[Canalejas]

That being said, the product on the field winds up being a zero sum game. If we win more games, by definition that means that everyone else loses more games, and while we are investing money into trying to make that happen, they are investing money in preventing that from happen.  The net result is that no matter how much or how little teams in college football spend in aggregate on the product on the field, the global average record will always be .500, so you are just fighting for share.

This is my only half kidding argument as to why we should/should have gotten a B1G invite. If you have a conference of 12 blue bloods, half of them will have a losing conference record. Why not add a school that is down like Stanford so that the other teams in the conference can add another win to their conference records? It's a literal win win situation for everyone (except us, but then we'd be in the B1G).

I guess they figured that's what UCLA is for.

[Canalejas]

That being said, the product on the field winds up being a zero sum game. If we win more games, by definition that means that everyone else loses more games, and while we are investing money into trying to make that happen, they are investing money in preventing that from happen.  The net result is that no matter how much or how little teams in college football spend in aggregate on the product on the field, the global average record will always be .500, so you are just fighting for share.

This is my only half kidding argument as to why we should/should have gotten a B1G invite. If you have a conference of 12 blue bloods, half of them will have a losing conference record. Why not add a school that is down like Stanford so that the other teams in the conference can add another win to their conference records? It's a literal win win situation for everyone (except us, but then we'd be in the B1G).

I guess they figured that's what UCLA is for.