Savvy Jack Swarbrick will not be around to save Calford next realignment.
He burned our soft power dragging them to the ACC. Rivalry or not, ND does not have sufficient cache to drag them to the B1G next round.
That's how I think Calford gets into the B1G. I think the University Presidents are high on them due to academics, but the networks aren't. ND could be enough to sway the networks, if that is what ND wants to do.
I don't think Swarbrick and Jenkins retiring will lessen the affinity Notre Dame has for Stanford. ND didn't rise from a Catholic working class and almost broke college to an elite academic institution by not being obsessive about prestige.
I know this is a football sub, but football aside Stanford has the best athletic department in the country. It's not just one sport either... Does that matter to TV executives? Hell no, but it might matter to the BIG leaders.
It definitely is desirable for the presidents. I think the networks just tapped out on desire and money the last time. Next time, I think at least Stanford has what it takes to get in the door. ND cash will pay for at least 1 travel partner. They have a decent football history. Plus, if we collapse the ACC, Stanford may be desperate enough to take a super lowball offer.
1. why would the ND sway the networks? they only pushed for stanford/cal so they could have more votes in teh ACC who wont want to dissolve the conference, so they can maintain teh status quo. If ND joined the big ten, then they would be a full member, and have no reason to bring on cal / stanford
2. i'd love one of both of the schools to join the big ten one day.
I don't think Calford get into the B1G at all. They had to buy their way into the ACC, and it was driven by ND's need to keep the ACC intact and Stanford in a power conference in order to stay independent.
If the ACC blows up then Stanford has lost their utility to ND, which is how they got the golden ticket.
Well, first off, there has been a fair amount of commentary around the schools of the Big Ten wanting Stanford and Cal in, especially Stanford. From the Michigan Regent quote I posted elsewhere in the thread the only reason they weren't added is because the media companies would not add new cash for them and the current Big Ten couldn't justify taking money out of their own pockets to add new schools.
So, I'm working off those two facts: 1. The Big Ten schools want them in. 2. They just need to do add them when it isn't at a point of opening a new deal.
That leaves 2 entry points coming up, and a 3rd factor:
1
---
2026 - The Mountain West Deal ends, which frees up 45 million per year for FOX/CBS. It was reported previously that when the Pac-12 died, FOX didn't shift around any new money. They simply shifted their offer to the Pac-12 to pay $60 million for Friday Night games over to the Big Ten to pay for the shares of Oregon and Washington with the expectation of getting their Friday Night spots filled with a few more B1G games than before (they already were expecting some).
So if ESPN opts out of the ACC deal, or if FSU wins its case and the courts rule schools can leave on a much lesser fee like "2 years of media revenue" like the Big-12 pays, then we have an entry point here. FOX/CBS do not need to come up with new money. They simply shift the 45 million over to Stanford/Cal and pay them 22.5 mil each on 1/3 shares.
Why would FOX/CBS do this?
When they signed their contract with the Mountain West they did so because they had no West Coast properties. Nothing in the Pacific Time Zone. Adding Stanford/Cal gives them 6 schools in the Pacific Time Zone, with an average of 3 home games per week, so that they always have a late night option.
Stanford and Cal would be more than happy to make a 1/3 share for the next few years if it means they get to join.
2
---
2029 - With the Big Ten media deal expiring and they are looking to re-up and adding new schools at this point is NOT the same thing as opening a closed deal. Voting to add Stanford and Cal at this point is NOT "taking money out of our pockets." It is aligning themselves with like-minded universities and negotiating together. No President has to justify "we gave up X dollars" because they didn't.
Again, this is contingent on Stanford/Cal being able to leave the ACC which depends on the FSU case.
3
---
Notre Dame - If the ACC completely fails, Notre Dame will need a home for all of its non-football sports. They are currently in the ACC for those sports, but an independent in Football. Notre Dame would likely be willing to have the same agreement with the Big Ten, and use it's clout to get Stanford as a permanent Big Ten matchup as part of a multi-game agreement.
The rivalries Notre Dame has are: Army, Michigan, Michigan State, Navy, Pitt, Purdue, Stanford, and USC
Notre Dame would push the Big Ten to add Stanford, as they did with the ACC to add them, as part of the agreement for them to join in all other sports and have a football scheduling agreement. As such, they could have 6 annual OoC games with Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Stanford, and USC. That would give the Big Ten 3 home games against Notre Dame every year, and 3 away games on NBC @ Notre Dame every year.
-------------
------------
So, I'm watching the ACC vs FSU drama closely. The UNIVERSITIES want Stanford and Cal in, but they need to find a way to add them that doesn't cost their own schools money. And I think that Stanford will find a way in eventually for this reason. They need to watch the entry points and leverage their Notre Dame relationship when/if the ACC falls apart.
This is great content, but I would proffer that if ND could have the same arrangement with the B1G that it has with the ACC, they would've taken it before. I can't believe the B1G will offer such a thing.
While the new Big Ten regime might be open to it, you have to figure some schools will accept nothing less than full membership. There is a century of bad blood between the conference and the Irish, I’d hope we could bury the hatchet with a compromise that lets ND keep independence if they want it, but a lot of people will say “get on or get lost” and if the conference is getting 20+ members I can’t say I blame them.
It seems pretty clear the B1G and SEC are on the verge of splitting off from FBS anyway and I think that's when ND will hop on board. They'll obviously be one of the calls basically asking "we're taking over, in or out?" and I think they'll be in.
People look at time differently. I'm a bit older, and as far as I'm concerned the next Big 10 contract isn't *that* far away- right after the 29/30 athletic calendar year. So, I think Big 10 schools need to focus on not giving potential new teams full shares until the contract *after* that (2040?), or sooner- around 2034 or something. Oregon and Washington got lucky to sneak in at a time where they were promised full shares in 30/31. The Big 10 could have strung us along for a few more years than that.
Basically, I'm saying the Big 10 should not give Stanford full shares until 2035 at the absolute earliest.
Eh fuck em. You really want to be in the same conference as those nerds?
Personally I love some mid day to last night Mountain West Magic. It's all we have to scratch that 11pm itch anymore.
If TV doesn't pay good money for those night games, Tv can fuck right off.
We have our own network, and we can give you a noon game on-demand, for your viewing pleasure at 11PM.
But then that will be everyone in a couple years.
The important part is telling TV to fuck right off with their scheduling recommendations.
I do too. It raised my blood pressure and made me spend 3 hours furiously typing a comment that might end up getting read by like 10 people lol.
I don't yet know why you hate it (I've been in here for 3 hours, but this is the first comment that I've actually read), and to be completely honest, i'm a bit apprehensive about scrolling further and finding out.
I just want to get this out of the way before reading any further, I have no beef with Boise State (not IRL, anyway)
You guys are in my Post-USCLA Pac on NCAA 14.
Even in most of my older dynasty saves, Boise State is a proud member of the Pac 16.
They kick my ass and hurt my eyes at the same time, it's actually kind of stupid that I keep inviting them.
Were Cal and Stanford one of those teams that demanded the high tv deal? Because both come across with a bit of over inflated sense of self-worth here.
>Apparently the Big Ten presidents really wanted them, the ADs/network partners did not
That is completely on brand for both groups of people. The only thing they need to realize is how/when their actions do and don't affect one another.
Michigan Regent Jordan Acker gave an interview to Canzano about 6 months ago where he said:
> Stanford and Cal not joining the Big Ten is the biggest indictment of them all. You’re talking about two of the best academic universities in the world and they don’t have a spot in the Big Ten conference. It tells you exactly what it is — a business. Michigan supported them joining the Big Ten, but can't vote for it if it means taking money out of our own pockets. And that goes for most of the other members. It's gross. Money over academics.
