College Football (and college sports generally) Queens - Washington and Oregon to the Big 10

Stanford goes independent and waits it out until Notre Dame wants to join Big 10 and then go in together. Cal might just as well give up sports. Their money situation sucks and their football and basketball teams do as well. It's not a surprise no one wants them.

I hate this even more than I did the 2014 addition of Rutgers and Maryland. The Big 10 should be a Midwest league.

Rutgers and Maryland are at least in states that touch a state with a Big 10 school (PA). The footprint of the Big 10 with Rutgers and Maryland looks quaint and small compared to the new conference. I really don't care that much, but it seems like they're not thinking things out long term. But that's just an assumption. They want money now and everybody is in the middle of a cash grab.

I'll add Florida State wants out of the ACC. I have heard rumors that the SEC has at least looked at Virginia and Virginia Tech (my state). Clemson and Miami are SEC possibles. The problem is that these schools agreed to $120+ million exit fee if they leave the ACC before 2036. Cal, Stanford, Oregon State and Washington State could join the Mountain West. It would be a drop down, but it is better than being Independent. Only Notre Dame can thrive as an Independent.

Stanford has literally over a billion dollars in the bank. They could certainly wait it out before the invitation for B1G. Cal can't. Either way, Stanford and Cal have to begin cutting sports to survive. There are now rumors that OSU and WSU are making overtures to Big 10.

R4, the problem with the ACC isn't just the exit fee, it's that if they leave without getting out of their Grant of Rights media contract, all the media money they'd make in their new conference would go back to the ACC until that contract expired. When the ACC signed their deal they were somewhat desperate and trying to keep it together after Maryland had decided to leave. At the time, the numbers from the deal weren't outstanding, but not terrible, and it deal offered the member schools stability. But the GOR agreement is until 2036 - an insanely long time. At the time it was signed, no one could foresee all the realignment, infusion of money, court decisions, and mega media deals that would upend college football. So the ACC schools are essentially stuck (the GOR is viewed by many as pretty ironclad) unless they get enough schools to vote to dissolve the conference and all the members can then decide what they want to do. But a certain percentage of schools need to agree and the "lesser" ACC schools probably don't want that to happen. It's a lot going on.

I highly doubt the Big 10 would want Wash St. and Oregon State. It really sucks for those schools to be essentially leftovers.

Stanford can do what it wants, they can probably weather a storm as an independent - but I do think people tend to overstate the wealth aspect. Endowment money doesn't just automatically go to fund the athletic department. The athletic department has some of its own money, but not endless amounts. Granted I think Stanford could probably do some targeted fund raising and massively increase the athletic department reserves if it wanted.

I have no idea what Cal does. A great academic jewel, but academics aren't driving this. And they're sort of f'd (I think) in terms of money.

B1G doesn't want OSU and WSU but Big 12 might. They just announced that no only Arizona but ASU and Utah will likely be joining.

As far as Stanford's endowment, they have a ton of athletic money. Enough to ride out the storm. Cal has none. They are so deeply in debt that even a B1G wouldn't save them. In a sense, Cal might also have started matriculating students who don't place as great an emphasis on viewing sports as previous generations. The mid Majors are funded by student fees, which is completely wrong, IMO.

Didn’t Stanford already cut a lot of its athletic programs?

Big East Smalls.

R8, I didn't know that Stanford's athletic-specific endowment was already that developed. I've heard a fair amount of people opine that "Stanford has a $40 billion (general) endowment so everything will automatically be okay for athletics" without knowing how general endowment money is spend and how it needs to be approved.

Stanford and Cal Athletics’ were/are both in better financial shape than UCLA’s…it got lucky only because USC dragged the Bruins over the line due to the value of the LA television market.

The B1G presidents will readily take both Bay Area schools based on the sports/academics combo (each would be the top-rated academic uni among their respective private / public cohort). The issue: the B1G athletic directors don’t won’t to spread the $ too thin…let’s be clear, Stanford and Cal are much more valuable than any or all of Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska. Purdue, Iowa…

As for any sport other than fb and bb: Stanford is the #1 university for “Olympic” sports, and Cal is #4…better than ANY B1G school. Ucla and USC are #s 2 and 3.

"let’s be clear, Stanford and Cal are much more valuable than any or all of Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska. Purdue, Iowa…

As for any sport other than fb and bb: Stanford is the #1 university for “Olympic” sports, and Cal is #4…better than ANY B1G school. Ucla and USC are #s 2 and 3."

