Pac-10 Expansion Scenarios: Will The Conference Play, Or Get Played?
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 7, 2010 2:20 AM PDT
in California Golden Bears Football
Email
Print"This game is rigged man. We like them little bitches on the chessboard."
"Pawns."
In many ways, the conference expansion talk that's been flying around all spring reminds me of the streets of Baltimore in The Wire. Everyone is aiming to game the BCS by garnering more conference power when they should be focused on building the logical solution, a college football playoff (check out Dan Wetzel's excellent column at Yahoo for more on this). But the game is the game, and no one seems ready to escape it.
The Pac-10 can play the game by providing its teams with better revenue and its fans with maximum television coverage to boost their product, although it would sacrifice the things that made the conference unique to begin with. Or they can choose not to play, letting the other major conferences surge ahead with better television and bowl deals, and be satisfied with traditions that have worked for over a century until people come up with real solutions to real problems. Or just shine up shit and call it gold.
For a long time during the Tom Hansen era, the Pac-10 chose not to play. The result? They languished and were marginalized for the past decade in the eyes of fans and media outside the West Coast when the SEC rose up and the Big 10 and Big 12 surged ahead.
Well, now they're coming to play. Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott had everyone buzzing last week with the bold Pac-16 rumors. With the greenlight from the school chancellors and presidents, the game is set to begin. He laid out the likeliest scenarios going into the weekend.
Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott laid out a host of expansion scenarios to athletic directors on Friday, the first day of conference meetings here. They range from a full merger with the Big 12; to merging with six current Big 12 schools, including Texas; to adding Colorado and Utah; to the status quo, according to one athletic director.
After the jump, a breakdown of the four scenarios above. What do you think will end up happening? Sound off in the comments and vote in the poll for what will end up happening!
Scenario 1: Full or near-total merger with the Big 12
Wire quote that best describes this scenario (WARNING: for those who want the Wire unspoiled for them, don't click on the links): "Sheeeeeeeeeiit."
Analysis: Chaos. A Pac-16 is tough enough to picture, but an 18 to 22 team conference? You might as well install an FA Cup-style playoff along with the regular season to determine who gets the prize. There's no logical way to extrapolate who the best team in a conference where teams only play half the teams in the conference. It's excess for the sake of excess, a money grab with only one intention--to send the winner of the conference championship to the BCS title game.
I wouldn't be surprised if Scott is just throwing smoke out there to convince teams to accept the lesser offer (in economics, it's called the compromise effect--putting out a bolder alternative so he gets people thinking about the middle choice). Even Clay Davis would think this is highway robbery.
Probability: Snowball's chance in hell. Let's move onto the three real scenarios in play.
Scenario 2: The Super 16
Wire quote that best describes this scenario: "The game the same. Just got more fierce."
Analysis: We discussed most of it on Friday, but this is ideal financially for all parties. The Pac-10 wins. The Pac-10 teams win. The TV networks win. The only big losers would seem to be the Arizona schools, who would have to tango with Texas and Oklahoma rather than USC--twice the trouble for twenty million.
Will it happen? All it takes is one bad apple to muck things up (as Scootie points out in this fine comment), and there are plenty of candidates here for ruining this fantastical scenario. Texas A&M dragging their heels. Baylor (really, BAYLOR?) dragging the politicians in. Texas schools being just as interested in the Big Ten as they are the Pac-10 (and in the end Texas is the golden apple the Pac-10 is chasing in this deal). Nebraska's recalcitrance to make any decision of any sort (although a ruling might come later this week, so strap in).
However, there are alternatives if the original six invites decline, like poaching Utah from the Mountain West to take A&M's spot. So even if some teams back out, the deal does not die.
Probability: 25% Too many teams have to coalesce and think ambitiously, and we all know how hard it is for groups to go for the aggressive play rather than take the traditional route. I do feel it could happen though, simply because there is a substitute (Utah) who could come in and take the place of other less willing partners.
Scenario 3: The Pac-12
Wire quote that best describes this scenario: "The king stay the king."
The natural order sustains itself--a little more conference street cred, but USC is still the main hustler. Colorado has been in the doldrums for the past few years; it'll be more than awhile before they dig themselves out. Utah, on the other hand, is a very good team that has shown the ability to beat middling Pac-10 opponents and has posted several undefeated BCS seasons coming out of the MWC. However, expecting them to be the lead challenger to the Trojans and the Oregon schools is asking a lot. They won't be playing with the puppies anymore.
