There are not enough p+2 teams available. The big's have already absorbed those businesses. Pipe dreams.

Honestly, the best remaining West Coast teams available would be in the current Pac-12. Oregon State, Wassu, San Diego State, and Boise?

Not a super exciting bunch.

oskithepimp said:

---

Honestly, the best remaining West Coast teams available would be in the current Pac-12. Oregon State, Wassu, San Diego State, and Boise?

Not a super exciting bunch.

---

I kinda like trying to get ASU or Zona, Colorado, Utah and SDSU

California is so large population wise that adding a SoCal school would still be additive.

Two Arizona schools is okay but one helps the ACCN payout better if with the extra slot you can get Colorado or Utah

If the ACC ever adds new members, the only thing that matters is adding teams that boost the overall value of the league, regardless of geography.

If the geography didn't suck ACC is about a near perfect fit for Cal.

A) THE Pac 12 had this strange thing that while it had a handful of good R1s for it also had some big unselective land grant universities where admissions were at over 80%. They really were essentially open enrollment schools for their respective states which was "fine" but is much more tOSU than Cal.

B) The B1G isn';t BAD but we would find (see UCLA) that there is something fundamentally different about being a "true" flagship vs. not being one. And by "TRUE" I mean governance. Where the rules the FS lives under (and the budget) are not the same as the other public intuitions in the state. That has a huge impact, for example, about the visibility of sports (and performance) tto the governing body.

C) SEC would be a horrible fit. No need for a paragraph on why

D) Big12 would also be one - sorta the downside of the SEC without the $$$ to make the medicine go down better.

A reconstituted West Coast conference would be ideal.

And I want to point something out. While we have to stomach the whole UC vs.CSU thing SDSU is FAR more competitive for admission than about 1/2 of the the old Pac12 and does nearly as much research as many of them. The principal difference is the artifact of the Kerr Master plan which means they can't offer a doctorate independently on their own. But from the "ability to support sports on a level playing field" I would take SDSU over Oregon any day of the week. Cal will ALWAYS find the Oregon's of the world as a challenge because of structure. Not SDSU.

socaltownie said:

---

If the geography didn't suck ACC is about a near perfect fit for Cal.

A) THE Pac 12 had this strange thing that while it had a handful of good R1s for it also had some big unselective land grant universities where admissions were at over 80%. They really were essentially open enrollment schools for their respective states which was "fine" but is much more tOSU than Cal.

B) The B1G isn';t BAD but we would find (see UCLA) that there is something fundamentally different about being a "true" flagship vs. not being one. And by "TRUE" I mean governance. Where the rules the FS lives under (and the budget) are not the same as the other public intuitions in the state. That has a huge impact, for example, about the visibility of sports (and performance) tto the governing body.

C) SEC would be a horrible fit. No need for a paragraph on why

D) Big12 would also be one - sorta the downside of the SEC without the $$$ to make the medicine go down better.

A reconstituted West Coast conference would be ideal.

And I want to point something out. While we have to stomach the whole UC vs.CSU thing SDSU is FAR more competitive for admission than about 1/2 of the the old Pac12 and does nearly as much research as many of them. The principal difference is the artifact of the Kerr Master plan which means they can't offer a doctorate independently on their own. But from the "ability to support sports on a level playing field" I would take SDSU over Oregon any day of the week. Cal will ALWAYS find the Oregon's of the world as a challenge because of structure. Not SDSU.

---

UCLA will have a hard time in the BIG. Would they be tempted to come back, if we offered to forego the money they owe? Cal, Tree, UCLA, OSU, WSU, AU, ASU, Utes, CU, SDSU? Back to the Pac 10.

Rushinbear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

If the geography didn't suck ACC is about a near perfect fit for Cal.

A) THE Pac 12 had this strange thing that while it had a handful of good R1s for it also had some big unselective land grant universities where admissions were at over 80%. They really were essentially open enrollment schools for their respective states which was "fine" but is much more tOSU than Cal.

B) The B1G isn';t BAD but we would find (see UCLA) that there is something fundamentally different about being a "true" flagship vs. not being one. And by "TRUE" I mean governance. Where the rules the FS lives under (and the budget) are not the same as the other public intuitions in the state. That has a huge impact, for example, about the visibility of sports (and performance) tto the governing body.

C) SEC would be a horrible fit. No need for a paragraph on why

D) Big12 would also be one - sorta the downside of the SEC without the $$$ to make the medicine go down better.

A reconstituted West Coast conference would be ideal.

And I want to point something out. While we have to stomach the whole UC vs.CSU thing SDSU is FAR more competitive for admission than about 1/2 of the the old Pac12 and does nearly as much research as many of them. The principal difference is the artifact of the Kerr Master plan which means they can't offer a doctorate independently on their own. But from the "ability to support sports on a level playing field" I would take SDSU over Oregon any day of the week. Cal will ALWAYS find the Oregon's of the world as a challenge because of structure. Not SDSU.

