what did they win?

it really comes down to which teams get the most eyeballs. The only reason we think of Minnesota or Mississippi as top teams is because they historically played against top teams. Let’s play around with creating a top league. Can you fill the top league of 40 teams?

Stanford won two Rose Bowls and one Orange Bowl. Cal had first and goal to beat one of the best teams this century, on their turf, in 2004. They never got over that hump but they were right there that day.

2004 was 20 years ago. The Tedford years were fun.

2015 last conf championship. Stanford has a noble history but it never really wins anything. Last national championship 1940.

This is my point, we vastly overrate Stanford and Cal when it comes to football. They are great schools but nothing spectacular.

I agree the market can probably support about 40 national caliber teams and that the blue blood conferences have some historical members that wouldn’t belong in a super conference. Not sure if we are headed toward a recession or just a new (worse) normal thanks to crypto and private equity. Those top teams don’t have a revenue issue, though they do have a spending issue. And for any getting ready to tango with PE, get ready for the cost buzzsaw. Everyone else will get squeezed on what’s left. At our level, any prospective suggesting G6 football will be a cash cow and drive nearly a billion dollars of regional economic impact is nonsense. At best, one could argue FBS football helps build national name recognition for a fee.

I agree that Cal and Stanford haven’t been particularly revant lately.

What is spectacular athletically, especially about Stanford is the donor support. For example, the head women’s basketball coach, as well as 4 of the 5 assistant coach positions are endowed positions, which means that position is funded in perpetuity. Costs the university/athletic department nothing. The head FB coach and 2 assistants as well. More in other sports. And few of those funding the various endowments have names that I associate with Stanford athletics.

That’s financial resources on a scale far beyond anything UCD can hope to compete with now, or in any foreseeable future. Not even the TOP Big10 or SEC schools have that. I don’t think Stanford has scratched the surface of what they could do. I expect that Andrew Luck will be a far more active and effective presence than Shaq has been. So I’d hesitate to be dismissive of the potential there.

Why the suggestion of a potential recession?

Q2 - 3.8% GDP
Q3 - 4.4% GDP

On top of these numbers, with the BBB kicking in Jan 1, there should be tons of economic development kicking off. And low inflation.

I was replying to someone else mentioning a potential recession. By historical metrics, you are correct that the economy looks good. But there’s an interesting divergence in public perception that it doesn’t “feel” great for a lot of people in terms of prices, housing, or entry level professional jobs. My point was that I don’t necessarily agree we are on the edge of a recession so much as I think AI and private equity may reallocate the winning cards. To what extent will this affect national athletic budgets is just me speculating, but I do think the more that private equity takes a stake in media companies or athletic departments themselves, they are going to demand current returns at a lower cost with no care as to whether the car ultimately runs or gets chopped for parts.

They were robbed of a Rose Bowl that year and were also #2 with a chance to be #1 in 2007 except they lost in a strange fashion at the end.

IF we are going into a non sports topic like this, I think schools are way more concerned about the enrollment cliff. What value or benefit does Sac State bring? UC Davis and other large research schools and systems will be less impacted.

Sac will have more capacity for older students maybe finishing an education or acquiring new skills for a changing job market. Credit where due, the Folsom campus and AI center contribute. Not convinced that overextending on athletics or fight club do. Changing enrollment dynamics may end up having as much to do with rivalry erosion as division and conference change.

Made a thread for this in the OT board cause its an interesting topic
https://www.aggiesportstalk.com/discussion/2790/college-funding-enrollment-etc-discussion

Yes, Stanford University has a financial war chest most universities could only dream about. But it also has a structural issue that rarely gets discussed.

The number is 7,500 — roughly the size of Stanford’s undergraduate population. That’s it. For a globally recognized institution located in the heart of the Bay Area, that’s a very small base. And of those 7,500 students, only about 30–40% are from California.

So you have an elite California university where less than half the undergraduates are even from the state. That raises a fair question: how does the local population rally around a school that doesn’t meaningfully represent them?

Often, they don’t.

It helps explain why you can attend a Stanford football game without much difficulty or expense. I know — I grew up in Saratoga and went to games regularly. The community presence just isn’t overwhelming. Over time, that kind of limited organic support can matter. Schools like Harvard University, Yale University, and Princeton University operate similarly — elite academics, smaller undergraduate bases, limited local mass-market sports culture. That’s part of why they compete at the FCS level rather than FBS.

Now look at University of California, Berkeley — Cal. Different scale, different dynamic.

Cal has about 33,000 undergraduates, and roughly 85% are from California. On paper, that’s much more representative of the state. Similar in some ways to University of California, Davis in terms of strong in-state presence.

But Cal has another barrier: admissions selectivity. For the average California high school student, the odds of attending Berkeley are extremely small — only a few percent of the graduating class statewide will enroll there in any given year. That level of competitiveness narrows the pipeline. You tend to see more multigenerational Berkeley families — which is great — but for the broader public, access feels limited.

And that’s the tension.

Both Stanford and Cal embrace elite academic identities. That prestige has tremendous value. But when student bodies are either small in size (Stanford) or highly selective and concentrated (Cal), broad community representation can shrink. And when fewer families see themselves reflected on campus, the question becomes:

If the students don’t widely represent the surrounding community, where does large-scale, sustained fan support come from?

That’s the fundamental challenge.

Cool. I disagree with your assessment, but feel free to invest as you see fit. I wish you much success.

Why were they robbed? You know why. It's because Texas and college football can pack a Rose Bowl stadium and impact the local economy far greater than Stanford ever could. Stanford lost the Rose Bowl and multiple Heisman's because the national narrative is Stanford is a niche school. It is not a serious football player and never will be.

