Was "academic focus" a convenient excuse, or just an easier way of saying "we don't want to give you too big of a piece of the pie?"Cal84 said:I think this is a pretty good summary of the situation. However what is left out are the non-athletic department considerations for (and against each Plan). In particular there's that $50 million dollar per year cost (annual loss of the athletic department) of remaining in the ACC, or if you wish of remaining in the hunt to be a power conference football school. That's equivalent to $1,600 per year of additional expenses (aka student loans) per undergrad student, or $6,400 of extra expenses (loans) over each undergrads tenor. That is sort of hard to justify if you claim to be an academically oriented university.Bearly Clad said:
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
And this is the irony. The academic focus of the leading P10 schools led to rejecting OK & TX way back when, which in turn ultimately doomed the P12 and has resulted in a present day tremendous annual hit to academics.
Would you be in favor of moving back to the Pac12?
7,977 Views |
74 Replies |
Last: 8 mo ago by Cal88
That is exactly it. There are reasons the Pac 12 failed. And to be clear, right now there is no conference like the Pac to got back to - just a buch of schools with "State" in their name. The Pac 12 went out in style with a strong finishing football season, but let's not forget there were something like 4 seasons before that where essentially every top high school recruit in the west went to a different conference. The ACC, in contrast, always has been a great basketball conference and sorta got credibility win football because FSU, Va Tech, Miami and sometimes Clemson had excellent teams, but overall didn't have the quality depth in football as the Pac. Just look at the B1G and Big 12 - some of the top teams likely will be former Pac 12 schools (e..g, Oregon, SC, and Utah). And if Cal gets its act tougher, the same might be said for the ACC.sycasey said: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.wifeisafurd said: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.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.
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!
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.
This is such a massive point. An incredible opportunity to be the primary focus of ESPN coverage of West Coast football. To get prime time games, grow the brand, grow the fandom/base, bolster recruiting.calumnus said:
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.
Let's stay in the ACC, lose money (lots of it), spend hours in the air flying back and forth acting like pro athletes and not students, and end up with a .600 record. But we get to say we are "too cool for school" because of the academics and a P5 conference that will soon implode.
What would Trump do?
The BiG's #1 choice is still Notre Dame. #2 is North Carolina.philly1121 said:
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.
FSU and Clemson are trying most loudly to leave because they know they are not the first options, and are hoping that they can get in by being more aggressive than the real top choices.
Not until your daugher yells "P A C" Pleasetry to send a video of it on BI Football Growls. Tx.
North Carolina and Virginia would fit the Big template well. Two state universities, good academics, good regional footprint, good brands, good at more than one sport.
One really minor point. Texas greedily wanted to maintain its own private in-state TV network deal independent of the Pac 12's viewership contract, so preventing that from happening that was the deal-breaker for them. Their academics were (and are) up to snuff). Oklahoma, perhaps not so much.Cal84 said:I think this is a pretty good summary of the situation. However what is left out are the non-athletic department considerations for (and against each Plan). In particular there's that $50 million dollar per year cost (annual loss of the athletic department) of remaining in the ACC, or if you wish of remaining in the hunt to be a power conference football school. That's equivalent to $1,600 per year of additional expenses (aka student loans) per undergrad student, or $6,400 of extra expenses (loans) over each undergrads tenor. That is sort of hard to justify if you claim to be an academically oriented university.Bearly Clad said:
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
And this is the irony. The academic focus of the leading P10 schools led to rejecting OK & TX way back when, which in turn ultimately doomed the P12 and has resulted in a present day tremendous annual hit to academics.
As I understand it, based on Jon Wilners latest we would receive roughly the same payout as our reduced ACC share plus an easier path to the playoffs. No brainer to me, less expenses and better shot at post season
Bearly Clad said:
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
This
And any goodwill we had with OSU and, possibly, Wazzu, seems gone, now. The terms would like make us beggars at the gate, again. They, however, may still join the ACC.
"Just win, baby."
