Yes, Cal is not a shoo-in, but if Stanford comes in, it might make sense to admit Cal, Stanford's traditional rival. But I doubt Stanford has the leverage to insist on that. Possibly part of what is going on with the Regents and UCLA is an effort to force Cal on the Big Ten. But it's not even clear that Cal wants to be in the Big Ten.
UC Regents let UCLA move to Big Ten
- Thread starter retired711
- Start date
While obviously revenue is priority 1,2 and 3, I would have to think that politically a Cal and/or Stanford addition goes a long way in taking the air out of any objections by B1G faculty that conference expansion is overemphasizing sports at the expense of academics.
Outside of Rutgers and possibly Northwestern very few faculty worry about overemphasizing sports in the B1G.
Even at Ohio State, there is a loud faculty contingent that makes clear its opposition to sports. The same is true at other B1G schools, including the traditional powers.
Agreed but faculty at most B1G schools embrace the athletics knowing what a successful athletics department does to increase the stature of their research abilities and attract more students. Also media knows not to give the minority a mouthpiece. The only schools you see giving attention are Northwestern and Rutgers.
I would amend that to "most faculty at most B1G schools." There are a significant number of exceptions at every institution. But there aren't many schools any more where faculty have a lot of power other than to squawk. Rutgers is a prime example of this: the University Senate doesn't even have a faculty majority and has no power except (of all things) to determine the academic calendar. Cal is an exception to this, so faculty there could conceivably torpedo joining the Big Ten.
Well Cal professors don’t have to worry about torpedoing anything regarding joining the B1G. Haven’t heard Cal being a real candidate of any future consideration. And after the California regents drama I would have to imagine the slim chance they may have had has significantly changed. Not sure the perceived “academic” juice is worth the squeeze.
Not true. A significant number of exceptions is significant
principals of math escape many
an exception cannot be a significant number as they are outliers and outliers by definition are limited by percent of mean populations
*Principles* of English evidently escape you. And obviously the word "significant" is not being used in a statistical sense.
Last edited:
UCLA is bleeding money. They can’t afford not to go.
This is an all about Gov Hair Gels ego. At the end of his tantrum UCLA will be in the big.
If he somehow rallies keep them out, it will be another PAC team. They know they don’t have a hand. It’s all a power trip.
This is an all about Gov Hair Gels ego. At the end of his tantrum UCLA will be in the big.
If he somehow rallies keep them out, it will be another PAC team. They know they don’t have a hand. It’s all a power trip.
Since when do "mentions" mean anything? Of the four schools you name guess which one has the largest number of alumni? Guess which one is in the top 5 in academics? Guess which one is a part of the UC system, solving the UCLA "problem"? Guess which one is an historical rival of UCLA and Stanford? You get the picture.
Not clear to whom? A cash strapped university is not interested in $100 million a year? Give me a break.
You're right, but it's not obvious to me that Cal wants to stay involved with big-time sports. They *should* because its administration very much wants to support women's athletics and non-revenue sports, and I can't see how they can do that without money from revenue sports. But I know from half a century's experience that you never know with Cal, and you can never count on it doing what's rational.
Yes, UCLA is bleeding money. You've seen those pictures of football attendance in the Rose Bowl -- and that's for a team that isn't terrible and is on the upswing.
Their sports are always decent to good and in some cases elite. But their financial situation is terrible now.
They didn’t want to go to the B1G. They had to go to the B1G. Same with SC. The PAC is just not spinning off enough rev and won’t. This was a love of necessity.
My guess, and it's just that, is that many other Pac-12 schools also have terrible financial situations. I wonder what will happen to those that the Big Ten won't take.
Make the most of the PAC. No other options.
Washington and Oregon are lobbying very hard behind the scenes. Doesn’t appear to be much appetite.
If something happens with UCLA which I doubt but you never really know with Ca politicians, one of those schools will be snapped up in a NY minute and they will still have LA with SC. And UCLA will be in even worse shape.
Washington and Oregon are lobbying very hard behind the scenes. Doesn’t appear to be much appetite.
If something happens with UCLA which I doubt but you never really know with Ca politicians, one of those schools will be snapped up in a NY minute and they will still have LA with SC. And UCLA will be in even worse shape.
I would be *very* surprised if the Regents veto the UCLA move to the Big Ten. Keep in mind that most Regents serve 12-year terms and can't be fired by the Governor. So Newsom has limited sway. But you're right; in California, one never knows. That's what makes the place so fascinating.
As for the rest of the Pac-whatever, the future is, to say the least, murky.
UCLA sports are "always decent to good"? Did you know that UCLA was the first Div I school to reach 100 NCAA championships? Unfortunately, the current AD is not up to the task and Stanford and USC have passed them by.
I did know that.I believe SC isn’t far behind. If at all.
I heard a stat I think it was from the last summer games. If SC and UCLA were a country they’d have finished in the top 5 in medals.
I heard a stat I think it was from the last summer games. If SC and UCLA were a country they’d have finished in the top 5 in medals.
Mentions mean something because Cal is so far down the pecking order that no one believes they are an option. Being part of the UC system is the problem not a solution to the problem. And yes I get the picture. The only rivalry that matters is USC- UCLA.
Say what you will, but Cal came back from eleven points down yesterday to defeat Stanford in the Big Game (as they call it out there). Cal actually had a better record (4-7) than Stanford. While Cal lost to Notre Dame and USC this year, Cal gave both tough games. Cal's problem is it always plays a little worse than whoever it's playing. Last year Cal would have qualified for a bowl except that the City of Berkeley grounded more than half the team over Covid. It's really not as terrible a program as you're indicating.
Spelling PRINCIPLES escape you.
Exception, outlier, significant etc arent mathematical terms. They are subjective.
Learn maths, pal, and what’s not maths. You injected stats terms which have nothing to do with the above general commentary.
You ain’t half (yes a maths term) as smart as you think you are.
Are you English? I ask because you say "maths" instead of math, and the Economist, edited in Britain, does the same thing.
So now the B1G is making decisions on one game or 1 season? I never said anything about which “football team or athletics department is better.”This will strictly be an economic decision. I don’t think the next B1G move comes down Stanford or Cal and definitely not Stanford and cal. They don’t have that economic value.
lol ok sport . good to see you're stupidity on display for all here. You haven't a clue how mathematics work
he googled terms to try and appear informed and it backfired. Google is odd like that:)
Since Delaney, BIG has a list of schools and options/scenarios in a playbook. Cal is not high on the pecking order
If the Big Ten takes either or both, then the amount the Bay Area cable networks must pay for the Big Ten network goes way up -- just like bringing us in raised the amount the cable systems in the NYC area had to pay. The Bay Area isn't the NYC area, of course, but it is the sixth largest DMA. Of course, only one of the schools has to be taken for that to happen, and maybe the Big Ten will take only Stanford and leave Cal out in the cold. Would Stanford want to abandon its historic rivalry with Cal? My guess is yes, but it's not certain. Stanford is another of those places that does things for odd reasons.
This is what I have said from the get go. It’s one or the other or none not both. And Cal has not been in many conversations. The cal regents aren’t helping the case for seeking 2 schools from within that system.
Maybe add Stanford and then Arizona. That gets the B1G the Bay Area and the PHX markets.