At least a quarter of the teams get off the hook for playing USC, but they also lose the ticket and TV revenue from participating in their national telecasts. It's unclear how divisions would break themselves up.
Utah and Colorado alters the dynamic slightly, but not as dramatically as scenario 2.
Probability: 45%. Although the least dramatic of the three possible changes, commissioners and chancellors are a stodgy bunch and will probably shrink from taking on too many teams. It's the most practical of all scenarios while at the same time being the least groundbreaking. The Utes and the Buffaloes make the most sense geographically, they provide athletic and academic tradition, and their inclusion doesn't make people think too much. Logical enough.
Scenario 4: The Pac-10 lives on
Wire quote that best describes this scenario: "The game is rigged. But you cannot lose if you do not play."
Nothing changes. We have our round robin system. We have our automatic Rose Bowl berth. We get slightly better-looking TV contracts by doing something interesting like a conference championship game. In other words, we choose not to play the games the rest of the conferences play and we pray that one day everyone will sit together and make a playoff happen.
Probability: 30%. It's not likely things will stay the way they are. Oh, we might stay the Pac-10 for a few more years, but the writing is on the wall. Scott has been looking for ways to market his conference on a more prominent level, and staying as the Pac-10 will not help him achieve any of these goals.
The only way the Pac-10 remains inert is if the commissioners of the conferences in question stick up hard and fast for their conference. That the need for a playoff would solve all the revenue problems rather than conference expansion. Build something that'll last and provide meaningful value for everyone involved.
Until then, we're just going to be sticking our hand in the next guy's pocket. "All in the game, yo."
108 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Actually, I take that back. #1 is the least likely to happen. #3 is the second least likely to happen.
I think 2’s should be greater than 4:
Scott spoke following the conclusion of the conference meetings in San Francisco on Sunday. Earlier in the day, he addressed the chancellors and presidents about possible expansion and was given authority to move ahead without having to go back to the board for approval.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Another option that I think is quite possible: stay the same, but form a partnership with the Big 12 on a joint TV deal, including a new cable network. Maybe even agree to play a series of non-conference games between the two leagues (already happening in basketball), to get the new network off the ground running.
Both conferences have been getting the shaft on TV coverage in recent years (thanks, FSN) and would see a mutual benefit from joining forces and dominating all CFB media west of the Mississippi.
Why would the Big 12 do that?
They have the biggest money maker (Texas) and could make a killing on their own deal. When you add in that Texas is looking to form their own lucrative UT network, the Big 12 has no need to partner up with the Pac-10. It doesn’t help that the Pac-10 is circling the Big 12 waiting for it to die right now, either.
If the Big 12 could make a killing on their own deal already, why haven’t they? The Fox Sports TV deals expiring is the reason for making the move now — both conferences have had crummy arrangements and are looking to improve them.
Texas wants their own network, but that seems a bit far-fetched at the moment. It would be hard to do that and also stay within whatever conference they are in, plus they’d probably be screwing the rest of the conference in trying to negotiate a better TV deal (if Texas’ games are on a separate channel, that hurts the conference’s bargaining power).
It seems to me that the situation is as follows:
1. Texas wants its own channel.
2. The BigXII probably would not be too pleased about that as it would hinder their ability to negotiate for a BigXII channel.
3. If Texas drops its attempts to get a channel, it has a choice between sticking (perhaps) with the BigXII or creating the BigPac. A BigPac channel is worth more than a BigXII channel, most likely.
So, if Texas’ best case scenario no longer exists, it might want to take the least worst, which would be the BigPac channel.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Not sure how credible these are, but it’s on teh sb*nationdotcom thingy——————————————————————————————→
http://www.sbnation.com/2010/6/7/1505213/pac-10-expansion-invite-big-12-larry-scott
http://twitter.com/ChipBrownOB/status/15634736553
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Here is a key paragraph:
Meanwhile, it wouldn’t be surprising if Nebraska and Missouri’s deadline for deciding whether they want to remain in the Big 12 gets moved up, given how quickly the Pac-10 has pounced on the other half of the league. Texas is rumored to want to keep the Big 12 together in its current form (or at least with Nebraska, if not Missouri) because the Longhorns have designs on their own television network that they wouldn’t have to share with anyone else; if they accepted an invitation from the Pac-10, they would have to split revenues in the league’s proposed television network.
