I know staying in the ACC gives us more exposure especially west of the Rockies for recruiting but is it better financially to stay home and build something strong? I know it's a step down from facing USC, Oregon, UW of the past, but are we really in a position to build something in the ACC? Now I know I'll get crap for this post, but what are we gaining staying in the ACC? I'm sure you much smarter posters will give me your input.....

sycasey said:

---

The point is to NOT be a doormat in the ACC. Hence hiring Rivera and restructuring the athletic department to better support football. If you can be good in the ACC, you can still get attention (ESPN will promote you) and be in a better position for realignment. If you are good in the new Pac-12, how much notice will you get?

---

Sensible commentary, the rest of you can get back to your bong.....

sycasey said:

---

I will also add: every team in the Pac-12 right now would LOVE to be a doormat in the ACC. That will be their goal in the next realignment (to get in either there or the Big 12). Cal wants to get to the B1G. Maybe we can't reach that goal, but there's no reason to voluntarily step down in the meantime.

---

Don't get me wrong, I watched more Cal games on TV last year than I ever had besides paying for it!

Trumpanzee said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I will also add: every team in the Pac-12 right now would LOVE to be a doormat in the ACC. That will be their goal in the next realignment (to get in either there or the Big 12). Cal wants to get to the B1G. Maybe we can't reach that goal, but there's no reason to voluntarily step down in the meantime.

---

Don't get me wrong, I watched more Cal games on TV last year than I ever had besides paying for it!

---

Plus I'm excited to see our new Freshman QB!

If there is some effort being made to make this program great then I am on board 100% to stay in the ACC. We shall see what happens this season if they start taking steps in the right direction. However, if the usual trend continues when it comes to Cal football then I would certainly not be on board with them getting their a** kicked week in and week out. I understand for financial reasons and exposure it would be beneficial, but when fans aren't coming to the games anymore, then what? Anyone would tune out really quick in that situation. Winning will solve everything, but they have to win now!

TomBear said:

---

I think we all know a re-alignment is coming down the line. Frankly, I don't see the Pac as a major power conference anymore. So, the immediate answer is, we're doing better in terms of perception by being in the ACC.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, we must not accept being a "doormat" in that conference, otherwise, when the new re-alignment takes place, we will find ourselves in a "Pac"-like conference.

But right now, it's about positioning. And I'd rather be positioned in the ACC, than in the watered down and less impressive "Pac".

---

I just don't see how give up a huge territory like California and the Pacific Northwest. I bet after initial contracts are completed realignment will happen again.....

Trumpanzee said:

---

TomBear said:

---

I think we all know a re-alignment is coming down the line. Frankly, I don't see the Pac as a major power conference anymore. So, the immediate answer is, we're doing better in terms of perception by being in the ACC.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, we must not accept being a "doormat" in that conference, otherwise, when the new re-alignment takes place, we will find ourselves in a "Pac"-like conference.

But right now, it's about positioning. And I'd rather be positioned in the ACC, than in the watered down and less impressive "Pac".

---

I just don't see how give up a huge territory like California and the Pacific Northwest. I bet after initial contracts are completed realignment will happen again.....

---

IMO the next realignment will see some of the top programs leave the ACC (FSU, Clemson, UNC, etc.), and then an attempt by the remaining ACC schools to backfill with the best from the G5 leagues or maybe the Big 12 (depending on how it goes). Cal would most likely stay in the second tier of conferences if we can't move up to the B1G, however that is constituted.

Trumpanzee said:

---

TomBear said:

---

I think we all know a re-alignment is coming down the line. Frankly, I don't see the Pac as a major power conference anymore. So, the immediate answer is, we're doing better in terms of perception by being in the ACC.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, we must not accept being a "doormat" in that conference, otherwise, when the new re-alignment takes place, we will find ourselves in a "Pac"-like conference.

But right now, it's about positioning. And I'd rather be positioned in the ACC, than in the watered down and less impressive "Pac".

---

I just don't see how give up a huge territory like California and the Pacific Northwest. I bet after initial contracts are completed realignment will happen again.....

---

No one is saying they give up the Pacific Northwest and California, but that is why they already took Washington, Oregon, UCLA and USC. The question, which Ron Rivera made clear, is whether we can convince them that we (with Stanford) can deliver the Bay Area and the 4th largest media market in the country. Our competition is probably the 4 Corners schools. We have to become more attractive than them.

TomBear said:

---

I think we all know a re-alignment is coming down the line. Frankly, I don't see the Pac as a major power conference anymore. So, the immediate answer is, we're doing better in terms of perception by being in the ACC.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, we must not accept being a "doormat" in that conference, otherwise, when the new re-alignment takes place, we will find ourselves in a "Pac"-like conference.

But right now, it's about positioning. And I'd rather be positioned in the ACC, than in the watered down and less impressive "Pac".

---

Re-alignment is a dystopian euphemism for having your love of college football torn to shreds followed by years of picking up the pieces, rationalization and therapy. Or like the Soylent Green of sports, the cfb you consume this year is unwittingly made up of the bodies of last years cfb. Just keep eating it and don't think about where it came from.

sycasey said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

TomBear said:

---

I think we all know a re-alignment is coming down the line. Frankly, I don't see the Pac as a major power conference anymore. So, the immediate answer is, we're doing better in terms of perception by being in the ACC.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, we must not accept being a "doormat" in that conference, otherwise, when the new re-alignment takes place, we will find ourselves in a "Pac"-like conference.

