If we're doing value-based brand allocation, then the exit fee should also be value-based. Whatever annual multiplier is agreed upon should apply to the exit. So it should cost FSU MORE to leave. Essentially, they decide how they want their bonus paid: annually or at the end/exit.
It would also help Cal get to the B1G because our buyout w…
If we're doing value-based brand allocation, then the exit fee should also be value-based. Whatever annual multiplier is agreed upon should apply to the exit. So it should cost FSU MORE to leave. Essentially, they decide how they want their bonus paid: annually or at the end/exit.
It would also help Cal get to the B1G because our buyout would be cheaper, though we'd probably offered a reduced B1G share just as our ACC share increases. All this SHOULD be stabilizing overall.
That’s a great thought, but the way that we are playing now, B1G seems like a pipe dream. I get that they are also stuck with the likes of Ilinois, but IL has been with the conference since forever
It's hard to know what the landscape will look like when the new B1G deal happens. We might be considered a relative bargain if they just offer us the current ACC rate plus lower-brand buyout instead of, say, the B1G rate. We'd still be subsidizing the top of the conference even if we kinda suck. Other upsides are Bay Area recruiting opportunities. And even if people won't pay to watch Cal, they'll pay to watch, say, the large Bay Area media market would want to watch Michigan/OSU/LA schools play AT Cal.
The biggest factor would be the per-team delta between ACC and B1G. And if all the top teams form some kind of Frankenstein superconference. Truly unknowable right now.
Anyway, Cal is underwater and gasping for air in the ACC, why on earth would they want to move to the more difficult B1G and why would B1G want a weakling like Cal...football or basketball.
Also, travel logistics would be no piece of cake,even though schools are closer than ACC's. Most of those B1G schools are in glorified farm towns or at best mid sized cities in the middle of nowhere reqiiring who knows what to get from the closest major city airport to the site of the games.
Honestly, I think potential B1G membership depends on how big they want to be and how much their current West Coast schools keep complaining about travel. They might want to add more schools out west and there aren't a lot of better options than Cal and Stanford (plus we have historical rivalries with those schools).
This is rational and might help to further cement the adds of USC, UCLA, UW and UO to the BigTen. Potential problem: Membership is too unwieldy just in terms of sheer numbers. But then again, that West Coast pod thing could be happening and Rutgers and Maryland might just wander off...to the ACC.
It's similar to the Vandy argument. Vandy is a founding member of the SEC and except for this year, they generally haven't been good in football or basketball. I don't see them getting kicked out just for being bad. Not sure if Illinois is a founding member of the Big-10. Also I guess other SEC teams would want Vandy around as an automatic win (usually).
Illinois is an asset to the conference basketball wise, and delivers a bigger slice of Chicagoland than NW (not insignificant), and a source of decent Ws in FB. They are on solid midwest ground.
Illinois is a founding member of the Big Ten in 1896. Other founding members were Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Chicago. Indiana and Iowa were added in 1899; Ohio State in 1912 (!).
The conference was founded in 1896 as the Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives, then became the Western Conference, then the Big Nine.
If we're doing value-based brand allocation, then the exit fee should also be value-based. Whatever annual multiplier is agreed upon should apply to the exit. So it should cost FSU MORE to leave. Essentially, they decide how they want their bonus paid: annually or at the end/exit.
It would also help Cal get to the B1G because our buyout would be cheaper, though we'd probably offered a reduced B1G share just as our ACC share increases. All this SHOULD be stabilizing overall.
That’s a great thought, but the way that we are playing now, B1G seems like a pipe dream. I get that they are also stuck with the likes of Ilinois, but IL has been with the conference since forever
Much as I dislike Bielema, IL football is better than Cal right now.
It's hard to know what the landscape will look like when the new B1G deal happens. We might be considered a relative bargain if they just offer us the current ACC rate plus lower-brand buyout instead of, say, the B1G rate. We'd still be subsidizing the top of the conference even if we kinda suck. Other upsides are Bay Area recruiting opportunities. And even if people won't pay to watch Cal, they'll pay to watch, say, the large Bay Area media market would want to watch Michigan/OSU/LA schools play AT Cal.
The biggest factor would be the per-team delta between ACC and B1G. And if all the top teams form some kind of Frankenstein superconference. Truly unknowable right now.
I think you mean Northwestern not Illinois.
Anyway, Cal is underwater and gasping for air in the ACC, why on earth would they want to move to the more difficult B1G and why would B1G want a weakling like Cal...football or basketball.
I don't think Cal can even afford, much less be willing, to pay the admission necessary to get into the B1G.
Also, travel logistics would be no piece of cake,even though schools are closer than ACC's. Most of those B1G schools are in glorified farm towns or at best mid sized cities in the middle of nowhere reqiiring who knows what to get from the closest major city airport to the site of the games.
Well the whole discussion is that we would be playing UW, UO, UCLA, USC, and Stanford in Big 10.
And a sure 4 losses every
year.. but at least we get in and out quicker.
Honestly, I think potential B1G membership depends on how big they want to be and how much their current West Coast schools keep complaining about travel. They might want to add more schools out west and there aren't a lot of better options than Cal and Stanford (plus we have historical rivalries with those schools).
This is rational and might help to further cement the adds of USC, UCLA, UW and UO to the BigTen. Potential problem: Membership is too unwieldy just in terms of sheer numbers. But then again, that West Coast pod thing could be happening and Rutgers and Maryland might just wander off...to the ACC.
I think they still end up with a West Coast pod. Especially if the midwest/east coast schools complain about coming out west so often.
It's similar to the Vandy argument. Vandy is a founding member of the SEC and except for this year, they generally haven't been good in football or basketball. I don't see them getting kicked out just for being bad. Not sure if Illinois is a founding member of the Big-10. Also I guess other SEC teams would want Vandy around as an automatic win (usually).
Illinois is an asset to the conference basketball wise, and delivers a bigger slice of Chicagoland than NW (not insignificant), and a source of decent Ws in FB. They are on solid midwest ground.
Illinois is a founding member of the Big Ten in 1896. Other founding members were Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Chicago. Indiana and Iowa were added in 1899; Ohio State in 1912 (!).
The conference was founded in 1896 as the Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives, then became the Western Conference, then the Big Nine.
For more, see the Wikipedia page -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Conference#:~:text=The%20Intercollegiate%20Conference%20of%20Faculty%20Representatives%20was%20founded%20at%20a,after%20a%20nine%2Dyear%20absence.