The deadline on Neb/Mizz could get moved up. This is getting very interesting.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
You got scenario #1 wrong
In the “total merger” scenario, the discussion has revolved around the Pac 10 and Big 12, as separate conferences, joining together only for TV contract purposes. In other words, the two conferences, as separate entities with separate champions and such, would form a Pac10/Big12 TV network and share that revenue, or band together to strike a joint deal with Fox Sports. They’re not considering forming a 22-team conference.
Hey, welcome to CGB, lawduckfan. It is really good to see your thoughts on this and we appreciate the information. Hope to see you posting around here more!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Don’t lie.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jun 7, 2010 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The Pac-16 and Payouts
Someone at burntorangenation crunched the numbers to figure out how much a Pac-16 Network would generate.
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/6/6/1504426/pac-16-network-rough-calculations
His result is A LOT!
Even if you disagree with the low end numbers with the worst possible payout, the Pac-16N values are still 15% higher than the Big 12 TOTAL TV deal average payout of approximately 8.5M. This is the reason why the Pac-10 and the Big12 teams are so hot on this deal. The rough estimations of 20M payout per schools from the conference is a legit number and could very possibly be on the low side.
This morning, I heard a short sound bite on Columbus radio suggesting that Texas isn’t really that serious about the BigPac 16 thing and is just probably posturing (presumably to keep the Big 12 together and/or pursue its own TV deal). The quote was, “if Texas were really interested in leaving, the Big1 T1en would clearly be the best option.”
Really? Numbers like this, combined with these circumstances, make me think otherwise: (1) Texas can take 5 other Big 12 South schools with them to the BigPac 16, (2) the 5 Big 12 schools can maintain some traditional rivalries and keep some of the travel costs down in the process, and (3) the Pac-10 has some very attractive TV markets.
I’d be interested in an analysis as to how “Texas to the Big1T1en” is a better option for Texas.
Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.
The scuttlebutt I’ve heard is that Texas is less enthused about the Big Ten than the Pac-10, if it comes time to move. It makes more sense for them geographically anyway — they’d get to keep their rivalries with Oklahoma and other Texas schools, and culturally they’re a better fit with the Arizona schools than the midwest schools of the Big Ten.
if Texas were really interested in leaving, the Big1 T1en would clearly be the best option
I predict strongly that he does not have anything more to back this statement up than the general appreciation that the Big 10 is the best and Pac10 sucks and woooooooooooooooooooooOoooooooOOooo big10 go!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Its amazing to watch the egotism and egocentrism of Big-10 fans on other boards. Prior to the Pac-10’s plan coming to fruition they were talking about how the Pac-10 is a good academic conference, and how they have great all-around athletics. Then, the possibility of Texas and the Pac-10 emerges, and they go apeshit. Absolutely Apeshit. I’ve seen three or four 3,000 word comments slamming the Pac-10’s academics, and slamming Pac-10 athletics. They say Texas is making a huge mistake, and that 16 is too big, and will inevitably fail. They began claiming how this is all Jim Delaney’s maneuvering and how Larry Scott is his pawn, which will inevitably force ND into the Big-10.
The fragility of their ego is simply amazing. Someone doesn’t want to be in your Big-10 Network, big deal, get over Big-10 country. By the way, you don’t have an advantage in athletics, and the academics aren’t all that much better. You simply have a better lower end.
Well, if you’ve read the Wetzel column, it basically IS Jim Delaney’s maneuvering.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 7, 2010 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Something must be working
Agreed Chowder, these types of emotional and illogical reactions clearly have the BigTeleven freaked out. That can only mean that they recognize (perhaps unconsciously) that this plan has serious legs and could actually threaten their standing as the super conference they are trying to build.
by PlayClassyBears on Jun 7, 2010 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, when you live in cold, craphole rust belt states, you have to try real hard to inflate your own ego, because the truth hurts. Let’s see, would Texas rather join Seattle, San Francisco, LA, and Phoenix, or Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Jun 7, 2010 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions
It’s not even those cities. It’s cities like Columbus, East Lansing, West Lafayette, Bloomington, Iowa City…. At least Chicago, Madison, and Minneapolis and Ann Arbor are okay places to be, but that still doesn’t compare in total with the Pac-10 cities.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 7, 2010 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Chicago is their only prime asset. All the rest are unremarkable.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Jun 7, 2010 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Right. My point was that many of the Big 10 schools aren’t even in places Detroit, Cleveland, and Milwaukee. They’re in cities even smaller and less consequential than that. Though, like I said, Ann Arbor is probably a nicer place to be than Detroit.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 7, 2010 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions
I know most of these schools are technically not located in the city limits proper, but I was just referring to the larger metropolitan areas that they’re a part of.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Jun 7, 2010 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions
After thinking about it for a weekend...