Except the ACC share will ramp up and this one won't.diva1 said:
As I understand it, based on Jon Wilners latest we would receive roughly the same payout as our reduced ACC share plus an easier path to the playoffs. No brainer to me, less expenses and better shot at post season
It amazes me that people argue against our ACC membership without having a handle on the basic facts.sycasey said:Except the ACC share will ramp up and this one won't.diva1 said:
As I understand it, based on Jon Wilners latest we would receive roughly the same payout as our reduced ACC share plus an easier path to the playoffs. No brainer to me, less expenses and better shot at post season
And the ACC provides significantly better exposure, attention, and coverage (already seeing it this early season) and a path forward to staying a power team and surviving the next round of relegation. Moving back to the PAC would be waving the white flag and voluntarily relegating ourselves. Also, it's been noted repeatedly but I just thought I'd parrot it, WE CANNOT POSSIBLY AFFORD THE ACC BUYOUT FEE!chazzed said:It amazes me that people argue against our ACC membership without having a handle on the basic facts.sycasey said:Except the ACC share will ramp up and this one won't.diva1 said:
As I understand it, based on Jon Wilners latest we would receive roughly the same payout as our reduced ACC share plus an easier path to the playoffs. No brainer to me, less expenses and better shot at post season
I am dying to hear your pitch to a recruit (or transfer )of playing the "new" Pac teams vs. the ACC schools...diva1 said:
As I understand it, based on Jon Wilners latest we would receive roughly the same payout as our reduced ACC share plus an easier path to the playoffs. No brainer to me, less expenses and better shot at post season
And please give me your best guess of the opportunities that will occur of Cal being on one of the main ESPN key channels in EAST COAST Prime Time as they are this week....
This week's ACCN After Hours (I think it was) was VERY complimentary about Cal. VERY. These are ACC types lifting their eyebrows when discussing FSU's chances. Strong in all phases. Fast rb (Jet). Fierce and active LBs. Even, "Wilcox is a good coach." This after dissing FSU and making this a make or break for the team and for Norvell.Bearly Clad said:And the ACC provides significantly better exposure, attention, and coverage (already seeing it this early season) and a path forward to staying a power team and surviving the next round of relegation. Moving back to the PAC would be waving the white flag and voluntarily relegating ourselves. Also, it's been noted repeatedly but I just thought I'd parrot it, WE CANNOT POSSIBLY AFFORD THE ACC BUYOUT FEE!chazzed said:It amazes me that people argue against our ACC membership without having a handle on the basic facts.sycasey said:Except the ACC share will ramp up and this one won't.diva1 said:
As I understand it, based on Jon Wilners latest we would receive roughly the same payout as our reduced ACC share plus an easier path to the playoffs. No brainer to me, less expenses and better shot at post season
This is the sort of exposure to the eastern US that we never would have gotten while in the Pac.
chazzed said:It amazes me that people argue against our ACC membership without having a handle on the basic facts.sycasey said:Except the ACC share will ramp up and this one won't.diva1 said:
As I understand it, based on Jon Wilners latest we would receive roughly the same payout as our reduced ACC share plus an easier path to the playoffs. No brainer to me, less expenses and better shot at post season
Exactly. It is true our initial ACC payout is piddling, but that was due to Christ and Knowlton being in over their heads and mismanaging the situation. We ended up beggars. The ACC is a great landing place it is a P4 conference and is FAR better over the long term but I said at the time it was likely the PAC-2 would have more money than Cal the first two years due to retaining the PAC assets. Wilner has shown over and over: 1) He doesn't understand contracts and numbers and 2) He is negative towards Cal.
Besides, we signed over our grant of rights, it is a done deal. We are in the ACC, it is a good thing, so try to enjoy it.
Originally, I thought of the ACC as being a more of a basketball conference than a football conference. But even though Cal has not played an ACC team yet, I have grown to respect them more as a decent football conference. But the ACC does not compare at all to the SEC and Big Ten in football. Check the rankings of the top football schools for those polls that rank more than twenty-five teams
However, just for grins, in the next few years I'd love to see the football scores from games between ACC schools and those who are listed as being potential new Pac 10 or Pac 12 schools. I think Oregon St., WSU. Boise St., Cal, Stanford, Fresno St., San Diego St. and even up and coming UNLV might be very close to ACC schools. An initial test of my theory can be done by just looking at how Cal does this season versus ACC teams.
