Is there an event preceding the first ACC game of the season Thursday night that would give the conference bigwigs the opportunity to announce the expansion? If Thursday comes and goes without any announcement I'm afraid it's going to be the "Oski and the 3 Orts Show" which will make for a looooooong, dismal season for us.
I saw one post reporting a rumor the no votes now total 5; they did not name the fifth no vote. This would also explain the lack of a vote being announced. There have been other reports that the soft deadline for a decision is this week. Cal, Stanford, and SMU all need to begin other plans for 2024 if the ACC votes are not their for expansion.
The meetings (or lack thereof) of the ACC AD's are being well reported, so there won't be any surprise announcements. They were supposed to meet on Monday but cancelled due to the shooting. The ACC commissioner was supposed to go to the CFP meeting today but it has been reported that he is attending virtually [1]. One can speculate as to why, maybe the hurricane messed up his travel plans, or maybe he is staying back in order to facilitate the expansion meetings.
Thursday is not out of the question, but considering the shooting and the hurricane, I would not be surprised if they let it slip past then. Also, I have read conflicting reports about the number of votes. Some say it is in the bag, others are saying that there have been no changes (four no's). If they don't have the votes than this could drag on for a while.
The arrogance of Stanford! Those dorks, think they are too good for everything. They are basically buying their way into the acc. Why do you guys want to follow them? I understand that is a rivalry, but there are many great non-conference rivalries in college football. I hope Stanford gets rejected. God I hate those dorks!
I don’t love the deal but I’m genuinely confused on the comments from people saying we should turn this down and work on reviving the corpse known as the Pac-12.
While I appreciate the work that the bloggers on this site do, they are pretty obviously biased towards joining a P4 conference at any cost. And they have failed to adequately explore what rebuilding the PAC would actually look like, and that has had an impact on the opinions of the commentors on this board. There are other places on the internet that have a much more balanced and rational view of the situation. The writers of this blog would have you believe that anything but a P4 invite would be a death sentence for Cal athletics. But if you actually look closely at the details of what rebuilding the PAC-X would entail, the option has a lot of appeal, especially in the face of this ACC deal with its meager revenue share and insane travel (a B12 or B1G offer would be a much different debate).
Here is a link that you may be interested in: https://archive.is/X83tB (Paywall, so archive link to get around, apologies if that is looked down upon).
The finances of the PAC-12 are still pretty unknown, but reasonably conservative estimates that I have seen have put it in the ballpark of ~$20-30 million per school. And that is if we do absolutely nothing moving forward, i.e. no media deal, no more tournament money, etc... There are some estimates that put that number higher and there are other potential options on the table that could dramatically increase that pot (lawyer up).
So on one hand we have an offer for a meager revenue share in an east coast conference where the top four members are doing everything in their power to find a way out of the conference, at which point the media value of that conference would tank. And on the other hand, we have a path to rebuild our 100 year old conference with a financial runway that isn't too different then the other offer.
I am not saying one option is dramatically better than the other. Both of these options are pretty bad in my opinion. I am just trying to point out that this ACC deal is not our only option, and that I believe it is the worse option of the two. Not that it matters because we all know our AD is going to take the easiest route, regardless of the impacts on our student athletes. So if that ACC vote goes through, yeah, he is going to take it.
Still need to find a media deal because those numbers are near-starvation-level for P5 schools and they're basically a lump sum. Yes, there are some assets from the PAC but those should be surpassed in size relatively quickly by joining a P4 conference.
Unless Apple or Amazon invests a ton of cash into glueing a conference back together, I think it's over.
There is too much uncertainty around the financials to say that definitively. I would appreciate it if reporters would explore the topic in more detail, as I suspect they could pry some of those numbers from their sources.
But conservative estimates seem to indicate that we would have 2-3 years of runway at a level similar to what this ACC deal would provide. And there might be other potential options (particularly suing for damages) that could extend that runway for almost a decade.
Also, keep in mind that the travel burdens of the ACC deal mean that the financial comparisons are not one-to-one. Rebuilding the PAC can come in at a few million less and still be a better deal due to travel (another topic that I would like reporters to look at more in depth). The lower estimates of the ACC deal put the total annual distribution in the $12 million range. After travel costs, that is barely better than an AAC media share, which we could certainly get in a rebuilt PAC-X.
And an additional curve ball is the Calimony. We have no idea where that is going to land. Maybe the regents think the ACC deal is good enough to tide us over until the escalators kick in and decide to cancel it or go low. Maybe they go high. I suspect if we try to rebuild the PAC, we will have a stronger case for the maximum amount. But I suspect the writers of this blog are being a bit too optimistic on this one. I think the Calimony is going to phase out pretty quickly. Again more reporting here would be helpful.
So I guess what I am saying is there is way too much uncertainty around the financials of both options to definitively answer the question of which option is financially better. But I am fairly confident that neither option is dramatically better or worse than the other (they are both pretty bad). So considering that, I think we should choose the option that is better for our student athletes and for college sports in general, which is to rebuild the PAC.
I would much rather we rebuild the PAC and give some better landing places for recruits. It's not the top but it's still high profile. I just don't think we have enough money unless a media company also decides having the Pac is in their interests. ESPN has done things like this in the past, namely funding a bunch of low-level post-season bowls or funded the XFL because they wanted content. But they seem to be out of the "growth" phase now.
If the numbers make sense to try, we can try. But failure would certainly be more catastrophic for our programs than traveling would be.
This article assumes ticket sales and donations will stay equal if we stand pat. Both will crash if we are not seriously contending for a college football playoff or March Madness.
That is pure speculation. We don't know what will happen to ticket sales and donations. With the exception of our rivalry games (most of which are gone), the fans that I hang out with could care less whether we are playing WSU or Duke, . If Cal is doing well, they show up, if not, they go do other things.
And with the expanded playoff, I suspect we will have a much easier road to an occasional CFP berth in a rebuilt PAC vs in the ACC. The fans I know would absolutely show up for that.
If they don't get a move on there may not be a FSU or UM left to vote thanks to Idalia - Of course that would create two vacancies and enhance Cal and Stanford's chances for membership. SMU would have to hope Idalia's projected path does not change leading to Georgia Tech's demise. Simple, three vacancies and three petitioners, VOILA problem solved. All in favor say aye!
This is a bad deal. We will not be competitive with a partial share and cross country travel. And we are going to be locked into this deal until 2036 which means we will miss any chance we have to upgrade to the B1G or jump to a revived west coast conference in the off chance that those options become available.
