This damn conference realignment is so depressing for me. I'm in my eighties and could care less about going thousands of miles across the country to play NCstate or Wake Forest, etc. Who gives a crap about those schools which have no tradition with Cal. Oh I yearn for the PCC, Pac 8, Pac 10, and Pac 12.
When we signed with the ACC, I figured it was pretty much expected that the major conference alignments would stay like this until roughly 2030. This seems to verify that. SEC and B1G have no reason to change anything until that time, when their contracts are up.
Fair point, although I have some optimism. Lyons is a game changer and will hold Knowlton’s feet to the fire. Wilcox too is still Wilcox, but I think the staff overhaul has been on point and will pay off profoundly. We now have two experienced successful game callers with head coaching experience that Wilcox can lean on. And we have an ascendant OL coach dedicated only to that position. Compare that to last year when Wilcox had a single inexperienced coordinator handling both the play calling and the OL coaching duties. I don’t see how we can’t get better versus an especially weak schedule next year.
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.
On the positive side, Cal (and Furd) are not part of the PAC 2 / Mountain West fiasco. However, the way they are apportioning revenues, the ACC is shaping up to have a top tier, a middle tier, and a bottom tier. Cal, Furd and SMU are at 30% for 9 more years, so unless we have some major private $$$ backing (like SMU), the mighty Golden Bears will be patsies for the top tier of the ACC. Time to change our fate in 2025, GO BEARS!
Agree. We need to start winning and energize the fan base, who are many and wealthy. If even 5% of living alum give $500 per year, then we are talking serious money.
Meanwhile, Berkeley branding has hit an "Inspired" dead-end. Just when I thought "You see" ads were overwrought, here comes "Inspiration."
It's like something is conitnually working against our success at the brand game.
As long as it's not that blue I logo
This damn conference realignment is so depressing for me. I'm in my eighties and could care less about going thousands of miles across the country to play NCstate or Wake Forest, etc. Who gives a crap about those schools which have no tradition with Cal. Oh I yearn for the PCC, Pac 8, Pac 10, and Pac 12.
Thanks Avi. Great article.
2032 -- The Pac-10 gets the band back together. Yes, Pac-10. Let's keep it real.
This seems totally likely. Even highly likely. Also, when is Knowlton getting fired?
One can dream
I wouldn't mind keeping Utah and SMU to keep at at 12.
If they added UNLV and Boise St. and make it into Pac-14; that would be a helluva league.
When we signed with the ACC, I figured it was pretty much expected that the major conference alignments would stay like this until roughly 2030. This seems to verify that. SEC and B1G have no reason to change anything until that time, when their contracts are up.
I just don’t see how we can expect different outcomes from the same leaders.
Fair point, although I have some optimism. Lyons is a game changer and will hold Knowlton’s feet to the fire. Wilcox too is still Wilcox, but I think the staff overhaul has been on point and will pay off profoundly. We now have two experienced successful game callers with head coaching experience that Wilcox can lean on. And we have an ascendant OL coach dedicated only to that position. Compare that to last year when Wilcox had a single inexperienced coordinator handling both the play calling and the OL coaching duties. I don’t see how we can’t get better versus an especially weak schedule next year.
Gee Pokey, what could go wrong on a day like this ?
This is good perspective on our situation. Hopefully we can gain some momentum and build on it. Now’s the time!
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.
On the positive side, Cal (and Furd) are not part of the PAC 2 / Mountain West fiasco. However, the way they are apportioning revenues, the ACC is shaping up to have a top tier, a middle tier, and a bottom tier. Cal, Furd and SMU are at 30% for 9 more years, so unless we have some major private $$$ backing (like SMU), the mighty Golden Bears will be patsies for the top tier of the ACC. Time to change our fate in 2025, GO BEARS!
Agree. We need to start winning and energize the fan base, who are many and wealthy. If even 5% of living alum give $500 per year, then we are talking serious money.