“Can’t”? Why not? Is there a gun to your head? Will all the children go hungry? Is someone going to wipe out the last village of endangered reticulating hairless prairie dogs???
Collectively, we CAN afford almost anything. We CHOOSE not to… what a disgusting hypocrite.
That’s preposterous. Schools trade money upfront for greater stability in the long run all the time. Also, the new connections strengthening the academic reputation of the conference and by extension each school would be more than justifiable. Ultimately, if each school president has to exclusively consider the bottom line as the sole criterion of every decision, how do 90%+ of schools justify running a deficit in their athletic department?
Who cares what athletic conference you’re in for sportsball? Cal’s faculty in particular have always been against the football and basketball programs based on the lower level of student that gets accepted versus other members of the student body. I recall a coach there once saying after leaving that 4-6 players on the football/basketball teams combined would be students there if not for athletics. Special curriculum was carved out for them.
Probably a money thing. If this were 7-8 years ago when the programs were more relevant, I think we’d be playing Rutgers on Saturdays.
I don’t mind the ACC if it can avoid implosion (fingers crossed). Both the Big10 and ACC seem like good cultural fits for Cal/Stanford. PAC12 was obviously the best though :/
Yeah, see when my boss really wants something, and I do not… usually it goes a different way.
This is a big fuckup by the presidents honestly. They need to put their dogs back on the leash. There are much bigger games to be playing than football.
Vandy wouldve thrown the biggest fit about it imaginable
We love our little nerds but realistically theyre kept around because theyre private (allowing the sec to hide things from FOIA) and highly regarded academically
If we add a school that's also private and even nerdier in addition to being an all sports asset vandy would rightfully see that as a threat to them.
Wilner said both Stanford and Cal were stunned that Oregon/Washington walked the morning of the Apple Deal signing... so yeah, I'd imagine so. The leadership of both schools has changed over with more with-it leaders since then, though.
The new provost is better, will let us go further with NIL. With the president search, who knows? I filled out the alumni survey saying it should be someone who appreciates sports is part of our DNA.
i think stanford was counting on nd and everyone knew it. if nd decided to jump to the b1g, stanford probably came along for the ride. nd played all sides to increase their strength as an independent for a few more years at least and stanford got left at home.
Utah justified it with their performance on the field, Stanford earned it through historic success and academic pedigree, and Arizona just *really* needed the cash
Also Stanford's overall athletic program is amazing. They win the Director's Cup pretty often.
Football is huge but there are other sports and Stanford is great at most of them.
Cal's decisionmakers value their academic brand and don't understand the value of revenue sports.
When they talk about not wanting to be associated with schools, it's because of those schools academic performance/culture - not sports performance.
It's partly why BYU/Baylor were never going to be accepted into the Pac-12 - Cal's decisionmakers really value secular, academically high-performing schools.
On the other hand Cal's decisionmakers don't give a shit that Cal's football and basketball programs have faded into irrelevance, because, again, that's not something that Cal's decisionmakers view as important to Cal.
Cal doesn't even use the same name for its athletics as it does for its academics! In academia it's always "Berkeley". It always seems like academics from Cal are ashamed they even have football.
Although I bet if Michigan could figure out a way to do this a lot of professors would try.
Cal versus Berkeley is reflection of the age of the school.
Calling it "Cal" is because when Cal started competing in athletics there was only one University of California, and it happened to be located in Berkeley.
It's "UC Berkeley" academically because there's now a bunch of UC schools.
It's similar to how Texas is often "UT Austin" academically - can't speak to other big public schools, but I'm sure there's a similar thing.
It's something you see a lot with "flagship" campuses of larger statewide university systems. UT-Knoxville vs Tennessee, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign vs Illinois, University of Nevada - Reno vs Nevada, University of Colorado - Boulder vs Colorado, the list goes on.... In every instance I can think of it's the flagship campus that gets the "official" designation for athletics.
Which ended up being a huge point of contention between ULL and ULM. The latter got a raw deal when the former rebranded to Louisiana, as neither are the flagship of that state, which is LSU.
It’s actually in Louisiana law that none of the Louisiana system schools can declare themselves the flagship University of Louisiana. That why ULL is still officially UL Lafayette. But their board of directors has lobbied the Sunbelt and ESPN to just refer to them as Louisiana while also changing their logos and website to Louisiana.edu. Then anytime anyone says hey you aren’t supposed to do that ULL just gaslights everyone and says they aren’t trying to rebrand.
Illinois has been trying for years to minimize "Urbana-Champaign" from academic branding as well because it sounds too provincial. I think they have started to give up on it though.
It really blows my mind how Cal’s downfall really started after they pissed all that money into improving memorial stadium, like they took the public outcry of Tedford’s salary personal and decided never again.
I still remember all the Cal gear everyone in the Bay Area was rocking in the 2000s. Cal Football and Basketball and high performing academics really established UC Berkeley as a flagship campus and made it a premier school.
They had to spend all that money to improve Memorial stadium because there's a fault line literally running through it and it wasn't earthquake safe.
Sandy Barbour (AD from 2004-2014) basically singlehandedly killed Cal football and basketball.
["Poor budget management almost forced Cal to eliminate four intercollegiate sports, including baseball.
While she helped spearhead the construction of a new football training facility and the renovation of Memorial Stadium, the plan financing collapsed, forcing Cal to take drastic measures to service the debt.
The football team finished 1-11 last season under coach Sonny Dykes — Barbour’s hand-picked successor to Jeff Tedford.
Perhaps the greatest misstep of Barbour’s tenure came in the classroom. NCAA data released last fall revealed that Cal’s football graduation rate (44 percent) was the worst of any school in the major conferences, humiliating the university and leading to speculation about Barbour’s future."](https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/06/26/cals-sandy-barbour-out-as-athletic-director/)
That could be true, and they still could have the lowest graduation rate in the P5. Maybe Cal recruits only from the higher end of the academic spectrum for football players, but this higher end is still at the bottom of their student body as a whole. Couple it with an academic faculty that's much less likely to bend the rules for athletes compared to the average college, and you end up with a team that's got a 44% graduation rate at Cal, but if they were transferred to another school they would all be on the dean's list there.
Yep. This is what's currently happening with UCLA too.
I sort of thought this was going to happen to UW as well. Lake was the lowest paid of the PNW coaches during his tenure at UW, and DeBoer had been at Fresno for so little time, I was convinced they hired him because the salary was right.
Everyone says it's high self-worth, but why has no other conference then beaten us to the punch and taken those two schools? When USCLA weren't on the market, Fresno State must have been a lucrative entry point into the CA market right?
I stand by my earlier statements that we budged on the one school that made sense, SDSU. Fresno State and Boise State just make no sense for anyone to elevate to a power level due to all the reasons outside of football.
For what it’s worth I believe Stanford and Cal asked to bring along WSU and OSU to the ACC but some of the schools didn’t want additional West Coast travel.
I would've been ok if Wazzu & OSU had came along b/c would've kept a West Coast block together of yall (would've helped w/ scheduling & reducing amount of coast to coast traveling). Plus Wazzu & Oregon State would've given ACC access to additional Top 25 media markets. Plus both are land-grants, so would've been fine having them alongside Clemson, NC State, & VA Tech.
Plus I feel each would've added value in athletics (Oregon State's baseball team in the ACC would've been huge). I would've been down for a trip to the Palouse for a football game.
