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.

Very interesting read, some real food for thought. I don’t know if that configuration could generate the revenue streams to keep the P4 programs interested, especially USC. The other 3 might be all about it!

California TV Markets (National Rankings):
#2 Los Angeles
#10 SF-OAK-SJ
#20 Sac-Stockton-Modesto
#28 San Diego

wow, I had no idea

The big money is in the TV deals. They could really capitalize on the old Pac 10 After Dark model and own the late game time slots. Maybe overtake the MACtion game son Tuesdays or whatever, I’ve still never watched one of those.

Never watch MACtion games either.

the cautionary tale is that the #10 or 20 TV market generally may not be the #10 or 20 market for football interest when you factor demographics.

Someone remind me why we want to go BCS. It makes no sense. None of it makes sense. We're in the business of making talent for the big guys. We can enjoy being competitive on the FCS landscape. But the huge fundraising requirement of FCS? Really? This is a Good Thing? Why? Let's live within our means not chase money where we will always be minor players in a small market.

If UC Davis' reputation comes from football then I don't want any part of an association with the university. Our rep comes from academics and outcomes. Graduating student athletes not semi-pro athletes - or even professional athletes.

It opens us up to the country. Sports are the front porch to the university. We literally had people with no connection to the program come to our games because we were in the playoffs. Our campus is beautiful compared to other universities. Not many know this. The problem with other programs is that they mis manage funds. We are arguably the “best” FCS school based on academics and size not counting the ivies. We can be on par with Cal to be honest. We need to get in while we can.

How realistic is $260 million in facilities upgrades, NIL, and we still minimally market to our 40,000 non-commuter students?

We already have loads of applicants and fundraising 100x what was done in 1980.

Add the tower, make upgrades where feasible, but let college big-time football shake out. Really, are you ready to pay a HC $10 million, then $20 million, a QB millions, and add more debt? All to play Wyoming or Fresno State in football?

You are correct, and I should clarify my point. I am not saying FBS now or bust ala J Street Tech.

We should grow sustainably. We should not stay in FCS. We need to think ahead and FBS is the way. When you have the “best” schools in FCS ready to move to FBS that tells you a lot.

I am pro FBS because I see the positives it can bring to a school. Our school does not have the Sac State mentality that we “put the cart before the horse”.

I see us in FBS in 5-10 years and it will be great!

How does moving into a league with Nevada and San Jose State open up Davis to the country? The MWC tv partners are Fox and CBS, with most of the televised games in the late window on FS1 and CBSSN. Nobody watches those networks. Meanwhile ESPN has shifted the Big Sky into the old P12 after dark window (along with west coast home games in the B12 and ACC). Davis was on ESPN three times this year, with two home games, and would be in a less advantageous media slot in the MWC.

The MW is a decent target, but it may not look the same in 5-10 years (our window to move into it). Being methodical and cautious is what we will do, but having goals to play in higher quality conferences cannot hurt. Heck, we have comparable budgets to some MW teams currently. Why not shoot to get more revenue back from the conference?

And media rights are set in stone and can’t change ever?

I get your point, but if anything can be swayed if not donor pockets it’s media rights.

I don't know if there is much of a difference between FCS middle class and FBS poor.

I think we're all enjoying FCS more than we would FBS at this time. Imagine just trying to make it while getting slapped around at Fresno State.

I believe we are farther from FBS than we'd like to believe.

Yep, and we skipped a rebuilding year with CP, the Connors and Pysk.

Even the depleted MW will have more national exposure and the occasional ranked team. For example, Air Force and UNLV were ranked in 2023 and 2024 respectively. N Illinois was briefly ranked after the Notre Dame upset in 2024. Even SJSU was ranked in 2020. Honestly think playing in the MW will give us more visibility- even than playing fcs contenders like the Montanas. Plus SJSU and Nevada are closer than anyone we’re playing in the Big Sky

