(03-23-2024 10:31 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 10:03 AM)gwelymernans Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 08:54 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-22-2024 03:55 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-22-2024 08:17 AM)esayem Wrote:  I'm not going to disagree with your football analysis, but both have big-time basketball environments, AKA ACC hoops environments. ECU and App State have more of an SEC game day experience than Chapel Hill smh

The BOG doesn't want to split the schools. Period. My order of preference is:

• ESPN pays the ACC more money and we stay with our actual rivals

• We both join the SEC and never truly fit in except with each other. The Carolina-Kentucky game would be great, but not playing Dook or UVa in-conference would be terrible. BUT it would be better than playing Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, and the other 1,000 Big Ten teams I could care less about—no offense

Both joining the Big Ten is highly unlikely so let's not even entertain either of us moving there? K thanks

Not that I want it, but XLance used to say that if the ACC was going to.implode, UNC was B1G bound. How come you & XLance differ, Esayem??

Not sure. Carolina playing baseball in the Big Ten sure would host a lot of games. A basketball tournament in Chicago or Minnesota is undesirable. Overall, the SEC is a much better fit if something like that has to happen.

Is it just those towns, or that they're not in NC? E.g., if UNC stayed in the ACC and they added 2-4 Big East teams, would you object to a BB tourney at MSG every other year?

I chose them because they would be the closest opponents in the Big Ten. The closest in the SEC would be Kentucky, Tennessee, and South Carolina—much more desirable from a fan's perspective.

The Big Ten also doesn't have any reason to add UVa because they already have the large NoVA market with Maryland. Although, I am unsure what UVa's prospects for the SEC are anyway because they seem to be leading the ACC's defense.

I wouldn't object rotating MSG, but I can't see how MSG would approve anything but yearly.

I don't see the ACC taking on any Big East schools as long as UNC is there either, just thought it was a useful case for understanding/clarifying your rationale. I'd imagine MSG will always want to align w/ whatever conference has the bulk of Nova/UConn/Cuse/St Johns/GTown (which is why I think that is potentially a good option for a rump ACC if UNC and other core schools leave).

The NC Board of Governors, in a January 12 memo to the UNC board of trustees, reassigned some responsibilities previously belonging to the trustees to interim university chancellor Lee Roberts. The memo 'emphasized... that trustees should serve “in an advisory capacity to the Board of Governors and the chancellor” and that trustees should not direct “matters of administration or executive action.”'

Full story by Korie Dean at: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/...38430.html

(04-09-2024 06:38 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The NC Board of Governors, in a January 12 memo to the UNC board of trustees, reassigned some responsibilities previously belonging to the trustees to interim university chancellor Lee Roberts. The memo 'emphasized... that trustees should serve “in an advisory capacity to the Board of Governors and the chancellor” and that trustees should not direct “matters of administration or executive action.”'

Full story by Korie Dean at: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/...38430.html

(04-09-2024 06:38 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The NC Board of Governors, in a January 12 memo to the UNC board of trustees, reassigned some responsibilities previously belonging to the trustees to interim university chancellor Lee Roberts. The memo 'emphasized... that trustees should serve “in an advisory capacity to the Board of Governors and the chancellor” and that trustees should not direct “matters of administration or executive action.”'

Full story by Korie Dean at: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/...38430.html

A coincidence, surely, that this memo went out the same day as this meeting...

(04-10-2024 02:24 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 06:38 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The NC Board of Governors, in a January 12 memo to the UNC board of trustees, reassigned some responsibilities previously belonging to the trustees to interim university chancellor Lee Roberts. The memo 'emphasized... that trustees should serve “in an advisory capacity to the Board of Governors and the chancellor” and that trustees should not direct “matters of administration or executive action.”'

Full story by Korie Dean at: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/...38430.html

A coincidence, surely, that this memo went out the same day as this meeting...

Wouldn't they just invite the 12 schools that voted for expansion?

In the fwiw category: The new member agreements that Texas and Oklahoma made with the SEC were contingent in each case on the other school signing theirs.

You wonder if some difficult past experience lay behind the stipulation. Anyway, anyone can view the full text of these agreements via the links in the Primary Sources thread.

Which brings us to the topics of this thread. Two observations.