But right now, it's about positioning. And I'd rather be positioned in the ACC, than in the watered down and less impressive "Pac".

---

I just don't see how give up a huge territory like California and the Pacific Northwest. I bet after initial contracts are completed realignment will happen again.....

---

IMO the next realignment will see some of the top programs leave the ACC (FSU, Clemson, UNC, etc.), and then an attempt by the remaining ACC schools to backfill with the best from the G5 leagues or maybe the Big 12 (depending on how it goes). Cal would most likely stay in the second tier of conferences if we can't move up to the B1G, however that is constituted.

---

I think there is an important question to answer in the thread title. Is it better to be a door Matt in the ACC or competitive in the neutered PAC. I'll answer for myself. I think it is better to be competitive in a lesser conference. (I also think the ACC is going to ultimately go the way of the PAC)

That is not saying we should give up and leave. As you say, the point is to stop being a doormat. But I think it is important to answer the question because staying in the ACC requires a commitment to elevate the program. If Cal determines it can't or won't improve beyond doormat status, it needs to compete where it can. In other words there is limited value in being in a better conference if you won't compete in that conference

There are people on this board who think it is too much to ask that we have a winning record in conference. I don't agree with them. I don't understand what the point of this is if we can't even aspire to being in the top half of our conference. Those that think we can't expect more without spending more money, I'd ask, then if we won't spend more money than why are we in a conference of teams that will?

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

TomBear said:

---

I think we all know a re-alignment is coming down the line. Frankly, I don't see the Pac as a major power conference anymore. So, the immediate answer is, we're doing better in terms of perception by being in the ACC.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, we must not accept being a "doormat" in that conference, otherwise, when the new re-alignment takes place, we will find ourselves in a "Pac"-like conference.

But right now, it's about positioning. And I'd rather be positioned in the ACC, than in the watered down and less impressive "Pac".

---

I just don't see how give up a huge territory like California and the Pacific Northwest. I bet after initial contracts are completed realignment will happen again.....

---

IMO the next realignment will see some of the top programs leave the ACC (FSU, Clemson, UNC, etc.), and then an attempt by the remaining ACC schools to backfill with the best from the G5 leagues or maybe the Big 12 (depending on how it goes). Cal would most likely stay in the second tier of conferences if we can't move up to the B1G, however that is constituted.

---

I think there is an important question to answer in the thread title. Is it better to be a door Matt in the ACC or competitive in the neutered PAC. I'll answer for myself. I think it is better to be competitive in a lesser conference. (I also think the ACC is going to ultimately go the way of the PAC)

That is not saying we should give up and leave. As you say, the point is to stop being a doormat. But I think it is important to answer the question because staying in the ACC requires a commitment to elevate the program. If Cal determines it can't or won't improve beyond doormat status, it needs to compete where it can. In other words there is limited value in being in a better conference if you won't compete in that conference

There are people on this board who think it is too much to ask that we have a winning record in conference. I don't agree with them. I don't understand what the point of this is if we can't even aspire to being in the top half of our conference. Those that think we can't expect more without spending more money, I'd ask, then if we won't spend more money than why are we in a conference of teams that will?

---

Justin Wilcox is making as much or more at Cal as Mack Brown was making at UNC ($5 million per year). Knowlton's $1.3 million per year was ridiculous. It is not the amount we spend, it is how we spend it.

Sure, they are now spending twice as much on Bill Belichick, but we could have had Ron Rivera for as much as we are spending now on Ron Rivera, Wilcox and all his friends hired as special assistants.

For a program representing smart people we make dumb decisions.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

TomBear said:

---

I think we all know a re-alignment is coming down the line. Frankly, I don't see the Pac as a major power conference anymore. So, the immediate answer is, we're doing better in terms of perception by being in the ACC.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, we must not accept being a "doormat" in that conference, otherwise, when the new re-alignment takes place, we will find ourselves in a "Pac"-like conference.

But right now, it's about positioning. And I'd rather be positioned in the ACC, than in the watered down and less impressive "Pac".

---

I just don't see how give up a huge territory like California and the Pacific Northwest. I bet after initial contracts are completed realignment will happen again.....

---

IMO the next realignment will see some of the top programs leave the ACC (FSU, Clemson, UNC, etc.), and then an attempt by the remaining ACC schools to backfill with the best from the G5 leagues or maybe the Big 12 (depending on how it goes). Cal would most likely stay in the second tier of conferences if we can't move up to the B1G, however that is constituted.

---

I think there is an important question to answer in the thread title. Is it better to be a door Matt in the ACC or competitive in the neutered PAC. I'll answer for myself. I think it is better to be competitive in a lesser conference. (I also think the ACC is going to ultimately go the way of the PAC)

That is not saying we should give up and leave. As you say, the point is to stop being a doormat. But I think it is important to answer the question because staying in the ACC requires a commitment to elevate the program. If Cal determines it can't or won't improve beyond doormat status, it needs to compete where it can. In other words there is limited value in being in a better conference if you won't compete in that conference

There are people on this board who think it is too much to ask that we have a winning record in conference. I don't agree with them. I don't understand what the point of this is if we can't even aspire to being in the top half of our conference. Those that think we can't expect more without spending more money, I'd ask, then if we won't spend more money than why are we in a conference of teams that will?

---

Quite true. I think of this in terms of the old adage: "Water finds its level." Conference realignment has been very fluid and I expect it will continue to be. Cal can do the things it needs to do to stay at a higher level of competition or it might not. The program will find its level.