… I’m slightly optimistic for the Pac-16 with the West (Pac-8) and East (Big-12 South + Zona) divisions.
In other words, Go Bears!
Baylor over Colorado? Please please no.
I don’t put much stock in HuffPo, but it makes sense that Texas would push for some last minute power grab, but lets hope the Pac-10 remains resolute.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/07/pac-10-expansion-reports_n_602970.html
Like I said above, it’s not the best scenario, but I don’t think Larry Scott wants the Pac10 expansion to get hung up over the Baylor-Colorado question. Sure, Colorado would probably be much better, but sometimes compromises have to be made. We’ll see.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I dont view those as compromises per se. Especially not Oklhoma!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
In terms of pure athletics, while Baylor would be bad for football (unless we just want to add another patsy to rival WSU), they’re actually pretty good at a lot of other sports, like men’s & women’s basketball, baseball, etc. As an athletic program, not a bad addition.
However, it’s obvious that Colorado is far better when it comes to fan base and TV markets.
Let’s be clear about something. This is not Texas’ fault. They want to leave behind Baylor as much as we don’t want Baylor, they are tired of Baylor cutting into their revenue stream. Particularly, since the state government is reducing funding to public schools. This is Baylor alums using political connections to force Texas to take Baylor. Fact is, nobody in the original Pac-16 wants Baylor, nobody likes Baylor, everyone wishes Baylor would just resign to Conference USA.
Makes us look rather two-faced on the BYU issue, i.e. no religiously affiliated schools, when we pick up Baylor.
I suppose, if you frame it that way....
…..but in actuality you’ve completely missed the point. BYU would have been added years ago if they were willing to play on Sunday. Does Baylor play on Sunday? Yes. Case closed.
Wow, “case closed?” Really? That’s rich. Why not “BLAMMO!”? What are you, Horatio Caine from CSI Miami?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sarYH0z948
The “not playing on Sunday” thing is the oft-cited excuse for not giving BYU consideration. Somehow, the MWC makes it work. I’m sure if Texas decided they wouldn’t play on Sunday we wouldn’t bat an eye in adding them.
Are you Mormon (Remember: You can’t lie if you are)?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I’m not sure if it’s the religious affiliation that is the problem (though it may be for some) as much as the fact that BYU is not a major research institution, and for the Pac-10, schools have always been careful about who they associate with.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Maybe...but....
I agree totally. But that rule is obviously flexible when tradition (OSU, WSU) or money (TTU, Okla, OKST) is involved. And we did give serious consideration to Utah as well. None of those are major research schools (none are in the AAU). Also, we’d turn Colorado (AAU memeber) for Baylor (a non AAU member). So, obviously the academic prestige rule isn’t what’s driving the Pac-10 expansion decisions, at least not en toto. I think there’s obviously something more at play when it comes to BYU.
I’m ok with a broad rule of “no religious schools” – that’s arguably antithetical to the Pac-10’s image of a conference of premiere public institutions. I do object, however to rejecting BYU on such grounds, while simultaneously taking a Baptist school. Particularly one that is so so so much worse than BYU in football.
I think Texas (the state, not the university) is bluffing. If they’d walk on A&M, the’d certainly bail on Baylor.
by Glanko on Jun 7, 2010 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
rec’d for “Bail on Baylor”
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 7, 2010 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions
uhh being an ‘AAU member’ has nothing to do with academic prestige
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Nothing to do with academic prestige? I assume you’re being sarcastic.
Princeton, UChicago, Cal, Stanford, USC, Texas, Harvard, Yale, Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Oregon, A&M, UNC, Rice, Johns Hopkins, Pitt, Washington, MIT, Penn, Caltech, Michigan, UVA, Carnegie Mellon, Colorado…
…all AAU members. I’m sure we can play the self esteem game and say that every little university is academically prestigious in their own special way, but let’s face it, these are the heavy hitter research universities.
That
Oregon
is even mentioned academically with those other world-class institutions proves my point.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Proves your point? Ok man, you win. Your football rivalry with Oregon must mean that the school has terrible academics. And the AAU is a meaningless designation (btw, Cal, Stanford and the Ivy League were the founding members, and the Berdahl is the president)
Oregon’s a fine school and I’m sure they have some excellent programs but I don’t think anyone will mistake it with MIT or Columbia.