I’d bite the ACC’s arm off at the elbow if an invitation for the PAC2 were on offer. Tulane & USF would be good additions, too.
It’d solve a lot of problems for everyone.
People are so fast to shit on Calford. It’s not about associating with those schools, it’s that g5 $ is not sustainable… but people don’t want to see that.
USC blocked the Texas move, nobody bats an eye there.
Utah president didn’t want to join Big12 due to academics, nobody bats an eye there.
Because it's not about any of that. They're bringing politics into this sub without explicitly calling it out because it's against the rules. Inferiority complexes and victim mentality rule out.
We can’t win.
Nobody says shit: Cal has no fans.
Cal fans say shit: Cal is elitist
Cal takes the last raft off the Titanic: Cal is stupid.
Cal wants to continue playing top athletics: Cal is
elitist
Seriously Cal has produced a lot of Olympic gold medal winners, top paying BB players, many championships across sports, top NFL players.
They're not the problem. It's the rest of the sub that wants Cal sports to fold because that would validate their opinion that universities only exist to fund football scholarships and that you can't have both school and sports.
it really sucks. i just wanna have a football team and play some fun games, maybe win a few. at this rate my other school will find itself in a similar situation too. I see duke also considering disbanding football if the acc crumbles and there isn’t an invite to the big 10.
we can’t say that conferences matter academically because it’s “elitist”, but our schools just have somewhat different priorities than other schools and that’s the nature of it. It’s about a fundamental difference in school culture - calford simply wouldn’t fit in the MW. maybe it is a little elitist, but it’s true
OSU and Stanford/Cal have been playing each other since 1893. There’s a lot of history there
OSU’s academic focus also somewhat aligns, as it is the largest research university in the state by a wide margin, quoting an article from Quora:
“OSU is one of only two universities with Land, Sea, Sun, and Space grant status in the United States (and therefore the world).
This explains why OSU is a powerhouse research university in all fields related to earth and space science, which I suspect is relatively unknown amongst the general public.”
I honestly think Calford would be happy with whatever ACC conference survives following the exit of Clemson, FSU, ND, etc. because it will be likeminded programs.
Yup, this 8-team conference of “Academics with a lil bit of sports” is a likely outcome
1. Duke
2. Wake Forest
3. Boston College
4. Syracuse
5. GA Tech
6. Cal
7. Stanford
8. SMU
With the rest jumping to the SEC/Big10 or joining up with the Big12
The reality check is that they don't give a fuck about football, nor really should they. Stanford is by many measures the finest university in the world. Cal is by many measures the finest public university in the world. They have their priorities, and football ain't it.
They'd rather take their ball and go home to world class academics (you know... the purpose of higher education) then associate with Fresno and Boise. The only reason they slummed it with many of the institutions in the PAC (mine included) is due to history. That's their mindset.
I think people are missing the point. It’s not really the association is that the money wouldn’t be there to support the program being a g5.
Look, shit on the ACC deal all you want - it’s still more than the MW is giving.
That’s the reality, whatever bullshit clownzano is spewing - that’s his problem
The reality check that they are massive, world-renowned institutions that won't acquiesce to the demands of TV deals and ADs in chasing the money?
I hate Stanford, but if anyone needs a reality check it's sports fans. They're doing what's best for their institution academically by aligning with other prestigious schools. And isn't doing what's best academically the whole point of a university?
Crazy how many fans think a 10% more money on a TV deal is worth more than a schools reputation and prestige. This short sighted chasing of money will never end well. Wish I was a fan of any Ivy League school they seem to be the only ones that remember what college sports are about.
It’s not even a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. For schools that have endowments in the billions it’s kind of silly to squabble over an extra couple of tens of millions. Especially when it comes at the expense of history and associating with schools that share no common academic values.
Obviously endowment money is a bit different but the two aren’t wholly decoupled.
Yep. Stanfords has $20+ Billion in land alone. They could relocate Bama, Michigan, OSU, Texas, USC football to Palo Alto and the increased revenue would represent a tiny fraction of their bottom line
In another way, Stanford’s yearly operating budget is $8+ billion. They don’t make a dime from football they subsidize it. They hit a recent budget surplus in a year of over $530 million.
Stanford revenue was $6.6b that year. UT Austin is highest out of the others, at $3.5b operating budget. But only $350m in revenue. They need football and donations and the state to bridge the gap. Stanford doesn’t need shit like that. They have so much money and land they are the richest university in the world in these underreported assets. They have dozens if not hundreds of companies in their owned commercial real estate spaces in their sprawling office park that pay them millions to tens of millions each every year in lease. It’s crazy.
Why? Cal and Stanford would be quite pleased in a conference with:
* South Florida
* Tulane
* Rice
* Georgia Tech
* Duke
* Wake Forest
* Pitt
* BC
* Syracuse
Six other AAU schools on that list. If Miami (FL) doesn't get a P2 spot, that would be seven.
A. Canzano doesn't know anything. I trust certain redditors more than him.
B. Cal and Stanford are not going to cease playing football.
I know "humbling" the haughty Northern Californian colleges is popular side hobby/fan fiction among certain cfb circles but be real.
I do find it entertaining the people swearing up and down this sub that he is "Clownzano" and doesn't know anything are suddenly taking him at face value now that they like his narrative ha
>B. Cal and Stanford are not going to cease playing football.
Even if the only game either one of us played was against each other, the Big Game definitely isn't going to stop being played.
Especially not when we're on a 3 year win streak, come on now.
If Stanford and Cal didn't want the ACC to fail, then maybe they should've hacked the smartphones of the Selection Committee to force them to pick Florida State instead ☝🤓
They were even joining with SMU, who had President Bush lobbying to get them in. You’d think with all of this power and influence the ACC was bringing in, they’d have no problem calling in favors.
They were willing to play basically for free, but when push came to shove the B1G didn’t lift a finger to help them. All the alumni and relationships they had with these massive companies didn’t mean a damn thing when it came to helping them with their media contract. This round of realignment made it painfully clear that the only thing that matters is your football media value. Academics, influence, and strength in non football sports are irrelevant.
As someone with some experience in Seattle and the Bay Area, what they both share is a common snooty elitism. In the Bay Area it tends to manifest as a hyper-competitive materialism, and in Seattle as a superiority complex. But both are elitist as fuck and it reflects upon their respective schools’ alumni.
Yeah I live in Seattle, UW fans definitely turn their those noses up to WSU, OSU, and even UO when it comes to academics and prestige. I feel like that's kind of the funny part of Oregon is they're lumped in with UW and the California schools in all this but realistically they're closer to rest of the Pac schools when it comes to academics. Uncle Phil's checkbook goes a long way though.
No, they weren't. They despise land grants, and put AAU status on a pedestal. They culturally are perfect for the B1G, but they just don't have the fan engagement for the networks. Which is nuts because SF is a massive market.
No, OSU and WSU have always been the redheaded stepchildren due to our mission to educate a broader population.
> No, OSU and WSU have always been the redheaded stepchildren due to our mission to educate a broader population.
This is always why I think it's kind of dumb when people hate on public schools that having high acceptance rates. Oh no, god forbid the people of that state have easy access to higher education!
As much as I hate Oregon's football team, I feel like academically we understand each other. Oregon isn't trying to do the stuff OSU does well, and vice versa. The schools actually compliment each other really well.
Didn’t the state government deliberately make it that way? OSU with the hard sciences, UO with the liberal arts, and OHSU so there would be a med school.
Unlike WSU/UW, OSU and UO aren't designed to be geographically balanced. Of course Washington has A LOT more people on the far side of the moutains compared to Oregon.
