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.

yeah, remember when the goal posts were just scholarship count and attendance? Those seem pedestrian now.

Regarding Mercer, I believe they added football to attract enrollment. Birth rates dropped in the 2008 financial crisis and Gen Z males are becoming increasingly apathetic toward college so some universities have decided sinking money in athletics is in fiduciary interest to attract students in what may turn to a buyers market. They don’t need a large fan base to fulfill their goal. University of South Alabama went from 0 to FBS in like 5 years. But it had the blank check support of the city, state, and a conference. Basically they actually did what Sac has wet dreams about. But they did it just before it got crazy expensive.

I believe so. For years I've been told a 3.0 GPA in UC-eligible classes is the minimum.

If Mercer's goal was increased enrollment, their own figures supports the UGA study I mentioned. Mercer had a slow increase from 4694 undergrads in 2015 (earlier data not quickly found) to just over 5000 in 2021. Has since shown a decline to 4724 in 2024. Grad students didn't increase until 2023. I don't think grad students come because of football. Figures from Mercer University site.

Maybe in SEC country, having football was deemed necessary to NOT lose enrollment? Maybe the cultural thing.

My posts aren't about success on the field. As Sailorgabe has repeatedly and correctly pointed out, it's a new athletic world out there. Private equity firms are getting into the college athletics business. Some AD's are open to considering a CBA for athletics; Athletes.org has actually proposed one. The college age demographic is shrinking. There are forces at play beyond success on the field, pitch or court. Those may very well be the determinants when it comes down to keeping or cutting an athletic program.

I’m not disagreeing with you. I think it was a move to hedge against enrollment decline. And from what I understand, generally in small private universities athletics scholarships are a finance mechanism to move money between pockets and generate revenue on paper for dorms, dining halls, etc.

I read the athletes.org CBA framework. Having supervised several hundred represented employees, which I know is not quite the same, but my experience is that money is often the easier negotiation because both sides already know the valuation. Often the real PITA stuff has to do with work rules, which a lot of people greatly underestimate.

One of the hardest things to do in this country is to prevent "that could never happen" attitude that is prevalent in American culture. A new conference is bigger then just football.

You make a great point about schools dropping football because it was too expensive to maintain. That is correct, that WAS the problem in those days. However, that was before the internet, before CFB became a business, things have changed.

Cal and Stanford are on a geographical island. They are academic elite but have to play football in an east coast conference. That is sustainable? Nah.

Building a California Conference would create a new industry that self funds our schools and creates jobs for California. It will take a radical shift in how we view college sports in California. Of course, if you think the current situation is optimal, do nothing. Seems to be par for the course lately in California.

Cal folks clearly believe they're superior to us, even though they can't compete w USC or Alabama, and they're getting huge campus subsidies. They have to swallow playing w the likes of us and Fresno State. Like always, the TV dollars are key. Stanford reduced the size of their stadium and only averaged 26,000 fans in 2024. Cal averaged 39,000.

Cal and Stanford are not better then UC Davis. Sure they have a longer history, but if you compare all 3 schools today, what exactly are they better at? Reputation? Ok. But what about a history of college football elitism? They don't have much of a history. They have had some season with good players, but overall they are not better than Davis.

They were Pac 12, we're FCS. Read their board. I'm not saying it's right. Recall USC paying money to remove us from their schedule.

100% agree with you that the current situation isn't optimal. I'm going further - the current situation isn't sustainable. I'm not just talking about Cal and Stanford playing in the ACC, which I agree is ridiculous.

I'm talking about the current business model for all of college athletics. I also agree that a radical shift needs to happen - and I think it probably will happen. Just NOT the shift you propose.

In FY 2024 (most recent data), Ohio State University had total athletic revenue of $254.9 million, but expenditures were $295.1 million, resulting in a loss of $37.8 million (12.8%). Though the school characterized this as a "one-time event", data shows that between 2019-2024, Ohio State Athletics lost money in 4 of 6 years. During the same 6 year period, Ohio State Athletics debt rose from $250 million to $287 million. That's a hefty debt to service.

The football program, and probably men's basketball, likely were profitable, but I haven't found figures. The other 30 athletic programs apparently generated total losses in excess of $38 million, after factoring in the FB and MBB profits. And this was pre-House settlement. Starting next year, schools like Ohio State will have another $20.5 million in yearly liabilities due to revenue sharing per the House settlement.

That's why Ohio State supported a $2.4 billion private-capital deal between the Big 10 and UC Investments that would have sent a minimum of $100 million each Big 10 school. The deal died last month because of opposition from Michigan and USC. The chair of Michigan's Board of Regents noted that until "runaway spending was addressed", the deal was simply akin to a "payday loan." Michigan and USC were also concerned that despite assurances, it put assets of member universities at risk.

The University of Utah recently took that risk and individually signed a private equity deal with Otero Capital. I've seen articles indicating that other PE firms are interested, including the Saudi Public Investment Fund. PE firms are not noted for caring about anything but making money. Certainly not about funding schools, creating jobs, or providing opportunities for kids to stay in-state for school/sports.

This is the crossroads coming for the P4 schools, and maybe others that want to play in their sandpile: Costs / spending needs to be cut, Business 101 says that nonprofitable sports get the axe. There goes other 30 sports at Ohio State...except oops, there's good old Title IX. Not to mention pissing off the alumni who played those sports or boosters whose kids played those sports.

