Disagree. Cal is an also-ran in the Pac 12, systemically and structurally uncompetitive, not having won it's own conference outright in over 50 years with no end in sight. They will be patsies in the Big 10. This is an opportunity for Cal to realign itself with programs with whom they are on similar footing. I don't give a crap about being in a big time conference only to be drubbed year after year. I would much prefer being competitive and having an actual chance of winning the conference someday. Cal is 12-48 and 18-43 vs USC and UCLA respectively since the 1960s. Good riddance USC and UCLA
This is from 2010 but well worth a read. The Big 10, beyond the network media deals, are looking to expand the number of households who carry the Big 10 network. This strategy is more than the number of college football fans, but the number of cable households in a state. Even people who don't watch college sports, as part of their cable package, will be forced to subscribe to the channel.
How many additional households would a Cal or Stanford add that USC/UCLA wouldn't already in the state of California? Adding a Cal or Stanford would cannibalize the amount Big 10 teams would receive. USC and UCLA will be enough to get the Big 10 network into San Francisco and Sacremento.
I could see the next 2 teams added into the Big 10 being Notre Dame plus one of the following: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Oregon, Miami or Boston College.
It's understandable. The Big Ten fought to be included in the base package in every state they had a team. It wasn't an opt-in for consumers which meant that the size of the pie was all cable subscribers and not just Big 10 fans who opted in.
When the Big Ten was looking at Penn State, many people wondered if Pitt should also join the Big Ten in order to solidify Pennsylvania for the network. But Penn State was big enough to deliver the state. That round of expansion added Penn State and Nebraska. The following expansion brought in Rutgers and Maryland. Neither particularly strong football properties but they delivered the states of New Jersey, New York and Maryland to the network. The Big Ten did not need Pitt despite Pitt being a good fit for the conference academically and a better football property than Rutgers and Maryland.
By capturing UCLA and USC, the Big ten thinks they can capture all cable subscribers in the state and not just alumni and LA/San Diego.
"Through 2008, the distribution deals finally began falling into place. Cable companies didn’t want to go through a second football season with unhappy customers.
Comcast signed BTN in June 2008, and Time Warner took the fledgling network in August 2008, literally on the eve of the college football season. That gave BTN full distribution in its footprint."
When a consumer signs up as a satellite or cable tv subscriber, they typically will pick from a list of bundled channels. There may be a couple versions of a Basic package which includes 30-100 channels. These channels each earn a carriage rate for their inclusion into a bundle per household. Beyond the initial package people subscribe to, they may pick additional content bundles that include other channels. HBO, Showtime, Sports, etc...
In a basic subscriber package the provider typically carries local channels, community channels and then an assortment of entertainment channels including CNN, Fox News, ESPN, Discovery, etc... The Big Ten Network has succeeded in being carried by most midwestern cable/satellite providers as a Basic channel. Variety has a listing of carriage rates per channel, but I understood BTN to charge about $1.50 in the midwest but perhaps I'm wrong on the amount. https://variety.com/vip/pay-tv-true-cost-free-1234810682/ In states outside the Big Ten network, their channel might be included in an optional package that someone would have to pay in addition to a basic package.
This next contract for the Big Ten has them moving away from ABC/ESPN and towards NBC, CBS, Fox and their own cable channel (BTN) which is run by Fox. They earn money based on how the TV Networks value them and then on top of that by how many households are subscribed to their channel. Within the Big Ten footprint, they leverage for their channel to be included into basic cable channels which allows them to earn money based on the number of cable/satellite subscribers and not just viewership.
So to sum up and answer your question. Should the Big Ten succeed in their negotiations with cable channels in California, every customer will have the channel bundled into their basic cable package. Whether they watch the channel or not, they pay for it. Should they succeed, customers aren't entitled to sign up for a channel, they are paying for it as part of the fees for their basic channel bundle.
The Big Ten must have felt that USC/UCLA was the best combination to make this happen and not one Southern California school and a Northern California school. If they are right, Cal would cannibalize these earnings as the earnings would be the same but now with 3 instead of 2 universities.