First: For all of us who speculate, there's the possibility that the NC Board of Governors could require a stipulation of this sort in any movement by NC State or UNC. It need not require that the two schools land a home in exactly the same conference. Terms could be crafted so that either of two leagues fills the need.

Second: While the example is not strictly analogous to, say, the text of a media deal, it's good to be reminded that publishing the full text of an agreement is something that conferences do.

(03-21-2024 10:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well it all depends on how many schools the P2 want and what Notre Dame does.
Order of desirability by the P2 (not necessarily desired by both). I think only the first 4 pay for themselves. I know several reporters have said UNC is #2 after Notre Dame and maybe some presidents feel that way, but ESPN and Fox will straighten them out on that.
1 Notre Dame
2 FSU
3 Clemson

4-5 Miami
4-5 North Carolina

6-8 UVA
6-8 NCSU
6-8 Virginia Tech

9-14 Stanford
9-14 California
9-14 Colorado
9-14 Kansas
9-14 Arizona St.
9-14 Arizona

Tie 15-Everybody else in the M2

Fox and ESPN would have a different list, but after #5, the difference is probably immaterial so conference preferences will take priority.

It seems that Stanford has more money, more fans, more success in football, more academic cachet and comes from a wealthier area than UVA. Cal too, really. The argument made against them is that the Bay Area isn’t into college football, without conceding Virginia and North Carolina also aren’t. I guess I just can’t understand UVA being more desirable than Stanford.

(04-21-2024 07:36 AM)Coato Wrote:  I guess I just can’t understand UVA being more desirable than Stanford.

1) Battle between the States. The SEC wanting to keep those damn yankees out of the South.

Then, 2) FB people lean conservative. Right or wrong, greater SF is perceived as an infested, whacked-out, decaying place. And greater DC as vibrant, growing, as well as stable and with deep-pockets, although technocrat-liberal.

However, Stanford could quickly fix their perception-problem. Cal-Berk, not likely.

(04-21-2024 07:36 AM)Coato Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 10:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well it all depends on how many schools the P2 want and what Notre Dame does.
Order of desirability by the P2 (not necessarily desired by both). I think only the first 4 pay for themselves. I know several reporters have said UNC is #2 after Notre Dame and maybe some presidents feel that way, but ESPN and Fox will straighten them out on that.
1 Notre Dame
2 FSU
3 Clemson

4-5 Miami
4-5 North Carolina

6-8 UVA
6-8 NCSU
6-8 Virginia Tech

9-14 Stanford
9-14 California
9-14 Colorado
9-14 Kansas
9-14 Arizona St.
9-14 Arizona

Tie 15-Everybody else in the M2

Fox and ESPN would have a different list, but after #5, the difference is probably immaterial so conference preferences will take priority.

It seems that Stanford has more money, more fans, more success in football, more academic cachet and comes from a wealthier area than UVA. Cal too, really. The argument made against them is that the Bay Area isn’t into college football, without conceding Virginia and North Carolina also aren’t. I guess I just can’t understand UVA being more desirable than Stanford.

Virginia Tech puts 66k into the seats each Saturday even though they've been down for some time. That's better than anything Cal or Stanford would offer if they had a national championship level team.

Virginia cares about college football, but VT is definitely big brother when it comes to college football in the Commonwealth.

(04-21-2024 07:36 AM)Coato Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 10:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well it all depends on how many schools the P2 want and what Notre Dame does.
Order of desirability by the P2 (not necessarily desired by both). I think only the first 4 pay for themselves. I know several reporters have said UNC is #2 after Notre Dame and maybe some presidents feel that way, but ESPN and Fox will straighten them out on that.
1 Notre Dame
2 FSU
3 Clemson

4-5 Miami
4-5 North Carolina

6-8 UVA
6-8 NCSU
6-8 Virginia Tech

9-14 Stanford
9-14 California
9-14 Colorado
9-14 Kansas
9-14 Arizona St.
9-14 Arizona

Tie 15-Everybody else in the M2

Fox and ESPN would have a different list, but after #5, the difference is probably immaterial so conference preferences will take priority.

It seems that Stanford has more money, more fans, more success in football, more academic cachet and comes from a wealthier area than UVA. Cal too, really. The argument made against them is that the Bay Area isn’t into college football, without conceding Virginia and North Carolina also aren’t. I guess I just can’t understand UVA being more desirable than Stanford.