The first point may be absolutely true. I wouldn't argue for a second. But it really doesn't matter right now. They're not members, the other schools are, and no major conference has ever kicked out schools (yet?). And the general "rule" for new members is whether they can increase the media payout enough to not decrease the shares to the member schools. I don't think Stanford and Cal can - but we can't know until the next round of media rights negotiations. So until 2030, they'd have to settle for reduced share like Oregon and Washington. It's sort of structurally unfair - established conference members like Purdue or Northwestern don't have to ever prove that they can increase value because they were there when the original value was determined and were already members. To be clear, I think Stanford and Cal would be great additions.

The second point is a non-starter. It maybe should matter, but it simply doesn't - at all. Olympic sports, excellence in Olympic sports is driving none of this.

"As for any sport other than fb and bb: Stanford is the #1 university for “Olympic” sports, and Cal is #4…better than ANY B1G school. Ucla and USC are #s 2 and 3."

In other words, Cal is #4 in all the sports that no one cares about.

Cal's books are cooked better than a Christmas goose. Christ, get it?

R13. Good pints, fair statements.

R14 and R15…not so much.

*points. and pints!

Thanks R6. I know they kept talking about media rights but they never seem to explain it when the subject of schools leaving the ACC comes up.

Well sorry R16, but being #4 in non-revenue sports will not be an invitation getter to the B1G.

And that's unfortunately the reality. Pac whatever is dead. Stanford can continue. Cal can't. If even the Big 12 is not looking at them, being mid Major would be almost as bad as simply closing up shop.

It's official - Arizona, Arizona State, and Utah to the Big 12. There's no hope for the PAC-X. Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, and Wash State is all that's left.

[quote] is

A great overview on the demise on the Pac.

Now we're really talking. Cal and Stanford are trying to get into the ACC. They were laughing about the Pac teams travel in the B1G but this proposal is obviously way worse. And speaking of laughing, USC didn't want Oregon in the B1G because they wanted football recruiting to themselves. Well guess what? Four star Cornerback Dakoda Fields flipped from USC to Oregon.

Nice knowing you, Pac 12

r12 "Stanford and Cal Athletics’ were/are both in better financial shape than UCLA’s…it got lucky only because USC dragged the Bruins over the line due to the value of the LA television market. "

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

**

R26, yet the Bay Area television market obviously meant nothing to the B1G.

Much of UCLA's debt was incurred because of the withdrawal of UnderArmor. But UA paid over R67.5 to UCLA to get out of their contract, something they might regret as the Bruins head over to the B1G.

"[R26], yet the Bay Area television market obviously meant nothing to the B1G."

It doesn't mean nothing, but when running the numbers, it's not as easy anymore as when Rutgers and Maryland were added and the Big Ten believed it was SO important to break into the NYC and DC media markets - based on traditional "media market" criteria like overall population and number of cable subscribers. That still does matter, but now there's this big component of an added school being a "brand" - do people actually follow the school - positively or negatively (like how people will hate watch Alabama or ND) and will they turn into watch. And also, if you're a late entrant to a conference, then even with a big media market and a decent fan base, it's a matter of whether a school increase the portion that a tv channel or cable network will pay out so that the remaining members don't have to take a decrease in their cut. There's only so many schools like that. In retrospect adding Rutgers to gain the NYC media market was laughable since people in NYC area generally don't care about Rutgers (no shade to Rutgers) There's probably way more casual Michigan or Penn State fans in NYC metro than Rutgers.

Actually what it means is that so few people in the Bay Area watch Cal and/or Stanford football that it's not worth their time.

Who the fuck watches Rutgers or Maryland

They’re also not at the bottom, with one compilation of 2022 football viewership data listing Cal as the 45th most-watched program in the nation and Stanford 47th. That still ranked ahead of 16 Power Five conference teams (20 if you count the 2023 Big 12 newcomers).

FWIW…accept or reject

The Big Ten loves to talk up it's academic bona fides. And, obviously, Stanford and Cal are academic jewels. But, they really don't move the needle much athletically. Big Ten might take them at a reduced share until the next media contract in 2030 (I think).

The real problem is threefold for both schools:: the content purchasers Fox, ESPN, etc. don’t want to shell out more cash that would allow them an easy path to a Power 5 safe landing; the B1G presidents would love to have them, the athletic depts. less so ($): and the faculty at each school look down on football as an institutional matter (alumni blow Joe or hot and cold, depending on their team’s success). Both Cal and Stanford have lousy fb and bb programs at exactly the worst time for the situation they find themselves in.