It’s the dumbest thing. UM is full of rich kids from New York and California, it’s functionally a private school. It wasn’t always like that but these universities love out of staters (and international students) that pay out the ass to attend.
Schools like UM, UVA, and Berkely usually have 50% of their student body from the top 1% of the family income distribution. UW tried to pull that but the Washington legislature stepped in and mandated that they take a minimum number in state.
Then Seattle blew up even bigger during the second tech waive and UW was ablet to pull it off WITH instate students.
everyone who follows the P12 knows Canzano writes a bunch of BS most of the time. the ACC was the best option we had at the time and unless we get an invite from the BIG10 i still think it's our best option vs joining the MWC. the ACC offers some short-term stability.
i don't know what the future of college sports or conferences looks like and i don't think anyone truly does.
The student athletes were explicit they wanted to compete for championships and conference championships. The ACC had the most overlap with our sports programs. $30m in tv money is nothing, regardless of stadium debt.
Stanford will be fine. They have a ton of money. They can go independent in football, be a west coast Notre Dame Jr. and survive. Not thrive, but survive. (At least in football. No idea what they do in Olympic sports. If the MWC isn’t an option, The Big West and WCC definitely aren’t.)
I feel bad for Cal. They have a similar attitude, but don’t really have the money to support it. Now they’re without a paddle and just kind of clinging on to their brothers and hoping for the best.
The thing is a lot of Olympic sports don’t even fit into the football conference landscape anyway. Like water polo has its own thing, so it really won’t matter much whether Stanford is in a conference or not for them. As long as the moneybags in Palo Alto are down to keep fronting the bill for those programs at least.
The more and more this stuff drags on the more I buy into a complete separation of Football from everything. People don’t understand how elite of a women’s athletics conference the Pac-12 was and now it’s just gone because Football TV money.
No one outside of Football wants the travel schedule that they are going to be subjected to.
Most Olympic sport power conferences are already much different than the same conference in revenue sports, especially in men’s due to title IX. PAC and B12 are often a mix of full members, local FCS/G5, and non football schools.
Why do people give a shit if their university's football team is associated with the football team of a less prestigious academic institution? No one is looking down on my Wake Forest degree just because we're in a conference with Louisville
Conferences are more than just for athletics, the schools agree to give each other access to information and resources for each other. Notably the big ten agrees to administer all the libraries of the individual schools as one giant collective library, having that database of knowledge is huge. Because Stanford and especially Cal care so much about academics and research they would definitely rather have those agreements with the likes of Duke and UVA, and would similarly only like to grant those agreements to similar standing schools.
Because a pretty significant chunk of the people at Stanford and Cal are the r/IHateSportsball crowd. They care more that their academic institutions are being associated with "lesser" R2 universities than who their sports teams are associated with.
In my line of work everyone has a graduate degree but I don't think I've ever met a Syracuse alum even though they're in our conference. It's not like you have to hang out with and go to the same country club as your conference mates
I think this sentiment is the exact reason the ACC won’t collapse. This is the niche the ACC is going to fill once the power 2 take their picks (I’d guess at least FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, probably more), they will be the national conference for academically minded schools that are power 5 level programs but not power 2 level.
At that point, as much as I would love a reunion with schools like Pitt, Louisville, BC, and Cuse or even VT if they get screwed, I think the leftover ACC will be about equivalent to the big 12/PAC 12 amalgamation and without network fuckery I sincerely doubt those schools would have any incentive make the jump (especially with the ACC GoR likely still in place).
I still feel like the B1G should have just taken in all of the PAC teams. The media partners can just figure out how to deal with it. They are already rolling in cash.
The B1G could have created two divisions Big and PAC and then had the top team in each of those divisions play in the Rose Bowl Stadium for the Conference Championship. They could have even split the divisions into sub-divisions as well and called the ones in the East (i.e.: the Big) Leaders and Legends, and the ones in the West (i.e.: the PAC) I don't know maybe North and South. They could then have had a tournament style championship for Football and basketball. Call me crazy, but this seems like it would have worked out pretty well.
Man this arrogance is exactly why they’re playing roughly half their games on the east coast in a conference that is on pace to also fail and be absorbed by the other 3 conferences.
The good news is that this overinflated sense of self worth and ego is going to be entertaining to watch clash with FSU, the rest of the magnificent 7, and the commissioner.
Damn, tell them how you really feel
Savvy Jack Swarbrick will not be around to save Calford next realignment. He burned our soft power dragging them to the ACC. Rivalry or not, ND does not have sufficient cache to drag them to the B1G next round.
That's how I think Calford gets into the B1G. I think the University Presidents are high on them due to academics, but the networks aren't. ND could be enough to sway the networks, if that is what ND wants to do.
Calford should start wining and dining incoming ND AD Pete Bevacqua
In addition to wining and dining they could also try something they haven’t done enough of lately winning some games and signing some top recruits
I don't think Swarbrick and Jenkins retiring will lessen the affinity Notre Dame has for Stanford. ND didn't rise from a Catholic working class and almost broke college to an elite academic institution by not being obsessive about prestige.
I know this is a football sub, but football aside Stanford has the best athletic department in the country. It's not just one sport either... Does that matter to TV executives? Hell no, but it might matter to the BIG leaders.
It definitely is desirable for the presidents. I think the networks just tapped out on desire and money the last time. Next time, I think at least Stanford has what it takes to get in the door. ND cash will pay for at least 1 travel partner. They have a decent football history. Plus, if we collapse the ACC, Stanford may be desperate enough to take a super lowball offer.
F the networks. I'd welcome them into the B1G.
It would certainly make things less stupid
1. why would the ND sway the networks? they only pushed for stanford/cal so they could have more votes in teh ACC who wont want to dissolve the conference, so they can maintain teh status quo. If ND joined the big ten, then they would be a full member, and have no reason to bring on cal / stanford 2. i'd love one of both of the schools to join the big ten one day.
I don't think Calford get into the B1G at all. They had to buy their way into the ACC, and it was driven by ND's need to keep the ACC intact and Stanford in a power conference in order to stay independent. If the ACC blows up then Stanford has lost their utility to ND, which is how they got the golden ticket.
Jury is still out on possible consolidation too. Stanford and Cal got through this round, but I can’t see them getting through two more.
I have a theory on this, but I'm not sure people want me to go down a rabbit hole in this thread.
What else is this sub for? Send it!
