Conference Realignment

superfan said:

I wonder if there's a scenario in which the expanded conference plays the annual championship game in...Pasadena. The Rose Bowl could find a new life as the premier conference championship game for the premeir conference. The Rose Bowl would become as relevant and meaningful as it's been in years.

Facts and opinions:
1. The Big 10.
2. Meat and potatoes of the Pac 10.
3. Bowls have become consolation bracket exhibition games. The Grandaddy of Them All is an empty husk of what it once was.
4. The Rose Bowl would become meaningful the age of college football playoffs as the B1G Championship Game aka The Rose Bowl.
5. College football should be played in college football stadiums anyway.
6. The Rose Bowl as a tradition is an enormously valuable asset. It should be adapted and used in the new reality of the B1G.

Arguments and counter-arguments:
1. It's UCLA's home stadium. This has always been true and it's not much of a home field advantage.
2. It's a long way to travel for most teams. That was the entire point of bowls in the first place.
3. Indianapolis and Arlington Heights are more geographically centered. It's cold in the midwest in the winter. And see #5 above.

Has this been discussed elsewhere?

Click to expand...

Mr. Tibbs said:

yea
they won’t hold it at UCLA home field

they will likely alternate between Vegas & the midwest . Arlington Heights , if it gets built as a dome as is rumored (the only way that facility can work is to be usable year round) will certainly be in the mix .
if they want to include LA in the mix, most likely SOFI is the venue

Click to expand...

superfan said:

I’d have to recheck the history, but I think they’ve held the Rose Bowl there before.

There was a long time when the Rose Bowl was the single biggest game in college football, and it always carried a potential UCLA home field advantage (Jan 1, 1984 comes to mind). Are you suggesting that a conference championship game today is more important than what the Rose Bowl was then?

Click to expand...

Mr. Tibbs said:

I’m saying this :
the Rose Bowl event is something the B1G agreed to with the PAC knowing full well the situation . also , UCLA did not always play there . that was something I believe that started in 1982. they shared the Coliseum with USC for 60 years before that

anyway, pretty sure the Rose Bowl stadium will not be hosting the conf champ game .

but what do I know , I’m just a fan

Click to expand...

The Galloping Ghost said:

What if I told you can want Stanford athletics to avoid being shunted off into obscurity for reasons other than academics? Stanford has inarguably one of the best athletic programs in the country. Simply look to their domination of the Director's Cup and second most Olympic medals by a college. I mean, come on, we all know this. As a former Olympic sport college athlete, I care a whole hell of a lot about non-revenue sports. Unfortunately, I'm pretty massively in the minority. Look, I absolutely understand why all this has happened and I'm not here to argue about it one way or the other. It's happened. Like @Serious Late, I'm just glad Stanford got some sort of lifeline. And I don't know. I find it profoundly weird that someone who feels like they know all the angles when it comes to conference realignment can't see the most obvious reason why people would want Stanford to avoid being left out. It's flat out one of the most important athletic departments in the country.

Click to expand...

ChiefGritty said:

Cal is joining the ACC my guy, the idea that the Rose Bowl's status as UCLA's home field is going to prevent a conference from doing whatever they think might get them one more dollar or 0.1 higher TV ratings is downright quaint.

Click to expand...

ChiefGritty said:

A lovely sentiment.

The Big Ten murdered the context in which that multisport dominance existed in cold blood with our intentional, knowing ending of the 109 year history of the Pac 10.

That conference, especially the four California schools, have always had more investment and emphasis on a big non-revenue sport program, buoyed by the favorable weather and playing against their like-minded peers. Welp, that's over.

Click to expand...

The Galloping Ghost said:

Yup, Olympic sports are well and truly f'd. But yeah, you don't have to be pompous when you're dead wrong about the reason someone would care about Stanford finding at least a temporary home in this chaotic sporting future.

Click to expand...

Mr. Tibbs said:

but if played in LA they will hold that game in sofi , not in Pasadena , because it will make them more money if held in Sofi

Click to expand...

ChiefGritty said:

Stanford's olympic sport programs would DEFINITELY be better off if they stayed as some sort of quasi-independent playing against schools on their half of the continent.

Click to expand...

The Galloping Ghost said:

Yeah, not sure how any of that would work for the athletic department as a whole. Yes, it'd be okay for some sports like track, gymnastics, and golf, sports where you compete in a meet-like environment, but what exactly are their baseball, softball, soccer, volleyball, women's basketball, etc. going to do? Those sports, many of which they are dominant in, require a conference to provide games. Random West Coast schools aren't going to have open slots throughout the season. Couple that with the fact these teams are, again, some of the best in the country, and they can't sacrifice the prestige of the program to play the Santa Clara's of the world. The ACC is hellish logistically, but at least provides them a place where all their teams can compete, a decent level of competition, and the opportunity to win championships. And hopefully, I say as a pretty massive fan of sports outside the big 4, continue to be the primary collegiate provider of top professional athletes.

Click to expand...

ChiefGritty said:

Sofi is the new belle of the ball in the event industry, but it's a college football game, and it's a conference trying to play make-believe that the real Big Ten and half the Pac 10 can be a coherent consumer brand. The Rose Bowl presents a unique appeal.

Click to expand...

skyIdub said:

My answer to the "What's the first thing you do?" winning the $1B Mega lotto......start D1 Hockey at my Alma Mater.

Then yacht.

Click to expand...

Mr. Tibbs said:

I was at the UI - Ucla game there in 2003
sadly the place is really a dump. fantastic venue due to the history . but a dump.
think Wrigley from 2008

I don’t think Ucla or City of Pasadena has spent a dime in fan improvements in years

Click to expand...

Joel Goodson said:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1695051787110097221

Click to expand...

Mr. Tibbs said:

yea
they won’t hold it at UCLA home field

they will likely alternate between Vegas & the midwest . Arlington Heights , if it gets built as a dome as is rumored (the only way that facility can work is to be usable year round) will certainly be in the mix .
if they want to include LA in the mix, most likely SOFI is the venue

Click to expand...

Fighter of the Nightman said:

While I definitely hope it is retractable (football should be played "outdoors" if at all possible), I guess I just kind of figured that a dome of some sort would be a must in order to host a Final Four.

Click to expand...

ChiefGritty said:

The industry has decided that the logistics, building expense and maintenance costs of retractable roofs aren't worth it, especially if it's not a baseball stadium where the lion's share of your annual events are ones where you want the roof open.

Click to expand...

ChiefGritty said:

That's the funny thing, right?

That ironclad ESPN deal til 2036 is looked at as program-killing handcuffs by Clemson and FSU, but as a miraculous lifeline by Stanford and Cal.

The logistical absurdity of California schools in the ACC notwithstanding, and acknowledging the watered-down TV revenue they will initially receive, they now have a rosier revenue picture from 2030-36 than the schools that jumped to the Big 12.

Click to expand...