However, just for grins, in the next few years I'd love to see the football scores from games between ACC schools and those who are listed as being potential new Pac 10 or Pac 12 schools. I think Oregon St., WSU. Boise St., Cal, Stanford, Fresno St., San Diego St. and even up and coming UNLV might be very close to ACC schools. An initial test of my theory can be done by just looking at how Cal does this season versus ACC teams.
It will be interesting to see how many ACC teams make the FBS playoffs this season. Seems the last I read on projected top 25 rankings, the ACC will only get two teams in. If true, that wil show the ACC is not a real power football conference.
I look at the ACC as the new hot chick I am dating, so that really helps my look as a place to go to school. The PAC12 is the old girl friend who's plastic surgery went bad with all those Mt West teams.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?
A great YouTube comment I read this past weekend regarding teams joining the PAC-12, it's like finally getting a date with your high school crush except she's now 65Basketball Bear said:The PAC12 is the old girl friend who's plastic surgery went bad with all those Mt West teams.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?
You can't possibly be serious.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?
It amazes me that people who make a living writing about sports argue against our ACC membership without having a handle on the basic facts.chazzed said:It amazes me that people argue against our ACC membership without having a handle on the basic facts.sycasey said:Except the ACC share will ramp up and this one won't.diva1 said:
As I understand it, based on Jon Wilners latest we would receive roughly the same payout as our reduced ACC share plus an easier path to the playoffs. No brainer to me, less expenses and better shot at post season
;-)
Hell No!
The ACC is a stronger basketball conference than the pac 12 ever was or will be with mountain west teams now.
The academics are leaps and bounds above the current pac 12.
And the biggest one is recruiting…
The ACC has Miami to itself, the Bay Area to itself, Boston to itself; as well as a share of DFW, Orlando, Tampa, the Carolinas, DC, etc
We're going to trade that recruiting footprint and media market for a share of San Diego, Boise, and Eastern WA???
My guess is the ACC expands with 2 more schools to the west and my money is on 2 basketball schools aka Kansas and Texas Tech
The ACC is a stronger basketball conference than the pac 12 ever was or will be with mountain west teams now.
The academics are leaps and bounds above the current pac 12.
And the biggest one is recruiting…
The ACC has Miami to itself, the Bay Area to itself, Boston to itself; as well as a share of DFW, Orlando, Tampa, the Carolinas, DC, etc
We're going to trade that recruiting footprint and media market for a share of San Diego, Boise, and Eastern WA???
My guess is the ACC expands with 2 more schools to the west and my money is on 2 basketball schools aka Kansas and Texas Tech
Join the State Pac...nope, not interested. I'd probably be done with Cal sports if that happened. I'm liking our new home more than I thought I would....the opponents, coverage, etc.
ACC PM, yesterday, was giving nive props to Jet and Cal, in general.Bearly Clad said:And the ACC provides significantly better exposure, attention, and coverage (already seeing it this early season) and a path forward to staying a power team and surviving the next round of relegation. Moving back to the PAC would be waving the white flag and voluntarily relegating ourselves. Also, it's been noted repeatedly but I just thought I'd parrot it, WE CANNOT POSSIBLY AFFORD THE ACC BUYOUT FEE!chazzed said:It amazes me that people argue against our ACC membership without having a handle on the basic facts.sycasey said:Except the ACC share will ramp up and this one won't.diva1 said:
As I understand it, based on Jon Wilners latest we would receive roughly the same payout as our reduced ACC share plus an easier path to the playoffs. No brainer to me, less expenses and better shot at post season
Every Bear should be watching these ACC shows and embrace the new conference.
There's amazing media and production already in place.
P12 network over pandered to the LA market.
Eventually, we might be able to add OSU and Wazzu to the ACC.
