My take:

Kansei surprised going 3/3 (he missed last year against UCLA earlier in game; Hawaii loses 16-13). I'm very happy for him.

0:03 left on the clock, the kick was on 3rd down. Calling a TO at around 0:16 might have forced Hawaii to take another shot at better field position or the end zone. Hawaii was clicking on offense. Kansei was kicking into the wind (harder). Better for them to kick from as far away as possible.

If you've seen what Stanford could do in passing, do you really think they're going to move the ball 50 yards with 1 or 2 timeouts in 16 seconds?

oskidunker said:

---

75bear said:

---

I hate to say it, but until the next round of realignment we need to root for Furd (barf).

---

Never

---

Dump this co-dependency we are better than that.

It wasn't just the placekicking, it was the punting too. Big punts from Hawaii's Australian punter meant Stanford had to start drives deep from their own territory all game. Meanwhile, Stanford's punter had issues giving Hawaii short fields on their drives. Special Teams matter.

bencgilmore said:

---

Ccajon2 said:

---

Can someone give me a quick recap on why we should root for furds. Also explain why or how furds helped us get into the ACC what exactly happened I don't quite remember I'm getting old.

Back after everyone was screaming and yelling after the pac-12 implosion I was saying we should just move into the mountain West but virtually nobody but blue blood and a few others agreed with me.

---

Condi rice saved our golden bear asses

---

Did she? I was under the impression that it was the Notre Dame AD who was very vocal about us deserving to be in power football and forcing the ACC's hand since they have to placate Notre Dame and keep them from joining the B10

sycasey said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

bencgilmore said:

---

Ccajon2 said:

---

Can someone give me a quick recap on why we should root for furds. Also explain why or how furds helped us get into the ACC what exactly happened I don't quite remember I'm getting old.

Back after everyone was screaming and yelling after the pac-12 implosion I was saying we should just move into the mountain West but virtually nobody but blue blood and a few others agreed with me.

---

Condi rice saved our golden bear asses

---

Did she? I was under the impression that it was the Notre Dame AD who was very vocal about us deserving to be in power football and forcing the ACC's hand since they have to placate Notre Dame and keep them from joining the B10

---

It was both. But again, notable that Stanford always maintained the "package deal" idea of only moving with Cal and didn't try to kick us to the curb.

---

Yes indeed. Another factor was that the president of ND was a Theological Union grad, so technically a Cal alum.

I'm of the opinion that if we had a semi competent ad, maybe we could have approached the furds early on. Maybe after a conference we could have approached Usc/ UCLA about including us for foursome into the BG. Surely, BG wouldn't turn that down, just look at the number of eyeballs that would be watching all four schools games. Then we would be locked into what is already the premium conference.

Ccajon2 said:

---

I'm of the opinion that if we had a semi competent ad, maybe we could have approached the furds early on.

---

More like if we had a better administration and had won more games over the last decade we would have been given a ticket to the big boys club instead.

Ccajon2 said:

---

I'm of the opinion that if we had a semi competent ad, maybe we could have approached the furds early on. Maybe after a conference we could have approached Usc/ UCLA about including us for foursome into the BG. Surely, BG wouldn't turn that down, just look at the number of eyeballs that would be watching all four schools games. Then we would be locked into what is already the premium conference.

---

I think Cal should have partnered with University of Beijing. Think of the media markets we could deliver.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Ccajon2 said:

---

I'm of the opinion that if we had a semi competent ad, maybe we could have approached the furds early on. Maybe after a conference we could have approached Usc/ UCLA about including us for foursome into the BG. Surely, BG wouldn't turn that down, just look at the number of eyeballs that would be watching all four schools games. Then we would be locked into what is already the premium conference.

---

USC was escaping Cal/Stanford. They have wanted unequal revenue sharing since forever and Calford always declined them doing it. I don't think in any scenario they wanted Calford to have much of any say in their future. Personally I don't think the conference lasts by giving into USC anyway, because the Big 10 was still going to rig the outcome to pull them away by giving them a lot of money.

---

It was USC that pushed for the annual Cal and Stanford games to be continued when the Pac-12 split North-South. "The Weekender" was a huge tradition at USC. Up until last year.

You incorrectly assume Cal and Stanford being in would reduce USC's share. USC was getting a full B1G share no matter what. No more, no less. The only reason USC wanted unequal share in the Pac-12 was to keep up with the B1G and SEC. Oregon and UW came in for less than a full share, the same would have happened for Cal and Stanford, in neither case would it have impacted what USC receives.