R35 they would both take that deal…but see above.

"Year after year, the Pac-4 provides some of the athletic action you would expect to see from an athletic conference. While our games might not be on TV, you can enjoy them in person at any one of our four convenient locations."

This is a big fuck-you to Big 10 fans. I don’t have anything against the east coast or west coast schools, but the Big 10 has celebrated rivalries that go back years. The Big 10 schools were almost all within driving distance of one another (OK, long drives in some instances). It’s part of growing up or going to school in the Midwest. Who gives a shit about an Ohio State vs the Oregon Ducks football game? There will be 18 schools in the Big 10 by 2025. I’m pissed and I went to the one Big 10 school that never had championship football or basketball teams.

Which one —?

Which school is that R39? Only Rutgers and Nebraska have never won a Big 10 championship in football or basketball. But Nebraska won multiple national and conference football championships when they were in the Big 6/8/12 before joining the Big 10.

So Rutgers?

Northwestern

I wish Missouri was in the B1G rather than the SEC. Money definitely talked in Missouri’s decision, but it is a more natural fit with the B1G schools.

Missouri was devastated when the B1G invited Nebraska instead of them.

and look at the state of the University of Nebraska's football program...

Mizzou is no looker itself. How many national titles has it won in any sport?!

ACC looks like they may not have the votes to admit Cal and Stanford. A very astute question is why ND wants those two in the ACC so badly when they're only partial members. If the conference is so great, why don't they go all in. I think ACC is planning on another meeting with a vote tonight and that will be the final nail in this coffin.

Money ruins everything.

WtF re Chapel Hill?! Is UNC afraid of have two better universities come along for the ride? At least UVA knows how their bread is buttered.

It's said that the Yes votes, except for ND were quite iffy. What is really ironic is that one of the iffy Yes votes was from VT whose president and wife are both Cal grads.

The Pac 4 has hired Oliver Luck to try to get them out of this.

It Won't Work

🤷🏻‍♂️

Cal, Stanford and SMU to ACC. They will receive a rate of 30%! Then again, Stanford was begging to be let in at 0%. Stanford can handle it, Cal likely can't. The 30% rate will go for 7 years and if they can last, by year 8 they go to 70%. The current deal is said to be $15 million less per year than what they made in the Pac. Of course, the saddest are OSU and WSU who are left behind. Smart asses are suggesting they join the Mountain West and call themselves Broke Pac Mountain.

I saw SMU flexed their donor money and won't be getting any media money for 7 years!? They must REALLY want to be part of a major conference again.

SMU supporters, alumni and students are wealthy as hell. The school is located in the most affluent zip code in Texas.

If I was a resourceful young co-ed, it would be the first college I thought of to find a husband.

I get, that R54. It's not that I'm surprised they can do it; plenty of wealthy schools COULD. But, I'm still surprised that they would take nothing. Via their old conference they probably got something like $7 million per year, which is massively below the ACC's per school payout. You'd think they'd want something just as a sign of respect (like an equivalent 7 million), but they said from the get go they'd take nothing and be happy with it, so if I'm the ACC, I guess I'm not going to fight that. Cal may be fucked with their small payout in the beginning.

SMU posted a 49–9–1 record from 1980 to 1984. They were in the national conversation for the title of "national champion" during these years, when they played in the Southwest Conference, where they played Texas, Texas A&M and Arkansas annually.

SMU's wealthy donors paid football recruits money under the table so they would sign with SMU. These players received payments during their entire SMU careers. It was well-known, and the University tried to end the practice, but the donors kept paying the players. It resulted in the death penalty for football for a couple of years.

The Southwest Conference folded and SMU played in the WAC and Conference USA, followed by the American Conference. This opportunity to join the ACC may return them to past football glory. That's why they accepted the bid with no payment asked.

The SWC was so intense and SO regional. Wasn't every school in Texas except Arkansas?

Yes, R57.

Baylor University, Rice University, Southern Methodist University, Texas A&M University, Texas Christian University, Texas Tech University, University of Houston, University of Arkansas and University of Texas at Austin

I once went to the annual Texas-Texas A&M game when they were still in the SWC. It was crazy fun, and school spirit on both sides was through the roof. Texas won that game in Austin, so the students partied until daybreak.

I wonder what sort of modern day media deal the old SWC could obtain. Like if it existed in 2023, what would the payout per school be. Having Texas and TAMU automatically gets a decent baseline amount, I'd think. Not like the SEC and Big 10, but definitely more than the non-power conferences like the AAC or Mountain West. Close to the ACC and future Big 12? I really wonder.

