As much as I'd love to have a regular excuse to return to my hometown of Columbus, Ohio, I'm definitely not convinced of Cal's value to the B1G.
The B1G is not a charity, and they would get all the benefits of the SF media market by bringing Stanford (a team with much bigger brand value) into the conference. There's no need for Cal - we'd…
As much as I'd love to have a regular excuse to return to my hometown of Columbus, Ohio, I'm definitely not convinced of Cal's value to the B1G.
The B1G is not a charity, and they would get all the benefits of the SF media market by bringing Stanford (a team with much bigger brand value) into the conference. There's no need for Cal - we'd be dilutive to the share of media rights going to other teams (even with a reduced share). And if you think Stanford would decline that offer just because Cal didn't get a golden ticket, you haven't been paying attention.
I'm similarly not convinced that the Cal administration would conclude that being part of the Big 12 is worth that much more than the MW.
I think its debatable that Stanford is a bigger brand. I'd say majority of Northern California sides with Cal Fandom. The B1G isn't a charity but the B1G presidents who sign these deals understand the academic implications of bringing in a school like Cal from a research funding/coordination standpoint. It's why we are hearing about UVA being vetted from the ACC (Basically our ACC equivalent). I think people are too focused on the now vs looking at the ceilings of programs. How is UVA being looked at more seriously than Clemson? Have to think about what does Clemson become if they are just a .500 football team. 15 years ago more people watched Cal than Clemson. Cal will always have elite academics. In the Bay Area and California in general, it's not the same fandom/passion as in other areas. Too many choices/too much to do. But when teams do well they draw. Think of what the warriors have become in 15 years. Or on the other hand see what has happened to the Sharks attendance numbers from their golden age 2005-2018. My point: Cal has a high ceiling, higher than most people give it credit for. B10 can buy low now and see what it can become in an elevated conference.
I'd say that the vast majority of Northern California is indifferent (at best) about college sports in the Bay Area, and don't have any interest at all in either team. College football and MBB ratings in the Bay Area bear that out.
I can guarantee that none of the B1G Presidents are thinking that Cal's academic prestige has any value when it comes to making B1G decisions (other than the absence of academic reputation would be fatal). It's all about the product on the field that is sold to the media companies. Research funding/coordination doesn't weigh into it. Any coordination among top tier schools is already happening, and/or they're competing with each other.
UVa isn't being looked at by the ACC more seriously than Clemson - they're frantically trying to come up with options for if/when Clemson bolts for the SEC. UVa would be one.
And sure, Cal has a high ceiling, but that's a ceiling they haven't seen in almost 30 years, and there's minimal data that would lead an observant Cal fan to conclude that we're going to reach it anytime soon.
We have to be realistic here. Otherwise you may have your heart obliterated.
The Bay Area is almost exclusively a pro market. To get more attendance Cal would have to either win more or giveaway free tickets. Creative marketing is called for. In an era where TV revenue trumps all you might as well give away tickets to generate more eyeballs, higher TV ratings, and a greater online following.
Agree with your first point but California likes winners and shows up when teams do well.
Academics does matter/certainly does not hurt when your academics are as elite/powerful as Cal/Stanford. If that was the case why didn't the B10 go after UO or specifically UW and grab the Seattle market? UCLA is an easy travel partner but if it's purely about the product on the field...
This is a recent article so maybe you have missed it but it outlines why UNC/UVA are most desired by the B10 as of now. It's widely reported that UVA is being looked at over Clemson.
I assume, based upon reporting from Wilner, et al, that the B1G *has* been talking to UW and UO, and if the Pac-12 falls apart, they'll land in the B1G. Uncle Phil can make sure that happens. We're really talking about whether there are 5, 6 or more former Pac-12 teams in the B1G.
On UVa, I wasn't saying that people weren't looking at them - I read your comment to suggest that UVa was somehow more valuable than Clemson. I think we probably agree that if the ACC were to blow up, there's no way that Clemson goes anywhere but the SEC (or vice versa).
I concur, but my fear (and why I'm no more than neutral in the survey) is that if our product on the football field and the basketball court don't improve considerably over the next decade, we won't get an invite from any of the P5.
I have no more than hopes at the moment that it will.
I'll also add, the B10 isn't just competing with the SEC. They also are competing with the NFL who would love nothing more to see CFB fandoms killed off and then start playing Saturday games like the Patriots vs 49ers and outdraw the CFB game of the week which then would reduce the value of college TV deals.
Some of this is also just about having more inventory. More games that can be shown later in the Pacific Time zone under the B1G banner. That's the incentive to having more West Coast teams. And if the B1G wants West Coast teams that also fit with their overall brand (strong academic schools and flagship state universities to boot), well, the pickings get pretty slim once you go past Cal.
As much as I'd love to have a regular excuse to return to my hometown of Columbus, Ohio, I'm definitely not convinced of Cal's value to the B1G.
The B1G is not a charity, and they would get all the benefits of the SF media market by bringing Stanford (a team with much bigger brand value) into the conference. There's no need for Cal - we'd be dilutive to the share of media rights going to other teams (even with a reduced share). And if you think Stanford would decline that offer just because Cal didn't get a golden ticket, you haven't been paying attention.
