ColoradoBear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

HYBNew tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

---

Your comment is rather disingenuous. In fact, LSJU asked Cal to push the Big Game that was scheduled at Berkeley back one year (thus pushing back the next Big Game scheduled for Stanford by one year also). This would have balanced the schedule for BOTH schools. Cal made a stupid mistake by not accepting the offer. Typical.........

---

You must be joking. And the reason the offer wasn't repeated the following year when the Big Game was scheduled for Stanford? I mean obviously it was such a fantastic idea I can't possibly imagine why Stanford didn't volunteer to "push back" their game a year.

---

It wouldn't matter which year we pushed back:

Case 1: 2014@ levis, 2015@ Cal, 2016@ Furd, repeat
Case 2: 2014 @ Cal, 2015 @ Levi's, 2016@ Furd, repeat

I wouldn't want to pursue pushing it back now because we don't know what will happen with the p12 schedule at the next media contract negotiation. Maybe we lose the 9 game conf schedule and/or the LA yearly games? Maybe the p12 expands. Then you potentially reshuffled the BG for nothing.

---

was case 2 offered? or was case 1 the only offer?

either way, what would cal got out if helping the furd balance its schedule?

---

not sure if Case 2 was offered. And it doesn't actually matter, as my point was there would be no difference between the two, so when the reshuffle happens is not a good reason for declining it.

And in fact, Case 1 would have benefited Cal more than Case 2 because we get hit by the odd/even year imbalance too. So case 1 would have fixed the imbalance at Cal starting in 2015, while case 2 would have fixed this starting in 2017. Case 1 and 2 would have affected Furd the same as they would get their schedule re-balanced in 2016 either way.

The argument against doing this would be that teams performances are cylical, and USC and Furd have typically been the best drawing games throughout the years. So that means put them in opposite years. But the other thing to note is that UW and Oregon have substantial financial resources over WSU and OSU, so the trend of those games being bigger might actually last a while. It's also worth noting that the even/odd issue really only manifested itself in 2005 when the 12th CFB game was approved on a yearly basis. Before that, the PX played 8 conference games with the 4 CA games guaranteed, so there was a rotation which CA schools we played @ home versus away (as in one was skipped every year).

---

This should be required reading for everyone who thought the Big Game/Levi's deal was a bad one. To the contrary, it was a great idea that would have substantially benefited Cal.

There was major whining by middle level (and at least one major) donors which forced the hand of the AD.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

There was major whining by middle level (and at least one major) donors which forced the hand of the AD.

---

Easy for me to say but I do believe that at some point Cal has to tell the donor community - either you are on board or you are not. Stop letting them involve themselves in each decision. Given that many of them are in disagreement with each other, the university is paralyzed for fear of offending someone. Do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may. In the long run, the donors will come to their senses and give their support.

71Bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

There was major whining by middle level (and at least one major) donors which forced the hand of the AD.

---

Easy for me to say but I do believe that at some point Cal has to tell the donor community - either you are on board or you are not. Stop letting them involve themselves in each decision. Given that many of them are in disagreement with each other, the university is paralyzed for fear of offending someone. Do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may. In the long run, the donors will come to their senses and give their support.

---

Tell that to Mike Williams. They were not on board.

71Bear said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

71Bear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BHYBNew tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

---

Your comment is rather disingenuous. In fact, LSJU asked Cal to push the Big Game that was scheduled at Berkeley back one year (thus pushing back the next Big Game scheduled for Stanford by one year also). This would have balanced the schedule for BOTH schools. Cal made a stupid mistake by not accepting the offer. Typical.........

---

You must be joking. And the reason the offer wasn't repeated the following year when the Big Game was scheduled for Stanford? I mean obviously it was such a fantastic idea I can't possibly imagine why Stanford didn't volunteer to "push back" their game a year.