(04-21-2024 07:55 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(04-21-2024 07:36 AM)Coato Wrote:  I guess I just can’t understand UVA being more desirable than Stanford.

1) Battle between the States. The SEC wanting to keep those damn yankees out of the South.

Then, 2) FB people lean conservative. Right or wrong, greater SF is perceived as an infested, whacked-out, decaying place. And greater DC as vibrant, growing, as well as stable and with deep-pockets, although technocrat-liberal.

However, Stanford could quickly fix their perception-problem. Cal-Berk, not likely.

Without derailing the thread lol

VA gets the SECN into NOVA, the BTN is already there so UVa is off the list with Stanford and Cal for the Big Ten. They don’t have a football brand whatsoever and they’re more like UPenn than Penn State.

Any NC school gets either network NC subs, but Clemson would get the BTN Charlotte. I’m not sure how the SECN works, but I distinctly remember the BTN getting NYC via Rutgers and DC and NOVA via UMd. This is in addition to their top flight brand is why Carolina is high on the pecking order.

FSU gets the BTN in FLA and they’re a great football brand so they’re high on the list, but I don’t feel the Big Ten is in any rush whatsoever. They still need to figure out UO and UW in the next deal. I think that’s when they’ll push for FSU and Clemson (Charlotte DMA) if they fail at Carolina. Miami might come into play if the B18 fails at FSU.

I don’t see either conference going beyond 20. There just isn’t value. The SEC really doesn’t even need to do anything but Carolina and Kansas would skyrocket their basketball image.

My prediction is Stanford will quickly revert back to their 2010’s form in their new digs. They’ve got a top 30 grid recruiting class coming in and they hired a great basketball coach. If one can succeed on the Wazzou hardwood, one can succeed anywhere; take Sampson and T Bennett, for example.

(04-21-2024 07:55 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(04-21-2024 07:36 AM)Coato Wrote:  I guess I just can’t understand UVA being more desirable than Stanford.

1) Battle between the States. The SEC wanting to keep those damn yankees out of the South.

Then, 2) FB people lean conservative. Right or wrong, greater SF is perceived as an infested, whacked-out, decaying place. And greater DC as vibrant, growing, as well as stable and with deep-pockets, although technocrat-liberal.

However, Stanford could quickly fix their perception-problem. Cal-Berk, not likely.

Just a note on point 2, I think anyone in CFB would aware that:

Stanford is a conservative institution. That actually limits its ability to be adopted as a community team.

UC Berkeley the institution and Cal the football team have vastly different cultures. The football team was (up until the last decade) one of the last west coast schools to move away from prop-48 / partial qualifiers. They were taking prop 48s like Russell White that even USC wouldn’t touch, which continued through guys like DeSean Jackson and Marshawn Lynch that UCLA couldn’t admit (not that they would have automatically gotten them if they did of course). Tosh Lupoi got fired by UW for same things everyone knew he was doing at Cal. I believe a lot of the players on those 2000-2010 teams were enrolled in a “Art Practice” major—but that might be an urban legend. Their AD is from Air Force and they have all kinds of “old school” coaches throughout their AD. They have been far more “limber” than UCLA since the Handicapped Parking scandal in the ways that a good football program needs to be. They just hired a bad coach and were the biggest loser of the schedule changes (had to play Oregon, Stanford and Washington during top ten eras every year in the North plus USC and UCLA because of conference/state politics).

Anyway, just a note on your #2. People outside the WC really miss the boat on Cal’s program identity in particular, they have always been closer to Oregon or Arizona than Stanford or UCLA (Washington has been top 3 on either end of the spectrum in the past 30 years so they are harder to place) on the “selective blindness” scale that good FB programs all have.

Just a note on point 2, I think anyone in CFB would aware that:

Stanford is a conservative institution. That actually limits its ability to be adopted as a community team.