I get that a lot of you are terrified at the thought of getting left out of the P4, but begging for scraps and being a perennial doormat of a power conference is not how we are going to survive realignment. We need to take our lumps, rebuild the PAC. Our academic standards are never going to allow us to compete with the likes of FSU and Clemson (and other blue-bloods) but we absolutely can compete in a rebuilt PAC and if anything our academic profile will actually work for us rather than against us at that level. From there, we can control our own destiny. If we do well and the power conferences come calling, we can make that leap on our own terms, or better yet, we hold the line and we continue to build a solid west coast athletic conference by adding teams where the opportunity arises.
We can compete with anyone if we can recruit. But, due to our academics, we need to recruit NATIONALLY. Now CAL-FURD are the only West Coast Schools in SEC/ACC Territory. That's huge.
And were the two best schools in the nation.
That's something to sell.
Smart kids who grew up in the South, but want a change, can still play half their games in the Southeast. And the other half in the most gorgeous stadium on earth with "3 Bridge Views" while getting the best education possible.
Travel is NOT a talking point anymore. That ship sailed.
The Michigan AD pointed out his teams could get to London faster than Eugene.
Tuscon to Morgantown West Virginia isn't much better.
NOT recruiting against dirty programs like Oregon and $C will be a godsend.
I like our chances against Clemson/FSU a lot better than I like UCLA's chances against SC,UW,OU,OSU,PennSt,Michigan. (They're gonna get demolished.)
And we've done well against Texas/OleMiss/North Carolina in the last decade.
We haven't meaningfully competed against USC for recruits since the Tedford days. And we're still going to have to compete against Oregon (and UCLA and UW) for 3 and 4 star California recruits. Except now, we're also having to recruit against the perception of playing in the second tier conference for west coast schools. Only way to solve the problem is to win and win soon.
Rebuild the PAC with what? Cal State Northridge and Foothill Community College? There just aren't any programs in the west (except maybe SDSU) that would give Calford anywhere near the level competition and prestige needed to draw the fans, TV and $$$ necessary to maintain a dynamic and desirable athletic program. People in the Stadium Club didn't make a 30-year commitment at $5,000+ per seat per year to watch Cal play SJSU and Sac State every week.
No doubt the added travel will be a challenge; however, UCLA/U$C only avoid one cross-country trip per year by the BIG adding UW/UO, so we're similarly situated with them. Plus, the hiring of Madsen was fortuitous if we're joining the ACC. He must be salivating at the prospect of recruiting kids who want to play against teams like UNC, Duke, Wake and ND -- Cal basketball could see a huge resurgence.
Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather Cal join the BIG, but their membership sold their souls to Fox, and by all accounts, Fox doesn't think they gain anything with the Bay Area market. UCLA/U$C are traitorous assholes who had the negotiating leverage to insist that if the BIG wanted to corner the LA market, they had to invite Calford to the party. They chose instead to take a dump on a 100+ year relationship.
Boise St. SDSU, Fresno, UNLV. All four of those schools have plenty of promise and would easily compete at the ACC/B12/PAC-X level with a little more money and donor support. And bonus points, it would box in USC and UCLA while mostly leaving Norcal untouched in terms of recruiting.
And if you think getting to the B1G is our best option, then maybe locking ourselves into the ACC GOR until 2036 might be a bit shortsighted. Rebuilding the PAC keeps that option open as long as we avoid any long duration contracts (which would be easy to negotiate for as the top brands in the PAC). And it would give us an additional incentive to actually compete as opposed to joining the ACC and then letting our AD go back to sticking their head in the sand for 13 years.
"Boise St. SDSU, Fresno, UNLV. All four of those schools have plenty of promise and would easily compete"
Stopped reading right there. UNLV?! Are you serious? They have been good at football approximately never. Thanks for confirming that the pickings get pretty slim after the first few invites, though.
"UNLV?! Are you serious? They have been good at football approximately never."
Most college football fans would say the same about Cal. According to sports-reference.com, in the past 10 years Cal has only visited the AP top 25 in three of those 10 years, for a total of seven weeks (that's less than 6% of the time, if you generously assume only 12 weeks in each season). The Bears have not been ranked or been invited to a bowl game since 2019, despite there now being so many bowl games that at least one of them has featured *two teams with losing records*.
That is to say, perhaps many Cal fans clinging to the idea of Power 5 football live in a glorious state of delusion, and we all need to realize that the rest of the world sees us more on Oregon State's level than USC's.
PS: as for UNLV, the Vegas-Berkeley connection may be bolstered by the Raiders and A's having moved there. Certainly an easy road trip for fans.
Cal’s meager success in the last 10 years still outstrips that of UNLV playing in a weaker conference, which tells you how bad UNLV has been. Why would adding them be helpful to Cal or Stanford? The argument here is that rebuilding the Pac with western teams would be better than joining the ACC. UNLV does not help that argument.
That's a little like saying you cut your finger and you broke your leg, and since the goal is a healthy body, putting a bandaid on the cut finger does not help make the body healthier. 🤷♂️
Everyone on reddit cfb thinks Cal fans are a bunch of snooty a**holes, and at first I was inclined to disagree with them. But it is attitudes like this that make me think that maybe they are right.
SDSU, Boise St, and Fresno (hi Tedford) are great teams that have invested in their programs, have passionate fans, and have been locked out of making the leap to the P5 due to Pac-12's monopoly. UNLV would be an awesome place to travel to for away games. SDSU b-ball made it to the finals last year. Boise St. has been to more NY6 bowl games than we have. We would be lucky to have them as conference mates.
So yeah, it would make for a perfectly fine conference that would be an easy lock for fifth best conference in the country but would likely compete with B12 most years. And in case you forgot, an expanded CFP means the conference champion will have playoff access pretty much every year, with an outside shot at getting a second team in on the occasional run.
Even if I give you SDSU, Boise, and Fresno, trying to group UNLV in there was silly. They are not a value add program (due to their football being bad). Again, it gets very thin after the first few candidates. That's before we even get into the strong possibility that Stanford will go independent before being part of such a league.
Also, what do you want to bet the expanded CFP will reduce the number of auto-bids thanks to the implosion of the Pac? I'd put very high odds on that.
Adding UNLV would be for the media market and to box in USC/UCLA on the recruiting front. It is the second largest media market of the MWC teams. And the combination of SDSU, Fresno, and UNLV would help maintain a solid SoCal presence (they are all within driving distance to LA) and a solid option for LA recruits that don't want to deal with the USC/UCLA B1G travel requirements.