---

UCLA will have a hard time in the BIG. Would they be tempted to come back, if we offered to forego the money they owe? Cal, Tree, UCLA, OSU, WSU, AU, ASU, Utes, CU, SDSU? Back to the Pac 10.

---

The money will always be better in the B1G and USC is their biggest, most important rivalry.

Rushinbear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

If the geography didn't suck ACC is about a near perfect fit for Cal.

A) THE Pac 12 had this strange thing that while it had a handful of good R1s for it also had some big unselective land grant universities where admissions were at over 80%. They really were essentially open enrollment schools for their respective states which was "fine" but is much more tOSU than Cal.

B) The B1G isn';t BAD but we would find (see UCLA) that there is something fundamentally different about being a "true" flagship vs. not being one. And by "TRUE" I mean governance. Where the rules the FS lives under (and the budget) are not the same as the other public intuitions in the state. That has a huge impact, for example, about the visibility of sports (and performance) tto the governing body.

C) SEC would be a horrible fit. No need for a paragraph on why

D) Big12 would also be one - sorta the downside of the SEC without the $$$ to make the medicine go down better.

A reconstituted West Coast conference would be ideal.

And I want to point something out. While we have to stomach the whole UC vs.CSU thing SDSU is FAR more competitive for admission than about 1/2 of the the old Pac12 and does nearly as much research as many of them. The principal difference is the artifact of the Kerr Master plan which means they can't offer a doctorate independently on their own. But from the "ability to support sports on a level playing field" I would take SDSU over Oregon any day of the week. Cal will ALWAYS find the Oregon's of the world as a challenge because of structure. Not SDSU.

---

UCLA will have a hard time in the BIG. Would they be tempted to come back, if we offered to forego the money they owe? Cal, Tree, UCLA, OSU, WSU, AU, ASU, Utes, CU, SDSU? Back to the Pac 10.

---

So far into speculation land so I hesitate...but only for a moment ;-)

Where you saw this tension was over the possible relocation of UCLA from Pasadena to Sofi. There is NO argument for doing that to serve students or to use football as a donor entry point (given that Pasadena is likely home to thousands of well heeled alumni - far more than....Inglewood). You also exposed the university (not UCLA, the UNIVERSITY) to massive legal risk. The only reason is that SOFI and the lux boxes can be better monetized. One has to believe (hope) that office of the president and regents are looking at that. It if "fine" to pursue relevance and big time football when it is essentially a strategy disconnected from the overall health of the university. Arguably valuable (but see all the debates in the research). But when you take actions that benefit football but potentially make you liable for 200, 300, 400 million because of breach of contract with a City that quickly lined up legislators on their side....well...we have a problem.

Institutionally there is a lot to like about the various ACC members however with the upcoming TV deal renewals I don't think this arrangement is going to last much longer, we will probably get bumped into a B1G pod or a whole new conference/division with other West Coast programs

Strykur said:

---

Institutionally there is a lot to like about the various ACC members however with the upcoming TV deal renewals I don't think this arrangement is going to last much longer, we will probably get bumped into a B1G pod or a whole new conference/division with other West Coast programs

---

I think the premise is with B1G and SEC expansion we are either in a B1G pod (with Fox) or an enlarged West Coast division of the ACC (with ESPN). I think if the ACC/ESPN is smart they will take San Diego State and the Arizona schools to bolster their Pacific Time late time slot options. With SMU that is 6 teams in the division. Add Utah and Colorado to make it 8. All those schools would find the ACC (especially a West Coast division with Stanford and Cal) attractive and it would weaken the B12 (and Pac) as competition. Further growth would be more B12 schools, then maybe OSU and WSU. I don't think you split the ACC into two separate leagues. The goal would be to be the third super conference (even if second tier). There is value in the East Coast needing to pay attention to what the West Coast teams are doing and watching on late night TV. The ESPN hype machine in particular has been fantastic for Cal.

socaltownie said:

---

D) Big12 would also be one - sorta the downside of the SEC without the $$$ to make the medicine go down better.

---

I don't agree. Big 12 has five teams in the west already and that's a plus. If you're ok with being with any of the teams in the "new" Pac, then there's no reason to object to being with the Big 12 teams (other than the distance to the eastern time zone teams, and they have only three of those).

In 2030, and based on nothing, I kind of think the SEC and Big 10 skim the best properties off the top of the Big Twelve and ACC, BUT the remaining 'middle-class' schools in the ACC and Big 12 leave, shed the bottom schools in their conference and form a new conference spanning the nation.