UC Berkeley the institution and Cal the football team have vastly different cultures. The football team was (up until the last decade) one of the last west coast schools to move away from prop-48 / partial qualifiers. They were taking prop 48s like Russell White that even USC wouldn’t touch, which continued through guys like DeSean Jackson and Marshawn Lynch that UCLA couldn’t admit (not that they would have automatically gotten them if they did of course). Tosh Lupoi got fired by UW for same things everyone knew he was doing at Cal. I believe a lot of the players on those 2000-2010 teams were enrolled in a “Art Practice” major—but that might be an urban legend. Their AD is from Air Force and they have all kinds of “old school” coaches throughout their AD. They have been far more “limber” than UCLA since the Handicapped Parking scandal in the ways that a good football program needs to be. They just hired a bad coach and were the biggest loser of the schedule changes (had to play Oregon, Stanford and Washington during top ten eras every year in the North plus USC and UCLA because of conference/state politics).

Anyway, just a note on your #2. People outside the WC really miss the boat on Cal’s program identity in particular, they have always been closer to Oregon or Arizona than Stanford or UCLA (Washington has been top 3 on either end of the spectrum in the past 30 years so they are harder to place) on the “selective blindness” scale that good FB programs all have.
[/quote]

Not sure what you mean about Stanford being a conservative institution limiting its ability to be adopted as a community team. Please elaborate.

As for Cal, there is little to indicate that they have recruited "Prop 48" types in the last 15 years.

(04-21-2024 07:36 AM)Coato Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 10:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well it all depends on how many schools the P2 want and what Notre Dame does.
Order of desirability by the P2 (not necessarily desired by both). I think only the first 4 pay for themselves. I know several reporters have said UNC is #2 after Notre Dame and maybe some presidents feel that way, but ESPN and Fox will straighten them out on that.
1 Notre Dame
2 FSU
3 Clemson

4-5 Miami
4-5 North Carolina

6-8 UVA
6-8 NCSU
6-8 Virginia Tech

9-14 Stanford
9-14 California
9-14 Colorado
9-14 Kansas
9-14 Arizona St.
9-14 Arizona

Tie 15-Everybody else in the M2

Fox and ESPN would have a different list, but after #5, the difference is probably immaterial so conference preferences will take priority.

It seems that Stanford has more money, more fans, more success in football, more academic cachet and comes from a wealthier area than UVA. Cal too, really. The argument made against them is that the Bay Area isn’t into college football, without conceding Virginia and North Carolina also aren’t. I guess I just can’t understand UVA being more desirable than Stanford.

1. Virginia averages about 10,000 more per game in football than Stanford. They have more fan support.
2. Stanford is very inconsistent. They did really well, something like 7th or 9th best in % from 2010-2019. But they were in the 90s from 2000-2009. That has been their history. Rose Bowl a couple years, then in the cellar.
3. There are more people in Virginia than in the Bay Area and UVA does represent a state, unlike Stanford.
4. The Big 10 already has the major part of California.

(04-17-2024 09:27 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  In the fwiw category: The new member agreements that Texas and Oklahoma made with the SEC were contingent in each case on the other school signing theirs.

You wonder if some difficult past experience lay behind the stipulation. Anyway, anyone can view the full text of these agreements via the links in the Primary Sources thread.

Which brings us to the topics of this thread. Two observations.

First: For all of us who speculate, there's the possibility that the NC Board of Governors could require a stipulation of this sort in any movement by NC State or UNC. It need not require that the two schools land a home in exactly the same conference. Terms could be crafted so that either of two leagues fills the need.

Second: While the example is not strictly analogous to, say, the text of a media deal, it's good to be reminded that publishing the full text of an agreement is something that conferences do.

Not much trust between OU and Texas LOL. Or perhaps it was to ensure that the SEC invited both regardless of any theoretical Gentleman's Agreements that were in effect? Probably the latter, and that could help to explain why the A&M BoR went from "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE" to "8-1".

The BoG in North Carolina isn't worried about getting NC St into the P2, they know that's not happening, and they don't want to destroy UNC's Athletics by keeping them tied down in the ACC indefinitely. They just want to ensure that NC St doesn't get treated like WSU/OSU, or even Stanford and Cal. A rebuilt ACC with Big 12-like financial resources would be fine, or a move to the Big 12 would also be fine for them. If they're really determined to help NC St out, their best play is to pass a rule that UNC and NC St must share all combined Conference payouts equally in perpetuity. UNC gets $100m and NC St gets $40m? They end up with $70m each, which is still a win compared to current ACC payouts. More likely is they just throw $5-10m a year Calimony payments onto UNC.