And yeah, I agree. Stanfurd is going to be a tough sell. But they don't have a ton of options either, and even if they go independent, we could potentially arrange a ND/ACC type deal with them. It would not be ideal, but I don't think it is a deal breaker.
And finally, the CFP does not have auto-bids. It is the top 6 conference champions plus the top 6 remaining ranked teams. There has been some talk of moving to 5+7. But it doesn't really matter. The Big12 took the best teams from the AAC, and if we rebuild the PAC, we will be taking the best from the MWC. The gap between us and then next best G5 conference is going to be huge and as such we should expect to get a conference champion into the CFP pretty much every year, regardless if it is 5 or 6. This is also a big reason why Stanford might not want to go independent. The path to the CFP as an independent would be nearly impossible for them.
We need money right now to prevent cutting a bunch of sports. Unless we get a media deal to cover the bills in 2024, we're gonna be chopping scholarships and I don't think those sports are coming back once that happens. Maybe that's something that's long overdue, but I think most people would prefer to avoid that. We'd love to invest in index funds but the payday loan counter is covering dinner tonight.
Our best hope is if ACC deal sets our "price" and then the B1G comes in and matches it (which would equal maybe a 15% B1G share). It's kinda pathetic but at least we'd get a full share with the next deal. If B1G stays out, then we're really doing the ACC.
If Apple and Amazon weren't such amateurs in college sports, they could glue a new Pac together with money over a few years to get into the game. Instead, we got some stupid subscriber model that's way too similar to the one that Larry Scott burned us with. Given that Fox and ESPN seem to be the only major players, we're stuck.
The situation is not great, but I don't think it is as dire as many on this board make it out to be. Realistically, we are talking about maybe a ~$10 million difference between our worst case and best case scenario. For a university our size, that is really not a huge amount of money. Maybe we cut sports, or maybe we get more university support, or maybe we lean in on the donors until we can even things out (or most likely a combination of all of the above). But the idea that our athletics department is facing a death sentence is just fear mongering, and it is creating a bit of irrationality when it comes to evaluating the options in front of us.
It's the only deal. There are not enough power programs remaining in the West to sustain a major conference, and Stanford clearly is not interested in doing that anyway. It definitely wouldn't happen without them. Any deal to remain in the P4 is preferable to that.
And by the way, a lot of the other schools in the ACC also have tough academic standards, so it's not any different than what we were facing in the Pac anyway.
Stanford is in the driver seat because we are letting them take the wheel. I wouldn't put it past them to ditch us for the B1G if that was an option, but the ACC deal is not attractive enough for them to go alone. We absolutely have a veto power on this one.
No recruit worth their salt will want to sign up for the amount of travel we are going to add to the schedule. We are going to be at a significant recruiting disadvantage for the duration of the ACC deal. I would be more open to the idea if there were discussions about expanding the ACC to include a west coast pod, but my read of the situation and the media contracts mean that is very unlikely.
There is enough money left over in the PAC-4 to tide us over until the MWC contract expires. Any recruiting disadvantage in a rebuilt PAC-4 would be shared by the other teams in the conference, so that issue would be a wash. The next round of realignment is not going to be kind to the doormats of the power conferences. Either the conferences are going to move more towards performance based incentives or they are going to find a way to eject the lowest performers. We need to find a home that allows us to compete. A rebuilt PAC will be on par with the Big-12, while still maintaining regionalism and providing us a path to establishing ourselves as the marquee brand in the conference.
Okay, but even if Stanford was not in the driver's seat, how would you propose to rebuild a strong west-coast conference without them?
As for travel . . . I hate to break it to you, but all of the big programs on the west coast are now going to have this problem. Coast-to-coast superconferences are the new normal. Regionalism is gone.
PAC-4 + best of the MWC/AAC would be on par with the BIG12, maybe a touch below but not a huge gap. Maybe get to 8-12 teams, and then put the rest of the west coast schools on notice that the PAC is open for business and performance will be rewarded. That should get some donors opening up their wallets at lower tier schools and we can also leave open the door for former P12 schools should future realignment shake out that way.
The PAC-12 has had a monopoly on west coast P5 football for over 100 years. Our unwillingness to expand has had a chilling effect on the non-P5 programs. The rest of the country has been dealing with realignment for decades, and while that sucks for schools that get relegated, it also brings a level of intensity that has been lacking on the west coast.
If we abandon the PAC-12, it will mean the west coast becomes a bag of leftovers that the other major conferences will pick apart just to fulfill some night time slots for their media partners. The west coast deserves better.
And on a side note, I think the lack of concern over the fate of WSU and OSU on this board is concerning. We have been conference mates since the beginning. I get realignment can be brutal, but Cal and Stanford are premier institutions on a global scale. We should act like it and stop letting the tail wag the dog.
No it would not. There would be a huge gap between the Big 12 and whatever west coast conference we cobble together. Try naming the teams that would be in this conference and compare them to the Big 12.
Big12 has already poached the best AAC members. TCU made the playoffs last year. Cincinnati did in 2021 and has been in another NY6 bowl game recently. Baylor and Ok St have had a number of ranked finishes lately too. Plus Utah alone has had more success than any of the remaining Pac 4 teams put together.
Stanford was conference champion three times in the last decade. They won two Rose bowls. And more importantly, none of those B12 teams significantly outrank us in terms of viewership, which is what really matters these days.
And don't get me started on TCU. Sonny Dykes, our old coach went to the National Championship after struggling to do much of anything at Cal. We haven't been able to compete on an even playing field, and yet somehow we are going to be able to compete on a reduced share and with a huge travel burden?
We need to find an edge, and that edge is to be the marquee brand in a west coast conference. Would you rather be competitive and make an occasional CFP appearance (even if we get demolished i.e. TCU) or carry on as a middling (at best) team with the added insult of being in a conference that is still destined for 2nd tier status once FSU and Clemson find a way out?
If this happens, and I hope it will, it'll be interesting to see who takes the credit for it. Will Clueless Carol and Empty Suit Jim crawl out from underneath their respective rocks, clasp hands, raise them, and claim "victory" or will The Duck don the laurels or will the coifed Big Guy see this as a photo op and call a press conference?
Better than the original Pac-12 surviving or going to the B!G.
Cal and Stanford got a nice punch in the face.
All our "rivals" stabbed us in the back, everyone wanted our athletic department to fail, and our national brand has been callously smeared in the Information Age.
Why? Jealously of course.
Perception is not reality, but in the social media driven "football is a TV Show" era PR is huge.
It's time to reboot.
