Realignment talk not going away

['stache 21,800]

11 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Makes me wonder if there's some Big 12 news pending that would make whomever needs to sign off on these negotiations more inclined to do so.

I think it probably has more to do with playoff expansion. Fox has a better idea what the numbers are for that year. All articles are that they’re the holdup since they’ll be losing those games, ESPN still gets them with their sec contract. I’ve said from the day of the announcement that it would be at least a year earlier. Everything is now in line for all the changes to be 2024.

Edited December 12, 2022 by 'stache

[Laxtonto 12,078]

This is all back to will ESPN be willing to pay both the B12 and SEC at the same time. With the CFP set to run in 2024 there is a probably a desire from both conferences and ESPN to get this figured out purely from a branding standpoint.

All the B12 needs is for UT or OU to get their autobid for the first 12 team CFP. The SEC probably wants UT and OU in so they can set their new conference game schedule rotation to coincide with the new CFP roll out.

ESPN is the wildcard here because they are going to get stuck paying the bill and so does having the new SEC up and running for the 12 team make enough $$ for them that it is worthwhile.

[Al_4_ISU 12,453]

6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I think it probably has more to do with playoff expansion. Fox has a better idea what the numbers are for that year. All articles are that they’re the holdup since they’ll be losing those games, ESPN still gets them with their sec contract. I’ve said from the day of the announcement that it would be at least a year earlier. Everything is now in line for all the changes to be 2024.

That's more likely.  IIRC though, Yormark made a comment on possible expansion happening soon.  Between the delay in the schedule announcement, and now those, it seems like it could all be connected but that's admittedly some wishful thinking on my end.

[Laxtonto 12,078]

2 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

That's more likely.  IIRC though, Yormark made a comment on possible expansion happening soon.  Between the delay in the schedule announcement, and now those, it seems like it could all be connected but that's admittedly some wishful thinking on my end.

What is the window needed for the PAC schools to declare that they are leaving? If we are talking the 4 corners schools wouldn’t they be essentially on the same timeline as USC/UCLA. 
 

So the idea would be let 2 go and add 4 more for the 24 season? 

['stache 21,800]

I think that’s just Yormarks packaged response whenever asked, which has to be constantly. Same with Klavkoffs packaged response that they’re strong and united. 

[Al_4_ISU 12,453]

7 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

What is the window needed for the PAC schools to declare that they are leaving? If we are talking the 4 corners schools wouldn’t they be essentially on the same timeline as USC/UCLA. 
 

So the idea would be let 2 go and add 4 more for the 24 season? 

USC and UCLA are in the Big 10 in '24 right?  That's kind of what made my mind go there - the concurrent timing.

 

6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I think that’s just Yormarks packaged response whenever asked, which has to be constantly. Same with Klavkoffs packaged response that they’re strong and united. 

Very possible.  Could also be related to something like adding Gonzaga for hoops only.

[bullet 1,596]

Was looking today.  Nothing more on 2024 Texit and Sexit.  Just a lot of articles quoting Brett McMurphy.

[statsman 5,456]

Reading the tweet replies, I see a lot of sour grapes (“we’re better off without them! We don’t need them!”) from other Big XII fans

[Al_4_ISU 12,453]

4 minutes ago, statsman said:

Reading the tweet replies, I see a lot of sour grapes (“we’re better off without them! We don’t need them!”) from other Big XII fans

At this point it's kind of true.  Being in a forced marriage ain't good for anyone.

We're getting enough money and enough of a seat at the table to placate us, and you guys don't want to be here.  So every continued season is just weird as hell and will be completely disconnected to anyone involved's future.  We know what the future looks like, so let's just get there.  I doubt there's much argument on that point here.

Yeah, we'd undeniably make more money if y'all stayed, but now we're in a place where we aren't constantly worried about the top brands leaving.  I can root for Bama to kick KSU's heads in because I'm fucking jealous of KSU and can't stand it for them to have things we don't (no offense Kenny) and I don't have to pretend to be happy for other Big 12 schools so that we either get enough credit to keep y'all around or keep access to the playoff. 