This helps explain why Oregon and Washington might be considered more highly in the next expansion than a Cal. Notre Dame and any Florida school likely top the list.
The greed will eventually implode the system. Even with two 'Super Conferences' there will only be so many teams in the upper tiers. Kids want to play for a winner and a contender, even if its not in a power conference. And, kids who don't get recruited to winners in the new Super 2 will choose a winner in a lesser conference that has a chance to get to the playoffs over a middling or poor team in a super conference. I give you Clemson as an example.
The fact is that the PAC12 and ACC were very shortsighted when they would not agree to a 12 team national championship playoff with 6 guaranteed spots. It cost them big bucks and as a result USC and UCLA said fuck you, we are worth more money elsewhere. Now we have no guarantees and our revenues will drop with UCLA and USC leaving the PAC12.
There are a couple of things we can do: Schedule tougher non-conference opponents for big TV games, especially late in the season when it means something. Cut our PAC 12 schedule from 9 games against conference opponents to 8, just like the SEC does. That 9th game means half of the PAC 12 teams scheduled to play lose and that means one more loss on their records at the end of the season which destroys chances for so many of our teams to be eligible for a better bowl game or the playoffs. It's just fucking stupid, if you are trying to balance the game with making money.
Lastly, and I will say this until I die, we need to stop playing night games in the PAC12. Early kickoffs no earlier than noon PST and late kickoffs no later than 4:30. If people have to choose between games, so be it. But at least people in the midwest and east who are PAC 12 fans will watch our games...and we might even pick up some new fans. And, no away games in the midwest or east that start before 1:00 pm PST. Period! In our lust for dollars we too often agree to noon games in the east. That means our kids must get up at 5:00 am PST and game time is 9:00 am PST. I can tell you its a huge disadvantage and only a fool would submit to that kind of scheduling. Better to say no and get a team that will meet our schedule. W's mean so much in todays game; why fuck ourselves.
With that I say sayonara to USC and UCLA. Their fans will be unhappy with the decision to leave the PAC12 in about 3 years when neither of those teams is top tier in the Big Ten and neither team plays in any major bowl games and they are middling conference teams. Watch how fast the LA market drops ff when neither of those teams perform at the top level.
I say keep the PAC 12 together, sign up teams like SDSU, Fresno State, Boise State and others. Our top teams will still get national recognition, just like Clemson in the ACC. Bowl games will augment our revenues. It will hurt in the short run, but I think in the long run we'll be fine and the bigger conferences will hurt themselves as they have to spread money around to more teams, the vast majority of which will see diminishing TV ratings as their W's diminish.
If it's just about big television markets, then Stanfurd and CAL should have no problem getting invites to the super conferences, if its about adding big TV markets to the PAC12, we are already too late.
USC is a blue blood and with the extra $$$ will be competitive in their new league. As for UCLA, I've never seen anybody do less with more so I don't expect much from them in the Big Ten - at least in football, which in a money-dominated world is all that counts.
I don't see that adding any of the teams you listed will do anything outside of diminish the conference payouts, which let's be honest is all that this is about anymore. Pushing to keep the Pac-12 together will only send us officially to second tier status. That might be acceptable for how mediocre our administration's support of football has been, but it would be a blow to our history and to our debt service.
At least historically, it has absolutely been about TV markets for the Big Ten - see Rutgers. So I tend to think we have a shot at an invite, if we're not competing for a single slot with Stanfurd.
SDSU is actually a solid team and typically makes the top 25 each year (recently). They have a decent sized media market, it has a huge student body, good practice/training facilities and a new stadium. They would be a prime candidate. SJSU is in a top media market, but the team is usually not that good (the good coaches that go there and win end up leaving). They actually recruit decent talent. But the stadium is old and terrible and their practice/training facilities are not good. I'm not sure how much media value they would bring. Boise State has become one of those storied programs about a good team that comes from a lesser conference and turns into the giant slayer. They have a following that goes way beyond Boise and Idaho. Their stadium is pretty cool, and the blue field is out there. But the media market is only worth about $4m I have been told. Bringing them into the PAC12 would require an uneven distribution of revenue with Boise State settling for a smaller piece of the pie. I see UNR and UNLV in a similar position as Boise State with the main difference being that UNLV is in a Big media market. If we truly wanted to make a regional conference we would figure out a way to bring in all these schools and create a pay out scale commensurate with the media value for each market, however that would favor teams like SJSU over Boise State and UNR. Programs that get more money can build better facilities and hire better coaches. Not sure how all that gets sorted out.