Things that were out of our control:
- Larry Scott's criminal incompetence
- The Pac12 Network being the biggest failure in history, coinciding with the Social Media age
- Covid being a death penalty for West Coast Football. (SEC AND ACC played full seasons. B1G played 75% of their schedules)
- USC colluding with FOX to kill any Pac12 deal
- UCLA doing whatever USC told them to
- Oregon and Washington Panicking and taking an embarrassing deal. (not realizing they were just pawns to block Apple TV)
- The 4 Corners crawling back to the Big 12
- Everyone traveling across country. The new Normal.
Things that were bad timing:
- Having a down cycle in Football and basketball.
-Cleaning up Tedford's Program
-Bad coaching hires in hoops
But thats all the past. That is all easy to overcome.
We need to lean into our real name: THE UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA
We have the chance to rebrand and reboot in the (now) #1 Academic Conference in The Nation.
We now have a footprint in The Epicenter of College Football... The Southeast.
We have always recruited nationally, but now we will have a huge advantage.
The SEC has ruled the last decade, but the ACC has been right there at #2 (Clemson's 2 titles FSU's Title... and the Notre Dame Indie/ACC presence).
We'll be an ESPN Team, and trust me, that matters.
ESPN owns the SEC, The Playoff, and The National Title Game.
They decide who gets the press and who gets the love. (Remember how much press we got before the pac12 Network? Everyone loved the "Sturdy Golden Bears").
Watch how much more press we get being ESPN's only West Coast Teams.
And the media rights payouts should not be an issue. That's on us.
If you could buy National Titles with mega donors, Oregon would have 10.
It's time to start crowd sourcing our fan base.
We have the biggest, richest alumni base in the country. We need to focus on getting tens of thousands of small donations. Getting alumni invested in our kids. Invested in our brand. Invested in our future.
Amen! I have one small amendment to your proposal re Branding - we need to tie Cal and Berkeley brands together instead of dropping one. I think it should be the primary focus of new ads to replace the old and tired “you see” ones. I think the ad should be “Cal is” and then go through how it’s the number public school in the world, it is Oppenheimer and physics and the discovery of multiple elements, it is the free speech movement, and so on until you get to the penultimate “Cal Is Berkeley”
Some very simple things can be done! Add "Berkeley" as a smaller subscript logo that is included on all uniform and field/court designs. Like you could have something that appears at the 20 yard lines on the football field, so that any viewer who sees a game will see that too and start to understand that Cal = Berkeley. The jerseys can say "Berkeley" just under the collar or something.
That's if the university bureaucracy can get out of its own way first.
But our athletic department did fail, miserably and totally. It has been rudderless and thoughtless for all of Knowlton's reign and Christ's endorsement of him (or at least tolerance and protection of him) only aggravated the situation. There are no kudos for this duo to claim, just an ushered hasty exit will be praise enough.
It's going to happen. The ACC has no alternative if they want to remain relevant. I'm sure that's all the president needed to tell the others that adding these three teams meant the survival of the conference. Basketball is going to be off the hook and I think they are going to be the biggest benefactor. No one's talking about the additional revenue that the basketball program will now be able to bring because of the quality of teams coming in. This conference is going to be superior (In basketball) compared to the old Pac 12.
It was previously reported that they wouldn't hold a vote unless there were enough yes votes, and that the ACC commissioner really wanted it to be unanimous.
So I guess it's going to happen.
Then again, when Cal is up by 11 with 1:30 left in the 4th quarter, I'm still scared that they'll lose.
The ACC deal may be our only option. But it may be better to take the offer and see if Fox/B1G makes a counter-offer. I'd be fine with B12 also as long as the money is better (larger share portion of a smaller payment). ACC has the longest contract but we'll start seeing realignment issues again after B12 and B1G contracts end around 2030-31 and when the SEC contract ends in 2034.
I honestly think ACC is better than B12. I don't want to be renegotiating a media contract around 2030 at the same time as the B1G is going to be asking for more money to account for UW/UO hitting full shares. Could get ugly again.
And until teams leave, ACC will give us more exposure.
At this point it seems clear that Fox is not making a counter offer. I’m a bit surprised that they haven’t, but they just don’t seem to value the schools.
I'm also surprised. It's more of a "now or never" offer for them to make. For the ACC money we're accepting that would be like a 10-15% B1G share. So maybe they'll bite at that price.
I've always thought Fox/B1G was waiting until the actual offer with payouts is made, then swoop in with payout + 5% or 10% or whatever. No sense in offering until you know what the competition is. You're only bidding against yourself.
I don't really understand why joining the ACC is considered superior to joining the big 12. Because Cal thinks they are too strong academically to play the likes of Kansas State in football? Florida State was considered the #1 party school in America. That should count for something too.
ACC pays more, though the lower share nullifies that for a while. My understanding is that B12 doesn't want us. Apparently the B12 talks were very rudimentary and may have just been ESPN leveraging one of their contracts against the other.
If B12 accepted all 4 Pac remnant schools, it would include 7 opponents from our old conference.
Just make a goddamned decision one way or another and announce it.
Hear! Hear!
Napa Knowlton keeping everyone abreast as usual.
I can't stomach much more of this.
Is there an event preceding the first ACC game of the season Thursday night that would give the conference bigwigs the opportunity to announce the expansion? If Thursday comes and goes without any announcement I'm afraid it's going to be the "Oski and the 3 Orts Show" which will make for a looooooong, dismal season for us.
I saw one post reporting a rumor the no votes now total 5; they did not name the fifth no vote. This would also explain the lack of a vote being announced. There have been other reports that the soft deadline for a decision is this week. Cal, Stanford, and SMU all need to begin other plans for 2024 if the ACC votes are not their for expansion.
Great. Let's now turn to Big 10
threatening another "no" would be a good response to Calfurd's ploy of leaking that we're still talking to the Big12
The meetings (or lack thereof) of the ACC AD's are being well reported, so there won't be any surprise announcements. They were supposed to meet on Monday but cancelled due to the shooting. The ACC commissioner was supposed to go to the CFP meeting today but it has been reported that he is attending virtually [1]. One can speculate as to why, maybe the hurricane messed up his travel plans, or maybe he is staying back in order to facilitate the expansion meetings.
Thursday is not out of the question, but considering the shooting and the hurricane, I would not be surprised if they let it slip past then. Also, I have read conflicting reports about the number of votes. Some say it is in the bag, others are saying that there have been no changes (four no's). If they don't have the votes than this could drag on for a while.