I'm similarly not convinced that the Cal administration would conclude that being part of the Big 12 is worth that much more than the MW.
I think its debatable that Stanford is a bigger brand. I'd say majority of Northern California sides with Cal Fandom. The B1G isn't a charity but the B1G presidents who sign these deals understand the academic implications of bringing in a school like Cal from a research funding/coordination standpoint. It's why we are hearing about UVA being vetted from the ACC (Basically our ACC equivalent). I think people are too focused on the now vs looking at the ceilings of programs. How is UVA being looked at more seriously than Clemson? Have to think about what does Clemson become if they are just a .500 football team. 15 years ago more people watched Cal than Clemson. Cal will always have elite academics. In the Bay Area and California in general, it's not the same fandom/passion as in other areas. Too many choices/too much to do. But when teams do well they draw. Think of what the warriors have become in 15 years. Or on the other hand see what has happened to the Sharks attendance numbers from their golden age 2005-2018. My point: Cal has a high ceiling, higher than most people give it credit for. B10 can buy low now and see what it can become in an elevated conference.
I'll try to take these in order.
I'd say that the vast majority of Northern California is indifferent (at best) about college sports in the Bay Area, and don't have any interest at all in either team. College football and MBB ratings in the Bay Area bear that out.
I can guarantee that none of the B1G Presidents are thinking that Cal's academic prestige has any value when it comes to making B1G decisions (other than the absence of academic reputation would be fatal). It's all about the product on the field that is sold to the media companies. Research funding/coordination doesn't weigh into it. Any coordination among top tier schools is already happening, and/or they're competing with each other.
UVa isn't being looked at by the ACC more seriously than Clemson - they're frantically trying to come up with options for if/when Clemson bolts for the SEC. UVa would be one.
And sure, Cal has a high ceiling, but that's a ceiling they haven't seen in almost 30 years, and there's minimal data that would lead an observant Cal fan to conclude that we're going to reach it anytime soon.
We have to be realistic here. Otherwise you may have your heart obliterated.
The Bay Area is almost exclusively a pro market. To get more attendance Cal would have to either win more or giveaway free tickets. Creative marketing is called for. In an era where TV revenue trumps all you might as well give away tickets to generate more eyeballs, higher TV ratings, and a greater online following.
Agree with your first point but California likes winners and shows up when teams do well.
Academics does matter/certainly does not hurt when your academics are as elite/powerful as Cal/Stanford. If that was the case why didn't the B10 go after UO or specifically UW and grab the Seattle market? UCLA is an easy travel partner but if it's purely about the product on the field...
This is a recent article so maybe you have missed it but it outlines why UNC/UVA are most desired by the B10 as of now. It's widely reported that UVA is being looked at over Clemson.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/37842854/college-realignment-latest-colorado-pac-12-big-12-acc
I assume, based upon reporting from Wilner, et al, that the B1G *has* been talking to UW and UO, and if the Pac-12 falls apart, they'll land in the B1G. Uncle Phil can make sure that happens. We're really talking about whether there are 5, 6 or more former Pac-12 teams in the B1G.
On UVa, I wasn't saying that people weren't looking at them - I read your comment to suggest that UVa was somehow more valuable than Clemson. I think we probably agree that if the ACC were to blow up, there's no way that Clemson goes anywhere but the SEC (or vice versa).
I think it ultimately breaks down like this over the next decade.
1. Cal, Stanford, UW, UO go to the B10.
2. The Four Corners (maybe not Zona) go to the SEC to form a western wing for them.
3. The B10 then gets UVA, Duke, UNC and Miami.
4. The SEC grabs FSU, G tech, Clemson and Vtech.
(Kansas/TCU I think could also be in the mix but tbd)
5. The B10/SEC each have 24 teams. The B12 takes the leftovers plus a few of the top G5 schools to get to 24 and Notre Dame remains independent.
It would be hilarious if the 4 corners went to the SEC, the Big 12 fans would be furious.
I concur, but my fear (and why I'm no more than neutral in the survey) is that if our product on the football field and the basketball court don't improve considerably over the next decade, we won't get an invite from any of the P5.
I have no more than hopes at the moment that it will.
I'll also add, the B10 isn't just competing with the SEC. They also are competing with the NFL who would love nothing more to see CFB fandoms killed off and then start playing Saturday games like the Patriots vs 49ers and outdraw the CFB game of the week which then would reduce the value of college TV deals.
I agree, but tell me how likely it is that a game involving the 2024 version of the Cal Bears will keep B1G fans plastered to their seat?
Check the ratings of Nebraska/Rutgers games in the NYC media market and multiply by 0.75 to find out...
Some of this is also just about having more inventory. More games that can be shown later in the Pacific Time zone under the B1G banner. That's the incentive to having more West Coast teams. And if the B1G wants West Coast teams that also fit with their overall brand (strong academic schools and flagship state universities to boot), well, the pickings get pretty slim once you go past Cal.