NCAA Football 2022/2023 Season Catch All!

So, it's obviously not going to be just SC and UCLA. Who will be the other two, Oregon/Washington or Stanford/Cal? The latter two are a better academic fit for the Big10.

I wonder where the Pac-12 could find a west coast school that could fill one of their newly created voids.

Maybe there's a school out there with a long-tenured former Pac-12 football coach.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/vtxW2ts.jpg)

Hmm... gonna have to think on that for a while.

Pfft, nah, that's small-time thinking. They need to galaxy brain it, start looking for huge, untapped markets of potential CFB fans who truly understand the "PAC-12 Lifestyle". Which leaves one obvious choice:

IMAGE(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/general-view-of-the-maine-football-helmet-during-game-action-between-picture-id621159708?s=2048x2048)

LET'S GET CRAZY YOU COWARDS

Badferret wrote:

So, it's obviously not going to be just SC and UCLA. Who will be the other two, Oregon/Washington or Stanford/Cal? The latter two are a better academic fit for the Big10.

You mean they want to raise the overall average of academic excellence?

This is going to sound very snobbish.. but Cal (and I'm going to throw stanfurd in this as well), going to the B1G will have academic repercussions that are bigger barriers than one might think. Ultimately maybe football $$s trump all, but there is enough of a disdain of athletics at Cal, and a total ambivalence at stanfurd that there are going to be some people in power who think we'd would be better off without football (or in a lesser Pac-XX conference) than being associated with the B1G schools.

Not to say all of the Pac-12 schools are academic powerhouses, but we don't need a debate between computers, coaches and writers to determine which is the best P5 conference academically. Arizona State losing to Cal (sorry ASU) is a quality loss on the academic side

UCLA turning its back on THE University of California (sorry THE (tm)) on the academic side is not nothing, and that alone may be the driving factor on choosing Cal/furd for a move vs. UO/UW, $C and fUCLA may require Cal/furd to come with so they can try to maintain some level of academic "parity" and not make it just look like a "football move".

Report: Big Ten 'May Not Stop' at USC, UCLA Additions; Big 12 Linked to Arizona, More

A source told Brett McMurphy of the Action Network that the Big Ten may not settle at 16 teams after adding UCLA and USC.

In addition, the Big 12 could add Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado alongside the quartet of recently announced members (BYU, Cincinnati, Houston and UCF) to get to 16 teams as well, per McMurphy.

Pac-12 should have Boise State, Fresno State, and San Diego State on speed dial, if they want to remain a football conference.

If UCS & UCLA leave than Oregon and probably Washington won't be far behind. There won't be much left for Boise, Fresno or San Diego to go to.

*Legion* wrote:

Report: Big Ten 'May Not Stop' at USC, UCLA Additions; Big 12 Linked to Arizona, More

A source told Brett McMurphy of the Action Network that the Big Ten may not settle at 16 teams after adding UCLA and USC.

In addition, the Big 12 could add Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado alongside the quartet of recently announced members (BYU, Cincinnati, Houston and UCF) to get to 16 teams as well, per McMurphy.

Pac-12 should have Boise State, Fresno State, and San Diego State on speed dial, if they want to remain a football conference.

So, if the Big Ten goes past then 16, then so will the SEC (which they might do anyway) which leaves us with the NFC and AFC.

Badferret wrote:

[
So, if the Big Ten goes past then 16, then so will the SEC (which they might do anyway) which leaves us with the NFC and AFC.

I've heard the FOX and the ESPN conferences which is probably more realistic!

MEGA-CONFERENCE

MEGA-CONFERENCE

MEGA-CONFERENCE

The ACC just announced the 3-5-5 model and then next 4 years of schedule on Monday. So nice. You get to play everyone in conference at least once every 2 years, and at every stadium in conference at least once every 4. I've been wanting that schedule for years.

Doubt it will make it through all 4 years now.

R.I.P. Pac-12

Sources: USC and UCLA have been notified that their application to join the Big Ten has been accepted. The schools will begin play in 2024.

Assuming all of this goes the way its looking.. and what will likely be a major impact to Cal football, the only thing that really upsets me (and it actually is), is that Cal in the Rose Bowl, barring a miracle the next two years, is never going to happen. Cal Football may fold, Pac-12 may fold, who knows.. but not being able to go the Rose Bowl in a "traditional" Pac-10/12 Big 10/1G matchup really hurts, and honestly is the thing that is tearing at me.

I know Pizza with his XX Rose bowls in the last years doesn't feel the same way, and the rest of you non-Pac 12'ers have no such bowl affinity, but man.. its really a gut punch to me.

They should just announce that Cal and Indiana will play in the Jan. 1 2024 Rose Bowl. I'll take that and go home quietly.

At any rate, maybe they need to stop naming conferences with the number of schools in it.

Rat Boy wrote:

At any rate, maybe they need to stop naming conferences with the number of schools in it.

SEC!

Also, if the B10 doesn't take Cal, I really hope the SEC does just to see Carlbear's head explode.

Badferret wrote:
Rat Boy wrote:

At any rate, maybe they need to stop naming conferences with the number of schools in it.

SEC!

Also, if the B10 doesn't take Cal, I really hope the SEC does just to see Carlbear's head explode.