---

It wouldn't matter which year we pushed back:

Case 1: 2014@ levis, 2015@ Cal, 2016@ Furd, repeat
Case 2: 2014 @ Cal, 2015 @ Levi's, 2016@ Furd, repeat

I wouldn't want to pursue pushing it back now because we don't know what will happen with the p12 schedule at the next media contract negotiation. Maybe we lose the 9 game conf schedule and/or the LA yearly games? Maybe the p12 expands. Then you potentially reshuffled the BG for nothing.

---

Paragraph 1 - For some reason, this is a concept that Cal fans have a hard time grasping.

Paragraph 2 - Good point. I suspect that we will see significant upheaval in 2024. For example, it would not surprise me at all if SC and UCLA take a long look at leaving the conference for greener pastures. (having said that, I still think that a Cal missed an opportunity to reset the schedule by moving the Big Game to Levi's)

---

What greener pastures do you think SC and UCLA would be considering?

---

I expect to see a football-only super conference comprised of the premier programs. SC and UCLA would certainly be considered due to their heritage and the size of the Southern California TV market.

---

UCLA's football heritage is meh, and their tv market is redundant. Why would a super conference want both USC and UCLA? T

f'UCLA is a baskeball school. They had some success with Terry Donahue but that's it. Flaky program despite being in LA and getting good recruits.

71Bear said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

71Bear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BHYBNew tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

---

Your comment is rather disingenuous. In fact, LSJU asked Cal to push the Big Game that was scheduled at Berkeley back one year (thus pushing back the next Big Game scheduled for Stanford by one year also). This would have balanced the schedule for BOTH schools. Cal made a stupid mistake by not accepting the offer. Typical.........

---

You must be joking. And the reason the offer wasn't repeated the following year when the Big Game was scheduled for Stanford? I mean obviously it was such a fantastic idea I can't possibly imagine why Stanford didn't volunteer to "push back" their game a year.

---

It wouldn't matter which year we pushed back:

Case 1: 2014@ levis, 2015@ Cal, 2016@ Furd, repeat
Case 2: 2014 @ Cal, 2015 @ Levi's, 2016@ Furd, repeat

I wouldn't want to pursue pushing it back now because we don't know what will happen with the p12 schedule at the next media contract negotiation. Maybe we lose the 9 game conf schedule and/or the LA yearly games? Maybe the p12 expands. Then you potentially reshuffled the BG for nothing.

---

Paragraph 1 - For some reason, this is a concept that Cal fans have a hard time grasping.

Paragraph 2 - Good point. I suspect that we will see significant upheaval in 2024. For example, it would not surprise me at all if SC and UCLA take a long look at leaving the conference for greener pastures. (having said that, I still think that a Cal missed an opportunity to reset the schedule by moving the Big Game to Levi's)

---

What greener pastures do you think SC and UCLA would be considering?

---

I expect to see a football-only super conference comprised of the premier programs. SC and UCLA would certainly be considered due to their heritage and the size of the Southern California TV market.

---

Interesting. That seems unlikely to me for several reasons, especially for UCLA which has not accomplished much in football and would be the whipping boy in a conference of premier football programs.

GMP said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

71Bear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BHYBNew tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

---

Your comment is rather disingenuous. In fact, LSJU asked Cal to push the Big Game that was scheduled at Berkeley back one year (thus pushing back the next Big Game scheduled for Stanford by one year also). This would have balanced the schedule for BOTH schools. Cal made a stupid mistake by not accepting the offer. Typical.........

---

You must be joking. And the reason the offer wasn't repeated the following year when the Big Game was scheduled for Stanford? I mean obviously it was such a fantastic idea I can't possibly imagine why Stanford didn't volunteer to "push back" their game a year.

---

It wouldn't matter which year we pushed back:

Case 1: 2014@ levis, 2015@ Cal, 2016@ Furd, repeat
Case 2: 2014 @ Cal, 2015 @ Levi's, 2016@ Furd, repeat

I wouldn't want to pursue pushing it back now because we don't know what will happen with the p12 schedule at the next media contract negotiation. Maybe we lose the 9 game conf schedule and/or the LA yearly games? Maybe the p12 expands. Then you potentially reshuffled the BG for nothing.

