I think instead of New Mexico and UNLV, you might see Cal and Stanford instead. Those are traditional FBS schools but they geographically stunted and if the next deal gets reduced, I’d expect the ACC to push them out because the ROI will not be good enough. If that happens where does Cal and Stanford go?

I thought there was a lot of interesting information in this link:

Can UW Sports Compete In Division I As Lower Divisions Offer More NIL Money?

Here are some snippets:

Montana and Montana State, who compete in a tier below Wyoming, each spend $2.2 million on NIL, while Wyoming spends $1.4 million. "That's embarrassing," one Wyoming booster said. "Schools that don't sit on the wealth of money we do are outspending us."

UW Athletic Director Tom Burman offered a pointed rebuttal to those suggesting Wyoming consider the FCS route.

"The better question is, why are Montana, Montana State begging to get into the Mountain West?" Burman told Cowboy State Daily. "I can tell you that the top tier of the FCS is willing to pay money to join the Mountain West."

"Maybe the Big Sky doesn't want us,” Ortiz said. "Maybe we're in a league with Chadron State. From an enrollment standpoint, there's a lot of Division II and Division III schools that have the same enrollment as Laramie does.”

Cal and Stanford will wind up back aligned with UCLA, Arizona, ASU, Utah, Colorado, Oregon State, and Washington State for football. The real interesting thing will be the next rung down, the Fresno/Boise/SDSU types, and whether the Montana’s and Dakota’s level up to that world.

They are basically irrelevant - however, they can serve as building blocks for programs looking to boost up their image (see Penn State win at Yankee Stadium, or maybe Michigan outcome vs. Texas) or at least give their alumni one last hurrah for the year. The only downside being that most of the star players do not play if they're declaring for the draft - or the Portal...so the rate of return on the game is somewhat diminished.

Me personally however, I've found most of the bowl games to be entertaining, my Dad and I were invested watching the New Mexico vs. Minnesota game - Eck had those Lobos flying around the field, but the play by the Gophers to seal the win was phenomenal, we were yelling out loud "Did he catch that? Whoa! What a play, what the hell was that safety doing over the top?"

Still entertaining, that's my two cents...it's also a chance for players-to-be in the program to come out and shine when the declaring players aren't in there.

I agree. Stanford and Cal are in a tough position. They are academically elite, but their football teams no longer have USC and Washington to carry the burden of winning big time football. In all honesty, they begged the ACC to take them, but who would you rather have if you were the ACC? Notre Dame or Cal? You see ND is going to have to join a conference and that conference will either be the ACC or a new league will be created to keep the blue blood football teams separate from the rest of the "lower class of teams"...aka Cal, Stanford, Nevada, Texas Tech, etc...So what do they do? I don't know, but I'll tell you what I would do if I were in charge.

We are in a new age of college sport. It's no longer about kids going to college and playing for their school for spirit. That day is over. College sports is business...a billion dollar business. So what are the assets? Our kids. Look around at the college football across the country, what do you see? I see a ton of California kids on Texas, Ohio St, ND, Clemson, Miami, Florida, Georgia...all those "GREAT" football schools are winning with our kids. College football wants California kids but they do not want California schools to get a piece of the pie (kill the PAC). Look at the list of where the top California kids are attending school:

1. Kodi Greene, Santa Ana - Washington
2. Chris Henry, Santa Ana - Ohio St
3. Tommy Tofi, San Francisco - Oregon
4. Brandon Arrington, San Diego - Texas A&M
5. Ryder Lyons, Folsom - BYU
6. Khary Wilder, Gardena - Ohio St
7. Richard Wesley, Chatsworth - Texas
8. Davon Benjamin, Westlake Village - Oregon
9. JD Hill, Mission Viejo - Washington
10. RJ Mosley, Pittsburg - Arizona

Look at that list of the top 100 kids in California, only 20% are staying in California to attend school. Why is that? Why are our kids choosing to attend lower academic schools outside the state? It's not the academics, in most cases we are better. So what is it? I'll tell you, the NCAA and the SEC specifically have turned college football into a business. So what I say is we turn our football schools into a business as well...and we keep our assets at home....except we don't try to buy it by trying to get out of state schools to join California...instead we build our own. We invest in building a California Conference. This will take flushing the "elitism" status we have been taught to believe...aka "Cal, Stanford, UCLA, and USC are the only "real" college football schools. Gotta trash that idea.

California Conference

Cal
Stanford
UC Davis
UCLA
USC
San Diego St
Fresno St
San Jose St
Cal Poly
Sac St

We invest in building a new conference that maximizes our kids opportunities and taps into the largest football talent in the country. We use Silicon Valley and Hollywood to leverage our hand. We create our own TV network. We keep California money in California. We keep our California kids in California. By doing this the rest of the country loses its grip on taking our kids out of state. As the conference grows and money increases, we funnel that into the California schools which impacts all of us. Schools get more funding, business grows, and the overall California economy wins.

By focusing on building California schools, we create more community and natural rivalries. We have the stadiums like the Rose Bowl, Levi Stadium, LA stadium, San Diego.

Do I think this is possible? Yes, however the rest of the nation will not like this at all. They will fight hard to keep it the way it is. They will do everything possible to keep it status quo, because if this did happen, the top talent will stay home and every conference will fight us.

Just my opinon.

UCLA a long shot, USC impossible.

An interesting post, like many in this thread that are focused on the future of college athletics. I completely agree with you that the collegiate athletic environment has changed quickly and drastically. I also agree that it’s become more of a financially driven business than a culture-building program within a university. Unfortunately, the business model the power conferences and others are pursuing is unsustainable. We all know that.

But, regarding your post, I don’t see a “California Conference” being more than an intriguing blog post. The schools on your list are too diverse in the following areas:

1 - Mindset / Culture
2 - Disparity of facilities
3 - NIL/Booster $$

None of those will conceivably change within the next decade.