As a fan, that is an improvement on a very tangible level even if it's a financial loss (or missed opportunity).

[bullet 1,596]

14 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

At this point it's kind of true.  Being in a forced marriage ain't good for anyone.

We're getting enough money and enough of a seat at the table to placate us, and you guys don't want to be here.  So every continued season is just weird as hell and will be completely disconnected to anyone involved's future.  We know what the future looks like, so let's just get there.  I doubt there's much argument on that point here.

Yeah, we'd undeniably make more money if y'all stayed, but now we're in a place where we aren't constantly worried about the top brands leaving.  I can root for Bama to kick KSU's heads in because I'm fucking jealous of KSU and can't stand it for them to have things we don't (no offense Kenny) and I don't have to pretend to be happy for other Big 12 schools so that we either get enough credit to keep y'all around or keep access to the playoff. 

As a fan, that is an improvement on a very tangible level even if it's a financial loss (or missed opportunity).

Actually you get the same whether we leave or go.  We probably don't get a share in the last year.  And you get your exit fee quicker.

[Al_4_ISU 12,453]

31 minutes ago, bullet said:

Actually you get the same whether we leave or go.  We probably don't get a share in the last year.  And you get your exit fee quicker.

I meant if you had stayed in the Big 12 long term.

Financially the Big 12 isn't better off with Texas and OU leaving.  But there are benefits to your leaving from a fan perspective (and these have as much to do with the changing landscape of CFB than you leaving) of ending this ASAP.  And that's true for the UT/OU fans and fans of the Big 12 schools.

[statsman 5,456]

Sure. For example, Texas will be paying its players a lot more than the other Big XII programs. It won’t be pretty when a freshman phenom at KSU decides to transfer to Texas for significantly more money and compete against his old teammates. But, that’s the future reality. 
 
There are two responses the league can make-

1. Do nothing about it (unpopular with small programs)

2. Limit the transfers (unpopular with big programs). 
 

Like-sized and like-minded programs should be in leagues together. 

[Al_4_ISU 12,453]

4 minutes ago, statsman said:

Sure. For example, Texas will be paying its players a lot more than the other Big XII programs. It won’t be pretty when a freshman phenom at KSU decides to transfer to Texas for significantly more money and compete against his old teammates. But, that’s the future reality. 
 
There are two responses the league can make-

1. Do nothing about it (unpopular with small programs)

2. Limit the transfers (unpopular with big programs). 
 

Like-sized and like-minded programs should be in leagues together. 

This is already happening and our response is to turn around and steal good players from schools with less money than us.  Shit rolls down hill.

The end results leave us kind of in the same relative positions as before.  It's like wrestlers cutting weight to get in a lower weight class.

[Trojan Man 429]

12 minutes ago, statsman said:

Sure. For example, Texas will be paying its players a lot more than the other Big XII programs. It won’t be pretty when a freshman phenom at KSU decides to transfer to Texas for significantly more money and compete against his old teammates. But, that’s the future reality. 
 
There are two responses the league can make-

1. Do nothing about it (unpopular with small programs)

2. Limit the transfers (unpopular with big programs). 
 

Like-sized and like-minded programs should be in leagues together. 

I think the smaller programs will still be able to take care of their stars most of the time.  This exact situation could have happened with Deuce Vaughn but it didn't.  Maybe the presence of Bijan Robinson meant transferring to Texas was never on the table for Vaughn but still there are other bigger, richer programs than Kansas State where he would have been the unquestioned #1 RB yet he's spending his entire college career at KSU.  KSU/Manhattan will never match Texas/Austin dollar for dollar but they also aren't an apathetic, bankrupt fanbase with a crumbling local economy that can't afford any sponsorships or NIL deals.  The KSUs of the world won't outbid bigger programs for 5* recruits but they can offer enough to hang on to their diamonds in the rough after they're already in the program.  So far almost all portal movement seems to be one of the following categories:

-Player who balled out at FCS moving up to FBS

-Player who balled out at G5 moving up to P5

-Player who never saw the field at P5 dropping to G5, or blueblood to middle of the road P5

