I for one am stoked. This was the next best option to a B1G invite, and though I admit I have many suspicions as anyone about the impact of travel on our competitiveness, you can also make a case that we'll have a better opportunity to compete and succeed in the ACC than we would in the B1G. First off, not enough has been made of the fact that this is just a massive, massive upgrade for mens bball -- like getting an SEC invite in football. Calford are now the first and only teams on the west coast that can guarantee trips to Duke/UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, etc. year-to-year. We'll absolutely be a player in west coast recruiting once again. Football-wise we'll be the featured 7:30pm ESPN game every other Saturday evening like clockwork. And we'll have a path to the playoff in a conference where 15 of the 18 schools are roughly our competitive equivalent. Culturally, these schools make sense and add value. I want to travel to all of these cities/campuses. While we will be behind from $ standpoint, even the most cynical part of me (roughly 98%) believes there is a plan to close that gap between our own finances and the competitions'. It would make no sense to go through this otherwise. And though this has been painful and will continue to be as valued programs are cut, the message has been received that we need to be competitive again--not only at the campus level, but also at the Regents level. That can't be understated. It's the beginning of a new age.
I am interested to see what happens with football scheduling if this comes to pass. Since Notre Dame is pushing so hard, the ACC needs to apply pressure on them to either A) join for football, because the ACC will need to go to at least nine conference games and that won't work with seventeen teams or B) agree to increase to seven ACC games, each of which would count in the ACC standings for the opponent only (they currently play five or six per year and have also played Stanford annually). For option B, each school would have one primary opponent (Stanford's would be Notre Dame, but they could still play Cal as a nonconference opponent in years that they don't play an ACC game; the Carolina schools have done this recently as they were split with two in each division) and one secondary opponent (except Stanford, who would play eight opponents each year). All other opponents would be played every other year and the secondary opponents would be grouped in pairs to round out Notre Dame's ACC obligation (three years out of eight vs Notre Dame, five vs the secondary opponent).
Next, the ACC needs to lean on Notre Dame to facilitate a secondary tv contract with NBC where all Notre Dame games against ACC teams and other nonconference home games would be on NBC, with ACC matchups on NBC when Notre Dame is idle or on the road against a non-ACC school to pair up with NBC's Big Ten games (This would require NBC buying tier one games from ESPN with the premium going to the conference to distribute; they could also air second-tier games on Peacock as the inventory would increase from 56 conference games to 79). The ACC also needs to become the king of week zero, with a high-profile matchup to kick off the season when Notre Dame isn't playing an international game in that slot. Extra money picked up in the deal can be partially distributed to all teams with the remaining money given to teams chosen to play teams other than Notre Dame on NBC to keep FSU and Clemson from whining.
The only other viable option would be ten games, possibly with a 4-6-6 scheduling model where each team has four opponents every year and rotate the other twelve. Again, that would increase inventory and an NBC tie-in could still be explored along with a week zero initiative.
I am confident that as long as Madsen is at Cal, we will at least be a legitimate, competitive program, unlike the dumpster fire of the past 6 years. However, we need to be nationally relevant again in football STAT.
If football scuffles again to a 4-8, 5-7 season in 2023, it'll be interesting to see if the donors step up pay the Wilcox buyout, or do they put that money into the NIL and give him another chance in year 1 of ACC play. As sy said below, the donors will already be on the hook, big time.
Oh, he will get a pass for the Pac12 collapsing. Wilcox will be perfect in the ACC because his contract is about as iron clad as the ACC GoR and they both expire at roughly the same time.
However, I want to believe that even a NCAA Coach of the Year could possibly do no better, here, given the culture that needs to change. Hard to be a Tedford when the school hobbles and throttles your program.
Well now the mantra must be that the revenue sports are a business. Either treat them like a business and stop hamstringing ourselves or get out of the game. Half measures won't be enough come 2024.
Wilcox has shot himself in the foot with enough bad OL and OC hires. How many coaches without a winning conference record get 3 chances to reboot the offensive staff? The culture at Cal didn’t force Wilcox to hire Musgrave.
