a disaster so expect knowlton to pull out all the stops to get it done.

From a recruitment standpoint I think we hurt ourselves by going back. Outside all the Engineers, Lawyers and Doctor's who play on our team and benefit from our higher educational stanndards, there is no extra exposure by going to the Pac12 vs. staying in the ACC.

sycasey said:

---

If it's a Pac-12 full of ex-MWC teams? No.

---

This.

Nor sure why this is even still be discussed. If the ACC exists, we can't afford to pay the GOR break-up fee. If the ACC blows-up, we need to get into whatever power conference is left or face financial ruin. Going to the present Pac means our administrators failed us.

Nah. F- those guys! We're fine in the ACC. Or wherever we wind up after the next conference shuffle in 2-3 years. Just stay in a power conference to maximizeTV exposure, improve post season options and increase playoff chances. The ACC accomplishes all, this new PAC X - not so much.

So we can play Fresno State instead of Florida State? No.

I would not........ at least not as I am hearing it being "promoted" in the last few days.

Among the people I have talked with here in SoCal, (mostly $C and UC(la) people), there is absolutely no appetite for having a bunch of Cal/BoiseStates in a major conference that we'd be in. For me, I think a conference with Fresno, Boise and LV would erode my interest big time.

I have to admit that I'm warming up to the ACC. There is a program on the ACC Network called "3 Day Weekend" (may not have the title exactly right, but it's close), where they travel to the home towns of the ACC schools and share some of the sights, traditions, and food places of each. I am increasingly impressed with what I see there and am especially surprised by the football traditions of these ACC schools.

We're far better off in the ACC, than a flimsy Pac ## if it comes down to that.

NOW, if UC(la), $C, UW and oregon wanted to rejoin I'd be OK with it. I don't need the Arizona schools, nor the "mountain" schools. Give me the old PAC 8. That's how it always should have been.

TomBear said:

---

I would not........ at least not as I am hearing it being "promoted" in the last few days.

Among the people I have talked with here in SoCal, (mostly $C and UC(la) people), there is absolutely no appetite for having a bunch of Cal/BoiseStates in a major conference that we'd be in. For me, I think a conference with Fresno, Boise and LV would erode my interest big time.

I have to admit that I'm warming up to the ACC. There is a program on the ACC Network called "3 Day Weekend" (may not have the title exactly right, but it's close), where they travel to the home towns of the ACC schools and share some of the sights, traditions, and food places of each. I am increasingly impressed with what I see there and am especially surprised by the football traditions of these ACC schools.

We're far better off in the ACC, than a flimsy Pac ## if it comes down to that.

NOW, if UC(la), $C, UW and oregon wanted to rejoin I'd be OK with it. I don't need the Arizona schools, nor the "mountain" schools. Give me the old PAC 8. That's how it always should have been.

---

Aside from the travel and Florida State being annoying, the ACC isn't a bad home (however temporary). Good traditions and rivalries, and most of the schools are pretty strong academically. And they clearly get better media coverage than the Pac did.

bearsandgiants said:

---

This would be a disaster so expect knowlton to pull out all the stops to get it done.

---

Nah, Jk would see value in joining the Mtn West. /sarcasm font

But the answer to the OP: hell no. We need to be with whatever power programs remain standing after the next re-alignment, and the Pac won't be that.

Say it. "We're NOT going back!"

TomBear said:

---

NOW, if UC(la), $C, UW and oregon wanted to rejoin I'd be OK with it. I don't need the Arizona schools, nor the "mountain" schools. Give me the old PAC 8. That's how it always should have been.

---

I think that is sentimental talk which I understand, but does not reflect current economics. Only way we see those teams is some sort of ACC/B1G merger or an ACC blow-up and an invite. I just don;t see Fox allowing the B1G to blow-up.

We might as well embrace the ACC, because we can't buy our way to of it given the GOR. I have been absolutely stunned how much better the TV and national exposure is as an ACC member, than in the Pac. Crap, I have relatives telling me that North Carolina sports talk shows are apparently calling Cal the dark horse to win the ACC two games into the season. Screw USC and UCLA!

Tom Wolfe said it: You can't go home again.

If we'd wanted to be in the Mountain West, we could have done that. Or held fast with the Beavs and Cougs. But we (for cynical reasons, I grant) were offered the opportunity to join a "power" conference and continue to (for the most part) play sports against fellow AAU academic peers.

Stay with the ACC and let's see how it plays out. I doubt the landscape is done changing.

wifeisafurd said:

---

TomBear said:

---

NOW, if UC(la), $C, UW and oregon wanted to rejoin I'd be OK with it. I don't need the Arizona schools, nor the "mountain" schools. Give me the old PAC 8. That's how it always should have been.

---

I think that is sentimental talk which I understand, but does not reflect current economics. Only way we see those teams is some sort of ACC/B1G merger or an ACC blow-up and an invite. I just don;t see Fox allowing the B1G to blow-up.

We might as well embrace the ACC, because we can't buy our way to of it given the GOR. I have been absolutely stunned how much better the TV and national exposure is as an ACC member, than in the Pac. Crap, I have relatives telling me that North Carolina sports talk shows are apparently calling Cal the dark horse to win the ACC two games into the season. Screw USC and UCLA!

---

It's really something. I believe very strongly that the Pac was a superior football conference (the ACC could produce some really strong champions, like Clemson at their peak, but top-to-bottom it was not as good as the Pac-12), but having a presence in the southeast like the ACC does means you just get more attention. That and the midwest are the epicenters of college football, so being tied to teams from that region means you get the same attention they do.

