It isn’t just about football. Many other collegiate sports are impacted by this. For example, both Cal and Stanford have top swim programs.
Because the Pac 12 doesn’t sponsor beach volleyball, USC and UCLA’s teams were supposed to remain in the Pac 12. What will happen now?
It is all about football (the $$) - but that’s what pays for the travel of the other stuff - and perhaps you’ll see some programs culled - or certain “for that sport” conferences.
Hawaii used to be the outlier where every road game was at least a five hour flight each way. But it looks like a bunch of other college teams will be mostly joining that club.
At least Hawaii and Louisiana Tech are no longer in the same conference.
That’s why the Mountain West or Big Sky may make sense for Cal. Less travel. Stanford can always go independent.
Same league that SLO competes in, the Big West. SLO, USC, Cal and UCLA play each season anyway.
Football is a big deal when picking a conference, but not the only consideration. I thought PAC 12 basketball worked pretty well as the teams were paired and the traveling team would play Oregon and Oregon State the same week/weekend, Colorado and Utah, USC and UCLA.
Cal can’t afford the pay cut. The TV rights of the MW or Big Sky is a fraction of what they are receiving now, and won’t even cover the football coach’s salary, much less any scholarships or other sports. Cal has 30 varsity sports, 900 athletes. Even if the Regents/State assumes 100% of the Stadium debt AND also pays to buyout every coach paid at a Power 5 level (hundreds of millions in sunk cost), Cal would have to start cutting sports, which likely means moving to a different T9 test, resulting of even larger cuts to the men’s program. Buh-bye Olympic sports.
Understood, but the ACC or B1G would have to come though and add Cal, which I find unlikely.
Unless, the B1G came though with a 3rd tier, a lower payout than Oregon and Washington. The ACC seems improbable, forget travel for the moment, FSU is already complaining out loud about the ACC payouts. There would be a bigger drain on ACC payouts, if the ACC added Cal and Stanford.
Cal will have to cut sports, no doubt about it. It’s a bummer, because I’ve spent a good amount of time on Cal’s campus watching Cal sports, since I had family members who played sports there.
ACC Presidents meeting today, the agenda includes talking about adding some or all of the 4 remaining PAC 12 schools.
UC Board of Regents called a special closed door meeting for today to discuss Cal’s conference affiliation.
I expect we will know by the end of today where Stanford and Cal are going, and probably OSU and WSU too. I don’t see PAC 12 adding schools to survive (need min of 6 to be a conference per NCAA rules) but who knows? Would have to happen fast.
If only College presidents and the UC regents could get together and make quick decisions for academic and/or other pressing issues. 
Of course it’s due to the money involved in these schools’ athletic conference affiliations. But still.
These conference changes, media deals, NIL consortia et al, are fascinating. MBA school case studies being made at a furious pace.
I see UCONN as a better fit. I bet in 20 years we de regionalize.
Some states tie both schools together. The UC regents could have done that. They missed theyr chance.
I think UConn goes too. It’s not an either or.
These conferences are going to already be so big that they will regionalize within them…like the west/east/Midwest divisions.
I have no idea how any smaller conferences will be able to ultimately compete and survive financially. The money is just too great to ignore…which I know is obvious based on the numbers we see, and how quickly the college presidents and conference admin have been able to make big decisions recently.
I still think we will ultimately get to 3-4 conferences D1 conferences, each with 3-5 geographic divisions.
Nothing says football like UCONN.
I’m not sure that’s going to go well. FSU has already threatened to leave over that, and you can bet they’re not the only one. It dilutes the limited TV revenue from the other schools, and the ACC is already far behind the other power conferences. They have to hope for a renegotiation, which is going to be an uphill battle.
I expect we won’t. The UC Regents are (political) appointees and right now are just trying to figure out what this is gonna cost them. Molasses flow uphill in the winter faster than the UC Regents can make a meaningful decision.
Beyond that, it’s all about the Benjamins. Espn got boxed out of the West Coast market by Fox, so how much more is espn willing to ante up to add 2/4 west coast schools? (Or would espn partner with apple?). And is that enough to cover thw additional travel expenses for those schools such that they would accept it? Those decisions take time.
From what I’ve read, ESPN wasn’t so much boxed out of the Pac-12, but ESPN wasn’t interested in paying much for the Pac-12 rights.
If ESPN would chip in some more money for late-night football inventory for the Pac-4 schools in the ACC (or AAC), since the network has very little West Coast presence now, maybe the ACC could happen for the Pac-4.
However, right now, with FSU an Clemson clamoring for more money from the conference., anything that dilutes the payout of current ACC schools feels like a likely no.
The other option is the Pac-4 teams join the Mountain West (or Big Sky) for all sports, except football and basketball. And the Pac-4 football and basketball teams join the ACC. 
They’ve improved and their basketball teams have won recent championships.
It’s a major D1 school with the Harftford and fits the geography.
I think the ACC can survive without FSU and Clemson - but the issue becomes if they leave, then who else does?
Academically - the ACC is as strong as anyone.
That would be the reason to bring in the two west coast schools but they don’t fit.
that’s a distinction without a difference.
yes, espn was not gonna pony up for the Pac10, and neither was Fox, leaving it all to Apple+ streaming. But once Oregon and Washington went BiG, all of a sudden Fox gets linear tv rights to the PNW as well as SoCal, (leaving Cal & Stanford hoping to broadcast on thier twitter feeds).
And the battle within the re-alingment battle is Fox v. espn. That said, espn is cutting back, so don’t. believe they’ll offer much to add the Bay Area schools.
btw: latest rumor is that the ACC pitched Cal & Stanford AND Notre Dame football to espn. (ND loves being an Indy, so can’t see that proposal going anywhere.)
Not entirely boxed out. ESPN has the majority of the Big 12 package, which now includes 5 Mountain schools (CU, UU, BYU, UA, ASU) who can play 8:00 PM local games and fill the 4th Saturday window at 10:00 PM ET. There are issues with selection order among network partners, swapping timeslots, etc., and they could consider adding more options in that window, but they already have some content to fall back on. To the larger point, I agree that it’s hard to see ESPN renegotiating their sweetheart ACC deal just to add 2-4 schools whose value is likely below the median of the existing ACC schools.
I wonder if ESPN is a player for anything high dollar given that they’ve blown out a lot of high priced talent?
It could be they want to feature product over talent…not sure.
There are sports that can’t join Mountain West or Big Sky because they don’t have those sports. Women’s lacrosse is one, so they’ll have to play independently (like they did when the Pac12 didn’t have enough teams to have a conference, and like they would if the PAC 4 can add more school and continue the conference).
But would the MW or Big Sky want the Pac4 teams without basketball and football? What would be in it for MW/Big Sky? They want basketball and football for the tv schedule and money they’d get for playing in California.