It just so unfortunate that the old Pac 8/10/12 conference is just going to disappear - this will be a good last year for it: Oregon, Colorado, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, USC and UCLA could all be top ten teams by the end of the year (I mean they all have that potential -they'll beat each other so they won't all be in the Top Twenty by the end of the season).

It's unfortunate generally, but it's massively unfortunate for Washington State and Oregon State, the only ones truly left behind and whose media money will go from 30+ million (under the old Pac-12 deal, not necessarily what they would have got if the PAC stayed together) to 6 or 7 million- assuming they join the WAC or Mountain West, which seems the most likely result.

Girls, girls

Dude at R62 is ready to be cast in the reboot of Pose.

"The category is jock realness. The swagger, the muscles, the tight bottoms. Work it out, gurl!!

Oregon State really hates. They just finished a huge stadium renovation and will now take a big cut in revenue.

Eight PAC-12 teams in the top 25!

R39, totally agree (I went to Wisconsin)

They're going out with a bang before their conference disintegrates, R65.

It's a real shame, given their relative success the past couple of seasons. This year was supposed to be the "crowning achievement", given the predicted success of the football teams.

Guaranteed, the Universities have underestimated the cost of travel sending all their teams across the country and the amount of study time they are taking away from all the athletes. If there's a plane crash and an entire team is wiped out, it will freeze college football while the Universities review their priorities.

Stanford and Cal are total shit. Furd should have gone home at halftime.

R68 what are you gibbering on about? If you are trying to comment in the Pac-12 the. Know it has not broken up yet…and in any event it’s football teams have been traveling across the country for over 100 years.

Well, Cal at least should have beaten Auburn…🫨

Cal and The Farm can look forward to making the ACC a quality academic conference…we both add luster in that regard. The rest of the ACC will be bragging about Nobel laureates before you know it ;)

I get it's a nice-sounding thing to be in a good academic conference but I really don't see why it matters. It's just an association of schools to compete in sports. Academic institutions are elite on their own merits and remain so no matter the conference. Rice is Conference USA with few academic peers; Johns Hopkins is in some random DIII conference. Stanford in the ACC isn't going to raise Clemson's academic profile.

Johns Hopkins is in the Centennial Conference, along with academic powerhouses Swarthmore, Haverford and Bryn Mawr, not just a random conference.

I'm pretty sure R71 was joking. But for desperate Cal fans, maybe not.

Just pretty sure?

The ACC already has Duke, Virginia and UNC, not exactly scrubs when it comes to academics.

Yet not up to the new standard.

Breaking up the Pac (insert your number here) is bullshit, and indicative of the kind of change that makes life less interesting. I go back more than 60 years to the AAWU, then Pac 6, then Pact 8 -10 - 12...

There are historic rivalries, geography/history/culture that are wasted in the realignments - much more than football and basketball the Pac 12 has been the hothouse for Olympic sports - track and field, swimming. volleyball etc. League competition (and the recruitment of top athletes in these sports) will diminish, I think. There's a reason that the two top colleges with national championships in all sports are Stanford and UCLA.

This year the fact that so many of the Pac 12 teams are ranked will (finally) mean that one or two of the teams could make the championship round - SEC has benefited for years by beating each other and scoring on the metrics because so many SEC teams are highly ranked. They are highly ranked because they are highly ranked. This year a couple teams could beat up on the on the other Pac 12 teams make the finals: right now I'm thinking USC (fuck them) and Washington could both make the championship. I think Colorado's bubble will burst at some time.

Oh course, Go Bruins, I always have hopes for UCLA.

You understate the case. The top four in total championships in all sports are Stanford, UCLA, USC and Cal.

By the way …you might display a bit of shame knowing that, as to realignment, Stanford was more loyal to the UC system than your own alma mater. You may hate USC but they got you into the Big 10. Yet what’s done is done..,the whole universe of college sports is changed now and forever. And not for the greater good.

R79 Mostly true... USC's football got UCLA in the BIG, yep. But UCLA's basketball got USC into the BIG .... a case could be made.

Alabama looked weak against Texas. Could it be the end of the Saban dynasty?

None of this is basketball based, R80. Of course UCLA is basketball royalty, but they'd never be taken on that basis. It's just a nice bonus. The B1G wanted USC once it expressed interest and UCLA came along for the ride. It's a great school, good at many sports, but was not a primary target.