True, yes. But, on paper, Musgraves seemed a good hire. His NFL experience seemed like it should have helped recruiting. Let us remember that the City of Berkeley is part of the problem, too, with COVID hitting us harder than most programs.
Musgrave was never a good hire on paper. His resume showed he was a journey man OC with little college experience. His offense was outdated for the NFL and even more so for the college game.
We do. No doubt. And I think FINALLY that has been acknowledged as requisite for our mere existence. I can't predict we'll make the right decisions--we frankly don't have a great recent history of doing so--but I do anticipate that there will be changes as accountability, goal setting, resourcing and support for football and basketball.
The scuttlebutt seems to be that the big donors will be covering the shortfall in the early part of the ACC deal, and with that will come strings attached to how the athletic department will be run . . . as in, cut some of the non-revenue sports (or force them to become self-funding), loosen admissions requirements, keep the lion's share of money supporting football/basketball, etc.
As for competitiveness, IMHO, we need more. Any coach or administrator whose ultimate expectation is anything less than national championship is short-sighted and failing our mission as a university in pursuit of excellence. Such failing of leadership is not worthy of our reputation.
That 30% share is approximately the same as an AAC share, based on my understanding. This better be a short-term cut since it would be absurd to continue this arrangement into the 2030s when the conference may blow up.
Also wondering why the B1G wouldn't take a flyer on us for that price. There has to be more to the deal because these terms aren't better money than what we already have on the table.
Edit: The ACC Network part of the ESPN deal is separate. So we could add an extra $9-10M if we get a full share of that. Add in some Calimony from the Regents and we can at least get into the same ballpark.
I doubt Calimony is even on the table anymore. Calimony was based on the idea of reduced revenue share in the PAC-12 relative to the loss attributed to UCLA’s value. It essentially took the payout of a hypothetical PAC-11 (including UCLA) adjusted for the payout without UCLA. The collapse of the PAC-12 renders the whole thing moot. The conference collapsed. There’s no new deal to even assess the value of the conference. It doesn’t exist anymore. In other words, UCLA’s departure didn’t ultimately impact Cal. It’s not like Cal has some proprietary right to UCLA revenue.
The prospect of a Pac-12 collapse would have been a reasonably anticipated outcome of UCLA's departure at the time that decision was made. Seriously, you are arguing that the collapse of the Pac-12 has had no impact on Cal? This move was shitty and unscrupulous. Though UCLA will gain net revenue in realignment, CFB will be a less interesting, less enjoyable experience without tradition and rivalry, including Cal-UCLA matchups. If UCLA loss of revenue via Calimony is your primary angle in the realignment fallout, and not the loss of 93 years of CFB history, then your values are skewed.
and Calimony will be part of the pitch to the Regents for approval to move to another conference, using their own words against them. No question Calimony will be part of it. That said, it may come in two parts: 1) a direct payment from UCLA; and 2) funds to UCLA withheld by the Regents to cover CMS debt and contract payouts for coaches being let go and athlete scholarships due to downsizing the # of varsity sports.
It's entirely possible that Calimony will be increased from what they previously estimated. Because there are a limited number of options (specifically conferences and media companies), Cal's market price has been driven below its actual value and the Regents will obviously understand this.
Keep in mind that the Regents represent all the UCs and the students that attend them. They also manage the school endowments. They couldn't keep UCLA from bolting conferences but they do control the higher level finances (a much, much larger pile of money), which UCLA acknowledged. If they feel having two P5 UCs is better for the system than only having one, they'll make it happen.
Doesn't matter if you think it's UCLA's problem, unless ShowtimeBruin is the burner account of a UC Regent.
If I were in your situation, I'd be rooting for Cal to get in somewhere good, especially the B1G because we'll be spending your money otherwise. But I guess trolling is almost as good.
I’m pretty sure this a Tommy Trojan with two troll, one a Duck and one a Bruin, so far, accounts. The tell is repeating the sentiment “Nobody wants Cal.” As much as I can dislike UCLA, a real UCLA fan would have way more class than a lowlife $C troll.
And to be painfully honest, if Cal were so ridiculously bad, our opponents would not need to grind on us.
