I think one of the biggest factors for athletic departments on the west coast is a general lack of interest in college sports. There are too many casual fans in that region of the country, and they often aren't willing to purchase tickets and dedicate half a day to a sporting event. Perhaps it's due to all the cool activities available in that region, or maybe it's due to a lack of disposable income based on housing prices. Regardless of the reason(s), west coast fans are simply too apathetic in general. That factor, combined with their time zone, is difficult to deal with.
It tickles me that football factory schools like these with mediocre academics or research credentials can throw weight around based on TV deals. I mean, I get it, but how American. If I were an alien overlord, I would elevate programs based on overall athletic and academic and national importance. Alabama, Clemson, Florida State, would be eating crumbs behind Cal, UW, Stanfurd, Michigan, Georgia Tech and the like. I'm expecting to be abducted by the aliens any day and will advocate for athletic overlord status.
Not sure what Cal can do given TV networks solely make these decisions and unless you are more often than not a Top 25 team, playing in the Pacific Time zone is quite the challenge as playing at 7 pm Pacific is not going to ever get as many eyeballs as a Big12 team playing at 7 pm Central Time and overlaps with the late Pac-12 game, which also tends to mean subpar attendance in the stands. All that said, for FSU and Clemson given they are staying through 2026, absent a complete win in court, wouldn't they just wait until other contracts open up for negotiation around 2030 and a potentially complete re-alignment of at least football powers may come to be? A non-NCAA league of the top 32 teams based on records over the past dozen years or so and with some weighting towards the more recent years than the more distant years? That development would inform how much they can afford to pay and still come out ahead. The deal with the remaining ACC would be balancing the cash payout while gaining media rights back through 2036.
I think the status quo probably does remain until about 2030. Once the B1G is renegotiating again, all bets are off. FSU/Clemson would have to get a VERY favorable court ruling to make happen faster, which I think is unlikely.
As to the TV ratings issue: I think Cal was especially hamstrung by having so many games on Pac-12 Network. I looked at the last 2 years and found that almost no other Power 5 schools had games shown on the conference network as often as Cal, including several with worse W-L records. Stanford was in a similar boat. 7 of 12 games for each school were on Pac-12 Network, tied for most in the conference.
I'm interested in seeing what our numbers look like when more of our games are on an ESPN network. Just as an example: through the first four weeks of last season, Cal had only one game on Pac-12 Network and three on ESPN channels (two on ESPN and one on ESPNU). To that point we were respectably in the top half of the Pac-12 in terms of ratings. Then we had five straight games on Pac-12 Network and fell way off the ratings map. It's not like these were bad games either: four of them were against ranked opponents and probably would have drawn ratings if they'd been visible. They just weren't, because the Pac-12 Network sucked.
Even for the late west coast games: if it's on ESPN proper, it will get ratings. People will have the game on in bars. I think we should get a more realistic picture now of how many people are actually watching Cal football.
That's just it. There is nothing meaningful Cal can do about not affording "to be caught with their pants down a second time". They have no leverage in the the marketplace in top level athletics and athletics programming. They do need to stay alert, and agile, but its not as if they have any influence on where things are headed.
I think one of the biggest factors for athletic departments on the west coast is a general lack of interest in college sports. There are too many casual fans in that region of the country, and they often aren't willing to purchase tickets and dedicate half a day to a sporting event. Perhaps it's due to all the cool activities available in that region, or maybe it's due to a lack of disposable income based on housing prices. Regardless of the reason(s), west coast fans are simply too apathetic in general. That factor, combined with their time zone, is difficult to deal with.
It tickles me that football factory schools like these with mediocre academics or research credentials can throw weight around based on TV deals. I mean, I get it, but how American. If I were an alien overlord, I would elevate programs based on overall athletic and academic and national importance. Alabama, Clemson, Florida State, would be eating crumbs behind Cal, UW, Stanfurd, Michigan, Georgia Tech and the like. I'm expecting to be abducted by the aliens any day and will advocate for athletic overlord status.
Not sure what Cal can do given TV networks solely make these decisions and unless you are more often than not a Top 25 team, playing in the Pacific Time zone is quite the challenge as playing at 7 pm Pacific is not going to ever get as many eyeballs as a Big12 team playing at 7 pm Central Time and overlaps with the late Pac-12 game, which also tends to mean subpar attendance in the stands. All that said, for FSU and Clemson given they are staying through 2026, absent a complete win in court, wouldn't they just wait until other contracts open up for negotiation around 2030 and a potentially complete re-alignment of at least football powers may come to be? A non-NCAA league of the top 32 teams based on records over the past dozen years or so and with some weighting towards the more recent years than the more distant years? That development would inform how much they can afford to pay and still come out ahead. The deal with the remaining ACC would be balancing the cash payout while gaining media rights back through 2036.
I think the status quo probably does remain until about 2030. Once the B1G is renegotiating again, all bets are off. FSU/Clemson would have to get a VERY favorable court ruling to make happen faster, which I think is unlikely.
As to the TV ratings issue: I think Cal was especially hamstrung by having so many games on Pac-12 Network. I looked at the last 2 years and found that almost no other Power 5 schools had games shown on the conference network as often as Cal, including several with worse W-L records. Stanford was in a similar boat. 7 of 12 games for each school were on Pac-12 Network, tied for most in the conference.
I'm interested in seeing what our numbers look like when more of our games are on an ESPN network. Just as an example: through the first four weeks of last season, Cal had only one game on Pac-12 Network and three on ESPN channels (two on ESPN and one on ESPNU). To that point we were respectably in the top half of the Pac-12 in terms of ratings. Then we had five straight games on Pac-12 Network and fell way off the ratings map. It's not like these were bad games either: four of them were against ranked opponents and probably would have drawn ratings if they'd been visible. They just weren't, because the Pac-12 Network sucked.
Even for the late west coast games: if it's on ESPN proper, it will get ratings. People will have the game on in bars. I think we should get a more realistic picture now of how many people are actually watching Cal football.
That's just it. There is nothing meaningful Cal can do about not affording "to be caught with their pants down a second time". They have no leverage in the the marketplace in top level athletics and athletics programming. They do need to stay alert, and agile, but its not as if they have any influence on where things are headed.
We're just riding the wake.
Survivors can't be choosers.
Would that make Chancellor Lyons our collective belt? He is going to ensure our pants never fall down! Go Bears!