My only point w/ the AAU designation is that doesn’t serve as a have/have not.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
UCSB, Iowa State, and Stonybrook University all strongly resent your implication.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 7, 2010 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Baylor’s actually a very good, some would say excellent, research university.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
According to US News (I’m not a huge fan of their rankings, but at least they rank everyone, which hardly anyone else seems to do), their academics are virtually indistinguishable from Colorado’s. The problem with Baylor is they bring nothing to the table, money-wise, while Colorado brings the Colorado market for TV, which is all that really mattes when you are talking money.
I think you are confusing undergraduate ranking with research university juice. I mean, Amherst and Swarthmore are great, but they’re not smashing atoms like we are.
Smashing what now?
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 9, 2010 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
US News breaks it down into Proper Universities (with PhDs and research and good stuff), into which Baylor falls along with the rest of the schools in question, and a more regional category, where they may have some masters programs, but are basically the Swarthmores and Villanovas of the world (ie good undergrad, but that’s it). The categories are not ranked against each other.
All Options Suck
Somewhere along the line, our beloved college football has mutated into something very ugly. “Student athletes” are now actually just underpaid semi-pros, renting out their services on the way to the NFL while schools sell their academic souls whoring themselves out to make a buck (or 20 million).
College football doesn’t need a playoff or the BCS, and we sure don’t need mega-conferences that shred all logic and regional rivalry. The Pac-10 already has the right model — 10 regionally related teams that all have to play every other team every single year. Being a conference member actually means something in the Pac-10, unlike the Big-12, Big 10(1) and SEC, in which schools may go years between match-ups and schedules get padded with patsies that dilute competitiveness and quality. Last year’s Florida vs. Charleston Southern game had all the suspense of an execution. None. We knew exactly what the outcome would be, and that it wouldn’t end well for the condemned, errrr, Charleston Southern team.
Why do we need so badly to be able to point to one college football team and say they’re the national champs? What the heck is wrong with the winner of the Pac-10 playing the winner of the Big 10 in Pasadena? Wouldn’t it be nice to have that tradition restored?
Football ain’t like other sports. It takes a tremendous physical toll on the kids, and the timing of the season already interferes with fall finals at most schools. Add a playoff and it just gets that much worse. Add a bunch of schools more than a thousand miles away, and even travel becomes a big time waster. Hell, the NCAA ought to pass a rule saying that travel time comes out of the hours every school has for practice each week. It has nothing to do with competition, but taking care of the kids who are supposed to be getting a friggin’ education — not jetting all around the country from week to week to earn multi-million dollar paydays for their programs.
We’re ruining college sports with our selfish desire to be entertained no matter what the moral and spiritual cost to academic institutions and student athletes. I, for one, would be very happy to go back to the good old days of meaningful bowl rivalries.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I disagree with the academic end of things. All college football players either don’t care about school, major in essentially the easiest thing they can possibly do, or find someway to make it work (see Alex Mack). They can study on airplanes or in hotel rooms just as easily, if not easier, than when they’re home. They know what they sign up for.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I have to disagree, carp. I think you will always be able to find football players that don’t care about academics…but a great many most certainly do. Some even choose academics over greater potential aspirations. Their GPAs aren’t in the 3.9s mostly because they commit 40 hours a week to football and conditioning. You can think of that like a full-time job (which pays through scholarship and housing). Most kids with a full-time job would have a helluva difficult time keeping a 3.9 let alone a 3.0. And there are FB players who still manage to do that. Some majors are basically off-limits by virtue of timing—the sciences and engineering are particularly difficult to schedule around due to labs, but some still manage to do it. And even choose careers in the NFL over it! (see Joe Igber).
So to say that All CFB don’t care about school is a bit of an over-statement. I do think however that most young people will choose a playoff over chance to study for finals though. But then again WHO WOULDN"T!!!??
by PlayClassyBears on Jun 7, 2010 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions
He didn’t say “all CFB don’t care about school”. He said that some do, and some don’t. The ones that do will find a way to make it work.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 7, 2010 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh I guess he did, but it just felt like the implication was that finals being impacted shouldn’t matter because they’re football players. Kinda feel like most people would feel that way. Anyways…academics is and should be important. And some coaches and players ACTUALLY adhere to that (at Cal anyways).
by PlayClassyBears on Jun 7, 2010 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Some majors are basically off-limits by virtue of timing—the sciences and engineering are particularly difficult to schedule around due to labs, but some still manage to do it. And even choose careers in the NFL over it! (see Joe Igber).