You remember what name you had to write on your tuition check? It wasn't UCLA. The UC Regents can do whatever they want. And you made Drake sweat. . . a lot. He might be mad.
That’s not how athletics work. The athletic departments are completely independent entities. It’s the same reason UC Merced doesn’t get Cal’s TV revenue.
I disagree. The collapse of the conference was due to the departure of USC and ineptitude of George Kliavkoff. According to the UC Regents, UCLA is only valued at around $65-$75 million annually. That means their departure only represents a $3.3-$4 million impact on remaining PAC-12 schools. The same report estimated USC’s value at $150 million. Granted, they never cited a source for UCLA’s value and that figure may have been supplied by UCLA itself but nevertheless that’s what the Regents believe. In other words, you’d have to believe $3-4 million a year is the reason the PAC-12 collapsed to put the blame on UCLA.
As was reported, USC would not have left without UCLA. The departure of the LA schools 100% was the death blow here. And blaming conference leadership is lame - if UCLA had wanted to replace the commissioner it would have happened overnight.
Because ESPN has a pro rata clause with the ACC, full league equity will be paid for each addition. If these funds are pooled after partial equity payments to the Bay Area Schools, it allows the ACC to bring in new additional revenue that it can distribute as it pleases.
The sources said this week that the expectation is that the money will be distributed on the basis of performance. So, success in football would generate additional revenue. This has been a sticking point between the four opposing schools. Florida State and Clemson have been particularly vocal about falling behind their SEC and Big Ten peers over the next decade, believing they need to bridge a gap that could extend to $30 million year-over-year in media rights payments. A performance-based model of additional revenue earned through expansion can help.
Two of the sources said they believe the ACC is closer to adding the three schools than it has been at any time this month, and that a final decision could be made by the end of the week.
Indeed, they did switch to a performance model. Adding schools at a discount (bargain price due to collapse of a major conference) is a way to increase that discretionary pool.
I do wonder if they'll offer a conference loan like the B1G does.
Forget the ACC! I say try to keep the Pac-12 alive than be a stepchild to this east coast conference. Let's show some west coast innovation and forge a creative media deal. The travel alone is sickening.
This is more like being adopted by a family with 12 kids already that makes it clear from day 1 to not expect anything much since you aren’t their biological child and they are doing you a favor even taking you in, but yes it’s still better than homeless.
Yeah, this is bonkers. It is one thing if they were offering a full share. The ACC is going to implode once FSU and Clemson leave, the conference needs us as much as we need them. But at $7-10 million, that is G5 money. We would be much better off trying to rebuild the Pac-X. We can easily get that amount of money on our own and we would be the marquee brands in the rebuilt conference. As a large public university, we have the potential to bring in a lot of money via non-media sources (tickets, donations, etc...) if we can start winning again. We are not going to be competitive in the ACC with that kind of deal. And the conference might not be around long enough for us to ever see a full share.
I can't help but feel sympathy for Jack Plummer. He left Cal to avoid the beatings due to our offensive line, and it seems the beatings will persist, only now as a consequence of our defensive line. LOL.
Whatever happens I hope old pac-12 teams beat up on the other teams in their new conferences. just as last gift to the dead pac-12 to prove they were better than people thought.
Except for the two LA institutions. I hope they end up middle to bottom of the B1G, especially in football. It would be delicious to see Lincoln R. & friends losing 4-5 games per year.
SC, UW and Oregon will ALL be breaking in new QBs in their inaugural B1G season after losing their starters to the NFL Draft…here’s hoping for 6-6 mediocrity.
True but they could just as easily load up with QB talent via the portal, just like they currently did with Penix, Williams ans Nix. I am sure that USC will be fine at QB.
Sure, though I think UW definitely takes a step back - Penix is elite and knew DeBoer’s system from Bloomington…the next guy won’t have that same magic, and chances are he won’t be a poss 1st round caliber talent. Ducks as well - Kenny Dillingham is sharp - they’ll miss him, and Nix is so unique…rare to get a guy play that long and you probably won’t see it because the COVID year will finally be gone. SC will be fine, though Riley may be in the NFL.