---

Paragraph 1 - For some reason, this is a concept that Cal fans have a hard time grasping.

Paragraph 2 - Good point. I suspect that we will see significant upheaval in 2024. For example, it would not surprise me at all if SC and UCLA take a long look at leaving the conference for greener pastures. (having said that, I still think that a Cal missed an opportunity to reset the schedule by moving the Big Game to Levi's)

---

What greener pastures do you think SC and UCLA would be considering?

---

I expect to see a football-only super conference comprised of the premier programs. SC and UCLA would certainly be considered due to their heritage and the size of the Southern California TV market.

---

UCLA's football heritage is meh, and their tv market is redundant. Why would a super conference want both USC and UCLA? T

---

Because SC probably would insist. You want a close major rival for alumni interest and media coverage. Also, like Cal and Furd there is a lot of interbreeding in the administrations.

Stanford could take UCLA's place, but they don't seem to have any interest in doing so. UCLA is only a coach away from being very good. Does their new guy have a fourth act?

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Stanford could take UCLA's place, but they don't seem to have any interest in doing so. UCLA is only a coach away from being very good. Does their new guy have a fourth act?

---

Second act. Like Saban, he was not cut out for coaching in the NFL. College coaching is his comfort zone....

Sebastabear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

New tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

---

And one more point of clarification... it wasn't just asking us to give "a" BIg Game to play at Levis... it was THE VERY FIRST BIG GAME back in new Memorial Stadium... so fans rightfully said, um didn't we just spend 1/2 billion dollars, give or take, on this place to play football games and now you're telling us you don't want to play the best football games there... it was a very typically cal way of mismanaging something.

TheFiatLux said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

New tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

---

And one more point of clarification... it wasn't just asking us to give "a" BIg Game to play at Levis... it was THE VERY FIRST BIG GAME back in new Memorial Stadium... so fans rightfully said, um didn't we just spend 1/2 billion dollars, give or take, on this place to play football games and now you're telling us you don't want to play the best football games there... it was a very typically cal way of mismanaging something.

---

2012 was the first big game back at CMS. 2014 was the first year Levi's was open.

I was initially against it, because I thought screw furd.

Now, it's painfully apparent that the odd years' home schedules suck, and Cal is not really paying attention when scheduling p5 ooc games.

Now as I said above, I think there maybe some major changes in the next TV cycle as p12 looks at ways to make more money and/or push football competitiveness vs the SEC and BTN.

ColoradoBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

New tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

---

And one more point of clarification... it wasn't just asking us to give "a" BIg Game to play at Levis... it was THE VERY FIRST BIG GAME back in new Memorial Stadium... so fans rightfully said, um didn't we just spend 1/2 billion dollars, give or take, on this place to play football games and now you're telling us you don't want to play the best football games there... it was a very typically cal way of mismanaging something.

---

2012 was the first big game back at CMS. 2014 was the first year Levi's was open.

I was initially against it, because I thought screw furd.

Now it's painfully apparent that the odd years home schedules suck, and Cal is not really paying attention when scheduling p5 ooc games.

Now as I said above, I think there maybe some major changes on the next TV cycle as p12 looks at ways to make more money and/or push football competitiveness vs the SEC and BTN.

---

Those who thought it was a bad idea are not interested in facts (as evidenced by their comments in this thread). Cal made a huge mistake. It is really that simple. Hopefully, as you have noted, changes resulting from the next TV cycle will address the situation. In the meantime, the odd/even scheduling disparity will continue....

ColoradoBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

New tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

---

And one more point of clarification... it wasn't just asking us to give "a" BIg Game to play at Levis... it was THE VERY FIRST BIG GAME back in new Memorial Stadium... so fans rightfully said, um didn't we just spend 1/2 billion dollars, give or take, on this place to play football games and now you're telling us you don't want to play the best football games there... it was a very typically cal way of mismanaging something.