-Lateral moves because a player is unhappy about a coaching change or how he's used in the scheme or the general direction of the program

Off the top of my head I can only think of two moves similar to what you brought up where a star player left a smaller P5 program for a blueblood: RB Jahmyr Gibbs from Georgia Tech to Alabama and WR Jordan Addison from Pitt to USC.  You could make a plausible case both had reasons beyond NIL for the change.  Gibbs had to know his head coach was on the hot seat going into 2022 and didn't want to deal with that shit his last year in college.  It was the right call as GT did fire their coach during the season.  Addison went through spring practice catching dying ducks from Kedon Slovis after winning a Biletnikoff playing with a future first round QB and decided he'd have more fun finishing his college career in Riley's offense catching dimes from Caleb Williams.  If GT had a more stable coaching situation and if Pickett had another year at Pitt those two guys probably don't leave.

[Al_4_ISU 12,453]

I'm really just saying there are non sour grapes reasons that fans of the remaining Big 12 would want Texas and OU to move on sooner than later and the idea that we're better off isn't a crazy one, depending on what you mean by "better off" and who is saying it.  It's a very subjective thing.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Al_4_ISU

[statsman 5,456]

I think there will be a lot more change coming when players start getting agents (if they haven’t already). 

[SimonBolivar 10,957]

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I don't have to pretend to be happy for other Big 12 schools so that we either get enough credit to keep y'all around or keep access to the playoff. 

As a fan, that is an improvement on a very tangible level even if it's a financial loss (or missed opportunity).

That's why I love this conference, fuck every single one of you.

[oSuJeff97 3,435]

6 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

I think the smaller programs will still be able to take care of their stars most of the time.  This exact situation could have happened with Deuce Vaughn but it didn't.  Maybe the presence of Bijan Robinson meant transferring to Texas was never on the table for Vaughn but still there are other bigger, richer programs than Kansas State where he would have been the unquestioned #1 RB yet he's spending his entire college career at KSU.  KSU/Manhattan will never match Texas/Austin dollar for dollar but they also aren't an apathetic, bankrupt fanbase with a crumbling local economy that can't afford any sponsorships or NIL deals.  The KSUs of the world won't outbid bigger programs for 5* recruits but they can offer enough to hang on to their diamonds in the rough after they're already in the program.  So far almost all portal movement seems to be one of the following categories:

-Player who balled out at FCS moving up to FBS

-Player who balled out at G5 moving up to P5

-Player who never saw the field at P5 dropping to G5, or blueblood to middle of the road P5

-Lateral moves because a player is unhappy about a coaching change or how he's used in the scheme or the general direction of the program

Off the top of my head I can only think of two moves similar to what you brought up where a star player left a smaller P5 program for a blueblood: RB Jahmyr Gibbs from Georgia Tech to Alabama and WR Jordan Addison from Pitt to USC.  You could make a plausible case both had reasons beyond NIL for the change.  Gibbs had to know his head coach was on the hot seat going into 2022 and didn't want to deal with that shit his last year in college.  It was the right call as GT did fire their coach during the season.  Addison went through spring practice catching dying ducks from Kedon Slovis after winning a Biletnikoff playing with a future first round QB and decided he'd have more fun finishing his college career in Riley's offense catching dimes from Caleb Williams.  If GT had a more stable coaching situation and if Pickett had another year at Pitt those two guys probably don't leave.

Very well said.

Almost all of my OSU friends of the "sky is falling" persuasion have been throwing a collective conniption fit about the portal but the reality is exactly what you laid out.

The other thing I think that makes Addison moving from Pitt to USC a bit of an outlier is that USC was previously bad and had a depleted roster that Riley was trying to fill up with the best available talent through the portal. Five years from now, I don't know that there would necessarily be a spot for someone like Addison to move over to USC because Riley is going to have a roster full of 4- and 5-star guys already.

Even with the portal, there are still only a certain amount of roster spots to go around, and if bluebloods are brining guys in via the portal, that means that other talented guys with potential to contribute at a "smaller" P5 program are going out the door.