I actually, let me finish now.. prefer them to rock the B1G too. Wouldn't be sweet if in the conference semi-final games.. we see matchups between B1G vs ACC .. and it's all former pac12 teams?... awesome.. and sad... and unlikely... but at least we can dream
My preference is that we keep the Pac-X together and we rebuild a west coast focused conference that prizes academics and Olympic sports, but also has a fun football brand. We embrace streaming which is where the media landscape is headed and get hailed as innovators. And in 10 years when the old Pac-12 members have gotten fed up of being the doormats of their national super conferences and when the money from the traditional media disappears and when football continues to loose popularity due to CTE, they will beg us to get back in the PAC. At which point we will let them in, but only on the condition that they take a 20% share of the media deal for 20 years as penance for their treason.
I am not sure what you are implying. That deal was offered to the PAC-10. It was UW that bailed due to lack of linear TV exposure, and they convinced UO to go with them to the B1G which is ultimately what led to the conference collapsing. And even if the Apple deal was unpalatable to some of the remaining PAC-4 members at the time (I have seen no reporting that any of the four were adamantly against it), in light of recent events, if they could go back in time, I am sure all four would eagerly support that deal as it was the only one on the table.
If the PAC-4 decides to try and rebuild, they would absolutely take a streaming deal if offered. They are not in a position of power. And the PAC-4 can absolutely get something north of the $7-10 million that is currently being offered by the ACC. This is about doing our best to turn lemons into lemonade (or more rather. slightly palatable lemon water). Cord cutting is accelerating, the number of cable households is down 8.5% year-over-year. Meanwhile the number of streaming hours watched just surpassed the number of cable hours watched. A streaming only package may not have been right for the PAC-10, but a rebuilt PAC-X can and should consider that type of media deal and take a gamble on the future of sports entertainment. They don't have a ton of options regardless. ESPN is broke and is not going to be paying for another conferences media rights anytime soon, if ever.
Okay.
Now, back to our reality. While we may survive, our culture and expectations need to change and here's a stark example as to why we must change.
Here's ESPN's projections for the PAC12 PACALYPSE NOW, final year:
Champion: USC
Offensive player of the year: Caleb Williams, QB, USC
Defensive player of the year: Laiatu Latu, LB, UCLA
Freshman of the year: Dante Moore, QB, UCLA
Impact transfer: Dorian Singer, WR, USC (from Arizona)
Comeback player of the year: Brant Kuithe, TE, Utah
Coach of the year: Kalen DeBoer, Washington
Coach on the hot seat: Justin Wilcox, California
Coordinator who will be a head coach: Ryan Grubb, offensive coordinator, Washington
Nonconference game of the year: USC at Notre Dame, Oct. 14
Conference game of the year: Washington at USC, Nov. 4
Predicted Finish: Pac-12
OVERALL/CONF.
USC 11-1/8-1
Washington 10-2/7-2
Utah 10-2/7-2
Oregon 9-3/6-3
Oregon State 8-4/5-4
UCLA 8-4/5-4
Washington State 6-6/4-5
Arizona 6-6/4-5
California 5-7/3-6
Arizona State 5-7/3-6
Colorado 3-9/2-7
Stanford 2-10/0-9
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38221760/college-football-picks-predictions-champions-conferences
Think about this:
Cal vs Duke
Cal vs UNC
CAL vs Florida
Cal vs Florida state
Cal vs Clemson
We will be a destination for top recruits on the west coast.
Florida is not in the ACC. Do you mean Miami?