---

2012 was the first big game back at CMS. 2014 was the first year Levi's was open.

I was initially against it, because I thought screw furd.

Now it's painfully apparent that the odd years home schedules suck, and Cal is not really paying attention when scheduling p5 ooc games.

Now as I said above, I think there maybe some major changes on the next TV cycle as p12 looks at ways to make more money and/or push football competitiveness vs the SEC and BTN.

---

Wow, that was some seriously mis-remembered outrage on my behalf :-)

71Bear said:

---

Those who thought it was a bad idea are not interested in facts (as evidenced by their comments in this thread). Cal made a huge mistake. It is really that simple. Hopefully, as you have noted, changes resulting from the next TV cycle will address the situation. In the meantime, the odd/even scheduling disparity will continue....

---

I said this in another thread and will say it here: I'd rather attend two consecutive Big Games at Stanford than go to a Big Game at a neutral site. The Big Game belongs on a college campus, even if the campus in question is an overgrown Taco Bell.

(Of course, I'd rather attend two consecutive BGs at Memorial Stadium.)

So my objection to the plan wasn't that the BG being moved to a neutral site was in an even-numbered year, it was that it was being moved to a neutral site in any year.

I say we flip a coin to determine which school gets two consecutive home BGs and be done with it. If we lose the coin flip (and if you don't think we will lose it, then you haven't been paying attention to Cal football for the past 60 years), we can console ourselves with the fact that we once had two consecutive home BGs, in 1942 and 1946.

HighlandDutch said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Those who thought it was a bad idea are not interested in facts (as evidenced by their comments in this thread). Cal made a huge mistake. It is really that simple. Hopefully, as you have noted, changes resulting from the next TV cycle will address the situation. In the meantime, the odd/even scheduling disparity will continue....

---

I said this in another thread and will say it here: I'd rather attend two consecutive Big Games at Stanford than go to a Big Game at a neutral site. The Big Game belongs on a college campus, even if the campus in question is an overgrown Taco Bell.

(Of course, I'd rather attend two consecutive BGs at Memorial Stadium.)

So my objection to the plan wasn't that the BG being moved to a neutral site was in an even-numbered year, it was that it was being moved to a neutral site in any year.

I say we flip a coin to determine which school gets two consecutive home BGs and be done with it. If we lose the coin flip (and if you don't think we will lose it, then you haven't been paying attention to Cal football for the past 60 years), we can console ourselves with the fact that we once had two consecutive home BGs, in 1942 and 1946.

---

Why flip a coin? If furd wants it more, play at Cal 2x in a row. And they wanted it more.

HighlandDutch said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Those who thought it was a bad idea are not interested in facts (as evidenced by their comments in this thread). Cal made a huge mistake. It is really that simple. Hopefully, as you have noted, changes resulting from the next TV cycle will address the situation. In the meantime, the odd/even scheduling disparity will continue....

---

I said this in another thread and will say it here: I'd rather attend two consecutive Big Games at Stanford than go to a Big Game at a neutral site. The Big Game belongs on a college campus, even if the campus in question is an overgrown Taco Bell.

(Of course, I'd rather attend two consecutive BGs at Memorial Stadium.)

So my objection to the plan wasn't that the BG being moved to a neutral site was in an even-numbered year, it was that it was being moved to a neutral site in any year.

I say we flip a coin to determine which school gets two consecutive home BGs and be done with it. If we lose the coin flip (and if you don't think we will lose it, then you haven't been paying attention to Cal football for the past 60 years), we can console ourselves with the fact that we once had two consecutive home BGs, in 1942 and 1946.

---

The first 13 Big Games were played in San Francisco.

Why not Santa Clara?

NO

GMP said:

---

HighlandDutch said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Those who thought it was a bad idea are not interested in facts (as evidenced by their comments in this thread). Cal made a huge mistake. It is really that simple. Hopefully, as you have noted, changes resulting from the next TV cycle will address the situation. In the meantime, the odd/even scheduling disparity will continue....