This happened to me…science or baseball…I picked science.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
If you want purity, then cut all scholarships, make all athletes gain acceptance to the particular university that they’re interested in attending with the general applicant pool, make them try out for a team, and then reward those that make the team with a scholarship/stipend.
Of course, this would force the NFL to make a minor league system, as kids with poor GPA’s won’t make it to college. It would also drop the quality of college football, but some would say that’s OK. Baseball, for example, is doing just fine this way (although I do believe half the players on the team are on scholarships).
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Your idea has merit.
The NFL should have a minor league system just like baseball. One certainly doesn’t need a degree to play football. That should be completely separate from college athletics.
The NCAA should have true student athletes who gain admittance to their respective schools based on an even playing field with other students. It’s an outrage that (not calling anyone out) some kid who normally wouldn’t have any shot at getting into Cal makes it just because he can run over tacklers or rocket past DBs. I love seeing those plays as much as anyone else, but there’s a major disconnect isn’t there, when we pretend Cal is some sacred institution of higher learning while simultaneously cheering for kids who could just as easily be at U$C.
Follow a certain chatty former Golden Bear on Twitter and you’ll quickly give up any misconception that somehow being at Cal for a few years transforms star players into educated gentlemen ready to contribute anything more to society than breath-taking highlights and inflammatory quotes in broken English.
If we accept the status quo of serious student athletes overcoming serious challenges to their academic success while everyone else skates by with BS classes and compliant professors, then WE’RE the problem. We ought to own that, and just start paying the players to represent our schools. The scholarship, even with room and board, isn’t sufficient for what they endure and the revenue they generate. And while they have health insurance, they don’t have workers’ comp like pro players do. They should have that so they can receive the lifetime medical coverage and loss of earning indemnification they deserve as EMPLOYEES who sustain permanent disability that may not become noticeable for a decade or two.
If we’re going to pimp out our kids, let’s just be honest about it.
What about the other 94% of D1 collegiate players that won’t go pro? For many/most, athletic scholarships are their only chance of higher education.
You know that great player you always thought was underrated and never got drafted? It’s possible they are teaching middle school, are going after their grad degrees, balancing Company A’s books, or many other things because they were able to get a good education.
But if you get that scholarship, you also better earn it. A university doesn’t exactly take these kids to get a coin, but they do help offset the cost. The school will get their scholarship money one way or another, for them – it’s through advertisement and merchandise from athletics. Besides, very few colleges actually make profit from their athletic programs and ff an athletic program, for sake of example, football, actually does make money – it helps the other athletic programs.
Yes, football and basketball are now a part of a huge media giant. But the universities are hardly the biggest profiteers of this. Disney (ABC/ESPN), CBS, News Corp (Fox) are the ones that make most of the money. Creating a larger money flow for the universities, in my opinion, is a good thing for the other 94% of student athletes.
it’s spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-A-L-I-T-T-L-E-H-O-S-T-I-L-E"
Somewhere along the line
I think this happened during the Roosevelt Administration. The FIRST Roosevelt Administration.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Hi all, I’m still a relatively new member here, and I haven’t commented much, but this college football arms race has been very entertaining so far. If the Pac-16 were formed, I really hope we take Colorado. They just seemed to really want to be a part of the Pac-10 when these expansion talks began, and it might be because they’re a good cultural fit with the existing Pac-10 schools (so I’ve heard at least). It’s also hard to overlook that they will bring a large market. As much as I want CU, I also really don’t want Baylor. Texas, TTU, and A&M already bring the Texas market and Baylor is essentially a redundant addition that prevents us from tapping another area, like Utah or Colorado.
Also, we don’t need another Bears team in the Pac. That’s OUR thing! If we admit Baylor, I suggest a mascot renaming competition for them as a condition. Is that so much to ask? Anyways, thank you CGB for your coverage of Expandageddon 2010 and for your excellent Cal sports coverage in general.
by bearea51 on Jun 7, 2010 3:46 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
1. I never thought about the double Bears thing. Good point. AND a Bruin?
2. I don’t see a lot of hustle out of Colorado. You’d think their AD and President (hell, their Governor) would be making a case to Larry Scott in light of recent Baylor developments. I saw a poll on Denver’s CBS affiliate (Channel 4) I believe where 52 percent of respondents didn’t want to join the Pac-10. Show a little love, Colorado, maybe get a little love.