[1] https://twitter.com/NicoleAuerbach/status/1696879304938811462
Thanks
ACC head is in TX for other meetings. SMU pov but still relevant: https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/smu-mustangs/2023/08/29/college-football-playoff-meetings-in-dallas-delay-acc-action-on-possible-smu-invite/
I'm trying to think of a reason why it needs to get voted on before the season starts, but nothing comes to mind.
Thanks
The arrogance of Stanford! Those dorks, think they are too good for everything. They are basically buying their way into the acc. Why do you guys want to follow them? I understand that is a rivalry, but there are many great non-conference rivalries in college football. I hope Stanford gets rejected. God I hate those dorks!
Votes are in!
There's this ray of sunshine.
Looks like I need to just keep hitting the snooze button.
According to this ESPN writer, there's no evidence of any flipped votes, so likely no hurry for vote.
https://twitter.com/aadelsonESPN/status/1696565517786534037?s=20
So first of all, did any of the 4 No-voters ever flip? Is that why they are finally going to have a meeting?
Good question.
It's all shrouded in secrecy.
Not finding that anywhere.
I can't find it either. Their meeting was this morning so the votes should be in.
I was hoping for someone to fill it with a reply.
I didnt see anything about meeting this morning. there was a press release about opening the new HQ in Charlotte.
First ACC game kicks off Thursday evening; Id guess they need to have it done by then. Hopefully not another delay from the hurricane.
oh, I thought they rescheduled it to this morning because of the shooting last night, but I guess they still haven't held any meeting yet.
rather odd approach
I read postponed, not rescheduled
?
I don’t love the deal but I’m genuinely confused on the comments from people saying we should turn this down and work on reviving the corpse known as the Pac-12.
While I appreciate the work that the bloggers on this site do, they are pretty obviously biased towards joining a P4 conference at any cost. And they have failed to adequately explore what rebuilding the PAC would actually look like, and that has had an impact on the opinions of the commentors on this board. There are other places on the internet that have a much more balanced and rational view of the situation. The writers of this blog would have you believe that anything but a P4 invite would be a death sentence for Cal athletics. But if you actually look closely at the details of what rebuilding the PAC-X would entail, the option has a lot of appeal, especially in the face of this ACC deal with its meager revenue share and insane travel (a B12 or B1G offer would be a much different debate).
Here is a link that you may be interested in: https://archive.is/X83tB (Paywall, so archive link to get around, apologies if that is looked down upon).
The finances of the PAC-12 are still pretty unknown, but reasonably conservative estimates that I have seen have put it in the ballpark of ~$20-30 million per school. And that is if we do absolutely nothing moving forward, i.e. no media deal, no more tournament money, etc... There are some estimates that put that number higher and there are other potential options on the table that could dramatically increase that pot (lawyer up).
So on one hand we have an offer for a meager revenue share in an east coast conference where the top four members are doing everything in their power to find a way out of the conference, at which point the media value of that conference would tank. And on the other hand, we have a path to rebuild our 100 year old conference with a financial runway that isn't too different then the other offer.
I am not saying one option is dramatically better than the other. Both of these options are pretty bad in my opinion. I am just trying to point out that this ACC deal is not our only option, and that I believe it is the worse option of the two. Not that it matters because we all know our AD is going to take the easiest route, regardless of the impacts on our student athletes. So if that ACC vote goes through, yeah, he is going to take it.
Oh, it's JW.
Still need to find a media deal because those numbers are near-starvation-level for P5 schools and they're basically a lump sum. Yes, there are some assets from the PAC but those should be surpassed in size relatively quickly by joining a P4 conference.
Unless Apple or Amazon invests a ton of cash into glueing a conference back together, I think it's over.
There is too much uncertainty around the financials to say that definitively. I would appreciate it if reporters would explore the topic in more detail, as I suspect they could pry some of those numbers from their sources.
But conservative estimates seem to indicate that we would have 2-3 years of runway at a level similar to what this ACC deal would provide. And there might be other potential options (particularly suing for damages) that could extend that runway for almost a decade.
Also, keep in mind that the travel burdens of the ACC deal mean that the financial comparisons are not one-to-one. Rebuilding the PAC can come in at a few million less and still be a better deal due to travel (another topic that I would like reporters to look at more in depth). The lower estimates of the ACC deal put the total annual distribution in the $12 million range. After travel costs, that is barely better than an AAC media share, which we could certainly get in a rebuilt PAC-X.
And an additional curve ball is the Calimony. We have no idea where that is going to land. Maybe the regents think the ACC deal is good enough to tide us over until the escalators kick in and decide to cancel it or go low. Maybe they go high. I suspect if we try to rebuild the PAC, we will have a stronger case for the maximum amount. But I suspect the writers of this blog are being a bit too optimistic on this one. I think the Calimony is going to phase out pretty quickly. Again more reporting here would be helpful.
So I guess what I am saying is there is way too much uncertainty around the financials of both options to definitively answer the question of which option is financially better. But I am fairly confident that neither option is dramatically better or worse than the other (they are both pretty bad). So considering that, I think we should choose the option that is better for our student athletes and for college sports in general, which is to rebuild the PAC.
I would much rather we rebuild the PAC and give some better landing places for recruits. It's not the top but it's still high profile. I just don't think we have enough money unless a media company also decides having the Pac is in their interests. ESPN has done things like this in the past, namely funding a bunch of low-level post-season bowls or funded the XFL because they wanted content. But they seem to be out of the "growth" phase now.
If the numbers make sense to try, we can try. But failure would certainly be more catastrophic for our programs than traveling would be.
This article assumes ticket sales and donations will stay equal if we stand pat. Both will crash if we are not seriously contending for a college football playoff or March Madness.
That is pure speculation. We don't know what will happen to ticket sales and donations. With the exception of our rivalry games (most of which are gone), the fans that I hang out with could care less whether we are playing WSU or Duke, . If Cal is doing well, they show up, if not, they go do other things.
And with the expanded playoff, I suspect we will have a much easier road to an occasional CFP berth in a rebuilt PAC vs in the ACC. The fans I know would absolutely show up for that.
Reviving the Pac is a recipe for getting an AAC-level deal, not a P5 deal.
Someone said we should add Idaho and Idaho State.
who is someone?
I forgot. Someone this site. He said it would be close to Washington State and be convenient.
They aren't doing the math.
If they don't get a move on there may not be a FSU or UM left to vote thanks to Idalia - Of course that would create two vacancies and enhance Cal and Stanford's chances for membership. SMU would have to hope Idalia's projected path does not change leading to Georgia Tech's demise. Simple, three vacancies and three petitioners, VOILA problem solved. All in favor say aye!