The one position of course where this probably will be an issue is quarterback, just because it's so hard to hit on a great QB, even on 4- and 5-star guys. If a "lesser" P5 program finds a diamond in the rough who can clearly play they may not stick around after a freshman or sophomore year because even bluebloods are always looking for their next great QB.

 

[billfromlaketravis 11,448]

11 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Very well said.

Almost all of my OSU friends of the "sky is falling" persuasion have been throwing a collective conniption fit about the portal but the reality is exactly what you laid out.

The other thing I think that makes Addison moving from Pitt to USC a bit of an outlier is that USC was previously bad and had a depleted roster that Riley was trying to fill up with the best available talent through the portal. Five years from now, I don't know that there would necessarily be a spot for someone like Addison to move over to USC because Riley is going to have a roster full of 4- and 5-star guys already.

Even with the portal, there are still only a certain amount of roster spots to go around, and if bluebloods are brining guys in via the portal, that means that other talented guys with potential to contribute at a "smaller" P5 program are going out the door.

The one position of course where this probably will be an issue is quarterback, just because it's so hard to hit on a great QB, even on 4- and 5-star guys. If a "lesser" P5 program finds a diamond in the rough who can clearly play they may not stick around after a freshman or sophomore year because even bluebloods are always looking for their next great QB.

 

Disagree on WRs in the portal. There’s such a high bust rate with young WRs, there’s always going to be a need at big time programs. Bama is a great example. Texas to a lesser degree. 

Edited December 14, 2022 by billfromlaketravis

[TKthunder2 4,985]

3 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Disagree on WRs in the portal. There’s such a high bust rate with young WRs, there’s always going to be a need at big time programs. Bama is a great example. Texas to a lesser degree. 

Offensive skill players and kickers will always be in high demand. I think Oline and defense is where it might be more difficult (still not impossible) to find a plug a play athlete due to scheme and fit.

[statsman 5,456]

11 hours ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Very well said.

Almost all of my OSU friends of the "sky is falling" persuasion have been throwing a collective conniption fit about the portal but the reality is exactly what you laid out.

The other thing I think that makes Addison moving from Pitt to USC a bit of an outlier is that USC was previously bad and had a depleted roster that Riley was trying to fill up with the best available talent through the portal. Five years from now, I don't know that there would necessarily be a spot for someone like Addison to move over to USC because Riley is going to have a roster full of 4- and 5-star guys already.

Even with the portal, there are still only a certain amount of roster spots to go around, and if bluebloods are brining guys in via the portal, that means that other talented guys with potential to contribute at a "smaller" P5 program are going out the door.

The one position of course where this probably will be an issue is quarterback, just because it's so hard to hit on a great QB, even on 4- and 5-star guys. If a "lesser" P5 program finds a diamond in the rough who can clearly play they may not stick around after a freshman or sophomore year because even bluebloods are always looking for their next great QB.

 

Think of a major program that just needs a decent QB, like Auburn. Then consider a small program that finds one who can play as a freshman - like Brock Purdy. In todays game, ISU will find itself having to match a seven figure offer from Auburn, or lose him. 

[oSuJeff97 3,435]

42 minutes ago, statsman said:

Think of a major program that just needs a decent QB, like Auburn. Then consider a small program that finds one who can play as a freshman - like Brock Purdy. In todays game, ISU will find itself having to match a seven figure offer from Auburn, or lose him. 

Yes that was exactly my point with my last paragraph. 

The QB position is so hard to get right, even with 4- and 5-star guys, that you will see a lot of poaching/churn at that position.  But then again there are always going to be LOTS of QBs in the portal because any QB with skill who sees the writing on the wall that he won't be playing by the time he's a sophomore will be in the portal.

[oSuJeff97 3,435]

12 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Disagree on WRs in the portal. There’s such a high bust rate with young WRs, there’s always going to be a need at big time programs. Bama is a great example. Texas to a lesser degree. 

I don't know if there's a high bust rate so much as there are just A LOT of WRs... you may not be able to find game-changing receivers all the time, but finding guys who can play at that position isn't super difficult just because of the sheer number of guys out there.