That poll is interesting. Everything I’ve seen says that Colorado desperately wants to be a part of the Pac-10, but in being apart of the Pac-10, not tossed in with Texas and Oklahoma in a Southwest division. I think there is a huge difference in opinion among Buffalo fans between being in a Pac-12 (Colorado & Utah) and a Pac-16 (with the rumored schools).
Great point. I haven’t seen the poll yet, but I wonder how much of those opinions are influenced by the Pac-16 scenario, where Colorado will basically be sent to the Big XII south and where many feel it will be a lot more difficult to be competitive in a division where you compete more regularly with Texas and OU. Would opinions be different if the prevailing notion is that Colorado would be a part of the Pac-12, like they originally believed, where competition will be “easier” and fans have a chance to watch their teams play against new teams in new, attractive locations more frequently.
I can sympathize, though. If I were leaving the Big XII, just to be lumped back together with the Big XII (and the better teams in the Big XII, at that), I probably wouldn’t see much of a point in leaving.
They may be losing upwards of $20 million by being left out, so I would expect the AD or president at Colorado to make a ruckus. Maybe general opinions will change greatly following the Big XII ultimatum, if that really does amount to anything more than just an empty threat.
I was talking to a Colorado undergrad the other day (no cougar, I swear, he’s the kid of a friend!) and he said amongst his friends, they are uniformly pro-Pac10. I asked him about this Pac16 proposal, and he said while it feels like they’re getting a bit screwed because they won’t escape the Big12 guys, they’re still pro. Granted, these are just students, and not alums/Denver natives etc. but I thought it was interesting.
Also, apparently the Buffs have already sold their entire allocation of tickets for the Cal game this year!
It's always about freakin' Notre Dame
The Big Ten is apparently telling Notre Dame if the Irish turn down the invitation, the Big Ten could expand by five schools to go to 16. The fear on Notre Dame’s part, and the reason officials are considering the bid carefully, is because officials fear four, 16-team conferences could emerge, and Notre Dame could be left out, sources said.
I love it, actually.
I hate Notre Dame, and it’s about time someone pushed them around and got them to comply and play by the same rules.
it’s spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-A-L-I-T-T-L-E-H-O-S-T-I-L-E"
Yeah I do too. As I said in a previous comment posting, ND finally gets it’s due. SCREW THEM the bastards! They’ve jacked football up for years and now they pay!
by PlayClassyBears on Jun 7, 2010 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions
SBNation has information regarding private emails in the Baylor Administration. Seems like they might be succeeding.
“My guess is that Colorado hasn’t taken enough broadside hits to sink their boat yet and they may well be on the invite list,” Jones said. “I hope I’m wrong. But there’s still time left to change the scoreboard. We aren’t through.”
Another e-mail from Jones urged the alums in the Legislature to call key officials at Texas, A&M and Tech. It provided talking points about why those schools should throw their weight behind Baylor instead of Colorado.
In a subsequent e-mail he wrote of the importance of legislative involvement.
“It is imperative that whatever happens the four Texas schools (and hopefully OU and OSU) agree to stick together,” Jones wrote.
“United we stand. And the three public Universities you all are contacting understand the importance of an issue that touches 20 of their bosses in the Legislature.”
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
general feeling of UTexas blogs and forums
they hoping PAC-10 would take a firm stand of wanting Colorado instead of Baylor, instead of the general “as long as we get Texas, we are ok who comes along”.
Having such attitude does not give them enough reason to block the Baylor to the PAC-10 lobbyists
Irrational Decision Making 101
The more I think about this, and the more I read about the Baylor alums, the angrier I get. The sheer arrogance of the Texas teams to think they can strongarm the Pac-10. I mean, really, the Pac-10 is holding all the cards here. If Texas wants to make tons of money, and still maintain its rivalry with OK , Tech and A&M, we’re their only option. The SEC can’t accomodate 6 more teams (four at most) so once again Baylor would get dumped, prob OkSt too. Out of the major conferences, we can accommodate the most teams of the Big 12, and they should realize that and be thankful.
Second, this whole Texas wrangling has soured me on the whole Pac-16 idea altogether. Maybe we should just invite Colorado and Utah and call it a day. Texas would come groveling back anyway once they realize they cant jam 6 more teams into the SEC or Big 10-11-12-13.
Does Scott even have the power to invite Baylor?