Having a west-coast geographic conference was good for a number of reasons, but from a media standpoint it was too easy to get siloed and ignored. Add in the self-inflicted wounds we dealt ourselves with the Pac-12 Network and it was a disaster.

mdcspe69 said:

---

YES!!!! Travel to the east coast requires crossing three time zones. To do that several times in a season defines insanity. Some might say Washington is a long trip. Washington does not take the team across three time zones. Travel to Washington does not affect sleep. Travel to Duke does.

---

To quote our head coach:

"There's like this great new technology called airplanes, and they go super fast."

To the ones that think Cal could return to the PAC…#GoBears pic.twitter.com/G42Q8x9Wig

— PositiveBear (@PositiveOski) September 13, 2024

My 2 year old cracked me up yesterday. Was talking to my wife about football over lunch (bless her heart) and I must have mentioned ACC. As soon as I did that, my 2 y.o. starting chanting "ACC, ACC, ACC!" with her fist in the air. Our chants at the Auburn game must have fresh in her memory!

Yea, I don't want to go back to the PAC. Not anytime soon at least.

SoFlaBear said:

---

Tom Wolfe said it: You can't go home again.

If we'd wanted to be in the Mountain West, we could have done that. Or held fast with the Beavs and Cougs. But we (for cynical reasons, I grant) were offered the opportunity to join a "power" conference and continue to (for the most part) play sports against fellow AAU academic peers.

Stay with the ACC and let's see how it plays out. I doubt the landscape is done changing.

---

I don't know about Tom Wolfe, but John Steinbeck said, " You can't go home again because home has ceased to exist except in the mothballs of memory"

GoCal80 said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

Tom Wolfe said it: You can't go home again.

If we'd wanted to be in the Mountain West, we could have done that. Or held fast with the Beavs and Cougs. But we (for cynical reasons, I grant) were offered the opportunity to join a "power" conference and continue to (for the most part) play sports against fellow AAU academic peers.

Stay with the ACC and let's see how it plays out. I doubt the landscape is done changing.

---

I don't know about Tom Wolfe, but John Steinbeck said, " You can't go home again because home has ceased to exist except in the mothballs of memory"

---

He wrote that in "Travels With Charley." If you have an Audible subscription, do yourself a favor and download the audiobook read by Gary Sinise.

Steinbeck is my favorite author, and while TWC is not my favorite of his books, the chapter in which he wrote that quote that you cite may be my favorite piece of his writing. When the chapter ends with "...and then we hurried away from the permanent and changeless past where my mother is always shooting a wildcat and my father is always burning his name with his love" I'm usually forced to complain about allergies or dust or some other damn thing getting into my eye.

So to your point, this is what Steinbeck wrote:

What I am about to tell must be the experience of very many in this nation where so many wander and come back. I called on old and valued friends. I thought their hair had receded a little more than mine. The greetings were enthusiastic. The memories flooded up. Old crimes and old triumphs were brought out and dusted. And suddenly my attention wandered, and looking at my ancient friend, I saw that his wandered also. And it was true what I had said to Johnny Garcia was the ghost. My town had grown and changed and my friend along with it. Now returning, as changed to my friend as my town was to me, I distorted his picture, muddied his memory. When I went away I had died, and so became fixed and unchangeable. My return caused only confusion and uneasiness. Although they could not say it, my old friends wanted me gone so that I could take my proper place in the pattern of remembrance and I wanted to go for the same reason. Tom Wolfe was right. You can't go home again because home has ceased to exist except in the mothballs of memory.

...and this is what happens when Cal Football discussions go off the rails.

Go Bears!

After USC and UCLA announced their departure, I argued on this board that Kliavkoff should negotiate a merger with the B1G or ACC to form a super conference with a West Coast pod. Basically negotiate terms of surrender before you get blown up. The big advantage of the coast to coast conference is the ability to have East Coast teams playing on the West Coast in the prime time and late night East Coast time slots.

Fox and the B1G eventually got that by blowing up thecPac-11 with Oregon and UW added to UCLA and USC. I do believe we would have been part of that if we had better leadership.

However, getting into the ACC has been a godsend. We (with Stanford and SMU) are the ACC's West Coast pod, and now ESPN's prime property on the West Coast. It is a huge opportunity to grow our brand. If we can be a good team we will be on TV all the time. This is why branding as "California" is an opportunity to generate more interest in our program and viewership. Remember, we don't need to be the favorite team of everyone in California, we just need to be the second or third team, a team people will watch on TV and be known by recruits. In some parts of the country we may be disliked and people will watch rooting against us. It all counts as "viewership."

If the ACC ever breaks up (and FSU, Clemson and UNC leave) if we execute the above plan, we will be in good position to join the B1G, but if for some reason we don't, I think the best plan B option will be staying in the ACC and rebuilding by adding West Coast (maybe poaching West Coast and Texas area teams with ex-PAC-12 teams high on the list.

calumnus, the B1G got everything they wanted out of the Pac12. I doubt, in any reasonable scenario, we are on their radar. The prizes are still FSu, Clemson and NC. Despite what their records are. B1G wants inroads into the Southeast.

Wazzoo and Beavs are doing this out of necessity. They are not out of the woods. Its progress. I may be wrong when 2029 rolls around. But I think we've caught a bit of luck here. We seem to be ascendent, at a time when the ACC looks weak this year. Every team seems beatable. But its only two games in. And we're Cal. SDSU is next. They're the only team that matters.

Original PAC-12? Yes.
New version? No.