Good post. I played around with AI to come up with teams which would comprise the top 40 football schools. And then asked to provide a list of all the schools in the FBS that did not make the top 40. I then asked it to make a league out of the rest of the FBS schools not in the top 40 and this is what it came up with:

The “Power 40” Super League
SEC Core (10)

University of Alabama

University of Georgia

Louisiana State University

University of Florida

University of Tennessee

Auburn University

Texas A&M University

University of Texas at Austin

University of Oklahoma

University of Mississippi

(Mississippi gets the nod over some others due to consistent competitiveness + SEC value.)

Big Ten Core (9)

Ohio State University

University of Michigan

Pennsylvania State University

University of Southern California

University of Oregon

University of Washington

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Michigan State University

University of Nebraska–Lincoln

ACC Power Brands (6)

Clemson University

Florida State University

University of Miami

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Virginia Tech

University of Notre Dame

Big 12 Survivors (6)

University of Texas at Austin (already counted — skip duplicate)

Replacing duplicate:

Baylor University

Texas Christian University

Oklahoma State University

Kansas State University

Iowa State University

National Brands / Independents (5)

Brigham Young University

University of Utah

University of Pittsburgh

Stanford University

Duke University

Final 5 Spots (TV Market + Legacy Value)

University of Arkansas

University of South Carolina

University of California, Los Angeles

University of Arizona

Arizona State University

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ break ++++++++++++++++

Remaining FBS Schools (Not in Power 40)
American Athletic Conference Core

University of Memphis

University of South Florida

East Carolina University

Tulane University

University of Tulsa

Temple University

Rice University

University of Texas at San Antonio

University of North Texas

Florida Atlantic University

University of Alabama at Birmingham

United States Naval Academy

Mountain West Core

Boise State University

Fresno State

San Diego State University

Colorado State University

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

University of Nevada, Reno

University of New Mexico

University of Wyoming

Utah State University

Air Force Academy

Sun Belt Core

Appalachian State University

Coastal Carolina University

Georgia Southern University

Georgia State University

University of Louisiana at Lafayette

University of South Alabama

James Madison University

Marshall University

Old Dominion University

Arkansas State University

Texas State University

MAC

University of Toledo

Miami University

Northern Illinois University

Western Michigan University

Central Michigan University

Eastern Michigan University

Bowling Green State University

Kent State University

Ball State University

Ohio University

University at Buffalo

University of Akron

Conference USA Remnants

Liberty University

Western Kentucky University

Middle Tennessee State University

Louisiana Tech University

Sam Houston State University

Jacksonville State University

New Mexico State University

Florida International University

Kennesaw State University

University of Texas at El Paso

The list of FBS teams that will not make the top super league is around 75 teams. 75!!! Let that sink in. Now look at the Mountain West Conference. Do you see that most of the schools are not in the top 40? So if we jump to the MWC, are you sure we are moving up, or are we just moving sideways and paying more money for the opportunity? We lose the chance to win a national championship and will be perineal FBS punching bags. I'm not sure I want to be Cal to be honest. I'd rather stay FCS and win championships.

Good work on this. I can't agree more with this line, at least for the next couple years: "I'm not sure I want to be Cal to be honest. I'd rather stay FCS and win championships."

I didn't see CSU Sacramento of the Mid America Conference (MAC) on the list. If this is the split, they would need a playoff. 75+/- teams to choose from, 32 team playoff field, or cut it down to 16? The American and Mountain West leftovers would run that deal, with occasional infiltrations by teams like Coastal, App St., and maybe a couple of those Conference USA scrubs.

There are other teams missing as well. Consider it a rough breakdown. As for how the league would look and playoffs, I could do another prompt. The 75 teams are meant to display how many FBS teams will not be in the top tier league in the future and how the overall construction (as you have pointed out) will need to be fixed.

There is going to be a ton of movement with FCS and FBS teams. This is why I think the smart play is to just sit back and let the dominos fall. Current conferences might just dissolve or merge with other conferences. Look at SACST, they are in the MAC, but what if the MAC doesn't exist in a couple years or the MAC stays together but the conference decides to become FCS due to $$$.

I think there's a lot of truth to your post and hypothesis, interesting times and the winds of change are blowing.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article314958406.html?taid=69add9fb155caf0001a26076 SacSt. Athletics Economic Impact report. Spelling 'California' wrong on pg 37 got me..

… on the same page, approximately is apparently two words. They are also quite frugal with their use of articles.

I would be interested in @fugawe09’assessment of their stadium construction numbers. I suspect much of the positive economic impacts are generated by a fantasyland of indirect benefits.

Of course if you are contracted to develop an economic impact report for a client, you’re going to tend to embellish the positives.

What I took from this, as someone who reads a lot of these types of reports, is: I really hope we don't solicit Collegiate Consulting for their input. ha

construction costs of $175-300m sounds in the ballpark to me for either Cal Expo or Hornet Stadium. It is true that any project generates a one time positive impact to the construction trades but long term, stadiums are rarely profitable on their own - if they were, then private investors would be building them without those kind of reports which are typically a non-objective precursor to asking local taxpayers to chip in for construction. There may be civic value, but financially it’s a pit.

If the Montana State game had 30k viewers, I’m still struggling with how Kent State is going to generate dramatically more and more profitable viewers for advertisers. I think the media impact is overvalued. The largest item of economic impact is the Sac State payroll. Yes those people buy houses and eat at restaurants, but it is mostly still taxpayer money.