(04-21-2024 12:02 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-17-2024 09:27 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  In the fwiw category: The new member agreements that Texas and Oklahoma made with the SEC were contingent in each case on the other school signing theirs.

You wonder if some difficult past experience lay behind the stipulation. Anyway, anyone can view the full text of these agreements via the links in the Primary Sources thread.

Which brings us to the topics of this thread. Two observations.

First: For all of us who speculate, there's the possibility that the NC Board of Governors could require a stipulation of this sort in any movement by NC State or UNC. It need not require that the two schools land a home in exactly the same conference. Terms could be crafted so that either of two leagues fills the need.

Second: While the example is not strictly analogous to, say, the text of a media deal, it's good to be reminded that publishing the full text of an agreement is something that conferences do.

Not much trust between OU and Texas LOL. Or perhaps it was to ensure that the SEC invited both regardless of any theoretical Gentleman's Agreements that were in effect? Probably the latter, and that could help to explain why the A&M BoR went from "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE" to "8-1".

The BoG in North Carolina isn't worried about getting NC St into the P2, they know that's not happening, and they don't want to destroy UNC's Athletics by keeping them tied down in the ACC indefinitely. They just want to ensure that NC St doesn't get treated like WSU/OSU, or even Stanford and Cal. A rebuilt ACC with Big 12-like financial resources would be fine, or a move to the Big 12 would also be fine for them. If they're really determined to help NC St out, their best play is to pass a rule that UNC and NC St must share all combined Conference payouts equally in perpetuity. UNC gets $100m and NC St gets $40m? They end up with $70m each, which is still a win compared to current ACC payouts. More likely is they just throw $5-10m a year Calimony payments onto UNC.

....and how is it that you know this?

(04-21-2024 12:02 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-17-2024 09:27 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  In the fwiw category: The new member agreements that Texas and Oklahoma made with the SEC were contingent in each case on the other school signing theirs.

You wonder if some difficult past experience lay behind the stipulation. Anyway, anyone can view the full text of these agreements via the links in the Primary Sources thread.

Which brings us to the topics of this thread. Two observations.

First: For all of us who speculate, there's the possibility that the NC Board of Governors could require a stipulation of this sort in any movement by NC State or UNC. It need not require that the two schools land a home in exactly the same conference. Terms could be crafted so that either of two leagues fills the need.

Second: While the example is not strictly analogous to, say, the text of a media deal, it's good to be reminded that publishing the full text of an agreement is something that conferences do.

Not much trust between OU and Texas LOL. Or perhaps it was to ensure that the SEC invited both regardless of any theoretical Gentleman's Agreements that were in effect? Probably the latter, and that could help to explain why the A&M BoR went from "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE" to "8-1".

The BoG in North Carolina isn't worried about getting NC St into the P2, they know that's not happening, and they don't want to destroy UNC's Athletics by keeping them tied down in the ACC indefinitely. They just want to ensure that NC St doesn't get treated like WSU/OSU, or even Stanford and Cal. A rebuilt ACC with Big 12-like financial resources would be fine, or a move to the Big 12 would also be fine for them. If they're really determined to help NC St out, their best play is to pass a rule that UNC and NC St must share all combined Conference payouts equally in perpetuity. UNC gets $100m and NC St gets $40m? They end up with $70m each, which is still a win compared to current ACC payouts. More likely is they just throw $5-10m a year Calimony payments onto UNC.

How can it be about something that never existed except as a promise that in future additions the rivals of Florida and South Carolina would not be excluded from nomination due to a renegotiation clause? Slive raised it and promised he would not prevent the nomination of FSU and Clemson by the presidents of Florida and South Carolina again. FSU twice being nominated for membership by Florida and Clemson once by South Carolina. I will object to a recitation of a Clay Travis myth which became ignorant internet gospel every time I see it. Texas is here and there was no blackball by Kentucky, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, or A&M.

As to the intent of the University System of North Carolina's statement I agree it more about making sure N.C. State doesn't lose revenue than requiring them to move with UNC should UNC move.

(04-21-2024 12:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-21-2024 12:02 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-17-2024 09:27 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  In the fwiw category: The new member agreements that Texas and Oklahoma made with the SEC were contingent in each case on the other school signing theirs.

You wonder if some difficult past experience lay behind the stipulation. Anyway, anyone can view the full text of these agreements via the links in the Primary Sources thread.