This is a bad deal. We will not be competitive with a partial share and cross country travel. And we are going to be locked into this deal until 2036 which means we will miss any chance we have to upgrade to the B1G or jump to a revived west coast conference in the off chance that those options become available.
I get that a lot of you are terrified at the thought of getting left out of the P4, but begging for scraps and being a perennial doormat of a power conference is not how we are going to survive realignment. We need to take our lumps, rebuild the PAC. Our academic standards are never going to allow us to compete with the likes of FSU and Clemson (and other blue-bloods) but we absolutely can compete in a rebuilt PAC and if anything our academic profile will actually work for us rather than against us at that level. From there, we can control our own destiny. If we do well and the power conferences come calling, we can make that leap on our own terms, or better yet, we hold the line and we continue to build a solid west coast athletic conference by adding teams where the opportunity arises.
There are no schools left on the West Coast.
We can compete with anyone if we can recruit. But, due to our academics, we need to recruit NATIONALLY. Now CAL-FURD are the only West Coast Schools in SEC/ACC Territory. That's huge.
And were the two best schools in the nation.
That's something to sell.
Smart kids who grew up in the South, but want a change, can still play half their games in the Southeast. And the other half in the most gorgeous stadium on earth with "3 Bridge Views" while getting the best education possible.
Travel is NOT a talking point anymore. That ship sailed.
The Michigan AD pointed out his teams could get to London faster than Eugene.
Tuscon to Morgantown West Virginia isn't much better.
NOT recruiting against dirty programs like Oregon and $C will be a godsend.
I like our chances against Clemson/FSU a lot better than I like UCLA's chances against SC,UW,OU,OSU,PennSt,Michigan. (They're gonna get demolished.)
And we've done well against Texas/OleMiss/North Carolina in the last decade.
Go Bears
We haven't meaningfully competed against USC for recruits since the Tedford days. And we're still going to have to compete against Oregon (and UCLA and UW) for 3 and 4 star California recruits. Except now, we're also having to recruit against the perception of playing in the second tier conference for west coast schools. Only way to solve the problem is to win and win soon.
With our academics, we have to recruit nationally. This will help.
And California kids can decide if they was to compete in the Southeast, or the midwest.
Recruiting is all about NIL now. It's all in our hands. Every dollar counts. Anyone not donating is the problem.
2 Tier Conference? That was the Pac12.
ACC has 3 National Championships in the last decade. B1G has one.
And Notre Dame was big advocate for Cal and Stanford joining the ACC. Could they be joining soon as well?
Lets roll the dice and find out.
Rebuild the PAC with what? Cal State Northridge and Foothill Community College? There just aren't any programs in the west (except maybe SDSU) that would give Calford anywhere near the level competition and prestige needed to draw the fans, TV and $$$ necessary to maintain a dynamic and desirable athletic program. People in the Stadium Club didn't make a 30-year commitment at $5,000+ per seat per year to watch Cal play SJSU and Sac State every week.
No doubt the added travel will be a challenge; however, UCLA/U$C only avoid one cross-country trip per year by the BIG adding UW/UO, so we're similarly situated with them. Plus, the hiring of Madsen was fortuitous if we're joining the ACC. He must be salivating at the prospect of recruiting kids who want to play against teams like UNC, Duke, Wake and ND -- Cal basketball could see a huge resurgence.
Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather Cal join the BIG, but their membership sold their souls to Fox, and by all accounts, Fox doesn't think they gain anything with the Bay Area market. UCLA/U$C are traitorous assholes who had the negotiating leverage to insist that if the BIG wanted to corner the LA market, they had to invite Calford to the party. They chose instead to take a dump on a 100+ year relationship.
Boise St. SDSU, Fresno, UNLV. All four of those schools have plenty of promise and would easily compete at the ACC/B12/PAC-X level with a little more money and donor support. And bonus points, it would box in USC and UCLA while mostly leaving Norcal untouched in terms of recruiting.
And if you think getting to the B1G is our best option, then maybe locking ourselves into the ACC GOR until 2036 might be a bit shortsighted. Rebuilding the PAC keeps that option open as long as we avoid any long duration contracts (which would be easy to negotiate for as the top brands in the PAC). And it would give us an additional incentive to actually compete as opposed to joining the ACC and then letting our AD go back to sticking their head in the sand for 13 years.
"Boise St. SDSU, Fresno, UNLV. All four of those schools have plenty of promise and would easily compete"
Stopped reading right there. UNLV?! Are you serious? They have been good at football approximately never. Thanks for confirming that the pickings get pretty slim after the first few invites, though.
"UNLV?! Are you serious? They have been good at football approximately never."
Most college football fans would say the same about Cal. According to sports-reference.com, in the past 10 years Cal has only visited the AP top 25 in three of those 10 years, for a total of seven weeks (that's less than 6% of the time, if you generously assume only 12 weeks in each season). The Bears have not been ranked or been invited to a bowl game since 2019, despite there now being so many bowl games that at least one of them has featured *two teams with losing records*.
That is to say, perhaps many Cal fans clinging to the idea of Power 5 football live in a glorious state of delusion, and we all need to realize that the rest of the world sees us more on Oregon State's level than USC's.
PS: as for UNLV, the Vegas-Berkeley connection may be bolstered by the Raiders and A's having moved there. Certainly an easy road trip for fans.
Cal’s meager success in the last 10 years still outstrips that of UNLV playing in a weaker conference, which tells you how bad UNLV has been. Why would adding them be helpful to Cal or Stanford? The argument here is that rebuilding the Pac with western teams would be better than joining the ACC. UNLV does not help that argument.
That's a little like saying you cut your finger and you broke your leg, and since the goal is a healthy body, putting a bandaid on the cut finger does not help make the body healthier. 🤷♂️
Everyone on reddit cfb thinks Cal fans are a bunch of snooty a**holes, and at first I was inclined to disagree with them. But it is attitudes like this that make me think that maybe they are right.
SDSU, Boise St, and Fresno (hi Tedford) are great teams that have invested in their programs, have passionate fans, and have been locked out of making the leap to the P5 due to Pac-12's monopoly. UNLV would be an awesome place to travel to for away games. SDSU b-ball made it to the finals last year. Boise St. has been to more NY6 bowl games than we have. We would be lucky to have them as conference mates.
So yeah, it would make for a perfectly fine conference that would be an easy lock for fifth best conference in the country but would likely compete with B12 most years. And in case you forgot, an expanded CFP means the conference champion will have playoff access pretty much every year, with an outside shot at getting a second team in on the occasional run.