Agree that the top programs we would want to add would be SDSU, Boise State (although the growth is rapidly slowing) and UNLV. I just mentioned the other programs because of possibilities. One I did miss was Fresno State.
All true, but they have been know to play pretty good football. If it's TV, they could be an asset for the right price. It's all about how much they can earn vs the payout. Remember, they stomped UCLA last year. :-)
It’s the fog of realignment in the social media age. You ain’t getting shit in terms of a clear vision because it is constantly shifting. We are just here for for the ride.
I have a wild idea...but hear me out. Conferences were created as a compact between regional schools with similar academic profiles. But if conferences don't matter, why worry about them?
The Pac12, Big 12, and ACC should dissolve their conferences and create a Super Conference. Each year, they should conduct a World Cup like lottery to set up schedules. And marquee matchups, Clemson vs. Oregon, should be scheduled regularly at SoFi like the HBCUs do with their in season classics.
This frees up the super conference to create compelling matchup on campus AND in media areas that get eyeballs. For example, LA is a star driven city, and if you bring a weekly match up that's marketed correctly, it will DESTROY the UCLA fan base. I mean, DECIMATE it. I wouldn't care. I'd host Florida State vs. Washington type games at SoFi each week. In fact, that would be my prime time game. The only games I would keep as musts are traditional rival games.
But you can do that all over the country. Remember, this is about media markets and eyeball. I'd say that the brand of football played in these three conferences is a fun brand of wide-open offense, and I'd lean into it. And with that, I'd differentiate us from the Big10 and SEC. Yes, they have the regional pageantry, but that has less currency because we're specifically destroying the tentpoles of tradition, history, etc. With this superconference, would take on the new college football 2.0 and embrace it.
A structure like FIFA with teams playing into the next level up, losing teams dropping to the next level down makes as much sense as anything else I've read.
I’ve been a Cal fan since 1978 and graduated in 1992. Have always loved Cal football. But the race to the bottom with college sports has soured me. I’d rather Cal join an Ivy League West and play other schools that haven’t whored themselves out.
Good point. Maybe not limited to academically elite schools, but an Ivy type approach where schools voluntarily place limits on $$ and scholarships. I just don’t see how Cal would have a place in professional college football. I don’t think we would ever be committed enough (or dirty enough) to win in that world. We would be perennial doormats. And if it meant traveling half way across the country 5 times every fall, it just seems even more insane. I have spent more of my life enjoying or anguishing over Cal sports than I can imagine. Crying over losses to USC as a kid in the 80s. Over the moon when Cal went 10-2 my senior year. Seeing Cal finally beat Furd when Tedford arrived. Suffering horribly at the 2004 loss at the Coliseum. I could go on and on. But groveling to stay in the corrupt world of college football doesn’t make sense to me anymore. And for those who say Cal can’t afford it. We are the flagship university of the 7th largest economy in the world. We are in the same breath as Cambridge, Oxford and the Ivies globally. The CA Legislature blows more money on garbage every year than 90% of third world countries. We’ll figure it out. But screw the bullshit megaleague.
Let's see, I'm a 3* recruit and Cal wants me to get on a plane 4 - 5 times per year to travel 6 - 8 hours ~ one way ~ to play a football game. No thanks. Perhaps to play a tennis match? Again, no thanks. I don't see how this is good for the student-athlete.
Cal should join the MWC and save their student-athletes from too much travel to different time zones.
Again the almighty $$$ was the only consideration here.
Shutting down the program is absolutely an option. Not sure turning Memorial into housing is such a good idea given it is on the fault line. Best to tear it down and put a proper rugby field on it.
If I'm a 5* recruit and Michigan, Ohio State, U$C, and Fucla offer me I'm going to go to either Michigan or Ohio State ~ just so I won't have to travel as much but still be in the conference. I actually think this will hurt ~ not help ~ recruiting for the LA schools.