realistically, the bottom 1/3 of FBS belongs in FCS and the bottom 1/3 of FCS belongs in D2. Some of those football teams may have been dragged up by an asymmetrically better basketball team and the rest were chasing relevance. There’s a limit to the number of teams who are going to be national household names and the top 40 or so teams are extremely invested in making sure the door is shut and bolted behind them. The biggest shame is that the FCS and even D2 titles have such little relevance when they are arguably more honest football and seeding than FBS. MWC has historical tie ins to Bucked Up LA Bowl, Snoop Dogg Arizona Bowl, Sheraton Hawaii Bowl, Idaho Potato Bowl, and Isleta New Mexico Bowl with pool appearances in others. Dare anyone to look at the day of the week and time those are. I totally get the strategy - in terms of size, academic prowess and contribution to society, Davis belongs in the same sentence with the likes of Michigan, not Eastern Washington - and athletics are perhaps the best way to build a brand name with the 70% of America that doesn’t have academic inclinations. But the road takes a lot of time, money, and probably mortgaged morals. Not to mention the Pacific time zone will always struggle with Central and Eastern time viewers and much of the country has an aversion to anything with California in the name (despite rabidly consuming products made there). So yeah, I think you’re right that greener grass appears closer than it is.

The green grass was pretty close before team success became even more a function of money due to the revenue sharing and free transfer rules. Expanded scholarships, revenue sharing NIL, and the free movement if players have moved the goal posts as relates to what an FBS program costs.. Now its a significant investment to have an outside shot at earning a shot at the Famous Potato Bowl.

I disagree on UCLA and USC. I've pretty connected to both programs and what I'm hearing is there is already and exhaustion factor taking place. People who have never traveled for work really don't understand the wear and tear constant travel does to people. Now you are adding school, relationships. etc. and it becomes obvious its too far and too much money and effort.

I think USC and UCLA come a back to the west coast in either a renewed PAC or a California Conference. It's just cheaper, makes more sense geographically, and secures academic opportunities for our California kids.

I'm not opposed with creating football programs at UC Merced, UC San Diego, etc.

You may “not [be] opposed with creating football programs at UC Merced, UC San Diego, etc.”, but I’m pretty sure those campuses have zero interest. Riverside and Santa Barbara dropped their FB programs decades ago for financial reasons; Riverside seriously considered cutting ALL athletics a couple of years ago for the same reason. Irvine, San Diego and Santa Cruz have never shown any interest in football. Merced is working to grow what little they have into competitive programs.

Football is the single most expensive program to maintain, let alone initiate, and bring up to par with UCLA and Cal. Most athletic departments already operate at a deficit, including all 7 of the UC campuses that compete in D1. While I doubt that either UCLA or Cal are ready to do so, my bet is that five years hence, there’s likely to be fewer college football programs than there are now. Highly doubt there will be more.

Schools on a lower level have added football, sometimes allegedly in an attempt to boost male enrollment and campus spirit.

Many of those have been at schools (i.e. Roanoke College) whose declining enrollment may start putting the survival of the Schoo itself at risk. They are hoping to better compete for a declining college-age demographic. They have to try almost anything. The jury is still out on whether any enrollment gains will be lasting; the early studies (i.e. University of Georgia) say probably not, but still up in the air. Not sure that any have been done on improvement in campus spirit. Articles that tout the benefits are mainly on football websites, so definitely biased.

Other places like UTRGV, or University of Rio Grande< I think it's cultural...that football is a necessary part of the college experience. My grandson would agree; he's on a full academic scholarship, completely unrelated to financial need at CSUDH and is hoping to transfer to USC to better experience Trojan football. Which he does already...hasn't missed a home game in two years. Glad it's my son and daughter-in-law who will foot that bill.

And your point about them being lower level is well taken. I bet few of those schools are putting big bucks into facilities, or coaching staffs, or athletic scholarships. So maybe it's a capital risk with little downside. Many are using local high school facilities (which they rent per use); others like Whittier,. (UCD played them back in the day...it was my first road trip) may be using facilities that are still on campus.

Regardless of level. new programs face immense financial pressure - expenses for coaching salaries, facilities, equipment , and travel. And that's the rub - anyone who drills down into athletics will tell you that the basic problem in college athletics is not revenue. It's spending. And new football programs will be a new line item expenditure, taking resources that could be used elsewhere. At some point, if you're on a Board of Trustees, your fiduciary responsibility kicks in. If the new football programs don't produce the desired outcome within a short period of time, I don't think most of them survive.

Just my opinion.

Mercer reinstated football in 2013, ranked and making the FCS playoffs the last two years.