I don't pay any heed to power rankings or rankings. It's, as Nick Saban, "rat poison."
"Just win, baby."
Hell no.
Acc is improving it's football reputation, but may not have a second CFP team, this year, while it is, hands down, the best basketball conference, followed by the Big 12.Gobears49 said:
It will be interesting to see how many ACC teams make the FBS playoffs this season. Seems the last I read on projected top 25 rankings, the ACC will only get two teams in. If true, that wil show the ACC is not a real power football conference.
Glad the rumors of your demise were premature.
"Just win, baby."
It's funny, I thought Wilner hate was just a PAC thing and I didn't think anyone nationally even knew about him but I was seeing some Reddit threads with his reporting and all the responses were essentially "Oh no, not this hack again? Why would anyone listen to him and why are we promoting his half-assed 'reporting'? " I was also looking at the AP ballots for this week (Cal got two votes, one at 22 I think and one at 18) and everyone was just ripping Wilner and the fact that he even still has a vote because apparently he's universally considered to be awful at what he does. I thought it was interesting and very therapeutic to read through the Wilner hate from all 4 corners of our country, it just brings everyone togethercalumnus said:chazzed said:It amazes me that people argue against our ACC membership without having a handle on the basic facts.sycasey said:Except the ACC share will ramp up and this one won't.diva1 said:
As I understand it, based on Jon Wilners latest we would receive roughly the same payout as our reduced ACC share plus an easier path to the playoffs. No brainer to me, less expenses and better shot at post season
Exactly. It is true our initial ACC payout is piddling, but that was due to Christ and Knowlton being in over their heads and mismanaging the situation. We ended up beggars. The ACC is a great landing place it is a P4 conference and is FAR better over the long term but I said at the time it was likely the PAC-2 would have more money than Cal the first two years due to retaining the PAC assets. Wilner has shown over and over: 1) He doesn't understand contracts and numbers and 2) He is negative towards Cal.
Besides, we signed over our grant of rights, it is a done deal. We are in the ACC, it is a good thing, so try to enjoy it.
He and Canzano are all in on Cal hate and/or disregard. I guess the old days of Oregon and OSU being cupcakes are a bitter memories for their fan bases. They and the Locked On College FB podcaster, all seem either too young to remember or bought into to the bitterness, so they openly disregard Cal.In their defense, we do have a long history of rollercoastering between mediocrity and intermittent relevance. All the while much of the academic culture has secretly hoped for Cal money sports becoming past history.Bearly Clad said:It's funny, I thought Wilner hate was just a PAC thing and I didn't think anyone nationally even knew about him but I was seeing some Reddit threads with his reporting and all the responses were essentially "Oh no, not this hack again? Why would anyone listen to him and why are we promoting his half-assed 'reporting'? " I was also looking at the AP ballots for this week (Cal got two votes, one at 22 I think and one at 18) and everyone was just ripping Wilner and the fact that he even still has a vote because apparently he's universally considered to be awful at what he does. I thought it was interesting and very therapeutic to read through the Wilner hate from all 4 corners of our country, it just brings everyone togethercalumnus said:chazzed said:It amazes me that people argue against our ACC membership without having a handle on the basic facts.sycasey said:Except the ACC share will ramp up and this one won't.diva1 said:
As I understand it, based on Jon Wilners latest we would receive roughly the same payout as our reduced ACC share plus an easier path to the playoffs. No brainer to me, less expenses and better shot at post season
Exactly. It is true our initial ACC payout is piddling, but that was due to Christ and Knowlton being in over their heads and mismanaging the situation. We ended up beggars. The ACC is a great landing place it is a P4 conference and is FAR better over the long term but I said at the time it was likely the PAC-2 would have more money than Cal the first two years due to retaining the PAC assets. Wilner has shown over and over: 1) He doesn't understand contracts and numbers and 2) He is negative towards Cal.
Besides, we signed over our grant of rights, it is a done deal. We are in the ACC, it is a good thing, so try to enjoy it.