Yes
In basketball
Like I reiterated in earlier posts....there is no choice. Cal vs Duke and Cal vs North Carolina basketball here we come
Posted in the other thread, but just in case you missed it.
https://calbears.com/documents/2023/8/24/23FB-Cal-Depth_Chart_at_North_Texas.pdf
I for one am stoked. This was the next best option to a B1G invite, and though I admit I have many suspicions as anyone about the impact of travel on our competitiveness, you can also make a case that we'll have a better opportunity to compete and succeed in the ACC than we would in the B1G. First off, not enough has been made of the fact that this is just a massive, massive upgrade for mens bball -- like getting an SEC invite in football. Calford are now the first and only teams on the west coast that can guarantee trips to Duke/UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, etc. year-to-year. We'll absolutely be a player in west coast recruiting once again. Football-wise we'll be the featured 7:30pm ESPN game every other Saturday evening like clockwork. And we'll have a path to the playoff in a conference where 15 of the 18 schools are roughly our competitive equivalent. Culturally, these schools make sense and add value. I want to travel to all of these cities/campuses. While we will be behind from $ standpoint, even the most cynical part of me (roughly 98%) believes there is a plan to close that gap between our own finances and the competitions'. It would make no sense to go through this otherwise. And though this has been painful and will continue to be as valued programs are cut, the message has been received that we need to be competitive again--not only at the campus level, but also at the Regents level. That can't be understated. It's the beginning of a new age.
Exceptional post.
I am interested to see what happens with football scheduling if this comes to pass. Since Notre Dame is pushing so hard, the ACC needs to apply pressure on them to either A) join for football, because the ACC will need to go to at least nine conference games and that won't work with seventeen teams or B) agree to increase to seven ACC games, each of which would count in the ACC standings for the opponent only (they currently play five or six per year and have also played Stanford annually). For option B, each school would have one primary opponent (Stanford's would be Notre Dame, but they could still play Cal as a nonconference opponent in years that they don't play an ACC game; the Carolina schools have done this recently as they were split with two in each division) and one secondary opponent (except Stanford, who would play eight opponents each year). All other opponents would be played every other year and the secondary opponents would be grouped in pairs to round out Notre Dame's ACC obligation (three years out of eight vs Notre Dame, five vs the secondary opponent).
Next, the ACC needs to lean on Notre Dame to facilitate a secondary tv contract with NBC where all Notre Dame games against ACC teams and other nonconference home games would be on NBC, with ACC matchups on NBC when Notre Dame is idle or on the road against a non-ACC school to pair up with NBC's Big Ten games (This would require NBC buying tier one games from ESPN with the premium going to the conference to distribute; they could also air second-tier games on Peacock as the inventory would increase from 56 conference games to 79). The ACC also needs to become the king of week zero, with a high-profile matchup to kick off the season when Notre Dame isn't playing an international game in that slot. Extra money picked up in the deal can be partially distributed to all teams with the remaining money given to teams chosen to play teams other than Notre Dame on NBC to keep FSU and Clemson from whining.
The only other viable option would be ten games, possibly with a 4-6-6 scheduling model where each team has four opponents every year and rotate the other twelve. Again, that would increase inventory and an NBC tie-in could still be explored along with a week zero initiative.
Nice, P.
I am confident that as long as Madsen is at Cal, we will at least be a legitimate, competitive program, unlike the dumpster fire of the past 6 years. However, we need to be nationally relevant again in football STAT.
If football scuffles again to a 4-8, 5-7 season in 2023, it'll be interesting to see if the donors step up pay the Wilcox buyout, or do they put that money into the NIL and give him another chance in year 1 of ACC play. As sy said below, the donors will already be on the hook, big time.
Oh, he will get a pass for the Pac12 collapsing. Wilcox will be perfect in the ACC because his contract is about as iron clad as the ACC GoR and they both expire at roughly the same time.
True enough.
However, I want to believe that even a NCAA Coach of the Year could possibly do no better, here, given the culture that needs to change. Hard to be a Tedford when the school hobbles and throttles your program.
Well now the mantra must be that the revenue sports are a business. Either treat them like a business and stop hamstringing ourselves or get out of the game. Half measures won't be enough come 2024.
Wilcox has shot himself in the foot with enough bad OL and OC hires. How many coaches without a winning conference record get 3 chances to reboot the offensive staff? The culture at Cal didn’t force Wilcox to hire Musgrave.
True, yes. But, on paper, Musgraves seemed a good hire. His NFL experience seemed like it should have helped recruiting. Let us remember that the City of Berkeley is part of the problem, too, with COVID hitting us harder than most programs.
But, I will not deny that JW is in the hotseat.