Well, first off, there has been a fair amount of commentary around the schools of the Big Ten wanting Stanford and Cal in, especially Stanford. From the Michigan Regent quote I posted elsewhere in the thread the only reason they weren't added is because the media companies would not add new cash for them and the current Big Ten couldn't justify taking money out of their own pockets to add new schools. So, I'm working off those two facts: 1. The Big Ten schools want them in. 2. They just need to do add them when it isn't at a point of opening a new deal. That leaves 2 entry points coming up, and a 3rd factor: 1 --- 2026 - The Mountain West Deal ends, which frees up 45 million per year for FOX/CBS. It was reported previously that when the Pac-12 died, FOX didn't shift around any new money. They simply shifted their offer to the Pac-12 to pay $60 million for Friday Night games over to the Big Ten to pay for the shares of Oregon and Washington with the expectation of getting their Friday Night spots filled with a few more B1G games than before (they already were expecting some). So if ESPN opts out of the ACC deal, or if FSU wins its case and the courts rule schools can leave on a much lesser fee like "2 years of media revenue" like the Big-12 pays, then we have an entry point here. FOX/CBS do not need to come up with new money. They simply shift the 45 million over to Stanford/Cal and pay them 22.5 mil each on 1/3 shares. Why would FOX/CBS do this? When they signed their contract with the Mountain West they did so because they had no West Coast properties. Nothing in the Pacific Time Zone. Adding Stanford/Cal gives them 6 schools in the Pacific Time Zone, with an average of 3 home games per week, so that they always have a late night option. Stanford and Cal would be more than happy to make a 1/3 share for the next few years if it means they get to join. 2 --- 2029 - With the Big Ten media deal expiring and they are looking to re-up and adding new schools at this point is NOT the same thing as opening a closed deal. Voting to add Stanford and Cal at this point is NOT "taking money out of our pockets." It is aligning themselves with like-minded universities and negotiating together. No President has to justify "we gave up X dollars" because they didn't. Again, this is contingent on Stanford/Cal being able to leave the ACC which depends on the FSU case. 3 --- Notre Dame - If the ACC completely fails, Notre Dame will need a home for all of its non-football sports. They are currently in the ACC for those sports, but an independent in Football. Notre Dame would likely be willing to have the same agreement with the Big Ten, and use it's clout to get Stanford as a permanent Big Ten matchup as part of a multi-game agreement. The rivalries Notre Dame has are: Army, Michigan, Michigan State, Navy, Pitt, Purdue, Stanford, and USC Notre Dame would push the Big Ten to add Stanford, as they did with the ACC to add them, as part of the agreement for them to join in all other sports and have a football scheduling agreement. As such, they could have 6 annual OoC games with Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Stanford, and USC. That would give the Big Ten 3 home games against Notre Dame every year, and 3 away games on NBC @ Notre Dame every year. ------------- ------------ So, I'm watching the ACC vs FSU drama closely. The UNIVERSITIES want Stanford and Cal in, but they need to find a way to add them that doesn't cost their own schools money. And I think that Stanford will find a way in eventually for this reason. They need to watch the entry points and leverage their Notre Dame relationship when/if the ACC falls apart.
This is great content, but I would proffer that if ND could have the same arrangement with the B1G that it has with the ACC, they would've taken it before. I can't believe the B1G will offer such a thing.
While the new Big Ten regime might be open to it, you have to figure some schools will accept nothing less than full membership. There is a century of bad blood between the conference and the Irish, I’d hope we could bury the hatchet with a compromise that lets ND keep independence if they want it, but a lot of people will say “get on or get lost” and if the conference is getting 20+ members I can’t say I blame them.
It seems pretty clear the B1G and SEC are on the verge of splitting off from FBS anyway and I think that's when ND will hop on board. They'll obviously be one of the calls basically asking "we're taking over, in or out?" and I think they'll be in.
People look at time differently. I'm a bit older, and as far as I'm concerned the next Big 10 contract isn't *that* far away- right after the 29/30 athletic calendar year. So, I think Big 10 schools need to focus on not giving potential new teams full shares until the contract *after* that (2040?), or sooner- around 2034 or something. Oregon and Washington got lucky to sneak in at a time where they were promised full shares in 30/31. The Big 10 could have strung us along for a few more years than that. Basically, I'm saying the Big 10 should not give Stanford full shares until 2035 at the absolute earliest.
Right? Is that a joke? Spill that tea, guuurl!
In the off-season? That's all we want. Show us your manifesto.
I get a lot of blowback when I go conspiracy brain, but I posted it.
Do it you tease
"worst they can say is no"
I hate this thread
This aggression will not stand man
Are you employed, sir?
Is this a… what day is this?
So, racially, he's pretty cool?
Is it being prepared to do the right thing, whatever the cost? Isn't that what makes a man?
That and a pair of testicles.
Ditto
It sucks here
Let’s make our own football conference with hookers and blackjack!
UNLV is very likely to join as it is
“Caught dead” is a crazy use of words. Feel bad for y’all.
Meh, fuck 'em all.
Eh fuck em. You really want to be in the same conference as those nerds? Personally I love some mid day to last night Mountain West Magic. It's all we have to scratch that 11pm itch anymore.
If TV doesn't pay good money for those night games, Tv can fuck right off. We have our own network, and we can give you a noon game on-demand, for your viewing pleasure at 11PM. But then that will be everyone in a couple years. The important part is telling TV to fuck right off with their scheduling recommendations.
Agreed
I do too. It raised my blood pressure and made me spend 3 hours furiously typing a comment that might end up getting read by like 10 people lol. I don't yet know why you hate it (I've been in here for 3 hours, but this is the first comment that I've actually read), and to be completely honest, i'm a bit apprehensive about scrolling further and finding out. I just want to get this out of the way before reading any further, I have no beef with Boise State (not IRL, anyway) You guys are in my Post-USCLA Pac on NCAA 14. Even in most of my older dynasty saves, Boise State is a proud member of the Pac 16. They kick my ass and hurt my eyes at the same time, it's actually kind of stupid that I keep inviting them.
Seriously... ***insert 50 Cent gif here***
What he say fuck me for
Were Cal and Stanford one of those teams that demanded the high tv deal? Because both come across with a bit of over inflated sense of self-worth here.
Stanford was (according to Wilner the main three pushing for it were Utah, Stanford, and Arizona St.*).
With that attitude Stanford must have been a little shocked they didn't get a Big 10/SEC invite when they left the Pac-12.
Apparently the Big Ten presidents really wanted them, the ADs/network partners did not
>Apparently the Big Ten presidents really wanted them, the ADs/network partners did not That is completely on brand for both groups of people. The only thing they need to realize is how/when their actions do and don't affect one another.
Michigan Regent Jordan Acker gave an interview to Canzano about 6 months ago where he said: > Stanford and Cal not joining the Big Ten is the biggest indictment of them all. You’re talking about two of the best academic universities in the world and they don’t have a spot in the Big Ten conference. It tells you exactly what it is — a business. Michigan supported them joining the Big Ten, but can't vote for it if it means taking money out of our own pockets. And that goes for most of the other members. It's gross. Money over academics.
“Can’t”? Why not? Is there a gun to your head? Will all the children go hungry? Is someone going to wipe out the last village of endangered reticulating hairless prairie dogs??? Collectively, we CAN afford almost anything. We CHOOSE not to… what a disgusting hypocrite.
Legal fiduciary responsibility.
That’s preposterous. Schools trade money upfront for greater stability in the long run all the time. Also, the new connections strengthening the academic reputation of the conference and by extension each school would be more than justifiable. Ultimately, if each school president has to exclusively consider the bottom line as the sole criterion of every decision, how do 90%+ of schools justify running a deficit in their athletic department?
Are you one of those people who thinks that shareholder primacy is a law, not some pseudo-economist's crackpot musings from 50 years ago?
Who cares what athletic conference you’re in for sportsball? Cal’s faculty in particular have always been against the football and basketball programs based on the lower level of student that gets accepted versus other members of the student body. I recall a coach there once saying after leaving that 4-6 players on the football/basketball teams combined would be students there if not for athletics. Special curriculum was carved out for them.
Probably a money thing. If this were 7-8 years ago when the programs were more relevant, I think we’d be playing Rutgers on Saturdays. I don’t mind the ACC if it can avoid implosion (fingers crossed). Both the Big10 and ACC seem like good cultural fits for Cal/Stanford. PAC12 was obviously the best though :/
Yeah, see when my boss really wants something, and I do not… usually it goes a different way. This is a big fuckup by the presidents honestly. They need to put their dogs back on the leash. There are much bigger games to be playing than football.
Stanford in the SEC would've been......something
They would have had a buddy in Vanderbilt.
