I am somewhat encouraged by our portal prowess in the revenue sports. Is it possible that that this will be more successful than our high school recruiting? If so and if NIL is heavily funded, which could happen given some success, Cal might be able to compete nationally. The Georgias and Alabamas have an edge now, but there probably is a ceiling to how much they can raise from boosters which California could surpass given the right kind of corporate and executive sponsors. Think of how the Warriors turned around what was a relatively poor financial standing team in a small market given the right ownership. Of course this scenario is not exactly apples to apples but one must admit there are far more resources here locally than in SEC country.
Another excellent article by Nick and (unfortunately) spot-on.
Rutgers and Maryland joined teh BiG when must carry carriage-rights were in vogue so market share was cable households, regardless of eyeballs. Now that espn is preparing for more cable-cutting and heading off into their own streaming with others soon to follow, the large number of households in the BA don't much matter, eyeballs (and subscriptions) do. And Cal and Stanford don't have many of those.
Once we are relegated to MWC money levels, Cal is gonna have to cut a bunch of non-funded sports, as the appetite is not there to support a large D1 program from the academic side of the Uni.
I don't recall USC & UCLA ever giving any indication they were going to the Big 12. The first word of transferring was to the B1G Ten, which is coming to pass.
My optimistic view is this: the Pac-12 will disintegrate, probably after the 2023 season is finished. But most of the remaining 10 teams will be picked up by the B1G or the Big XII.
Without getting into a long explanation, the B1G will pick up Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and UW. This will help keep USC and UCLA happy because it will reduce travel and it will solidify the B1G's West Coast presence.
I also think the Big XII will pick up ASU, UA, Colorado, and Utah. This will allow that far flung conference to have more compact traveling divisions, diluting the traveling impacts. The Big XII also extends its footprint into Arizona, BYU picks up an instate rival, and Colorado renews old Big 8 rivalries.
Not sure what happens to OSU and WSU, but the MWC seems most likely.
I couldn’t disagree more. Cal is extremely attractive to the BIG whatever they are and it isn’t for athletics.
Some would argue the Big Ten Athletic Alliance got an in to the UC System when they brought on fUCLA as a consolidation to $C but I would argue the opposite.
Rarely would I agree with the likes of Bergenau and Trump but in this case I do. UCB and Parnassus are 100% federal institutions if you look at the crumbs the regents allocate vs federal dollars / grant money.
fUCLA is a dwarf comparatively speaking as are tOSU and any other BiG institution you want to throw in. Add Parnassus on our end (only logical) and any one of Livermore or Los Alamos and the parity gets ridiculous (like on the order of 25 billion a year between UCB and Parnassus vs maybe 10 at best for the entire big). Which is why they have an alliance to manage their research. Bringing me to my next point.
We don’t need that nor would we want that nor would the Office of Planning ever go for it. The big alliance exists to provide pooled resources for procurement, budgeting, etc because those schools are research midgets sans the ability to afford to do it on their own. We already have a massive department that does that and we don’t have to “share” with some borderline aau school that does psychology research and is ranked #105 on an academic list.
fUCLA joined because their athletic programs would have died if they didn’t. They gambled and gambled wrong imho. They are going to be the weak link in the big and are going to find themselves in a crap position when they can’t provide the big access to to the broader 41 billion per year in research the big is after.
So back to “the big not wanting cal” statement.
I disagree, the big absolutely wants cal.
The question is are we stupid enough to trade 10 billion a year in research for 45 million in football revenue?
And believe me it is a trade. Obviously not for the entire amount
but we will lose a lot more than 45 million a year in research imho to gain profitability on a line item that has never been anything more than an after thought in planning discussions.
Also I post from a phone with a belligerent auto correct functionality, and so, fuck you in advance mom thank you for your corrections.
Roses from the Ashes: Breakup and Rebirth in Pacific Coast Intercollegiate Athletics (Paperback
by Glenn T. Seaborg. Forward by Clark Kerr) describes earlier history before later Cal chancellors restrained further emphasis of Big Time sports. I’m guessing Cal and Stanford stay together and become poor relations in Big10 until a coach comes along who beats the odds and finds a way to be a contender
And there's no "No concrete news about which teams have a realistic chance of receiving a golden parachute from the Big-10." because there aren't any that are going to.
Assuming a crummy Pac12 media rights deal, how long before Cal seriously starts thinking about dropping down a level or two? Or eliminating non Olympic sports?