Musgrave was never a good hire on paper. His resume showed he was a journey man OC with little college experience. His offense was outdated for the NFL and even more so for the college game.
We do. No doubt. And I think FINALLY that has been acknowledged as requisite for our mere existence. I can't predict we'll make the right decisions--we frankly don't have a great recent history of doing so--but I do anticipate that there will be changes as accountability, goal setting, resourcing and support for football and basketball.
The scuttlebutt seems to be that the big donors will be covering the shortfall in the early part of the ACC deal, and with that will come strings attached to how the athletic department will be run . . . as in, cut some of the non-revenue sports (or force them to become self-funding), loosen admissions requirements, keep the lion's share of money supporting football/basketball, etc.
Such changes could generate a turnaround.
Good, if true. It means that the administration must abandon its indifference towards athletics.
GAME CHANGER
SouthCarolinaBear agrees wholeheartedly
Increased media attention will be one of the outcomes, which will help recruiting in both football and basketball.
If we win!
Well-said.
As for competitiveness, IMHO, we need more. Any coach or administrator whose ultimate expectation is anything less than national championship is short-sighted and failing our mission as a university in pursuit of excellence. Such failing of leadership is not worthy of our reputation.
https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2022/streaming-claims-largest-piece-of-tv-viewing-pie-in-july/
That 30% share is approximately the same as an AAC share, based on my understanding. This better be a short-term cut since it would be absurd to continue this arrangement into the 2030s when the conference may blow up.
Also wondering why the B1G wouldn't take a flyer on us for that price. There has to be more to the deal because these terms aren't better money than what we already have on the table.
Edit: The ACC Network part of the ESPN deal is separate. So we could add an extra $9-10M if we get a full share of that. Add in some Calimony from the Regents and we can at least get into the same ballpark.
I doubt Calimony is even on the table anymore. Calimony was based on the idea of reduced revenue share in the PAC-12 relative to the loss attributed to UCLA’s value. It essentially took the payout of a hypothetical PAC-11 (including UCLA) adjusted for the payout without UCLA. The collapse of the PAC-12 renders the whole thing moot. The conference collapsed. There’s no new deal to even assess the value of the conference. It doesn’t exist anymore. In other words, UCLA’s departure didn’t ultimately impact Cal. It’s not like Cal has some proprietary right to UCLA revenue.
The prospect of a Pac-12 collapse would have been a reasonably anticipated outcome of UCLA's departure at the time that decision was made. Seriously, you are arguing that the collapse of the Pac-12 has had no impact on Cal? This move was shitty and unscrupulous. Though UCLA will gain net revenue in realignment, CFB will be a less interesting, less enjoyable experience without tradition and rivalry, including Cal-UCLA matchups. If UCLA loss of revenue via Calimony is your primary angle in the realignment fallout, and not the loss of 93 years of CFB history, then your values are skewed.
Hear, hear!
Y'all are so butthurt from Calimony, it's pathetic. Stop, please.
Just stop.
Calimony is absolutely still on the table.
and Calimony will be part of the pitch to the Regents for approval to move to another conference, using their own words against them. No question Calimony will be part of it. That said, it may come in two parts: 1) a direct payment from UCLA; and 2) funds to UCLA withheld by the Regents to cover CMS debt and contract payouts for coaches being let go and athlete scholarships due to downsizing the # of varsity sports.
It's entirely possible that Calimony will be increased from what they previously estimated. Because there are a limited number of options (specifically conferences and media companies), Cal's market price has been driven below its actual value and the Regents will obviously understand this.
Keep in mind that the Regents represent all the UCs and the students that attend them. They also manage the school endowments. They couldn't keep UCLA from bolting conferences but they do control the higher level finances (a much, much larger pile of money), which UCLA acknowledged. If they feel having two P5 UCs is better for the system than only having one, they'll make it happen.
It’s not UCLA’s problem that no one wants Cal.
Doesn't matter if you think it's UCLA's problem, unless ShowtimeBruin is the burner account of a UC Regent.
If I were in your situation, I'd be rooting for Cal to get in somewhere good, especially the B1G because we'll be spending your money otherwise. But I guess trolling is almost as good.