Which brings us to the topics of this thread. Two observations.

First: For all of us who speculate, there's the possibility that the NC Board of Governors could require a stipulation of this sort in any movement by NC State or UNC. It need not require that the two schools land a home in exactly the same conference. Terms could be crafted so that either of two leagues fills the need.

Second: While the example is not strictly analogous to, say, the text of a media deal, it's good to be reminded that publishing the full text of an agreement is something that conferences do.

Not much trust between OU and Texas LOL. Or perhaps it was to ensure that the SEC invited both regardless of any theoretical Gentleman's Agreements that were in effect? Probably the latter, and that could help to explain why the A&M BoR went from "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE" to "8-1".

The BoG in North Carolina isn't worried about getting NC St into the P2, they know that's not happening, and they don't want to destroy UNC's Athletics by keeping them tied down in the ACC indefinitely. They just want to ensure that NC St doesn't get treated like WSU/OSU, or even Stanford and Cal. A rebuilt ACC with Big 12-like financial resources would be fine, or a move to the Big 12 would also be fine for them. If they're really determined to help NC St out, their best play is to pass a rule that UNC and NC St must share all combined Conference payouts equally in perpetuity. UNC gets $100m and NC St gets $40m? They end up with $70m each, which is still a win compared to current ACC payouts. More likely is they just throw $5-10m a year Calimony payments onto UNC.

How can it be about something that never existed except as a promise that in future additions the rivals of Florida and South Carolina would not be excluded from nomination due to a renegotiation clause? Slive raised it and promised he would not prevent the nomination of FSU and Clemson by the presidents of Florida and South Carolina again. FSU twice being nominated for membership by Florida and Clemson once by South Carolina. I will object to a recitation of a Clay Travis myth which became ignorant internet gospel every time I see it. Texas is here and there was no blackball by Kentucky, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, or A&M.

As to the intent of the University System of North Carolina's statement I agree it more about making sure N.C. State doesn't lose revenue than requiring them to move with UNC should UNC move.

Doubtful.

Several years ago East Carolina had significant influence within the BOG. If that were to occur again or if Appalachian State were to gain too much influence the precedent would have been set to spread income to the institutions that were well represented in the BOG, not just NCSU.
This current bunch on the BOG is primarily concerned with finding a way to get State included in any call up to a P2.

(04-21-2024 07:55 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(04-21-2024 07:36 AM)Coato Wrote:  I guess I just can’t understand UVA being more desirable than Stanford.

1) Battle between the States. The SEC wanting to keep those damn yankees out of the South.

Then, 2) FB people lean conservative. Right or wrong, greater SF is perceived as an infested, whacked-out, decaying place. And greater DC as vibrant, growing, as well as stable and with deep-pockets, although technocrat-liberal.

However, Stanford could quickly fix their perception-problem. Cal-Berk, not likely.

Don't kid yourself. I tell people that Texas is about 2/3 A&M and 1/3 Berkeley, but they'll fit in just fine with the rest of the SEC b/c they're a big Brand. If Cal was a football powerhouse and revenue juggernaut, they'd be a perfect fit for the B1G, and if San Francisco was in central Texas but just as liberal as it is today then this theoretical version of Cal would be invited to the SEC. Even the SEC Presidents love hobnobbing with cream of the Academic crop. Let's look at the current 14 SEC Presidents:

Auburn President: career Academic
A&M President: retired Air Force Chief of Staff
Alabama President: career Academic (and an Aggie)
Arkansas President: career Academic
LSU President: career Academic
Ole Miss: career Academic, former commissioner of higher education for state of Miss
Ms St: mix of career Academic and Political figure, was an undersecretary of Agriculture in the Obama Administration and also a congressional staffer for 17 years, and was a professor for 14 years as well
Georgia: Asst US Attorney in the 80s, since then he's been an Academic
Tennessee: Very successful business who decided to give back in his later years
Vanderbilt: career Academic
Kentucky: career Academic
Florida: retired US Senator, but he was a professor at Texas and President of Midland College for 4 years before spending 8 years in the Senate.
South Carolina: career Academic
Missouri: career Academic

So, 10 of the 14 are fully career Academics, with one former Senator, one successful Businessman, one Air Force General, and one that's a healthy mix of Academics and politics at MS St. None of those 14 are going to say "Cal-Berkeley is in a liberal area, we're not interested" if that liberal area is in Texas or Florida and that school brings the Bacon. If anything, they might want this hypothetical Cal-Berkeley even more b/c it would help to expand the SEC in new and interesting ways. We no longer have the luxury of sticking solely to the SE and solely to very Conservative institutions. The only ones left that could reasonably fit that description are VT and Clemson, and, while I personally would be extremely happy with both of them, there are a lot of moving pieces in realignment these days, and our opponent is Nationwide.