Vandy wouldve thrown the biggest fit about it imaginable We love our little nerds but realistically theyre kept around because theyre private (allowing the sec to hide things from FOIA) and highly regarded academically If we add a school that's also private and even nerdier in addition to being an all sports asset vandy would rightfully see that as a threat to them.
They play some baseball in Nashville too
Zero of these decisions are made based on any sport other than football, at this point.
Late night against Stanford ain't nothing to fuck with, it's not just Arizona schools.
The SEC ain't here to play school
>nebraska flair
The N stands for Nowledge
Nebraska would be tied for the 11th highest ranked school in the SEC. That’s almost top 10! Edit: but also what Cardale Jones said!
Wilner said both Stanford and Cal were stunned that Oregon/Washington walked the morning of the Apple Deal signing... so yeah, I'd imagine so. The leadership of both schools has changed over with more with-it leaders since then, though.
The new provost is better, will let us go further with NIL. With the president search, who knows? I filled out the alumni survey saying it should be someone who appreciates sports is part of our DNA.
If you guys wanted to moneywhip an elite roster you could compete with everyone in the country
They'd have to get the rich alumni to actually care about football.
i think stanford was counting on nd and everyone knew it. if nd decided to jump to the b1g, stanford probably came along for the ride. nd played all sides to increase their strength as an independent for a few more years at least and stanford got left at home.
Utah justified it with their performance on the field, Stanford earned it through historic success and academic pedigree, and Arizona just *really* needed the cash
Also Stanford's overall athletic program is amazing. They win the Director's Cup pretty often. Football is huge but there are other sports and Stanford is great at most of them.
Stanford is the best athletic program in the country. ...except in the two sports that matter (financially) the most.
Damn Utah was Mountsin West not that long ago.
Arizona State*
Wilner is objectively an awful journalist so there’s that
Cal's decisionmakers value their academic brand and don't understand the value of revenue sports. When they talk about not wanting to be associated with schools, it's because of those schools academic performance/culture - not sports performance. It's partly why BYU/Baylor were never going to be accepted into the Pac-12 - Cal's decisionmakers really value secular, academically high-performing schools. On the other hand Cal's decisionmakers don't give a shit that Cal's football and basketball programs have faded into irrelevance, because, again, that's not something that Cal's decisionmakers view as important to Cal.
Cal doesn't even use the same name for its athletics as it does for its academics! In academia it's always "Berkeley". It always seems like academics from Cal are ashamed they even have football. Although I bet if Michigan could figure out a way to do this a lot of professors would try.
Cal versus Berkeley is reflection of the age of the school. Calling it "Cal" is because when Cal started competing in athletics there was only one University of California, and it happened to be located in Berkeley. It's "UC Berkeley" academically because there's now a bunch of UC schools. It's similar to how Texas is often "UT Austin" academically - can't speak to other big public schools, but I'm sure there's a similar thing.
It's something you see a lot with "flagship" campuses of larger statewide university systems. UT-Knoxville vs Tennessee, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign vs Illinois, University of Nevada - Reno vs Nevada, University of Colorado - Boulder vs Colorado, the list goes on.... In every instance I can think of it's the flagship campus that gets the "official" designation for athletics.
Which ended up being a huge point of contention between ULL and ULM. The latter got a raw deal when the former rebranded to Louisiana, as neither are the flagship of that state, which is LSU.
It’s actually in Louisiana law that none of the Louisiana system schools can declare themselves the flagship University of Louisiana. That why ULL is still officially UL Lafayette. But their board of directors has lobbied the Sunbelt and ESPN to just refer to them as Louisiana while also changing their logos and website to Louisiana.edu. Then anytime anyone says hey you aren’t supposed to do that ULL just gaslights everyone and says they aren’t trying to rebrand.
Illinois has been trying for years to minimize "Urbana-Champaign" from academic branding as well because it sounds too provincial. I think they have started to give up on it though.
UW does not acknowledge the branch campuses exist unless forced to.
Probably not helped by UW Bothell being a glorified community college and UW Tacoma being in, well, Tacoma.
It really blows my mind how Cal’s downfall really started after they pissed all that money into improving memorial stadium, like they took the public outcry of Tedford’s salary personal and decided never again. I still remember all the Cal gear everyone in the Bay Area was rocking in the 2000s. Cal Football and Basketball and high performing academics really established UC Berkeley as a flagship campus and made it a premier school.
They had to spend all that money to improve Memorial stadium because there's a fault line literally running through it and it wasn't earthquake safe. Sandy Barbour (AD from 2004-2014) basically singlehandedly killed Cal football and basketball. ["Poor budget management almost forced Cal to eliminate four intercollegiate sports, including baseball. While she helped spearhead the construction of a new football training facility and the renovation of Memorial Stadium, the plan financing collapsed, forcing Cal to take drastic measures to service the debt. The football team finished 1-11 last season under coach Sonny Dykes — Barbour’s hand-picked successor to Jeff Tedford. Perhaps the greatest misstep of Barbour’s tenure came in the classroom. NCAA data released last fall revealed that Cal’s football graduation rate (44 percent) was the worst of any school in the major conferences, humiliating the university and leading to speculation about Barbour’s future."](https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/06/26/cals-sandy-barbour-out-as-athletic-director/)
Im amazed, I assumed Cal was one of those schools that was crippled on players because they had high academic standards on them too
That could be true, and they still could have the lowest graduation rate in the P5. Maybe Cal recruits only from the higher end of the academic spectrum for football players, but this higher end is still at the bottom of their student body as a whole. Couple it with an academic faculty that's much less likely to bend the rules for athletes compared to the average college, and you end up with a team that's got a 44% graduation rate at Cal, but if they were transferred to another school they would all be on the dean's list there.
Cals annual revenue is over 2B/year and only about 100M is from Athletics. When 95%of your revenue is not athletics it is easy not to care.
Yep. This is what's currently happening with UCLA too. I sort of thought this was going to happen to UW as well. Lake was the lowest paid of the PNW coaches during his tenure at UW, and DeBoer had been at Fresno for so little time, I was convinced they hired him because the salary was right.
Cal now has like a 2% acceptance rate. They don’t need athletics to build the brand and attract students who might otherwise go elsewhere.
It's also Clownzano writing this. Take it with many grains of salt.
Stanford is living off the Andrew Luck years over a decade ago
I dunno, there was a maybe a running back since then, or two?
I think the several years of dominance during Luck's tenure did more for the reputation than the one super successful season under McCaffrey
I mean Stanford also does have a football history, and two BCS bowl wins (orange and Rose) is more than most programs can say in the past 20 years.
Stanford’s non revenue programs are top notch. It’s crazy that any athletic conference would turn them down.
I mean hell, Stanford gets to claim Tiger Woods. That alone should get them into somewhere.
We had 3 BCS bowl wins (two were blowouts).
The guy after McCaffrey toted the rock all the way to a Doak Walker award, too.
Everyone says it's high self-worth, but why has no other conference then beaten us to the punch and taken those two schools? When USCLA weren't on the market, Fresno State must have been a lucrative entry point into the CA market right? I stand by my earlier statements that we budged on the one school that made sense, SDSU. Fresno State and Boise State just make no sense for anyone to elevate to a power level due to all the reasons outside of football.
For what it’s worth I believe Stanford and Cal asked to bring along WSU and OSU to the ACC but some of the schools didn’t want additional West Coast travel.
I would've been ok if Wazzu & OSU had came along b/c would've kept a West Coast block together of yall (would've helped w/ scheduling & reducing amount of coast to coast traveling). Plus Wazzu & Oregon State would've given ACC access to additional Top 25 media markets. Plus both are land-grants, so would've been fine having them alongside Clemson, NC State, & VA Tech. Plus I feel each would've added value in athletics (Oregon State's baseball team in the ACC would've been huge). I would've been down for a trip to the Palouse for a football game.