I am somewhat encouraged by our portal prowess in the revenue sports. Is it possible that that this will be more successful than our high school recruiting? If so and if NIL is heavily funded, which could happen given some success, Cal might be able to compete nationally. The Georgias and Alabamas have an edge now, but there probably is a ceiling to how much they can raise from boosters which California could surpass given the right kind of corporate and executive sponsors. Think of how the Warriors turned around what was a relatively poor financial standing team in a small market given the right ownership. Of course this scenario is not exactly apples to apples but one must admit there are far more resources here locally than in SEC country.
I didn't realize the University of Chicago ever played in the Big Ten. Then again, they withdrew before my parents were even born.
Another excellent article by Nick and (unfortunately) spot-on.
Rutgers and Maryland joined teh BiG when must carry carriage-rights were in vogue so market share was cable households, regardless of eyeballs. Now that espn is preparing for more cable-cutting and heading off into their own streaming with others soon to follow, the large number of households in the BA don't much matter, eyeballs (and subscriptions) do. And Cal and Stanford don't have many of those.
Once we are relegated to MWC money levels, Cal is gonna have to cut a bunch of non-funded sports, as the appetite is not there to support a large D1 program from the academic side of the Uni.
I don't recall USC & UCLA ever giving any indication they were going to the Big 12. The first word of transferring was to the B1G Ten, which is coming to pass.
My optimistic view is this: the Pac-12 will disintegrate, probably after the 2023 season is finished. But most of the remaining 10 teams will be picked up by the B1G or the Big XII.
Without getting into a long explanation, the B1G will pick up Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and UW. This will help keep USC and UCLA happy because it will reduce travel and it will solidify the B1G's West Coast presence.
I also think the Big XII will pick up ASU, UA, Colorado, and Utah. This will allow that far flung conference to have more compact traveling divisions, diluting the traveling impacts. The Big XII also extends its footprint into Arizona, BYU picks up an instate rival, and Colorado renews old Big 8 rivalries.
Not sure what happens to OSU and WSU, but the MWC seems most likely.
I couldn’t disagree more. Cal is extremely attractive to the BIG whatever they are and it isn’t for athletics.
Some would argue the Big Ten Athletic Alliance got an in to the UC System when they brought on fUCLA as a consolidation to $C but I would argue the opposite.
Rarely would I agree with the likes of Bergenau and Trump but in this case I do. UCB and Parnassus are 100% federal institutions if you look at the crumbs the regents allocate vs federal dollars / grant money.
fUCLA is a dwarf comparatively speaking as are tOSU and any other BiG institution you want to throw in. Add Parnassus on our end (only logical) and any one of Livermore or Los Alamos and the parity gets ridiculous (like on the order of 25 billion a year between UCB and Parnassus vs maybe 10 at best for the entire big). Which is why they have an alliance to manage their research. Bringing me to my next point.
We don’t need that nor would we want that nor would the Office of Planning ever go for it. The big alliance exists to provide pooled resources for procurement, budgeting, etc because those schools are research midgets sans the ability to afford to do it on their own. We already have a massive department that does that and we don’t have to “share” with some borderline aau school that does psychology research and is ranked #105 on an academic list.
fUCLA joined because their athletic programs would have died if they didn’t. They gambled and gambled wrong imho. They are going to be the weak link in the big and are going to find themselves in a crap position when they can’t provide the big access to to the broader 41 billion per year in research the big is after.
So back to “the big not wanting cal” statement.
I disagree, the big absolutely wants cal.
The question is are we stupid enough to trade 10 billion a year in research for 45 million in football revenue?
And believe me it is a trade. Obviously not for the entire amount
but we will lose a lot more than 45 million a year in research imho to gain profitability on a line item that has never been anything more than an after thought in planning discussions.
Also I post from a phone with a belligerent auto correct functionality, and so, fuck you in advance mom thank you for your corrections.
I dislike thinking about this!
Roses from the Ashes: Breakup and Rebirth in Pacific Coast Intercollegiate Athletics (Paperback
by Glenn T. Seaborg. Forward by Clark Kerr) describes earlier history before later Cal chancellors restrained further emphasis of Big Time sports. I’m guessing Cal and Stanford stay together and become poor relations in Big10 until a coach comes along who beats the odds and finds a way to be a contender
Sad realities for us tortured Cal Bears on the SS Pac10
And there's no "No concrete news about which teams have a realistic chance of receiving a golden parachute from the Big-10." because there aren't any that are going to.
Assuming a crummy Pac12 media rights deal, how long before Cal seriously starts thinking about dropping down a level or two? Or eliminating non Olympic sports?
Another insightful piece. Thank you.
Sad but true. Cal will need to beef up their non conferences schedule to compete nationwide for relevance.