Even if I give you SDSU, Boise, and Fresno, trying to group UNLV in there was silly. They are not a value add program (due to their football being bad). Again, it gets very thin after the first few candidates. That's before we even get into the strong possibility that Stanford will go independent before being part of such a league.
Also, what do you want to bet the expanded CFP will reduce the number of auto-bids thanks to the implosion of the Pac? I'd put very high odds on that.
Adding UNLV would be for the media market and to box in USC/UCLA on the recruiting front. It is the second largest media market of the MWC teams. And the combination of SDSU, Fresno, and UNLV would help maintain a solid SoCal presence (they are all within driving distance to LA) and a solid option for LA recruits that don't want to deal with the USC/UCLA B1G travel requirements.
And yeah, I agree. Stanfurd is going to be a tough sell. But they don't have a ton of options either, and even if they go independent, we could potentially arrange a ND/ACC type deal with them. It would not be ideal, but I don't think it is a deal breaker.
And finally, the CFP does not have auto-bids. It is the top 6 conference champions plus the top 6 remaining ranked teams. There has been some talk of moving to 5+7. But it doesn't really matter. The Big12 took the best teams from the AAC, and if we rebuild the PAC, we will be taking the best from the MWC. The gap between us and then next best G5 conference is going to be huge and as such we should expect to get a conference champion into the CFP pretty much every year, regardless if it is 5 or 6. This is also a big reason why Stanford might not want to go independent. The path to the CFP as an independent would be nearly impossible for them.
We need money right now to prevent cutting a bunch of sports. Unless we get a media deal to cover the bills in 2024, we're gonna be chopping scholarships and I don't think those sports are coming back once that happens. Maybe that's something that's long overdue, but I think most people would prefer to avoid that. We'd love to invest in index funds but the payday loan counter is covering dinner tonight.
Our best hope is if ACC deal sets our "price" and then the B1G comes in and matches it (which would equal maybe a 15% B1G share). It's kinda pathetic but at least we'd get a full share with the next deal. If B1G stays out, then we're really doing the ACC.
If Apple and Amazon weren't such amateurs in college sports, they could glue a new Pac together with money over a few years to get into the game. Instead, we got some stupid subscriber model that's way too similar to the one that Larry Scott burned us with. Given that Fox and ESPN seem to be the only major players, we're stuck.
The situation is not great, but I don't think it is as dire as many on this board make it out to be. Realistically, we are talking about maybe a ~$10 million difference between our worst case and best case scenario. For a university our size, that is really not a huge amount of money. Maybe we cut sports, or maybe we get more university support, or maybe we lean in on the donors until we can even things out (or most likely a combination of all of the above). But the idea that our athletics department is facing a death sentence is just fear mongering, and it is creating a bit of irrationality when it comes to evaluating the options in front of us.
I hope you're a young man - plus, look for the Cal results in the agate type section
It's the only deal. There are not enough power programs remaining in the West to sustain a major conference, and Stanford clearly is not interested in doing that anyway. It definitely wouldn't happen without them. Any deal to remain in the P4 is preferable to that.
And by the way, a lot of the other schools in the ACC also have tough academic standards, so it's not any different than what we were facing in the Pac anyway.
Stanford is in the driver seat because we are letting them take the wheel. I wouldn't put it past them to ditch us for the B1G if that was an option, but the ACC deal is not attractive enough for them to go alone. We absolutely have a veto power on this one.
No recruit worth their salt will want to sign up for the amount of travel we are going to add to the schedule. We are going to be at a significant recruiting disadvantage for the duration of the ACC deal. I would be more open to the idea if there were discussions about expanding the ACC to include a west coast pod, but my read of the situation and the media contracts mean that is very unlikely.
There is enough money left over in the PAC-4 to tide us over until the MWC contract expires. Any recruiting disadvantage in a rebuilt PAC-4 would be shared by the other teams in the conference, so that issue would be a wash. The next round of realignment is not going to be kind to the doormats of the power conferences. Either the conferences are going to move more towards performance based incentives or they are going to find a way to eject the lowest performers. We need to find a home that allows us to compete. A rebuilt PAC will be on par with the Big-12, while still maintaining regionalism and providing us a path to establishing ourselves as the marquee brand in the conference.
Okay, but even if Stanford was not in the driver's seat, how would you propose to rebuild a strong west-coast conference without them?
As for travel . . . I hate to break it to you, but all of the big programs on the west coast are now going to have this problem. Coast-to-coast superconferences are the new normal. Regionalism is gone.
PAC-4 + best of the MWC/AAC would be on par with the BIG12, maybe a touch below but not a huge gap. Maybe get to 8-12 teams, and then put the rest of the west coast schools on notice that the PAC is open for business and performance will be rewarded. That should get some donors opening up their wallets at lower tier schools and we can also leave open the door for former P12 schools should future realignment shake out that way.
The PAC-12 has had a monopoly on west coast P5 football for over 100 years. Our unwillingness to expand has had a chilling effect on the non-P5 programs. The rest of the country has been dealing with realignment for decades, and while that sucks for schools that get relegated, it also brings a level of intensity that has been lacking on the west coast.
If we abandon the PAC-12, it will mean the west coast becomes a bag of leftovers that the other major conferences will pick apart just to fulfill some night time slots for their media partners. The west coast deserves better.
And on a side note, I think the lack of concern over the fate of WSU and OSU on this board is concerning. We have been conference mates since the beginning. I get realignment can be brutal, but Cal and Stanford are premier institutions on a global scale. We should act like it and stop letting the tail wag the dog.
No it would not. There would be a huge gap between the Big 12 and whatever west coast conference we cobble together. Try naming the teams that would be in this conference and compare them to the Big 12.
Big12 has already poached the best AAC members. TCU made the playoffs last year. Cincinnati did in 2021 and has been in another NY6 bowl game recently. Baylor and Ok St have had a number of ranked finishes lately too. Plus Utah alone has had more success than any of the remaining Pac 4 teams put together.
Stanford was conference champion three times in the last decade. They won two Rose bowls. And more importantly, none of those B12 teams significantly outrank us in terms of viewership, which is what really matters these days.
And don't get me started on TCU. Sonny Dykes, our old coach went to the National Championship after struggling to do much of anything at Cal. We haven't been able to compete on an even playing field, and yet somehow we are going to be able to compete on a reduced share and with a huge travel burden?