However, here is the kicker: USC lobbied against Oregon. They reportedly wanted Cal and Stanford instead. Cal and Stanford were their longest series and their biggest rivalries after UCLA and Notre Dame. They like thinking they are in the same academic league. Tons of Cal alums in SoCal. They also see us as easy wins, helping their National Championship aspirations.

However, instead of working with USC and UCLA, Cal sided against them, tried to block UCLA and never applied until after the Pac-12 broke up. By then Oregon and UW had already negotiated their deals and we had pissed off Fox Sports to such a degree that they were not willing to pay a single cent for us.

calumnus said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Ccajon2 said:

---

I'm of the opinion that if we had a semi competent ad, maybe we could have approached the furds early on. Maybe after a conference we could have approached Usc/ UCLA about including us for foursome into the BG. Surely, BG wouldn't turn that down, just look at the number of eyeballs that would be watching all four schools games. Then we would be locked into what is already the premium conference.

---

USC was escaping Cal/Stanford. They have wanted unequal revenue sharing since forever and Calford always declined them doing it. I don't think in any scenario they wanted Calford to have much of any say in their future. Personally I don't think the conference lasts by giving into USC anyway, because the Big 10 was still going to rig the outcome to pull them away by giving them a lot of money.

---

It was USC that pushed for the annual Cal and Stanford games to be continued when the Pac-12 split North-South. "The Weekender" was a huge tradition at USC. Up until last year.

You incorrectly assume Cal and Stanford being in would reduce USC's share. USC was getting a full B1G share no matter what. No more, no less. The only reason USC wanted unequal share in the Pac-12 was to keep up with the B1G and SEC. Oregon and UW came in for less than a full share, the same would have happened for Cal and Stanford, in neither case would it have impacted what USC receives.

However, here is the kicker: USC lobbied against Oregon. They reportedly wanted Cal and Stanford instead. Cal and Stanford were their longest series and their biggest rivalries after UCLA and Notre Dame. They like thinking they are in the same academic league. Tons of Cal alums in SoCal. They also see us as easy wins, helping their National Championship aspirations.

However, instead of working with USC and UCLA, Cal sided against them, tried to block UCLA and never applied until after the Pac-12 broke up. By then Oregon and UW had already negotiated their deals and we had pissed off Fox Sports to such a degree that they were not willing to pay a single cent for us.

---

source?

ac_green33 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Ccajon2 said:

---

I'm of the opinion that if we had a semi competent ad, maybe we could have approached the furds early on. Maybe after a conference we could have approached Usc/ UCLA about including us for foursome into the BG. Surely, BG wouldn't turn that down, just look at the number of eyeballs that would be watching all four schools games. Then we would be locked into what is already the premium conference.

---

USC was escaping Cal/Stanford. They have wanted unequal revenue sharing since forever and Calford always declined them doing it. I don't think in any scenario they wanted Calford to have much of any say in their future. Personally I don't think the conference lasts by giving into USC anyway, because the Big 10 was still going to rig the outcome to pull them away by giving them a lot of money.

---

It was USC that pushed for the annual Cal and Stanford games to be continued when the Pac-12 split North-South. "The Weekender" was a huge tradition at USC. Up until last year.

You incorrectly assume Cal and Stanford being in would reduce USC's share. USC was getting a full B1G share no matter what. No more, no less. The only reason USC wanted unequal share in the Pac-12 was to keep up with the B1G and SEC. Oregon and UW came in for less than a full share, the same would have happened for Cal and Stanford, in neither case would it have impacted what USC receives.

However, here is the kicker: USC lobbied against Oregon. They reportedly wanted Cal and Stanford instead. Cal and Stanford were their longest series and their biggest rivalries after UCLA and Notre Dame. They like thinking they are in the same academic league. Tons of Cal alums in SoCal. They also see us as easy wins, helping their National Championship aspirations.

However, instead of working with USC and UCLA, Cal sided against them, tried to block UCLA and never applied until after the Pac-12 broke up. By then Oregon and UW had already negotiated their deals and we had pissed off Fox Sports to such a degree that they were not willing to pay a single cent for us.

---

source?

---

Many articles, but here is one:
https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story/2023-08-02/commentary-usc-oregon-big-ten

" For USC and UCLA, Cal and Stanford would be much more palatable. The Bruins would love the Golden Bears joining to remove all awkwardness going forward with the UC Regents."