Let's hope we have a new beginning, starting this year.
"Just win, baby."
I would agree that we should not attempt to rejoin any reformed "Pac 6, 8 or 10".CNHTH said:
Hell No!
The ACC is a stronger basketball conference than the pac 12 ever was or will be with mountain west teams now.
The academics are leaps and bounds above the current pac 12.
And the biggest one is recruiting…
The ACC has Miami to itself, the Bay Area to itself, Boston to itself; as well as a share of DFW, Orlando, Tampa, the Carolinas, DC, etc
We're going to trade that recruiting footprint and media market for a share of San Diego, Boise, and Eastern WA???
My guess is the ACC expands with 2 more schools to the west and my money is on 2 basketball schools aka Kansas and Texas Tech
However, to some of your points:
ACC is better than the old Pac in basketball. True. We are going to get shelled in basketball in this new conference.
Academics. Academics? Are we still on this?
Recruiting. Ah...the nebulous, unmeasurable anomaly that is recruiting. Firstly, yes the ACC has South Florida to itself. But for the past 21 years Miami has been mid. The last time they were in the national picture was in their Big East days under Larry Coker. Boston? Dallas? Think a recruit is going to choose us over a UT, A&M? Carolinas? That's a reach.
I get what you're saying, the ACC has a much larger media reach and certainly we are being paid more than any dollar amount the reformed Pac might bring. And as, I think, BearlyClad already wrote - it seems near impossible to break out of the GoR so its a moot point anyway.
philly1121 said:I would agree that we should not attempt to rejoin any reformed "Pac 6, 8 or 10".CNHTH said:
Hell No!
The ACC is a stronger basketball conference than the pac 12 ever was or will be with mountain west teams now.
The academics are leaps and bounds above the current pac 12.
And the biggest one is recruiting…
The ACC has Miami to itself, the Bay Area to itself, Boston to itself; as well as a share of DFW, Orlando, Tampa, the Carolinas, DC, etc
We're going to trade that recruiting footprint and media market for a share of San Diego, Boise, and Eastern WA???
My guess is the ACC expands with 2 more schools to the west and my money is on 2 basketball schools aka Kansas and Texas Tech
However, to some of your points:
ACC is better than the old Pac in basketball. True. We are going to get shelled in basketball in this new conference.
Academics. Academics? Are we still on this?
Recruiting. Ah...the nebulous, unmeasurable anomaly that is recruiting. Firstly, yes the ACC has South Florida to itself. But for the past 21 years Miami has been mid. The last time they were in the national picture was in their Big East days under Larry Coker. Boston? Dallas? Think a recruit is going to choose us over a UT, A&M? Carolinas? That's a reach.
I get what you're saying, the ACC has a much larger media reach and certainly we are being paid more than any dollar amount the reformed Pac might bring. And as, I think, BearlyClad already wrote - it seems near impossible to break out of the GoR so its a moot point anyway.
Our staff is already focused on Texas for recruiting, so playing in DFW every two years can only help. Some of our biggest 4 and 5 star recruits in good ball and basketball have been from Atlanta and North Carolina so playing there every year can only help with recruiting. Same with Florida, Fernando will be a story.
We landed Shareef Abdul-Rahin, Jaylen Brown, Keenan Allen and Demitris Robertson over ALL the big programs. Smart, politically aware young men who happen to also be great athletes crossed the country to go to Cal. Those are our target recruits and playing every year in (near) Atlanta, North Carolina, Florida and Texas (plus regularly in the Northeast) is only going to increase awareness of our program. Especially if we win. ESPN, the billboards, Cal Legends, Cal Twitter… it is all coming together nicely. I wish we had a more capable coaching staff, but hopefully they will be smart enough to see this comparative advantage and ride it to success.
Basketball Bear said:I look at the ACC as the new hot chick I am dating, so that really helps my look as a place to go to school. The PAC12 is the old girl friend who's plastic surgery went bad with all those Mt West teams.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?
At this point the new Pac12 is more like dating your ex-girlfriend's brother who identifies as a woman after your ex has dumped you for a rich midwestern guy.