(04-21-2024 08:12 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  

(04-21-2024 07:36 AM)Coato Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 10:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well it all depends on how many schools the P2 want and what Notre Dame does.
Order of desirability by the P2 (not necessarily desired by both). I think only the first 4 pay for themselves. I know several reporters have said UNC is #2 after Notre Dame and maybe some presidents feel that way, but ESPN and Fox will straighten them out on that.
1 Notre Dame
2 FSU
3 Clemson

4-5 Miami
4-5 North Carolina

6-8 UVA
6-8 NCSU
6-8 Virginia Tech

9-14 Stanford
9-14 California
9-14 Colorado
9-14 Kansas
9-14 Arizona St.
9-14 Arizona

Tie 15-Everybody else in the M2

Fox and ESPN would have a different list, but after #5, the difference is probably immaterial so conference preferences will take priority.

It seems that Stanford has more money, more fans, more success in football, more academic cachet and comes from a wealthier area than UVA. Cal too, really. The argument made against them is that the Bay Area isn’t into college football, without conceding Virginia and North Carolina also aren’t. I guess I just can’t understand UVA being more desirable than Stanford.

Virginia Tech puts 66k into the seats each Saturday even though they've been down for some time. That's better than anything Cal or Stanford would offer if they had a national championship level team.

Virginia cares about college football, but VT is definitely big brother when it comes to college football in the Commonwealth.

I'll admit, I think it would be awesome to add them to the SEC, though I may be a bit biased in this discussion.

(04-21-2024 09:49 AM)Redwood86 Wrote:  Just a note on point 2, I think anyone in CFB would aware that:

Stanford is a conservative institution. That actually limits its ability to be adopted as a community team.

UC Berkeley the institution and Cal the football team have vastly different cultures. The football team was (up until the last decade) one of the last west coast schools to move away from prop-48 / partial qualifiers. They were taking prop 48s like Russell White that even USC wouldn’t touch, which continued through guys like DeSean Jackson and Marshawn Lynch that UCLA couldn’t admit (not that they would have automatically gotten them if they did of course). Tosh Lupoi got fired by UW for same things everyone knew he was doing at Cal. I believe a lot of the players on those 2000-2010 teams were enrolled in a “Art Practice” major—but that might be an urban legend. Their AD is from Air Force and they have all kinds of “old school” coaches throughout their AD. They have been far more “limber” than UCLA since the Handicapped Parking scandal in the ways that a good football program needs to be. They just hired a bad coach and were the biggest loser of the schedule changes (had to play Oregon, Stanford and Washington during top ten eras every year in the North plus USC and UCLA because of conference/state politics).

Anyway, just a note on your #2. People outside the WC really miss the boat on Cal’s program identity in particular, they have always been closer to Oregon or Arizona than Stanford or UCLA (Washington has been top 3 on either end of the spectrum in the past 30 years so they are harder to place) on the “selective blindness” scale that good FB programs all have.

Not sure what you mean about Stanford being a conservative institution limiting its ability to be adopted as a community team. Please elaborate.

As for Cal, there is little to indicate that they have recruited "Prop 48" types in the last 15 years.
[/quote]

From the rest of my response I hope it is clear I meant conservative about allowing the football program to live on the edge of the permissible, where all the top programs are, not politically. Though they are a better fit politically with Silicon Valley than SF and Oakland.

They take pride in being a small community and are really careful about protecting their exclusive image, and clamp down immediately on anything remotely “off message”. See the suspending of mascot and band. Even when they had top national talents like Luck and McCaffrey they never tried as hard as other programs did to elevate them, if it took the focus off the school. They are never going to have a charismatic, open team that people not connected to the school can relate to because they are to careful about being exclusive and not tarnishing their academic branding.