Oh that's such shit R79. Stanford was only more loyal to the Pac because there had no interest anywhere. You think if B1G made the same offer that they did to USC and UCLA, they wouldn't have bolted immediately. Same with Cal. The Pac was already a dying conference and the administration at the NorCal schools were simply fools to think otherwise. The past months of desperately trying to be accepted by any conference shows a great deal of how totally incompetent they are. If it is football based, both Stanford and Cal have way less bargaining power than even UCLA. And add to the fact that so many people in conferences like ACC and Big12 did not want them because they represent "woke" California politics.

You type like a cut and paste from Reddit. I’ll take exception to your entire post.

And, in my family, I can count seven UClA degrees among them. They all are more intelligent than you, based on just that one post.

*UCLA

corrected before you bitch again

A real problem is that the conference realignments, which completely favor football and to a way lesser extent, mens basketball, is that it isn't simply about NIL, it's a complete cultural shift. I honestly don't think that Cal can do it and I don't know if Stanford wants to do it. The Cardinal has enough money but their admissions and transfer procedures are now suggesting that they will forever be a doormat. Cal will be getting new leadership soon but they don't have that monetary nest egg as Palo Alto. So you have a Lucy and Jessie situation.

Being that Cal and Stanford are entering ACC at a paltry 30% (and better than Stanford who was proposing to enter FREE), I wonder if they start cutting sports at Cal. UCLA has to pay Cal as well but it's still not close to what they would have made in the Pac.

R83 Give it a rest. "Woke" isn't a real thing, in anything other than rightwing focus-group BS, much less sports.

c.f. Florida: where woke has gone to die and sink its governor into irrelevancy.

R88, did I say that? Or did I say that the fan base said it? That was the reality on all the message boards. Being that it is a football centric argument, it isn't surprising.

Stanford never proposed entering for free. As for “institutional” interest in sports, Stanford and Cal are aligned—as much as they each would like to succeed in the two revenue sports, their appetite for compromise is almost nil compare to SC and Ucla. If they could find a way to maintain their non-revenue Olympic sports without fb and bb, they would. Each of them has alumni fully invested in certain sports historically important to each, but that only goes so far. And here they are, in the ACC, for the foreseeable future. As a Norte Californio, I can at least take pride in the effort to maintain integrity more than those Southern schools.

Current locker room footage, please

Well, Stanford entering for free was reported by various groups. It might have been a pile on.

"According to the Associated Press, Stanford informed the remaining Pac-4 schools that they’re desperate to leave for the ACC. How desperate?

Desperate enough that they’re essentially willing to join the conference for free. Literally. For free."

You are very trusting of random websites…too trusting. Really

When did AP become a random website?

Please link to an AP story confirming Stanford told the ACC that it would join for free for any length of time. TIA

SI said it as well but since Stanford and Cal joined at 30% for 7 years, it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.

[quote]Who gives a shit about an Ohio State vs the Oregon Ducks football game?

Two top ten football teams will get much more care than OSU vs the joke that is Rutgers.

"Leaders from Stanford, California, Oregon State and Washington State spoke Thursday, and Stanford told its colleagues it had informed the ACC that it would be open to joining the conference at greatly reduced or even no media rights payout for several years, a person familiar with the discussions told The Associated Press."

Nowhere in that article does it confirm Stanford offered to join for free.

Reading is fundamental.

SMU said they would take no tv money for 9 years, not Stanford.

OSU played at Cal and it looked like a home game. That's one of the reasons Cal was not invited to the Big Ten....sparse support.

What does "Stanford told its colleagues it had informed the ACC that it would be open to joining the conference at greatly reduced or even no media rights payout for several years" mean?

It means you linked to an article quoting an anonymous source, unconfirmed in the entire month-long process that followed your outdated news story. Seriously, please.

Stanford would never have done it for free.

It means nothing , because it was SMU, not Stanford, R102

SMU is actually entering for free - for seven years - which is just crazy. People say SMU can afford it due to the rich boosters, but you'd think you'd want something as a show of respect.

The ACC is more respected than the AAC. They were looking for any opportunity to get into a Power 5 conference. I'm really surprised the Big 12 didn't snatch them up, the school is not much different than TCU. They had major success in the old Southwest Conference.

R103, you asked for attribution and I gave it. The fact that you can't accept it or don't want to accept it is your problem.

Blah blah —there’s no verifiable source and no other reference to your assertion anywhere blah blah

R109 sounds insufferable.

Already an upset today with KSU going down.. FSU should have joined them.