This isn't the first time the PAC broke up, and then rebuilt. It happened once and I'd like to see it happen again.
Around 60 years ago the PCC (Pacific Coast Conference) had 9 teams. Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC,, the Washington and Oregon schools, and Idaho. Around 1960 the PCC broke up. Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, and Washington started the 5 team conference AAWU. Eventually Washington state, the the Oregon Schools joined Conference, and by 1968 we had the PAC-8. Some one said 'they went thru a lot of trouble to get of Idaho.'
Around 60 years ago the PCC (Pacific Coast Conference) had 9 teams. Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC,, the Washington and Oregon schools, and Idaho. Around 1960 the PCC broke up. Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, and Washington started the 5 team conference AAWU. Eventually Washington state, the the Oregon Schools joined Conference, and by 1968 we had the PAC-8. Some one said 'they went thru a lot of trouble to get of Idaho.'
Shareef? That was 28 years ago and he only played one year. Keenan was 14 years ago. Jaylen was 9 years ago. Demetris was 8 years ago and he only played 14 games with us before leaving.calumnus said:philly1121 said:I would agree that we should not attempt to rejoin any reformed "Pac 6, 8 or 10".CNHTH said:
Hell No!
The ACC is a stronger basketball conference than the pac 12 ever was or will be with mountain west teams now.
The academics are leaps and bounds above the current pac 12.
And the biggest one is recruiting…
The ACC has Miami to itself, the Bay Area to itself, Boston to itself; as well as a share of DFW, Orlando, Tampa, the Carolinas, DC, etc
We're going to trade that recruiting footprint and media market for a share of San Diego, Boise, and Eastern WA???
My guess is the ACC expands with 2 more schools to the west and my money is on 2 basketball schools aka Kansas and Texas Tech
However, to some of your points:
ACC is better than the old Pac in basketball. True. We are going to get shelled in basketball in this new conference.
Academics. Academics? Are we still on this?
Recruiting. Ah...the nebulous, unmeasurable anomaly that is recruiting. Firstly, yes the ACC has South Florida to itself. But for the past 21 years Miami has been mid. The last time they were in the national picture was in their Big East days under Larry Coker. Boston? Dallas? Think a recruit is going to choose us over a UT, A&M? Carolinas? That's a reach.
I get what you're saying, the ACC has a much larger media reach and certainly we are being paid more than any dollar amount the reformed Pac might bring. And as, I think, BearlyClad already wrote - it seems near impossible to break out of the GoR so its a moot point anyway.
Our staff is already focused on Texas for recruiting, so playing in DFW every two years can only help. Some of our biggest 4 and 5 star recruits in good ball and basketball have been from Atlanta and North Carolina so playing there every year can only help with recruiting. Same with Florida, Fernando will be a story.
We landed Shareef Abdul-Rahin, Jaylen Brown, Keenan Allen and Demitris Robertson over ALL the big programs. Smart, politically aware young men who happen to also be great athletes crossed the country to go to Cal. Those are our target recruits and playing every year in (near) Atlanta, North Carolina, Florida and Texas (plus regularly in the Northeast) is only going to increase awareness of our program. Especially if we win. ESPN, the billboards, Cal Legends, Cal Twitter… it is all coming together nicely. I wish we had a more capable coaching staff, but hopefully they will be smart enough to see this comparative advantage and ride it to success.
I understand what you're saying but recruiting - particularly from high school is difficult to quantify in terms of quality and, most importantly - how long they will stay.
I will say again, I think we have caught a break this year. ACC seems wide open. IF we are undefeated after 10/12 - I will agree with what you wrote in your first paragraph. Let's focus on FSU.
Featured Stories
See All
The Football Roster Post Spring - The Quarterbacks (FREE)
by Bear Insider
Cal Wins First Ever MPSF Championship
by Cal Athletics
Bears Topple Records As Cal’s Men Finish Third At ACC Championships
by Cal Athletics
Football Roster Post Spring - The Tight Ends
by Bear Insider