You got it.
I’m pretty sure this a Tommy Trojan with two troll, one a Duck and one a Bruin, so far, accounts. The tell is repeating the sentiment “Nobody wants Cal.” As much as I can dislike UCLA, a real UCLA fan would have way more class than a lowlife $C troll.
And to be painfully honest, if Cal were so ridiculously bad, our opponents would not need to grind on us.
Ah, there’s the high horse.
It’s really tragic that UCLA is not more like $C, despite trying so hard to be.
The situation is even worse than what Cal was expecting to receive in the Pac12, so it definitely should be paid.
You remember what name you had to write on your tuition check? It wasn't UCLA. The UC Regents can do whatever they want. And you made Drake sweat. . . a lot. He might be mad.
That’s not how athletics work. The athletic departments are completely independent entities. It’s the same reason UC Merced doesn’t get Cal’s TV revenue.
Keep wishing.
UCLA’s decision to bolt to the midwest is the proximate cause of the conference collapsing though
I disagree. The collapse of the conference was due to the departure of USC and ineptitude of George Kliavkoff. According to the UC Regents, UCLA is only valued at around $65-$75 million annually. That means their departure only represents a $3.3-$4 million impact on remaining PAC-12 schools. The same report estimated USC’s value at $150 million. Granted, they never cited a source for UCLA’s value and that figure may have been supplied by UCLA itself but nevertheless that’s what the Regents believe. In other words, you’d have to believe $3-4 million a year is the reason the PAC-12 collapsed to put the blame on UCLA.
As was reported, USC would not have left without UCLA. The departure of the LA schools 100% was the death blow here. And blaming conference leadership is lame - if UCLA had wanted to replace the commissioner it would have happened overnight.
Yes, the PAC 12’s mortal wound was UCLA leaving. The unkindest cut of all.
Losing the LA market made the conference a dead man walking.
Yeah, it specifically says 30% of the Tier 1 payout. Unclear what we’d get for the lower tier payouts.
Because ESPN has a pro rata clause with the ACC, full league equity will be paid for each addition. If these funds are pooled after partial equity payments to the Bay Area Schools, it allows the ACC to bring in new additional revenue that it can distribute as it pleases.
The sources said this week that the expectation is that the money will be distributed on the basis of performance. So, success in football would generate additional revenue. This has been a sticking point between the four opposing schools. Florida State and Clemson have been particularly vocal about falling behind their SEC and Big Ten peers over the next decade, believing they need to bridge a gap that could extend to $30 million year-over-year in media rights payments. A performance-based model of additional revenue earned through expansion can help.
Two of the sources said they believe the ACC is closer to adding the three schools than it has been at any time this month, and that a final decision could be made by the end of the week.
https://www.devhardware.com/sources-acc-chairs-meeting-this-week-as-conference-seriously-considers-adding-stanford-cal-smu/
Indeed, they did switch to a performance model. Adding schools at a discount (bargain price due to collapse of a major conference) is a way to increase that discretionary pool.
I do wonder if they'll offer a conference loan like the B1G does.
Forget the ACC! I say try to keep the Pac-12 alive than be a stepchild to this east coast conference. Let's show some west coast innovation and forge a creative media deal. The travel alone is sickening.
I rather be adopted by middle class parents than become homeless
This is more like being adopted by a family with 12 kids already that makes it clear from day 1 to not expect anything much since you aren’t their biological child and they are doing you a favor even taking you in, but yes it’s still better than homeless.
Like when Leo DiCaprio joined growing pains? Are we Leo?
Yeah, this is bonkers. It is one thing if they were offering a full share. The ACC is going to implode once FSU and Clemson leave, the conference needs us as much as we need them. But at $7-10 million, that is G5 money. We would be much better off trying to rebuild the Pac-X. We can easily get that amount of money on our own and we would be the marquee brands in the rebuilt conference. As a large public university, we have the potential to bring in a lot of money via non-media sources (tickets, donations, etc...) if we can start winning again. We are not going to be competitive in the ACC with that kind of deal. And the conference might not be around long enough for us to ever see a full share.