I strongly doubt that the various university presidents gave Scott carte blanche to invite whatever school he came across (like Boise State or SDSU). I think it was that he told them of his plan, tendered a list to them, and they said “yeah, those schools are fine.” I’m also betting that Baylor was not on that list. What this means is even if the TX Legislature brings a lot of heat, Scott has no choice but to stand firm, because Baylor would get vetoed so fast by Stanford and maybe Cal.
Also, an interesting conspiracy theory I heard was that this Baylor solidarity was designed to purposefully sabotage the Pac-16 deal so as to keep the Big 12 together. Interesting theory, but seems like a lot more work than just saying “No thanks, not interested.”
According to Scott, Baylor is not on the list of teams that he can invite.
Also, Baylor seems to be shifting into Save the Big XII mode.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Sounds like their plans are failing and they are trying to stop everything. You think they’re fucked?
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
My question is thus:
Assume Notre Dame goes Big 10, leaving Mizz and Nebraska out. The Big 12 can hobble along a little longer. Does this mean Colorado would reject a Pac-10 offer?
Good question. I don’t think the Big-12 loses as much if CO goes than if Mizzou and Nebraska go. If they knew what was good for them they would invite TCU (further solidifying their power and moving towards a Texas-state domination) Which I bet would only work in favor of UT’s All-Texas network bid.
by PlayClassyBears on Jun 8, 2010 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Show a little love, Colorado!
Another poll regarding what Colorado should do. Only 38 percent favor joining the Pac-10. WTF? C’mon CU, you’re starting to piss us off over here.
http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_15256185?_requestid=3461573
Big 12 is no more
Chip Brown is reporting that UT AD is telling assembled coaches that Big 12 is dunzo. Looks like their headed west.
Also, it seems CO is in and Baylor is out.
I guess we should be celebrating.
Sent from YOUR Blackberry
by Glanko on Jun 9, 2010 4:16 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
GoldenBlogs' FAQ and Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
About Us
• About the Golden Bloggers
• Our previous site @ Blogsome
• Avinash @ Bears Necessity
• Best of the Golden Blogs
• Golden Blogs Interviews
• HydroTech's Cal Football Analyses
• Ron Fimrite's Anatomy Of A Miracle
• CGB Weekly Guides
• GoldenBlogs' Community Guidelines
• GoldenBlogs' FAQ
• CGB GIF Army
Learn More About The California Golden Blogs Clothing Store
Pac-12 On SBN
Pacific Takes (Pac-12) NORTH AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)
UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)
CougCenter: (Washington State)
BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)
Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)
SOUTH
BruinsNation: (UCLA)
ConquestChronicles: (USC)
HouseOfSparky: (ASU)
Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)
TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)
Block U: (Utah)
Golden Bears Football Schedule
| Fresno St. | Sat 09/03 | W 36 - 21 |
@
Colorado
|
Sat 09/10 | W 36 - 33 |
| Presbyterian | Sat 09/17 | W 63 - 12 |
|
@
Washington
|
Sat 09/24 | L 23 - 31 |
|
@
Oregon
|
Thu 10/06 | L 15 - 43 |
|
USC
|
Thu 10/13 | L 9 - 30 |
|
Utah
|
Sat 10/22 | W 34 - 10 |
|
@
UCLA
|
Sat 10/29 | L 14 - 31 |
|
Washington St.
|
Sat 11/05 | W 30 - 7 |
|
Oregon St.
|
Sat 11/12 | W 23 - 6 |
|
@
Stanford
|
Sat 11/19 | L 28 - 31 |
|
@
Arizona St.
|
Fri 11/25 | W 47 - 38 |
|
@
Texas
|
Wed 12/28 | L 10 - 21 |
Pacific-12 Conference Standings
(updated 1.2.2012 at 11:12 PM PST)
| North | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
Oregon Ducks
|
8 | 1 | 12 | 2 |
|
Stanford Cardinal
|
8 | 1 | 11 | 2 |
|
Washington Huskies
|
5 | 4 | 7 | 6 |
|
California Golden Bears
|
4 | 5 | 7 | 6 |
|
Oregon St. Beavers
|
3 | 6 | 3 | 9 |
|
Washington St. Cougars
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
| South | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
USC Trojans
|
7 | 2 | 10 | 2 |
|
UCLA Bruins
|
5 | 4 | 6 | 8 |
|
Utah Utes
|
4 | 5 | 8 | 5 |
|
Arizona St. Sun Devils
|
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|
Arizona Wildcats
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
|
Colorado Buffaloes
|
2 | 7 | 3 | 10 |
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