Cal’s AD has wasted too much money on non-revenue sports over the past 20 years and has left the only two sports that matter, football and men’s basketball, to wither on the vine. They really should have cut a dozen sports when it was proposed a decade ago. Now all that AD bloat is going to drag Cal to the MWC, or worse something like D3 Ivy where there are no athletic scholarships.
As an Illinois grad, would love to see both Cal and Stanford join the B1G. Check out the Big 10 Academic Alliance (BTAA, formerly the CIC). It’s the way the B1G schools + the University of Chicago collaborate. Also, just an FYI that Purdue is located in West Lafayette, IN, not Purdue, IN. Hopefully you all will find that out first hand after joining the Big 10!
ND is the key here and Cal better hope ND says no to the Big10. If ND says yes, Big10 will grab Stanford/UW/Oregon to round out to 20 teams and Cal well get left behind. If ND says no, our chances increase that we are the 4th invite.
I think the Big10 would like to have the Bay Area/Sacramento market but would prefer just one of the two teams in that market and that would more than likely be Stanford with ND.
Cal is basically viewed as the OSU/WSU to stanford/ucla.
No worries and all the best!
Disagree. Cal is an also-ran in the Pac 12, systemically and structurally uncompetitive, not having won it's own conference outright in over 50 years with no end in sight. They will be patsies in the Big 10. This is an opportunity for Cal to realign itself with programs with whom they are on similar footing. I don't give a crap about being in a big time conference only to be drubbed year after year. I would much prefer being competitive and having an actual chance of winning the conference someday. Cal is 12-48 and 18-43 vs USC and UCLA respectively since the 1960s. Good riddance USC and UCLA
This is from 2010 but well worth a read. The Big 10, beyond the network media deals, are looking to expand the number of households who carry the Big 10 network. This strategy is more than the number of college football fans, but the number of cable households in a state. Even people who don't watch college sports, as part of their cable package, will be forced to subscribe to the channel.
How many additional households would a Cal or Stanford add that USC/UCLA wouldn't already in the state of California? Adding a Cal or Stanford would cannibalize the amount Big 10 teams would receive. USC and UCLA will be enough to get the Big 10 network into San Francisco and Sacremento.
I could see the next 2 teams added into the Big 10 being Notre Dame plus one of the following: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Oregon, Miami or Boston College.
https://frankthetank.org/2010/04/19/the-value-of-expansion-candidates-to-the-big-ten-network/
It's understandable. The Big Ten fought to be included in the base package in every state they had a team. It wasn't an opt-in for consumers which meant that the size of the pie was all cable subscribers and not just Big 10 fans who opted in.
When the Big Ten was looking at Penn State, many people wondered if Pitt should also join the Big Ten in order to solidify Pennsylvania for the network. But Penn State was big enough to deliver the state. That round of expansion added Penn State and Nebraska. The following expansion brought in Rutgers and Maryland. Neither particularly strong football properties but they delivered the states of New Jersey, New York and Maryland to the network. The Big Ten did not need Pitt despite Pitt being a good fit for the conference academically and a better football property than Rutgers and Maryland.
By capturing UCLA and USC, the Big ten thinks they can capture all cable subscribers in the state and not just alumni and LA/San Diego.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2017/08/21/In-Depth/BTN-main.aspx
"Through 2008, the distribution deals finally began falling into place. Cable companies didn’t want to go through a second football season with unhappy customers.
Comcast signed BTN in June 2008, and Time Warner took the fledgling network in August 2008, literally on the eve of the college football season. That gave BTN full distribution in its footprint."
https://www.fiercevideo.com/cable/conference-drops-pricey-big-ten-network-non-conference-regions
In 2018 Comcast decreased distribution of BTN to only states that the Big Ten had a team, and not the entire Comcast footprint.
When a consumer signs up as a satellite or cable tv subscriber, they typically will pick from a list of bundled channels. There may be a couple versions of a Basic package which includes 30-100 channels. These channels each earn a carriage rate for their inclusion into a bundle per household. Beyond the initial package people subscribe to, they may pick additional content bundles that include other channels. HBO, Showtime, Sports, etc...