He'd be in BBQ heaven, and football hell.

Well, except for the free wins against the longhorns, which we'd both enjoy.

What i'm curious about did Pac-12 Commish George Klaivkoff wake up this morning thinking it was just another Thursday morning on the West Coast? Did this come out of nowhere? The two flagship schools of the conference in the countries biggest TV market just walk out? I could have swore the rumors around Texas and Oklahoma were circling for at least a few days?

Fedaykin98 wrote:
Badferret wrote:
Rat Boy wrote:

At any rate, maybe they need to stop naming conferences with the number of schools in it.

SEC!

Also, if the B10 doesn't take Cal, I really hope the SEC does just to see Carlbear's head explode.

He'd be in BBQ heaven, and football hell.

Well, except for the free wins against the longhorns, which we'd both enjoy.

We'd win 3-5 games just like we would in the Pac-12.. the only difference is we'd be ranked #16 in the country which I guess would be pretty cool.

Who here would be in favor of a relegation system with the coming two super league system?

I could see some of y'alls teams being left in a new lower tier.

Would the prospects of Louisville earning their way into the super league and booting a Vandy or Northwestern keep you engaged, Stele?

I feel like we are headed towards a 40 or 48 team super league.

Then the next 100ish teams would be in a new middle division, which if they had the chance to replace two or four teams from the top level could add all kinds of interest.

I’m assuming you mean relegation?

I just don’t see how it could possibly work. If the Premier League is a model, there are only 20 teams there. We are talking a 40+ team super league in NCAA? Once in a blue moon a team like Leicester City shocks the world, but now you’re saying one team has to beat 80+ tier 2 teams then the next season be better than 40 other teams that are structurally superior.

Also college football players at most can stay for 4 years and are free to transfer or go Pro. If another Jared Goff or Aaron Rodgers shows up at Cal to go undefeated in the B league why would they risk their career to come back again to play in the Super League? Either they transfer at no penalty or just go pro.

As much as I love Cal football, honestly I would just rather see it fold or maybe take stanfurd and join the Ivy League.

Carlbear95 wrote:

I’m assuming you mean relegation?

Bah, stupid state college educat...... I mean phone.

I don't think pro/rel would work well with recruited athletes, but it does "work" for pro athletes, so maybe.

I get that football makes the money.

But what is going to happen to the non-money athletes that now have to fly halfway cross country for their minor amateur sport?

I think the working plan is that this is all going to be for Football/Basketball only.

Oh, ok. I guess that could work, maybe then? At least those sports are already semi-pro. Just make them pro, give salaries and a union and just capitalism it all the way up and be done with the education facade. I mean, you could still provide classes for kids 18-22 but at least get them salaries in the 50-200k range. Stars would make more in endorsements, presumably.

Badferret wrote:

Who here would be in favor of a relegation system with the coming two super league system?

Not sure how well this would really work. Single-year performance is too volatile to swap teams around based on just one season. And if a lower division team gets on a multi-year hot streak because they had an NFL caliber QB, would you be promoting that team just as that QB is leaving for the NFL?

*Legion* wrote:
Badferret wrote:

Who here would be in favor of a relegation system with the coming two super league system?

Not sure how well this would really work. Single-year performance is too volatile to swap teams around based on just one season. And if a lower division team gets on a multi-year hot streak because they had an NFL caliber QB, would you be promoting that team just as that QB is leaving for the NFL?

I think it could work on an annual basis if the Mouse wants to make it work.

But, they could also just borrow from Stewart Mandell's feudal rankings. Relegation could take place every 5 years, and the bottom two, or four would be kicked for the top 4 from the B league. Then the newly promoted teams have 5 years to get clear of the bottom and stay. Such a system would promote institutional investment and reward good management/coaching and would prevent the Vandys and Indianas from just coasting and collecting their 100+ million dollar check every year.

You could even kick it down to a C level. Maybe 48 teams per tier, with relegation windows every 4 or 5 years between the tiers. Would give the rights holders even more meaningful games to promote, especially in the last year. How much coverage would West Virginia get if they needed a 10 win season to secure their place in the top 4 of the B league entering the final year, or could NC State grab the final spot if the Mountaineers stumble. Kinda must see TV, Mickey would sell the sh*t out of that. And the rights holders could make the money work. A league teams get 100+, B league teams 30 mil, and C 10 or 15. There would likely be teams at each tier content to coast and take the check, but the money difference would be enticing enough for those that wanted to make a run at moving up.

Relegation would be hilarious, especially when schools like Nebraska and Texas get sent to D3 or some such. I'd support it.

Latest here is that the UC Regents while powerless to stop UCLA from leaving, still have financial authority over all UC, including The Flagship academic and Nobel Prize producing university in Berkeley and its sports-money-prioritizing jock little brother (3rd brother in case you are keeping count).. They may require UCLA to fork over additional $$s to Cal (and the state of California) to pay the debt servicing over our mess of a stadium retrofit. So basically the difference between what Cal would have gotten with the LA market included in the Pac-12 media deal and what it will get now without it may need to come from UCLA anyways... UCLol

So Go Bruins... go out and make some money for The(tm) University of California.