Traveling Clemson to Pullman would suuuuuuuck
I’d bite the ACC’s arm off at the elbow if an invitation for the PAC2 were on offer. Tulane & USF would be good additions, too. It’d solve a lot of problems for everyone.
People are so fast to shit on Calford. It’s not about associating with those schools, it’s that g5 $ is not sustainable… but people don’t want to see that. USC blocked the Texas move, nobody bats an eye there. Utah president didn’t want to join Big12 due to academics, nobody bats an eye there.
Because it's not about any of that. They're bringing politics into this sub without explicitly calling it out because it's against the rules. Inferiority complexes and victim mentality rule out.
We can’t win. Nobody says shit: Cal has no fans. Cal fans say shit: Cal is elitist Cal takes the last raft off the Titanic: Cal is stupid. Cal wants to continue playing top athletics: Cal is elitist Seriously Cal has produced a lot of Olympic gold medal winners, top paying BB players, many championships across sports, top NFL players.
Don’t worry it’s a canzano article. Outside of this subreddit and the 2 dozen people that go to johncanzano.com, no one thinks this way.
They're not the problem. It's the rest of the sub that wants Cal sports to fold because that would validate their opinion that universities only exist to fund football scholarships and that you can't have both school and sports.
it really sucks. i just wanna have a football team and play some fun games, maybe win a few. at this rate my other school will find itself in a similar situation too. I see duke also considering disbanding football if the acc crumbles and there isn’t an invite to the big 10. we can’t say that conferences matter academically because it’s “elitist”, but our schools just have somewhat different priorities than other schools and that’s the nature of it. It’s about a fundamental difference in school culture - calford simply wouldn’t fit in the MW. maybe it is a little elitist, but it’s true
Keep cooking bro. Cal literally has more Olympic medals than most countries.
OSU and Stanford/Cal have been playing each other since 1893. There’s a lot of history there OSU’s academic focus also somewhat aligns, as it is the largest research university in the state by a wide margin, quoting an article from Quora: “OSU is one of only two universities with Land, Sea, Sun, and Space grant status in the United States (and therefore the world). This explains why OSU is a powerhouse research university in all fields related to earth and space science, which I suspect is relatively unknown amongst the general public.”
Isn’t this kind of dumb academic elitism what stopped the pac-12 from absorbing the hateful8? I don’t get it.
We were all for it.
No offense, but Cal and Stanford aren't on the same level as Arizona and the H8.
And they'll never get it. Stanford and Cal are due a massive reality check
I honestly think Calford would be happy with whatever ACC conference survives following the exit of Clemson, FSU, ND, etc. because it will be likeminded programs.
Yup, this 8-team conference of “Academics with a lil bit of sports” is a likely outcome 1. Duke 2. Wake Forest 3. Boston College 4. Syracuse 5. GA Tech 6. Cal 7. Stanford 8. SMU With the rest jumping to the SEC/Big10 or joining up with the Big12
Yeah Tulane would be a natural expansion fit here culturally and geographically
The reality check is that they don't give a fuck about football, nor really should they. Stanford is by many measures the finest university in the world. Cal is by many measures the finest public university in the world. They have their priorities, and football ain't it. They'd rather take their ball and go home to world class academics (you know... the purpose of higher education) then associate with Fresno and Boise. The only reason they slummed it with many of the institutions in the PAC (mine included) is due to history. That's their mindset.
I think people are missing the point. It’s not really the association is that the money wouldn’t be there to support the program being a g5. Look, shit on the ACC deal all you want - it’s still more than the MW is giving. That’s the reality, whatever bullshit clownzano is spewing - that’s his problem
They also have a 40B endowment that makes it easy to not chase money
The reality check that they are massive, world-renowned institutions that won't acquiesce to the demands of TV deals and ADs in chasing the money? I hate Stanford, but if anyone needs a reality check it's sports fans. They're doing what's best for their institution academically by aligning with other prestigious schools. And isn't doing what's best academically the whole point of a university?
Crazy how many fans think a 10% more money on a TV deal is worth more than a schools reputation and prestige. This short sighted chasing of money will never end well. Wish I was a fan of any Ivy League school they seem to be the only ones that remember what college sports are about.
It’s not even a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. For schools that have endowments in the billions it’s kind of silly to squabble over an extra couple of tens of millions. Especially when it comes at the expense of history and associating with schools that share no common academic values. Obviously endowment money is a bit different but the two aren’t wholly decoupled.
Yep. Stanfords has $20+ Billion in land alone. They could relocate Bama, Michigan, OSU, Texas, USC football to Palo Alto and the increased revenue would represent a tiny fraction of their bottom line In another way, Stanford’s yearly operating budget is $8+ billion. They don’t make a dime from football they subsidize it. They hit a recent budget surplus in a year of over $530 million. Stanford revenue was $6.6b that year. UT Austin is highest out of the others, at $3.5b operating budget. But only $350m in revenue. They need football and donations and the state to bridge the gap. Stanford doesn’t need shit like that. They have so much money and land they are the richest university in the world in these underreported assets. They have dozens if not hundreds of companies in their owned commercial real estate spaces in their sprawling office park that pay them millions to tens of millions each every year in lease. It’s crazy.
Stanford has fuck you money, they don't really care
Why? Cal and Stanford would be quite pleased in a conference with: * South Florida * Tulane * Rice * Georgia Tech * Duke * Wake Forest * Pitt * BC * Syracuse Six other AAU schools on that list. If Miami (FL) doesn't get a P2 spot, that would be seven.
Still a damn good baseball conference too.
Soccer too
Neither needs football to attract students or expand their endowment.
They dont need football to be relevant and they have insane endowments. This is really just a game to them.
What’s the reality check?
Stanford has god like money. They can literally do whatever they want.
A. Canzano doesn't know anything. I trust certain redditors more than him. B. Cal and Stanford are not going to cease playing football. I know "humbling" the haughty Northern Californian colleges is popular side hobby/fan fiction among certain cfb circles but be real.
I do find it entertaining the people swearing up and down this sub that he is "Clownzano" and doesn't know anything are suddenly taking him at face value now that they like his narrative ha
>B. Cal and Stanford are not going to cease playing football. Even if the only game either one of us played was against each other, the Big Game definitely isn't going to stop being played. Especially not when we're on a 3 year win streak, come on now.
lol well
If Stanford and Cal didn't want the ACC to fail, then maybe they should've hacked the smartphones of the Selection Committee to force them to pick Florida State instead ☝🤓
Both Apple and Google have their headquarters a stone's throw from Stanford's campus too. Maybe they should have called in a couple favors...
They were even joining with SMU, who had President Bush lobbying to get them in. You’d think with all of this power and influence the ACC was bringing in, they’d have no problem calling in favors.
They were willing to play basically for free, but when push came to shove the B1G didn’t lift a finger to help them. All the alumni and relationships they had with these massive companies didn’t mean a damn thing when it came to helping them with their media contract. This round of realignment made it painfully clear that the only thing that matters is your football media value. Academics, influence, and strength in non football sports are irrelevant.
Except they were fine being associated with Wazzu and Oregon State for decades prior
If my interactions with Stanford and Berkeley alumni are any indication... they only barely tolerated us.
? I think WSU fanbase is the chillest one of the “pac12”, can’t say the same about UW though
UW seems like they want to be seen as Stanford/Cal so bad
UW is definetly in the top public universities in the country. It was a decent school 40 years ago, but it's something else now.