In a basic subscriber package the provider typically carries local channels, community channels and then an assortment of entertainment channels including CNN, Fox News, ESPN, Discovery, etc... The Big Ten Network has succeeded in being carried by most midwestern cable/satellite providers as a Basic channel. Variety has a listing of carriage rates per channel, but I understood BTN to charge about $1.50 in the midwest but perhaps I'm wrong on the amount. https://variety.com/vip/pay-tv-true-cost-free-1234810682/ In states outside the Big Ten network, their channel might be included in an optional package that someone would have to pay in addition to a basic package.
This next contract for the Big Ten has them moving away from ABC/ESPN and towards NBC, CBS, Fox and their own cable channel (BTN) which is run by Fox. They earn money based on how the TV Networks value them and then on top of that by how many households are subscribed to their channel. Within the Big Ten footprint, they leverage for their channel to be included into basic cable channels which allows them to earn money based on the number of cable/satellite subscribers and not just viewership.
So to sum up and answer your question. Should the Big Ten succeed in their negotiations with cable channels in California, every customer will have the channel bundled into their basic cable package. Whether they watch the channel or not, they pay for it. Should they succeed, customers aren't entitled to sign up for a channel, they are paying for it as part of the fees for their basic channel bundle.
The Big Ten must have felt that USC/UCLA was the best combination to make this happen and not one Southern California school and a Northern California school. If they are right, Cal would cannibalize these earnings as the earnings would be the same but now with 3 instead of 2 universities.
This helps explain why Oregon and Washington might be considered more highly in the next expansion than a Cal. Notre Dame and any Florida school likely top the list.
The greed will eventually implode the system. Even with two 'Super Conferences' there will only be so many teams in the upper tiers. Kids want to play for a winner and a contender, even if its not in a power conference. And, kids who don't get recruited to winners in the new Super 2 will choose a winner in a lesser conference that has a chance to get to the playoffs over a middling or poor team in a super conference. I give you Clemson as an example.
The fact is that the PAC12 and ACC were very shortsighted when they would not agree to a 12 team national championship playoff with 6 guaranteed spots. It cost them big bucks and as a result USC and UCLA said fuck you, we are worth more money elsewhere. Now we have no guarantees and our revenues will drop with UCLA and USC leaving the PAC12.
There are a couple of things we can do: Schedule tougher non-conference opponents for big TV games, especially late in the season when it means something. Cut our PAC 12 schedule from 9 games against conference opponents to 8, just like the SEC does. That 9th game means half of the PAC 12 teams scheduled to play lose and that means one more loss on their records at the end of the season which destroys chances for so many of our teams to be eligible for a better bowl game or the playoffs. It's just fucking stupid, if you are trying to balance the game with making money.
Lastly, and I will say this until I die, we need to stop playing night games in the PAC12. Early kickoffs no earlier than noon PST and late kickoffs no later than 4:30. If people have to choose between games, so be it. But at least people in the midwest and east who are PAC 12 fans will watch our games...and we might even pick up some new fans. And, no away games in the midwest or east that start before 1:00 pm PST. Period! In our lust for dollars we too often agree to noon games in the east. That means our kids must get up at 5:00 am PST and game time is 9:00 am PST. I can tell you its a huge disadvantage and only a fool would submit to that kind of scheduling. Better to say no and get a team that will meet our schedule. W's mean so much in todays game; why fuck ourselves.
With that I say sayonara to USC and UCLA. Their fans will be unhappy with the decision to leave the PAC12 in about 3 years when neither of those teams is top tier in the Big Ten and neither team plays in any major bowl games and they are middling conference teams. Watch how fast the LA market drops ff when neither of those teams perform at the top level.
I say keep the PAC 12 together, sign up teams like SDSU, Fresno State, Boise State and others. Our top teams will still get national recognition, just like Clemson in the ACC. Bowl games will augment our revenues. It will hurt in the short run, but I think in the long run we'll be fine and the bigger conferences will hurt themselves as they have to spread money around to more teams, the vast majority of which will see diminishing TV ratings as their W's diminish.