[bullet 1,596]

10 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Offensive skill players and kickers will always be in high demand. I think Oline and defense is where it might be more difficult (still not impossible) to find a plug a play athlete due to scheme and fit.

Wasn't it last year at OU (or was it this year at USC) that Riley had 3 portal players starting in the O-line.  And pass rushers, big linemen are always in demand.  Pretty much everyone but kickers can get poached.  There can be holes anywhere for various reasons, including your depth leaving for more playing time.  Of course, UT picked up a Stanford punter this year.

Last year Alabama picked up at least 5.https://sports.yahoo.com/alabama-football-transfer-portal-tracker-184924624.html  WRs from Georgia and Louisville, OL from Vandy, RB from GT and Cornerback from LSU.

[bullet 1,596]

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/pac-12-media-rights-deal-on-hold-as-league-awaits-resolution-on-uclas-big-ten-status-from-regents-meeting/amp/

Pessimistic article on Pac rights.  

""...It's a demonstrated fact that, when you go from traditional TV to streaming exclusive, you're going to take a little bit of a haircut," Fox executive vice president Mike Mulvihill told the SBJ audience last week. "The people on the conference side and the league side who control these rights have to weigh that revenue opportunity that might exist with a streamer against the loss in average viewership."

CBS Sports already has reported on the implications now that the Pac-12 is last in line among the Power Five conferences to land a media rights deal in this cycle. It will be more about who will see those Pac-12 games beginning in 2024.

One industry source expressed concern over the "depressed" digital market. That may be reference to reports of Amazon and Google laying off tens of thousands of employees in the coming months....

 

Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark reiterated at SBJ that his conference is interested in expansion. That could be the reported pursuit of a basketball-only deal with Gonzaga or continued interested in Pac-12 schools.

Yormark has expressed a desire to be in all four time zones to enhance his conference's reach. Either option would satisfy that want."

[TKthunder2 4,985]

37 minutes ago, bullet said:

Wasn't it last year at OU (or was it this year at USC) that Riley had 3 portal players starting in the O-line.  And pass rushers, big linemen are always in demand.  Pretty much everyone but kickers can get poached.  There can be holes anywhere for various reasons, including your depth leaving for more playing time.  Of course, UT picked up a Stanford punter this year.

Last year Alabama picked up at least 5.https://sports.yahoo.com/alabama-football-transfer-portal-tracker-184924624.html  WRs from Georgia and Louisville, OL from Vandy, RB from GT and Cornerback from LSU.

Yes, not impossible by any means just unlikely. We pulled Calvin Anderson from Rice on the OL and picked up DB Ryan Watts from Ohio State, I think those will just be more rare than offensive skills players which are more plug/play.

Look at 5 star BJ Foster, went from starting at Texas to Sam Houston. I think it’s a bigger risk in other positions to transfer out than offensive skill players, that was the only point I was making.

[Left Coast 863]

After months of haggling, UC regents finally bless UCLA’s move to the Big Ten

https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2022-12-14/uc-regents-finally-bless-ucla-move-to-the-big-ten

Not surprising, given the massive $$$ UCLA is set to gain.

Sorry Cal, you should have been better at sports.

[Gidnik 3,268]

possibly up to a 10 million dollar subsidy for cal lol

 

[Al_4_ISU 12,453]

Say what you want about the Big 12 leftovers, but at least we aren't begging for a permanent subsidy.

[TrashMaster G 17,551]

14 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Say what you want about the Big 12 leftovers, but at least we aren't begging for a permanent subsidy.

Not familiar with idiot Texas politicians are you?

[Al_4_ISU 12,453]

2 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

Not familiar with idiot Texas politicians are you?

No.  The politicians in my home state are idiotic enough that they take all of my bandwith.

[TKthunder2 4,985]

32 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Say what you want about the Big 12 leftovers, but at least we aren't begging for a permanent subsidy.

 

[Al_4_ISU 12,453]

2 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

 

I can't read it without subscribing, but that seems different than what's going on with Cal and UCLA.  It seems like UH and Tech are looking for more money from the state in a general sense, rather than trying to get UT and Aggy to pay them alimony for switching conferences.