We need to find an edge, and that edge is to be the marquee brand in a west coast conference. Would you rather be competitive and make an occasional CFP appearance (even if we get demolished i.e. TCU) or carry on as a middling (at best) team with the added insult of being in a conference that is still destined for 2nd tier status once FSU and Clemson find a way out?
There’s Boise State and then it gets real thin. No way would any reformed Pac be able to match the B12.
If this happens, and I hope it will, it'll be interesting to see who takes the credit for it. Will Clueless Carol and Empty Suit Jim crawl out from underneath their respective rocks, clasp hands, raise them, and claim "victory" or will The Duck don the laurels or will the coifed Big Guy see this as a photo op and call a press conference?
I truly believe this is the BEST case scenario.
Better than the original Pac-12 surviving or going to the B!G.
Cal and Stanford got a nice punch in the face.
All our "rivals" stabbed us in the back, everyone wanted our athletic department to fail, and our national brand has been callously smeared in the Information Age.
Why? Jealously of course.
Perception is not reality, but in the social media driven "football is a TV Show" era PR is huge.
It's time to reboot.
Things that were out of our control:
- Larry Scott's criminal incompetence
- The Pac12 Network being the biggest failure in history, coinciding with the Social Media age
- Covid being a death penalty for West Coast Football. (SEC AND ACC played full seasons. B1G played 75% of their schedules)
- USC colluding with FOX to kill any Pac12 deal
- UCLA doing whatever USC told them to
- Oregon and Washington Panicking and taking an embarrassing deal. (not realizing they were just pawns to block Apple TV)
- The 4 Corners crawling back to the Big 12
- Everyone traveling across country. The new Normal.
Things that were bad timing:
- Having a down cycle in Football and basketball.
-Cleaning up Tedford's Program
-Bad coaching hires in hoops
But thats all the past. That is all easy to overcome.
We need to lean into our real name: THE UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA
We have the chance to rebrand and reboot in the (now) #1 Academic Conference in The Nation.
We now have a footprint in The Epicenter of College Football... The Southeast.
We have always recruited nationally, but now we will have a huge advantage.
The SEC has ruled the last decade, but the ACC has been right there at #2 (Clemson's 2 titles FSU's Title... and the Notre Dame Indie/ACC presence).
We'll be an ESPN Team, and trust me, that matters.
ESPN owns the SEC, The Playoff, and The National Title Game.
They decide who gets the press and who gets the love. (Remember how much press we got before the pac12 Network? Everyone loved the "Sturdy Golden Bears").
Watch how much more press we get being ESPN's only West Coast Teams.
And the media rights payouts should not be an issue. That's on us.
If you could buy National Titles with mega donors, Oregon would have 10.
It's time to start crowd sourcing our fan base.
We have the biggest, richest alumni base in the country. We need to focus on getting tens of thousands of small donations. Getting alumni invested in our kids. Invested in our brand. Invested in our future.
Because the future is bright.
Go Bears
Amen! I have one small amendment to your proposal re Branding - we need to tie Cal and Berkeley brands together instead of dropping one. I think it should be the primary focus of new ads to replace the old and tired “you see” ones. I think the ad should be “Cal is” and then go through how it’s the number public school in the world, it is Oppenheimer and physics and the discovery of multiple elements, it is the free speech movement, and so on until you get to the penultimate “Cal Is Berkeley”
Some very simple things can be done! Add "Berkeley" as a smaller subscript logo that is included on all uniform and field/court designs. Like you could have something that appears at the 20 yard lines on the football field, so that any viewer who sees a game will see that too and start to understand that Cal = Berkeley. The jerseys can say "Berkeley" just under the collar or something.
That's if the university bureaucracy can get out of its own way first.
Btw, joining a new conference is the perfect time to start a new ad campaign…
But our athletic department did fail, miserably and totally. It has been rudderless and thoughtless for all of Knowlton's reign and Christ's endorsement of him (or at least tolerance and protection of him) only aggravated the situation. There are no kudos for this duo to claim, just an ushered hasty exit will be praise enough.
It's going to happen. The ACC has no alternative if they want to remain relevant. I'm sure that's all the president needed to tell the others that adding these three teams meant the survival of the conference. Basketball is going to be off the hook and I think they are going to be the biggest benefactor. No one's talking about the additional revenue that the basketball program will now be able to bring because of the quality of teams coming in. This conference is going to be superior (In basketball) compared to the old Pac 12.
Yes, basketball will be absolutely lit!
100%
Madsen must be elated.
Devil's Advocate:
So if our payout is smaller, how's our contract buyout? I guess smaller but the same formula?
Maybe? The language I saw is 3x the payout received.
Pretty clear this is the best option on the table, but I suspect we’ll regret being locked in to the grant of rights for so long.
It was previously reported that they wouldn't hold a vote unless there were enough yes votes, and that the ACC commissioner really wanted it to be unanimous.
So I guess it's going to happen.
Then again, when Cal is up by 11 with 1:30 left in the 4th quarter, I'm still scared that they'll lose.
Arizona hail Mary.
There's a voice of experience.
Never rule out Cal's generosity.
The ACC deal may be our only option. But it may be better to take the offer and see if Fox/B1G makes a counter-offer. I'd be fine with B12 also as long as the money is better (larger share portion of a smaller payment). ACC has the longest contract but we'll start seeing realignment issues again after B12 and B1G contracts end around 2030-31 and when the SEC contract ends in 2034.
I honestly think ACC is better than B12. I don't want to be renegotiating a media contract around 2030 at the same time as the B1G is going to be asking for more money to account for UW/UO hitting full shares. Could get ugly again.
And until teams leave, ACC will give us more exposure.
At this point it seems clear that Fox is not making a counter offer. I’m a bit surprised that they haven’t, but they just don’t seem to value the schools.
I'm also surprised. It's more of a "now or never" offer for them to make. For the ACC money we're accepting that would be like a 10-15% B1G share. So maybe they'll bite at that price.
If they don't, I guess we're going to the ACC.
I've always thought Fox/B1G was waiting until the actual offer with payouts is made, then swoop in with payout + 5% or 10% or whatever. No sense in offering until you know what the competition is. You're only bidding against yourself.
I don't really understand why joining the ACC is considered superior to joining the big 12. Because Cal thinks they are too strong academically to play the likes of Kansas State in football? Florida State was considered the #1 party school in America. That should count for something too.
ACC pays more, though the lower share nullifies that for a while. My understanding is that B12 doesn't want us. Apparently the B12 talks were very rudimentary and may have just been ESPN leveraging one of their contracts against the other.
If B12 accepted all 4 Pac remnant schools, it would include 7 opponents from our old conference.