That's the underlying rationale as to why I don't see a CA Conference, such as you've proposed, as a viable option, be it with your original list of schools, or including starting FB at the UC's who currently don't offer that sport. Your proposal means more schools getting into a P4-style arms race, and I think that's the wrong way to go.

Excellent post, TrainingRm67. You actually laid out the exact reasons why a California Conference may be the best—and perhaps only—path forward for sustaining college football in California.

The so-called “power” conferences are bleeding money. They’re relying almost entirely on TV revenue to stay afloat in the next media deal, yet the economic and technological landscape has fundamentally changed. Traditional television—the NBC, CBS, ABC, and even ESPN model many of us grew up with—is dying. The next generation simply doesn’t engage with those platforms. Streaming has already replaced them. YouTube, Amazon Prime, Apple, Google, and similar companies are now the real distribution channels.

So what happens in 2030 when the current TV deals expire? Do we really believe that same level of money will still exist? I don’t. I think the endgame is a semi-pro super league made up exclusively of blue-blood programs—Notre Dame, Florida, Ohio State, and the like. That leaves schools such as Stanford, Cal, UCLA, San Diego State, Fresno State, and others on the outside looking in.

When that happens, schools will face a few options:

Scramble to rebuild old conferences with new members.

Drop down to the FCS level.

Eliminate football altogether.

Or rethink conference alignment with geography playing a much bigger role.

This is where a California Conference makes the most sense.

California has the population—nearly 40 million people, the largest in the country.
California has the economic power—the largest GDP in the U.S. and the fourth largest economy in the world.
California is the global center of technology and media.
California also has a deep and diverse education system, from junior colleges to the CSU and UC systems, along with strong private institutions.

The only real reason college football hasn’t reached the same level here as in other regions is simple: culturally, we haven’t cared as much. The biggest football programs in the state—Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC—are elite academic institutions that relatively few Californians actually attend. Compare that to a place like Ohio State, where a large portion of the state’s population attends and passionately supports the flagship university. As a result, local investment and emotional buy-in in California has been lukewarm.

If you doubt that community support exists here, go watch a Cal State Fullerton baseball game. That program is a national powerhouse and draws strong local support—proof that Californians will invest when they feel connected.

Now imagine a California Conference where UC Davis plays at Stanford, San Diego State, San Jose State, Cal Poly, UCLA, and Sacramento State. Travel costs drop dramatically. Trips are shorter. But more importantly, real local rivalries form. Communities become invested. The state’s massive population gets engaged. That drives business, media interest, and long-term investment.

Finally, leverage what California does better than anyone else: technology and entertainment. Silicon Valley is here. Hollywood is here. Google was born here. Create a California Conference YouTube channel. Use Hollywood-level storytelling and marketing to promote the league. Make playing a California school a national event. Keep California talent home and build something unique.

If college football is going to survive in this state, it won’t be by chasing a dying national model. It will be by embracing what California already is—and building a conference that reflects it

The old days of doing football are over. You have to rethink the entire model.

Unless the powers that be realize this, pump the brakes, and rethink the direction things are headed. Doubtful though.

The whole thing is a runaway train at the moment.

Man, I once again reiterate how smart the posters on this board are. There is some real wisdom and education, along with some great ideas on here. I thought the California Conference YouTube network idea was especially fascinating. Anyway, I've been telling my three friends on the planet this for several years, and I qualify this as a not-so-good idea: re-set the FBS football conferences back to 1984 or so. Cut all the sports that didn't exist prior to that time and lean-out the conferences. Everyone else gets a choice: FCS, D2, or D3. For the conferences that had teams drop football (ex. the PCAA: Long Beach St., UOP, Fullerton St., etc.) let the FCS schools that are regional fits apply to move up. How much fun would the Pac 10 or original WAC be? I don't know that 1984 was the right year, but just find the best old days of conference alignments, expand the playoffs, and make college football great again because it sucks on many levels right now. And make them all wear their 1984 uniforms the first year of the really great reset.

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.

. Exactly, and college football in California is pretty passé compared to Midwest and South.

Agree with you. Do I think its possible? Yes. Do I think its probable? No. Why? Because of the same mindset you mentioned. I'm not sure what the future holds, but the current protectory isn't good.

Wishful thinking isn't a plan, that's for sure. Davis brass need to be realistic, manage their internal emotions, and look at the dollars, cents and overall experience / well being of their student-athletes...and student body. Football at the FBS level requires way more than what we have now - accelerate the trajectory or just stop now. There has to be a massive push...and even then it's going to take a couple more years.

https://herosports.com/fcs-rocko-deluca-a-builder-in-more-ways-than-one-ksks/

Very complimentary piece.y

Good read, thanks for sharing. I didn't know his bio. Time at UMass is likely a great cautionary tale in his approach to moving football forward to the MWC. Lesson: DON'T DO IT UNTIL YOU'RE READY! We're not ready (yet). I'm also a proponent for investing in the people over buildings, including players, coaches, support staff. Oregon has had incredible facilities and a gazillion uniform combinations, but no national championships. Same at Texas (they've won a title in the last 50 years), Texas A&M, and a hundred other places. Indiana and Miami both invest in players/coaches, dwell in very pedestrian football buildings and facilities, and play for a title.

Excellent. Thanks for sharing.