If it's just about big television markets, then Stanfurd and CAL should have no problem getting invites to the super conferences, if its about adding big TV markets to the PAC12, we are already too late.
USC is a blue blood and with the extra $$$ will be competitive in their new league. As for UCLA, I've never seen anybody do less with more so I don't expect much from them in the Big Ten - at least in football, which in a money-dominated world is all that counts.
I don't see that adding any of the teams you listed will do anything outside of diminish the conference payouts, which let's be honest is all that this is about anymore. Pushing to keep the Pac-12 together will only send us officially to second tier status. That might be acceptable for how mediocre our administration's support of football has been, but it would be a blow to our history and to our debt service.
At least historically, it has absolutely been about TV markets for the Big Ten - see Rutgers. So I tend to think we have a shot at an invite, if we're not competing for a single slot with Stanfurd.
SDSU is actually a solid team and typically makes the top 25 each year (recently). They have a decent sized media market, it has a huge student body, good practice/training facilities and a new stadium. They would be a prime candidate. SJSU is in a top media market, but the team is usually not that good (the good coaches that go there and win end up leaving). They actually recruit decent talent. But the stadium is old and terrible and their practice/training facilities are not good. I'm not sure how much media value they would bring. Boise State has become one of those storied programs about a good team that comes from a lesser conference and turns into the giant slayer. They have a following that goes way beyond Boise and Idaho. Their stadium is pretty cool, and the blue field is out there. But the media market is only worth about $4m I have been told. Bringing them into the PAC12 would require an uneven distribution of revenue with Boise State settling for a smaller piece of the pie. I see UNR and UNLV in a similar position as Boise State with the main difference being that UNLV is in a Big media market. If we truly wanted to make a regional conference we would figure out a way to bring in all these schools and create a pay out scale commensurate with the media value for each market, however that would favor teams like SJSU over Boise State and UNR. Programs that get more money can build better facilities and hire better coaches. Not sure how all that gets sorted out.
Agree that the top programs we would want to add would be SDSU, Boise State (although the growth is rapidly slowing) and UNLV. I just mentioned the other programs because of possibilities. One I did miss was Fresno State.
All true, but they have been know to play pretty good football. If it's TV, they could be an asset for the right price. It's all about how much they can earn vs the payout. Remember, they stomped UCLA last year. :-)
I’m frustrated that we aren’t hearing of concrete steps right now. I get that it’ll take a few days, but I want a clear vision for the future.
It’s the fog of realignment in the social media age. You ain’t getting shit in terms of a clear vision because it is constantly shifting. We are just here for for the ride.
They have to play all sides.
Cal can repurpose the stadium as a safe space for protests from the undergrads. UCLA not gonna pay for that debt lmao
I have a wild idea...but hear me out. Conferences were created as a compact between regional schools with similar academic profiles. But if conferences don't matter, why worry about them?
The Pac12, Big 12, and ACC should dissolve their conferences and create a Super Conference. Each year, they should conduct a World Cup like lottery to set up schedules. And marquee matchups, Clemson vs. Oregon, should be scheduled regularly at SoFi like the HBCUs do with their in season classics.
This frees up the super conference to create compelling matchup on campus AND in media areas that get eyeballs. For example, LA is a star driven city, and if you bring a weekly match up that's marketed correctly, it will DESTROY the UCLA fan base. I mean, DECIMATE it. I wouldn't care. I'd host Florida State vs. Washington type games at SoFi each week. In fact, that would be my prime time game. The only games I would keep as musts are traditional rival games.
But you can do that all over the country. Remember, this is about media markets and eyeball. I'd say that the brand of football played in these three conferences is a fun brand of wide-open offense, and I'd lean into it. And with that, I'd differentiate us from the Big10 and SEC. Yes, they have the regional pageantry, but that has less currency because we're specifically destroying the tentpoles of tradition, history, etc. With this superconference, would take on the new college football 2.0 and embrace it.
A structure like FIFA with teams playing into the next level up, losing teams dropping to the next level down makes as much sense as anything else I've read.