---

I said this in another thread and will say it here: I'd rather attend two consecutive Big Games at Stanford than go to a Big Game at a neutral site. The Big Game belongs on a college campus, even if the campus in question is an overgrown Taco Bell.

(Of course, I'd rather attend two consecutive BGs at Memorial Stadium.)

So my objection to the plan wasn't that the BG being moved to a neutral site was in an even-numbered year, it was that it was being moved to a neutral site in any year.

I say we flip a coin to determine which school gets two consecutive home BGs and be done with it. If we lose the coin flip (and if you don't think we will lose it, then you haven't been paying attention to Cal football for the past 60 years), we can console ourselves with the fact that we once had two consecutive home BGs, in 1942 and 1946.

---

The first 13 Big Games were played in San Francisco.

---

Yes, before either school had an on-campus stadium.

Should have just continued playing at AT&T instead of the money pit the Memorial Stadium retrofit became and still is.

Quote:

---

Now as I said above, I think there maybe some major changes in the next TV cycle as p12 looks at ways to make more money and/or push football competitiveness vs the SEC and BTN.

---

Seems unlikely the Pac-12 could get both of those. The best way to ensure the Pac-12 is almost always in the 4-team playoff (which will make the media think Pac-12 football is strong) is to do what the SEC does, and play only 8 conference games. Another thing that would help with football W-L records is to avoid having the best teams lose weeknight road games, and the only way to surely do that is to not play weeknight football games.

Both of those things would make Pac-12 football less valuable to ESPN and/or Fox (who I hope is not part of the next TV deal, because FS1 sucks). Want to make more money from TV? Then you wh0re Pac-12 football out even more than Tennis Larry did with the current TV deal. More weeknight games, more late-night games, more last-minute time changes, just put the whole football schedule at the whim of ESPN, and definitely don't play fewer conference games.

Ticket prices were lowered to draw more fans....

You're right- Cal should do the same....

As you all know, it's not easy being a Cal fan. It is part of the allure, but the game experience needs to improve.

ColoradoBear said:

---

Why flip a coin? If furd wants it more, play at Cal 2x in a row. And they wanted it more.

---

Chiming in late here but wasn't a big part of the problem that the erector set was more of a home game for furd than a neutral site? Going to Levi's is much more of a disadvantage to Cal and it's fans than for furd and it's uhh whatever you call people who attend furd games.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Why flip a coin? If furd wants it more, play at Cal 2x in a row. And they wanted it more.

---

Chiming in late here but wasn't a big part of the problem that the erector set was more of a home game for furd than a neutral site? Going to Levi's is much more of a disadvantage to Cal and it's fans than for furd and it's uhh whatever you call people who attend furd games.

---

IIRC the original idea was that the 49ers would pay Cal, or arrange for a promoter to pay Cal, for playing a home Big Game at Levi's, as Cal was paid for moving an Oregon home game to Levi's a few years ago.

It would be better for Cal if the one "neutral site" game was at Oakland Coliseum, but if no one is paying the school whose team has to skip a home game, the neutral-site deal isn't going to happen.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Why flip a coin? If furd wants it more, play at Cal 2x in a row. And they wanted it more.

---

Chiming in late here but wasn't a big part of the problem that the erector set was more of a home game for furd than a neutral site? Going to Levi's is much more of a disadvantage to Cal and it's fans than for furd and it's uhh whatever you call people who attend furd games.

---

Big Game used to be 50-50 Cal Stanford. The old Stanford Stadium held 100k+ so Cal fans could easily be accommodated. When Stanford reduced their Stadium size, they treated us like any other visitor and gave us 10k seats in the upper corner. Stanford had already "unbalanced" the equation.

The Oregon game at Levi's was the worst football experience of my life (and that is saying something). It gave Oregon our home field advantage. Located in Santa Clara with poor public transportation from the East Bay, it is not a neutral field. If Stanford wanted to have one of their Big Games there, at least more Cal fans could attend than Stanford allows at their stadium. Otherwise, the only time I want to see Cal play there is in the PAC-12 Championship Game or whatever Bowl game they play there now.