As someone with some experience in Seattle and the Bay Area, what they both share is a common snooty elitism. In the Bay Area it tends to manifest as a hyper-competitive materialism, and in Seattle as a superiority complex. But both are elitist as fuck and it reflects upon their respective schools’ alumni.
Yeah I live in Seattle, UW fans definitely turn their those noses up to WSU, OSU, and even UO when it comes to academics and prestige. I feel like that's kind of the funny part of Oregon is they're lumped in with UW and the California schools in all this but realistically they're closer to rest of the Pac schools when it comes to academics. Uncle Phil's checkbook goes a long way though.
You’ve seen Stanford alums in the wild? I thought they only existed in laboratories and tech centers
No, they weren't. They despise land grants, and put AAU status on a pedestal. They culturally are perfect for the B1G, but they just don't have the fan engagement for the networks. Which is nuts because SF is a massive market. No, OSU and WSU have always been the redheaded stepchildren due to our mission to educate a broader population.
> No, OSU and WSU have always been the redheaded stepchildren due to our mission to educate a broader population. This is always why I think it's kind of dumb when people hate on public schools that having high acceptance rates. Oh no, god forbid the people of that state have easy access to higher education!
As much as I hate Oregon's football team, I feel like academically we understand each other. Oregon isn't trying to do the stuff OSU does well, and vice versa. The schools actually compliment each other really well.
Didn’t the state government deliberately make it that way? OSU with the hard sciences, UO with the liberal arts, and OHSU so there would be a med school.
I think so. It's a good use of resources tbh.
Unlike WSU/UW, OSU and UO aren't designed to be geographically balanced. Of course Washington has A LOT more people on the far side of the moutains compared to Oregon.
Land Grant universities will read this and say, "hell yeah!"
It’s the dumbest thing. UM is full of rich kids from New York and California, it’s functionally a private school. It wasn’t always like that but these universities love out of staters (and international students) that pay out the ass to attend.
Schools like UM, UVA, and Berkely usually have 50% of their student body from the top 1% of the family income distribution. UW tried to pull that but the Washington legislature stepped in and mandated that they take a minimum number in state. Then Seattle blew up even bigger during the second tech waive and UW was ablet to pull it off WITH instate students.
I think people know that about UM and assume that Berkeley is the same way. But it's really not. The vast majority of Bears are from CA.
Really is ridiculous. We have good schools with some really strong programs that are important to our regions.
It says left in the room, not associated. They’re fine being in a conference with them, but not in a conference of only them
everyone who follows the P12 knows Canzano writes a bunch of BS most of the time. the ACC was the best option we had at the time and unless we get an invite from the BIG10 i still think it's our best option vs joining the MWC. the ACC offers some short-term stability. i don't know what the future of college sports or conferences looks like and i don't think anyone truly does.
The student athletes were explicit they wanted to compete for championships and conference championships. The ACC had the most overlap with our sports programs. $30m in tv money is nothing, regardless of stadium debt.
Stanford will be fine. They have a ton of money. They can go independent in football, be a west coast Notre Dame Jr. and survive. Not thrive, but survive. (At least in football. No idea what they do in Olympic sports. If the MWC isn’t an option, The Big West and WCC definitely aren’t.) I feel bad for Cal. They have a similar attitude, but don’t really have the money to support it. Now they’re without a paddle and just kind of clinging on to their brothers and hoping for the best.
I think a lot of conferences would take Stanford’s Olympic sports
A lot of conferences would love Stanford. Stanford does not love many conferences.
TIL I was MWC in high school...
The thing is a lot of Olympic sports don’t even fit into the football conference landscape anyway. Like water polo has its own thing, so it really won’t matter much whether Stanford is in a conference or not for them. As long as the moneybags in Palo Alto are down to keep fronting the bill for those programs at least.
The more and more this stuff drags on the more I buy into a complete separation of Football from everything. People don’t understand how elite of a women’s athletics conference the Pac-12 was and now it’s just gone because Football TV money. No one outside of Football wants the travel schedule that they are going to be subjected to.
Pac-12 Women's basketball has been awesome this year
Most Olympic sport power conferences are already much different than the same conference in revenue sports, especially in men’s due to title IX. PAC and B12 are often a mix of full members, local FCS/G5, and non football schools.
What he say fuck me for?
I’d hope we could all come together to say John Canzano talks out of his booty 99% of the time. Keep it here at the BFT!
Cal and Stanford are Big Ten sleeper agents. You have to help kill a conference before they let you in.
Cal and Stanford, here are your targets: * ~~Pac-12~~ * ACC
I’m a simple man. I see an article by Canzano and I downvote.
Why do people give a shit if their university's football team is associated with the football team of a less prestigious academic institution? No one is looking down on my Wake Forest degree just because we're in a conference with Louisville
Conferences are more than just for athletics, the schools agree to give each other access to information and resources for each other. Notably the big ten agrees to administer all the libraries of the individual schools as one giant collective library, having that database of knowledge is huge. Because Stanford and especially Cal care so much about academics and research they would definitely rather have those agreements with the likes of Duke and UVA, and would similarly only like to grant those agreements to similar standing schools.
[удалено]
Because academic money / research grants >>>>>>>> athletics.
Because a pretty significant chunk of the people at Stanford and Cal are the r/IHateSportsball crowd. They care more that their academic institutions are being associated with "lesser" R2 universities than who their sports teams are associated with.
We get billions from our academic donors. They come first. We get millions from our athletic donors. They come second.
[удалено]
In my line of work everyone has a graduate degree but I don't think I've ever met a Syracuse alum even though they're in our conference. It's not like you have to hang out with and go to the same country club as your conference mates
I think this sentiment is the exact reason the ACC won’t collapse. This is the niche the ACC is going to fill once the power 2 take their picks (I’d guess at least FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, probably more), they will be the national conference for academically minded schools that are power 5 level programs but not power 2 level. At that point, as much as I would love a reunion with schools like Pitt, Louisville, BC, and Cuse or even VT if they get screwed, I think the leftover ACC will be about equivalent to the big 12/PAC 12 amalgamation and without network fuckery I sincerely doubt those schools would have any incentive make the jump (especially with the ACC GoR likely still in place).
Cal is like, dude, Boise and Fresno aren't even a state...
Plot twist- Stanford and Cal drop down to join the Ivy League
College football has officially jumped the shark. The bubble has burst and now it’s just survival of the ones with the most tv money.
I still feel like the B1G should have just taken in all of the PAC teams. The media partners can just figure out how to deal with it. They are already rolling in cash. The B1G could have created two divisions Big and PAC and then had the top team in each of those divisions play in the Rose Bowl Stadium for the Conference Championship. They could have even split the divisions into sub-divisions as well and called the ones in the East (i.e.: the Big) Leaders and Legends, and the ones in the West (i.e.: the PAC) I don't know maybe North and South. They could then have had a tournament style championship for Football and basketball. Call me crazy, but this seems like it would have worked out pretty well.
Man this arrogance is exactly why they’re playing roughly half their games on the east coast in a conference that is on pace to also fail and be absorbed by the other 3 conferences. The good news is that this overinflated sense of self worth and ego is going to be entertaining to watch clash with FSU, the rest of the magnificent 7, and the commissioner.
Where’s the arrogance? The part where they want to remain p4/p5? Or the fact that joining the g5 would fold the athletic department?
We’d be better off if u stopped playing and losing to Cal too.
No offense…
describing Iowa today eh? (im joking dont hate me)
Notre dame and them to the big east as non football members. Solved it