I’ve been a Cal fan since 1978 and graduated in 1992. Have always loved Cal football. But the race to the bottom with college sports has soured me. I’d rather Cal join an Ivy League West and play other schools that haven’t whored themselves out.
Good point. Maybe not limited to academically elite schools, but an Ivy type approach where schools voluntarily place limits on $$ and scholarships. I just don’t see how Cal would have a place in professional college football. I don’t think we would ever be committed enough (or dirty enough) to win in that world. We would be perennial doormats. And if it meant traveling half way across the country 5 times every fall, it just seems even more insane. I have spent more of my life enjoying or anguishing over Cal sports than I can imagine. Crying over losses to USC as a kid in the 80s. Over the moon when Cal went 10-2 my senior year. Seeing Cal finally beat Furd when Tedford arrived. Suffering horribly at the 2004 loss at the Coliseum. I could go on and on. But groveling to stay in the corrupt world of college football doesn’t make sense to me anymore. And for those who say Cal can’t afford it. We are the flagship university of the 7th largest economy in the world. We are in the same breath as Cambridge, Oxford and the Ivies globally. The CA Legislature blows more money on garbage every year than 90% of third world countries. We’ll figure it out. But screw the bullshit megaleague.
It's like schools can now enter the transfer portal and get NIL money.
Cal has issued a statement neither confirming or denying that we are remaining in the pac 12 signed by both Christ and Knowlton.
Great. Last thing I wanted was a commitment to Pac12.
I am committing to a 56k modem! Who is joining me!!
Let's see, I'm a 3* recruit and Cal wants me to get on a plane 4 - 5 times per year to travel 6 - 8 hours ~ one way ~ to play a football game. No thanks. Perhaps to play a tennis match? Again, no thanks. I don't see how this is good for the student-athlete.
Cal should join the MWC and save their student-athletes from too much travel to different time zones.
Again the almighty $$$ was the only consideration here.
It's pretty clear that Big-10/SEC College Football is not going to be played by “student-athletes.”
These have become semi-pro NFL player feeder leagues, with huge TV contracts, paid players (via NIL), and the occasional dropping by an actual class.
Well then time to shut down the program and turn Memorial into housing for the homeless.
People's Stadium.
Cal athletics just solved the bay areas homeless crisis.
Yeah but if they default on the stadium loans instead, I bet they could build even more housing than that!
Shutting down the program is absolutely an option. Not sure turning Memorial into housing is such a good idea given it is on the fault line. Best to tear it down and put a proper rugby field on it.
If I'm a 5* recruit and Michigan, Ohio State, U$C, and Fucla offer me I'm going to go to either Michigan or Ohio State ~ just so I won't have to travel as much but still be in the conference. I actually think this will hurt ~ not help ~ recruiting for the LA schools.
Cal’s AD has wasted too much money on non-revenue sports over the past 20 years and has left the only two sports that matter, football and men’s basketball, to wither on the vine. They really should have cut a dozen sports when it was proposed a decade ago. Now all that AD bloat is going to drag Cal to the MWC, or worse something like D3 Ivy where there are no athletic scholarships.
As an Illinois grad, would love to see both Cal and Stanford join the B1G. Check out the Big 10 Academic Alliance (BTAA, formerly the CIC). It’s the way the B1G schools + the University of Chicago collaborate. Also, just an FYI that Purdue is located in West Lafayette, IN, not Purdue, IN. Hopefully you all will find that out first hand after joining the Big 10!
They’re not joining the Big 10.
This is nothing but a pipe dream. The Big 10 told Oregon and Washington no today. We're waaaaaaaay below them in desirability.
Read. Between. The. Lines.
Wrong person to ask
Read. Between. The. Wikipedia. Links.
The Regents angle is overblown and won’t happen.
ND is the key here and Cal better hope ND says no to the Big10. If ND says yes, Big10 will grab Stanford/UW/Oregon to round out to 20 teams and Cal well get left behind. If ND says no, our chances increase that we are the 4th invite.
I think the Big10 would like to have the Bay Area/Sacramento market but would prefer just one of the two teams in that market and that would more than likely be Stanford with ND.
Cal is basically viewed as the OSU/WSU to stanford/ucla.