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
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 also think that this is what happens to the remaining teams. I think the B1G and Big 12 are just waiting for the Pac-12 TV contract to see how much to offer each of the teams.
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.
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.
My pessimistic view is this: a shrunken Pac-12 is in Cal's future. Independent status might, or might not, follow soon thereafter. Either way, I expect Cal to cut about 12 sports in an effort to retain FBS status, which is key to big time revenue.
The day of reckoning with the stadium debt will eventually be upon us. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the chosen path will be to retire the debt with a big fund-raising effort followed by further cutting of sports and dropping down to FCS or Division II status.
All of this is made possible by the virulent anti-sports mentality among some of the faculty and the large indifference among much of the alumni. Those alumni who support intercollegiate athletics and the richness it brings are looking at the eventual demise of most athletic programs at Cal. Where those cuts will be remains to be seen.
I've always been skeptical that any Calimony will be paid. Like your parents used to say when you were a kid, the Regents just said, 'well see'. They never guaranteed a payment, and they never put an amount into writing. You may recall that the Regents were also very concerned about the extra cross-country travel and its impact on academic success. So, my cynic pov is that UCLA bumps up charter flights and traveling academic tutors so show that the BiG money will minimal net. And if I'm correct, they'll be nothing left to share with Cal. (UCLA Athletics has a huge deficit to payoff to their academic side of the house.)
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.
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.
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.
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?
Chicago football was the original Monsters of the Midway, which the NFL Bears adopted. (The Midway is a grassy strip adjacent to campus that was used for the World''s Fair in 1893.)
So I was in grad school at Maryland when they joined the Big Ten. Academic excellence was a big selling point and they still mention University of Chicago (Note: just looked it up, Chicago was a part of the Big Ten academic consortium until 2016).
Like a lot of the Ivy League schools, Chicago used to be great at football...100+ years ago.
We certainly won't be taken seriously as long as we're playing in places like North Texas State and (as scheduled) UNLV and Wyoming. Our yearly OOC road game should always be to fellow Power Five schools like Ole Miss, Texas, Minnesota etc. with a reciprocal home game.
Wyoming is the biggest head scratcher. With the state of Texas, at least you're getting some recruiting exposure. Not to mention Wyoming is at altitude. I guess Oregon did play there in 2017, but I was equally confused then..
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
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 also still think this is the most likely outcome. But it's like . . . 55% likely, far from a certainty. Lots of moving parts here.
I also think that this is what happens to the remaining teams. I think the B1G and Big 12 are just waiting for the Pac-12 TV contract to see how much to offer each of the teams.
Very plausible.
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.
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.
My pessimistic view is this: a shrunken Pac-12 is in Cal's future. Independent status might, or might not, follow soon thereafter. Either way, I expect Cal to cut about 12 sports in an effort to retain FBS status, which is key to big time revenue.
The day of reckoning with the stadium debt will eventually be upon us. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the chosen path will be to retire the debt with a big fund-raising effort followed by further cutting of sports and dropping down to FCS or Division II status.
All of this is made possible by the virulent anti-sports mentality among some of the faculty and the large indifference among much of the alumni. Those alumni who support intercollegiate athletics and the richness it brings are looking at the eventual demise of most athletic programs at Cal. Where those cuts will be remains to be seen.
*Dont forget we get to live on some of that Calimony from UCLA (not sure for how long though)
I've always been skeptical that any Calimony will be paid. Like your parents used to say when you were a kid, the Regents just said, 'well see'. They never guaranteed a payment, and they never put an amount into writing. You may recall that the Regents were also very concerned about the extra cross-country travel and its impact on academic success. So, my cynic pov is that UCLA bumps up charter flights and traveling academic tutors so show that the BiG money will minimal net. And if I'm correct, they'll be nothing left to share with Cal. (UCLA Athletics has a huge deficit to payoff to their academic side of the house.)
Sad realities for us tortured Cal Bears on the SS Pac10
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.
It will be hard to keep up the successful portal recruiting once the conference loses Oregon and Washington
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.
UW might make sense. Oregon would if the TV deal was worth it yeah?
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.
Looks like it was a typo
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?
Considering the pushback the last time we considered cutting sports, it's more likely that we we will downgrade to FCS first
A much lower FCS budget still means we reduce sports. There is no way the Uni will continue to fund ~30 D1 sports.
And don't forget that D3 means no schollies, which will likely negatively affect diversity.
D3 is also an option, according to at least one Regent
Another insightful piece. Thank you.
I dislike thinking about this!
I didn't realize the University of Chicago ever played in the Big Ten. Then again, they withdrew before my parents were even born.
Chicago football was the original Monsters of the Midway, which the NFL Bears adopted. (The Midway is a grassy strip adjacent to campus that was used for the World''s Fair in 1893.)
Jay Berwanger won the first Heisman in 1935 (before it was called the Heisman Trophy)! It's on display in the gym.
President Hutchins axed the football program in 1939 because he thought sport and academics didn't mix.
Found an opinion piece from him in 1954 and it's about the most University of Chicago thing I've read.
https://vault.si.com/vault/1954/10/18/college-football-is-an-infernal-nuisance
This WaPo article even has what may be one of the first cases of Godwin's Law in 1939.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/08/23/university-chicago-made-one-college-footballs-boldest-plays-it-quit/
Imagine if homie was alive to see the current state of college football..
He'd be writing op-eds to get himself appointed to SCOTUS to reverse it.
So I was in grad school at Maryland when they joined the Big Ten. Academic excellence was a big selling point and they still mention University of Chicago (Note: just looked it up, Chicago was a part of the Big Ten academic consortium until 2016).
Like a lot of the Ivy League schools, Chicago used to be great at football...100+ years ago.
Sad but true. Cal will need to beef up their non conferences schedule to compete nationwide for relevance.
We certainly won't be taken seriously as long as we're playing in places like North Texas State and (as scheduled) UNLV and Wyoming. Our yearly OOC road game should always be to fellow Power Five schools like Ole Miss, Texas, Minnesota etc. with a reciprocal home game.
Univ of North Texas, enrollment 43,000+- and bigger than CAL... there is no NTS...
Wyoming is the biggest head scratcher. With the state of Texas, at least you're getting some recruiting exposure. Not to mention Wyoming is at altitude. I guess Oregon did play there in 2017, but I was equally confused then..
Hey now, don't be dissing Wyoming, as we might have to join them in teh Mountain West in a couple of years.
Absolutely 💯
That shouldn't be hard. Lots of top tier programs will schedule Cal for a good workout before their conference play begins.