I know next to nothing (actually, nothing) about these issues.
However, one question I have is why did the UC Board of Regents not “offer” UCLA and Cal as a package deal? I understand the Board of Regents is now madly scrambling to find a solution for Cal.
Cal is in a bad situation.
I don’t think Big 10 wanted them, but obviously I don’t know what went on behind the scenes.
If the B1G decides to continue expanding, they likely will be trying for two more schools.
The #1 target has been, is, and will forever be Notre Dame. They are a football power and their history is inextricably linked to the B1G – Michigan taught them how to play, basically, and they have had long-time rivalries with the Wolverines, Spartans, and Purdue.
But the Irish have rebuffed every single advance of the last 50ish years because apparently, once upon a time long, long ago, the Irish wanted to join the Big Ten but were themselves denied. Maybe they still hold that grudge, at least a little bit.
Anyway, I think Cal and Stanford would be great adds – obviously academically, but both are at least decent in football and basketball and really strong in some other sports.
But as long as the B1G has Notre Dame on the mantel, and assuming they want to stop at 20 schools, that would preclude them from going after both Cal and Stanford.
It’s an interesting conundrum.
If I were the four remaining Pac schools, though, it’s hard to just sit there and wait for offers from the remaining Big Four conferences – offers which might never come. I would probably try to join the MWC and rebrand it – maybe rename it the Pac-Mountain Conference or something like that.
I agree Stanford and UCB make sense in the Big10, which would would allow a Western Division for the Big 10, and limit travel for the high travel sports like basketball, baseball, softball, volleyball. There’s been not a peep in the press about Big 10 considering that though.
I don’t think Notre Dame is considering going to Big 10 for football or any other sport. Their sports, minus football and ice hockey, are ensconced at ACC. It has been in the press this week that ND is advocating for Stanford and UCB to join ACC and that ND could be offering up moving football to ACC in exchange for that. But who knows what will happen?
Because the Big 10 does not really want Cal, and it’s very possible that requiring a package deal would’ve simply prompted the Big 10 move on to Oregon or Washington as USC’s partner in the move. So then both California schools would have missed out on the big money. As it is, the Board is forcing UCLA to share a certain amount of their newfound fortune (reportedly $10M/yr) with Cal, so both schools are better off.
Assuming the ACC’s current flirtation with Stan/Cal/SMU goes nowhere, which looks likely at this point, the Pac-4 (or Pac-3, if Stanford goes independent) really have two options:
(1) Negotiate a deal with at least nine members of the MWC whereby that conference dissolves itself by a supermajority vote and then the Pac invites those 9+ members immediately to join the Pac. This would preserve the future CFP credits and NCAA tourney credits owed to the Pac while avoiding the exit fees that would otherwise be required to leave the MWC. This is very doable if you invite all current MWC members (which WSU/OSU would agree to), but if Stan/Cal are going to insist that they don’t want to be seen in public with Boise State, or UNLV’s academics are unacceptable, or whatever, the whole thing could get very ugly.
(2) Invite 4-5 AAC schools immediately for 2024, and then another 4-5 MWC schools of your choosing in 2025. This way, you can pick and choose the schools you want to partner with out of those leagues, though even that may be problematic if Stan/Cal disagree with WSU/OSU about the priorities. And the MWC exit fees would still be $17M/team in 2025, plus exit fees for AAC for 2024. This option is just more expensive across the board.
Apple or another streamer would likely offer some kind of package for either option, with Option 2 probably a little more valuable than Option 1 b/c you would purposely handpick schools with bigger markets and bigger fanbases to be included rather than just taking the entire MWC as a group. But it still might not offset the much greater costs of that route.
Personally, I go with Option 1 and just try to get agreement from everyone else at the table that we’re going to leave out Hawaii - I love 'em, but the travel costs are just crazy for the modest revenue that this new group can produce. If that ends up being an odd number, see if SMU will take a partial share of the media rights to join up.
UC Regents are political hacks, and devoid of any strategic thinking.
Latest report I read said Clemson, Florida State, UNC, and NC State are no votes on Cal and Stanford.
Yes they’re going to hold the conference hostage. Well the three - not NC State. I could see Va Tech but they didn’t.
They’re going to get more money if they’re going to allow this.
I’m a Syracuse guy. From our POV I don’t see what adding these two schools does. But obviously they see something.
I’m not all these shrewd business people are that shrewd. If they were they wouldn’t find their schools underpaid for the next 12 years.
Bottom line - geography should matter. No one is interested in the UCB UVA rivalry or Louisville Stanford.
I agree with that! Long time ACC fan here and it’s the NC, VA, SC schools that I care about. I remember when FSU and Georgia Tech joined the conference!
We’ve had a bit of a basketball rivalry with Syracuse over the years, but I forget that they are in the ACC. Same with Miami, Notre Dame, Louisville, Boston College, and Pitt. Those are like some shadow realm ACC schools. I think we might be in the Upside Down if Cal and Stanford joined.
I’d be interested in watching Stanford-Notre Dame in women’s basketball, typically 2 of the top 10-20 teams in the country.
Stanford-Duke in all sports could turn into a great rivalry, IMO.
bleah
This article discusses some of the history of how we got to where we are right now:
simple, as made famous in Jerry Macguire: “show me the money!”
No change happening in the ACC this year. This is a pretty good article. Sounds like Florida State doesn’t want to leave the ACC, they just want more money.
rumors are that the ACC will have one more call tomorrow to see if there are 12 schools agreeing to expand. If so, they take an official vote; otherwise, they release an official statement that they are not expanding at this time.
Well FSU aint leaving right now. Aug 15 was the deadline there.
I doubt if UNC, NC State, Clemson and FSU have changed their minds on Cal and Stanford.
the deadline was just for leaving in '24. FSU/Clemson could leave in '25 (or '26 or…). Agree that those four have no reason to change their votes, not much in it for them, but politics and more importantly money, can be a funny thing. Who knows what is going on behind the scenes or how much extra espn might add to thier offer.
If they were to expand, it should be UCONN.
I’m not sure how SMU is in the mix but it fits better than the West Coast Schools. Maybe Temple (Philly), Rice, or Memphis - which academically doesn’t fit, but they have Louisville.
Alternatively if they could pull in WVU - like a UCONN and WVU it would work.
SMU is a relative freebie. They have agreed to waive TV rights for the first ~5 years, essentially giving their share to the other schools that vote them in. (SMU alums will pick up the costs.)