Forget Shams vs. Woj -- it's all about Dellenger vs. Thamel at the moment.
Cal should inquire how much they would have to pay to be admitted.
Yes.
I can't help but feel sympathy for Jack Plummer. He left Cal to avoid the beatings due to our offensive line, and it seems the beatings will persist, only now as a consequence of our defensive line. LOL.
https://www.si.com/college/louisville/football/backup-qb-competition-heating-up
His final year is this year
Whatever happens I hope old pac-12 teams beat up on the other teams in their new conferences. just as last gift to the dead pac-12 to prove they were better than people thought.
I have a feeling the Big 12 is about to learn some lessons.
Except for the two LA institutions. I hope they end up middle to bottom of the B1G, especially in football. It would be delicious to see Lincoln R. & friends losing 4-5 games per year.
SC, UW and Oregon will ALL be breaking in new QBs in their inaugural B1G season after losing their starters to the NFL Draft…here’s hoping for 6-6 mediocrity.
True but they could just as easily load up with QB talent via the portal, just like they currently did with Penix, Williams ans Nix. I am sure that USC will be fine at QB.
Sure, though I think UW definitely takes a step back - Penix is elite and knew DeBoer’s system from Bloomington…the next guy won’t have that same magic, and chances are he won’t be a poss 1st round caliber talent. Ducks as well - Kenny Dillingham is sharp - they’ll miss him, and Nix is so unique…rare to get a guy play that long and you probably won’t see it because the COVID year will finally be gone. SC will be fine, though Riley may be in the NFL.
I actually, let me finish now.. prefer them to rock the B1G too. Wouldn't be sweet if in the conference semi-final games.. we see matchups between B1G vs ACC .. and it's all former pac12 teams?... awesome.. and sad... and unlikely... but at least we can dream
My preference is that we keep the Pac-X together and we rebuild a west coast focused conference that prizes academics and Olympic sports, but also has a fun football brand. We embrace streaming which is where the media landscape is headed and get hailed as innovators. And in 10 years when the old Pac-12 members have gotten fed up of being the doormats of their national super conferences and when the money from the traditional media disappears and when football continues to loose popularity due to CTE, they will beg us to get back in the PAC. At which point we will let them in, but only on the condition that they take a 20% share of the media deal for 20 years as penance for their treason.
I'll have what this guy's having
So wait a minute “…we embrace streaming which is where the media landscape is headed and get hailed as innovators”???
You already had that option with Apple’s streaming offering $20 million + performance based upside and everyone threw up on it
I am not sure what you are implying. That deal was offered to the PAC-10. It was UW that bailed due to lack of linear TV exposure, and they convinced UO to go with them to the B1G which is ultimately what led to the conference collapsing. And even if the Apple deal was unpalatable to some of the remaining PAC-4 members at the time (I have seen no reporting that any of the four were adamantly against it), in light of recent events, if they could go back in time, I am sure all four would eagerly support that deal as it was the only one on the table.
If the PAC-4 decides to try and rebuild, they would absolutely take a streaming deal if offered. They are not in a position of power. And the PAC-4 can absolutely get something north of the $7-10 million that is currently being offered by the ACC. This is about doing our best to turn lemons into lemonade (or more rather. slightly palatable lemon water). Cord cutting is accelerating, the number of cable households is down 8.5% year-over-year. Meanwhile the number of streaming hours watched just surpassed the number of cable hours watched. A streaming only package may not have been right for the PAC-10, but a rebuilt PAC-X can and should consider that type of media deal and take a gamble on the future of sports entertainment. They don't have a ton of options regardless. ESPN is broke and is not going to be paying for another conferences media rights anytime soon, if ever.
Well, UO and UW threw up on it. Certainly wasn't Cal lol
Wait Wait Wait Wait Wait... WAIT! Does this mean we are back again?!!?!?
Avi, kudos and thanks for keeping these posts coming, despite the dearth of actual news. Its nice to have a place to discuss the situation.
Another take:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/acc-expansion-conference-renews-discussions-to-add-stanford-california-smu-at-reduced-price-per-reports/
F-ck CBS.