[TKthunder2 4,985]

12 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I can't read it without subscribing, but that seems different than what's going on with Cal and UCLA.  It seems like UH and Tech are looking for more money from the state in a general sense, rather than trying to get UT and Aggy to pay them alimony for switching conferences.

First: use https://12ft.io

Second: yes different but still same, they’ve been trying to get money even before we switched conferences 

Third: Fuck’em (join a real system if they want system money)

['stache 21,800]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Say what you want about the Big 12 leftovers, but at least we aren't begging for a permanent subsidy.

Well shit, if that we're an option, I'd be all for taking OU's blood money. But we're separate systems, so the "Berkley Tax" wouldn't work here, and our state politicians are too busy worrying about whose using what bathroom to give a shit about anything else.

[Satchel 6,935]

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I can't read it without subscribing, but that seems different than what's going on with Cal and UCLA.  It seems like UH and Tech are looking for more money from the state in a general sense, rather than trying to get UT and Aggy to pay them alimony for switching conferences.

You’re correct. 

[USC_TMB 405]

18 hours ago, Left Coast said:

After months of haggling, UC regents finally bless UCLA’s move to the Big Ten

https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2022-12-14/uc-regents-finally-bless-ucla-move-to-the-big-ten

Not surprising, given the massive $$$ UCLA is set to gain.

Sorry Cal, you should have been better at sports.

That is fucked up for the bruins. Why should they have to “make Kal whole” because their athletics suck and the administration could not possibly care less about sports? You want to play with the big boys, you had better be able to ante up. Otherwise do what UC Davis and the others schools do and join a lower conference.  And shaking ucla down for “resources related to mental well-being and nutrition”… seriously?

[66BUFF 2,562]

1 minute ago, USC_TMB said:

That is fucked up for the bruins. Why should they have to “make Kal whole” because their athletics suck and the administration could not possibly care less about sports? You want to play with the big boys, you had better be able to ante up. Otherwise do what UC Davis and the others schools do and join a lower conference.  And shaking ucla down for “resources related to mental well-being and nutrition”… seriously?

Does UCLA really give 2 shits about sports?  Seems to me they are getting a free ride on the SC bandwagon so Fox can lock down LA

[USC_TMB 405]

8 minutes ago, 66BUFF said:

Does UCLA really give 2 shits about sports?  Seems to me they are getting a free ride on the SC bandwagon so Fox can lock down LA

The fact they made the move to the B1G shows they do. I’m not going to get into bashing them for the rivalry’s sake, but in basketball they are a blue-blood for sure. USC on the other hand, not so much. Football, they hold their own (pun intended). Other sports they are a force. I had heard that the academic side was at odds with athletic side, but that’s to be expected.

[Al_4_ISU 12,453]

2 minutes ago, USC_TMB said:

The fact they made the move to the B1G shows they do. I’m not going to get into bashing them for the rivalry’s sake, but in basketball they are a blue-blood for sure. USC on the other hand, not so much. Football, they hold their own (pun intended). Other sports they are a force. I had heard that the academic side was at odds with athletic side, but that’s to be expected.

Yeah, hard to argue with that.

The Pac 12 schools that seemingly don't care to me are the remaining California schools.

[USC_TMB 405]

1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Yeah, hard to argue with that.

The Pac 12 schools that seemingly don't care to me are the remaining California schools.

I hesitate to include Stanford since they do excel at Olympic sports and punch above their weight in football and basketball. So they do take pride in their athletics, they just want to do it their way.

But Kal, yeah screw them

[bullet 1,596]

18 hours ago, Gidnik said:

possibly up to a 10 million dollar subsidy for cal lol

 

Actual document says $2 to $5 million.  Not clear if there was a change at the meeting to up the max to $10 million.

[USC_TMB 405]

2 minutes ago, bullet said:

Actual document says $2 to $5 million.  Not clear if there was a change at the meeting to up the max to $10 million.