There are actually some advantages to the unbalanced schedule: when we get a good team it gives us a shot a great season every other year. With the Rose Bowl on the line, I want Big Game to be at Cal.

HighlandDutch said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Those who thought it was a bad idea are not interested in facts (as evidenced by their comments in this thread). Cal made a huge mistake. It is really that simple. Hopefully, as you have noted, changes resulting from the next TV cycle will address the situation. In the meantime, the odd/even scheduling disparity will continue....

---

I said this in another thread and will say it here: I'd rather attend two consecutive Big Games at Stanford than go to a Big Game at a neutral site. The Big Game belongs on a college campus, even if the campus in question is an overgrown Taco Bell.

(Of course, I'd rather attend two consecutive BGs at Memorial Stadium.)

So my objection to the plan wasn't that the BG being moved to a neutral site was in an even-numbered year, it was that it was being moved to a neutral site in any year.

I say we flip a coin to determine which school gets two consecutive home BGs and be done with it. If we lose the coin flip (and if you don't think we will lose it, then you haven't been paying attention to Cal football for the past 60 years), we can console ourselves with the fact that we once had two consecutive home BGs, in 1942 and 1946.

---

I agree with this completely. I would never attend a Big Game at Levi's, and if a game is played there it will hurt my love of Cal football just as much as Dykes, night games, and the Simba Cam have.

Tosh would put butts in the seats.

But we all know he will be Bama's HC in 2021

iwantwinners said:

---

Tosh would put butts in the seats.

But we all know he will be Bama's HC in 2021

---

Lol

iwantwinners said:

---

Should have just continued playing at AT&T instead of the money pit the Memorial Stadium retrofit became and still is.

---

Did you attend the games at AT&T that one year? It was fine as a novelty, but would be a disaster as anything more than a 1 year experience. The sight lines were terrible, I couldn't hear or see the Cal Band, and it was far from campus.

Cal Football is meant to be played in Strawberry Canyon at Memorial full stop.

BearSD said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Why flip a coin? If furd wants it more, play at Cal 2x in a row. And they wanted it more.

---

Chiming in late here but wasn't a big part of the problem that the erector set was more of a home game for furd than a neutral site? Going to Levi's is much more of a disadvantage to Cal and it's fans than for furd and it's uhh whatever you call people who attend furd games.

---

IIRC the original idea was that the 49ers would pay Cal, or arrange for a promoter to pay Cal, for playing a home Big Game at Levi's, as Cal was paid for moving an Oregon home game to Levi's a few years ago.

It would be better for Cal if the one "neutral site" game was at Oakland Coliseum, but if no one is paying the school whose team has to skip a home game, the neutral-site deal isn't going to happen.

---

It was never reported that Cal would get paid. That was only reported for the Oregon game.

Cal,s response to the new tax law was to tell donors to pay 2 years in advance

oskidunker said:

---

Cal,s response to the new tax law was to tell donors to pay 2 years in advance

---

The whole anit-football/basketball tax hit was brought to you by the size of Nick Saban's contract (and some others) and initially started as a Democrat proposal. The GOP kept it in when it was looking for revenues to offset the tax cuts. So if Cal thinks waiting for some changes in the legislature follows the mid-term election will result in remedial legislation, that is wishful thinking. BTW, many Cal fans like me took Cal up on the offer. But two years from now, unless the team is wining big time, expect some seat losses from those that paid.

That said, Cal and other schools are working on ideas, which is difficult without any guidance from Treasury. The schools are in communication, but there is a question among the colleges as to who will take the first leap.

I also paid two years.

I paid two years and will keep paying. I'm as hopeful as I've been in a long time. In any case, I stayed through a lot of rough seasons, including the Holmoe years so why would I bail? It takes a certain blind loyalty to keep hoping for the bright spots which come only rarely. I understand this not for everyone.