Government administrator speak for “we’ll say it’s a smaller amount, but plan on taking the hit for the big number”. Especially after the PAC’s TV deal winds up being rubbish

[bullet 1,596]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2022/12/14/ucla-can-join-big-ten-university-california-regents-decide/10899822002/

Some realignment news buried in here:

“"...I would love there to be harmony amongst everybody,'' said Rich Leib, chair of the UC Regents. "To be honest with you, I would love for Cal in the Big Ten. ... But that’s not where it is right now.’’

Leib said the regents explored the possibility of the Big Ten taking Cal and adding additional Pac-12 schools -- Stanford, Washington and Oregon. "We certainly put some pressure on to see if we could,'' he said. "In the end, the expansion was not going to be on the table for us...."’’

This verifies that the Big 10 is not going to 20 now.  Cal has no shot at this point in time.

Now it still doesn't say that UW and Oregon aren't going to the Big 10.

 

[Al_4_ISU 12,453]

32 minutes ago, USC_TMB said:

I hesitate to include Stanford since they do excel at Olympic sports and punch above their weight in football and basketball. So they do take pride in their athletics, they just want to do it their way.

But Kal, yeah screw them

It seems like the university cares, but they have absolutely no fan interest from what I can tell.

[USC_TMB 405]

15 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

It seems like the university cares, but they have absolutely no fan interest from what I can tell.

From what I’ve seen, they just play a different game than other major schools. They make their bones on the academic side, and the success on the athletic side is a bonus (think Vanderbilt but with good athletics). Despite an endowment in the multiple $10’s of billions, they cut like 11 (IIRC) sports a couple of years ago. I believe football is the only non money-losing sport. Alumni will donate to endow sports, but it’s not a rabid fan base from what I’ve seen, I’m probably way off

[Big Frog II 511]

From an outsider, Cal and Stanford alums and students are not rabid sport fans because of who they are.  They are uber smart people who never have been big into sports.  Because of that, they do not support their sports teams.  As time goes on, the little support Cal and Stanford have for sports will continue to decrease.  Great schools, but why would the Big want them?  They probably would fit much better in the Ivy league.  Really don't know why the 4 corner schools want to stick with them.  I would imagine the athletic departments would rather not, but the academicians do.

[Valmy77 13,226]

Just now, Big Frog II said:

From an outsider, Cal and Stanford alums and students are not rabid sport fans because of who they are.  They are uber smart people who never have been big into sports.  Because of that, they do not support their sports teams.  As time goes on, the little support Cal and Stanford have for sports will continue to decrease.  Great schools, but why would the Big want them?  They probably would fit much better in the Ivy league.  Really don't know why the 4 corner schools want to stick with them.  I would imagine the athletic departments would rather not, but the academicians do.

They are also in pro sports cities like you guys. That really puts a ceiling on potential support.

[USC_TMB 405]

33 minutes ago, Big Frog II said:

From an outsider, Cal and Stanford alums and students are not rabid sport fans because of who they are.  They are uber smart people who never have been big into sports.  Because of that, they do not support their sports teams.  As time goes on, the little support Cal and Stanford have for sports will continue to decrease.  Great schools, but why would the Big want them?  They probably would fit much better in the Ivy league.  Really don't know why the 4 corner schools want to stick with them.  I would imagine the athletic departments would rather not, but the academicians do.

All good points. My guess is that the 4 corner schools & PAC are looking at the Bay Area TV market share. What the actual, real viewership is, I have no idea. I’m sure it was covered ad nauseum pages back.

The other reason, which is unpopular and will get me slammed, is that the PAC needs Stanford and Cal to maintain the academic standing of the conference. Particularly with UCLA and USC leaving, and Washington and Oregon looking for the exit. The PAC’s stance historically, reality be damned, is that its members are premier academic research institutions (yeah I know, ASU, Oregon State, and Wazzu). In California that is the difference between the UC system (research institutions) and the Cal State system (non-research). This is the reason Fresno State & San Diego State are not in the PAC.  Of course in the new world of college athletics, all bets are off.

[Satchel 6,935]

7 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

First: use https://12ft.io

Second: yes different but still same, they’ve been trying to get money even before we switched conferences 

Third: Fuck’em (join a real system if they want system money)

This is another of saying to Tech, what’s our oil going underneath your school?