The Big Ten is gonna wait until the Pac 12 reveals its number: $32 million per year or so. Then they'll offer Cal, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon a take it or leave it $40 million until the next deal, and the four will take it. The Big 12 will take the rest, and we're done. I just hate that we lose the idea of West Coast football. Like seeing an In N Out in Missouri. Doesn't seem right.
The Pac 12 will be lucky to get $25 million as it's number. It'll most likely be between 20 and 25 million. No one bidding is really competing against anyone so there is no incentive to bid any higher. The Pac will be forced to take whats offered or hope it's fans can all use their iPhone Face Time to transmit the games.
Why, exactly, would the B1G offer Cal or Stanford anywhere near that? For an average home attendance, FB & BB, that are a fraction of what most of them get for a pre-season scrimmage. The B1G is not in business to throw money away.
This isn't about attendance. Think of this as a television show. This is about Ohio State coming to the Bay Area to play Cal. Eyeballs and advertising rates.
The idea that we would get a lesser payout than any of the teams above (for the Bay Area/California market) is ludicrous. I get that they have us on our knees, but that does not sound like a happy long term situation.
I'm not sure Big 10 will offer but agree they'll do it when you say, if they do. Kliavkoff needs a big enough number to keep the northern schools from the Big 10 and eastern schools from Big 12. He also needs the number big enough to lock schools in for the duration of the contract so they don't jump at an offer like the one you propose, which Oregon and Washington may not accept. Big 12's deal made that needle so much harder to thread by setting a price cap, hence Kliavkoff looking under every rock for money.
Additionally, if we join the Big 10, UCLA wouldn't have to pay Calimony so I could see the Regents forcing us to take that deal (and UCLA pushing for it). I wouldn't mind a 6-Pac division of the Big 10, which is what we'd have if things break as you predict. It seems about right for scheduling.
If Cal were to get a smaller share, I would think the regents would still want UCLA to pony up something, as their move still 'hurts' Cal and would make for an uneven playing field between the 2 schools.
I don’t know that I totally agree. I’m a little pessimistic about the Regents cunning, but you could maybe make a case that the stipend was also a way to encourage UCLA to try to drag us into the B1G.
Dunno. The regents were legitimately pissed at being bypassed with UCLA’S move, and the economic impact such a move has on Cal is real. I share your pessimism about the Regents cunning, as well as skepticism over the long term legality of such punitive measures. But it’s the only way for the Regents to show any teeth.
I just don’t see us joining the B1G, at least not anytime soon….our athletic department and administrators are clueless, and coupled with the bureaucratic mess that is singular to Cal, the chances of such a big move getting approved seem slim, at least with the current leadership in place. We’re really going to need dynamic, innovative thinkers in the correct positions, like a Martin Jarmond…Cal doesn’t usually employ folks with that kind of vision in key spots, unfortunately.
Also, the logistics would be a challenge. Though pretty much the same geographic obstacles exist for UCLA, something tells me the impact/hardship the travel would have on students would be a much, much tougher sell at Cal.
We need to prioritize long-tern security over our preference to keep the conference together unfortunately. Too much unending risk in UW/UO and any of the corner schools going rogue. Eat or be eaten. If you can go to the B1G even on discount, but with assurances of increasing stake in the next media rights cycle, you have to do it.
I agree that Cal probably would and should take a smaller cut in the short term, especially since that smaller cut would probably be more than whatever the Pac 10 would get.
Cal won't get an offer anywhere near that lucrative. And probably not an offer of any size. Utah & Colorado & ASU are all vastly more attractive and lucrative. Utah approaches Washington & Oregon in terms of attractiveness. ASU & Colorado are at least within site of attractive & lucrative.
Nope. There are two forces at work. The sports part is fine, but that ain't how the Pac 12 and Big 10 school presidents and higher admins work. They consider the Colorado and ASU to be the unwashed masses academically. Seems like that wouldn't be the case, but it truly is the case. ASU could make a gazillion dollars and they'd still not get into the club.
Yeah, I'd say ASU is never getting into the Big Ten. They still want a certain level of academic prestige in that conference, and Arizona State ain't it.
You are basing your opinion here on 'selectivity' not on academic quality of the institution. ASU is a tough place to get a tenure track job nowadays; they pretty much only hire whales who bring in the big $$$ (for the good or bad). In fact, all of the schools in the current PAC are heavy hitting R1s.
Colorado is an AAU member, not a poor academic fit at all.
ASU was admitted during a different era, when conferences didn't venture outside of their immediate geographic areas. Also, it was pretty clear they were a package deal with Arizona (like Oregon-OSU and UW-WSU).
Wrong. Why post when you don't know what you're talking about? The Pac 8 wanted ASU because they were selling out their 70,000 seat stadium, winning their conference and major bowl games. The U of A wasn't. The PAC also wanted the valley because they are a big market. Oh, and ASU is a AAU member. Do you know how to do research?
ASU is the closest one aside from Cal/Stanford/UDub. But I agree aside from those three no one fits, but they'll make an allowance for Oregon's football program and Nike.
ASU is not in the AAU (Association of American Universities). Historically the Big Ten presidents have wanted this as a precondition for membership. The only current member not in the AAU is Nebraska, but they were members for a long time until 2011.
Cal, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon are all in. Among Pac-12 schools, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah are also in. The Big Ten might want any of those schools before ASU. Among non-AAU members I think the only one they would clearly make an exception for is Notre Dame.
Agree, Big 10 is in a position where they can be selective. AAU membership is something that they have long supported. Even Nebraska was an AAU member until they got booted (possibly by Big 12 AAU programs who pulled their support since they were allegedly marginal members).
You might want to jump into this century. ASU is not the party school of the 1980's. You might want to check on their program rankings before you post.
It’s all about the number of TVs in the market. Cal &’Furd have the 2nd most to LA. Also, selling a winter trip to people in Ohio or Michigan is much more attractive than Eugene or Seattle.
I disagree about Utah and Colorado being more valuable. ASU probably, but not the other two. And the Big Ten sees more value in academics than the other conferences so that would also favor Cal and drop Utah and Colorado down.
I question the validity of the claim that the Big Ten is ready to add four more PAC 12 schools. Until a new commissioner is hired, I can’t see the Big Ten making any major moves. Adding schools not only requires the agreement of the university presidents but also an accord with Fox, CBS and NBC. This involves considerable negotiations within the Big Ten before any move would be made to add more schools. There is no reason for the Big Ten to rush into this nor do I believe there is yet a consensus to do so. The rumors about further expansion are highly unlike to be based on factual information at this point in time. BTW, when Nebraska and later Rutgers and Maryland were added, none of these schools received full revenue shares during their initial years in the Big Ten, so there is a precedent for doing this in the future. Once the PAC 12 announces the new media deal, then if it is a poor deal, the Big Ten might be open to talking with Oregon, UW, Cal and Stanford should they call.
$45M would be a wash. ~$9M over our current payout which would probably just cover the huge increase in travel & lodging expenses for our 16 sports. $50M is probably the minimum Cal would accept, but they shouldn't. The perception would be devastating - 16 'haves' and 2 or 4 'have nots'? Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, Illinois all getting double what Cal & Stanford would get? That's a really bad look & assures that neither bay area school would ever be competitive in the BIG 20. If not offered close to an equal share, decline. If UW & UO go, and the 4 corners schools bail to the big12, join whatever conference, make it the PAC-2, go independent, whatever. Downgrade the program, sign a steaming deal, get out of the race.
Respectfully disagree. There is precedent for new members that aren't powerhouses joining for less than a full share and working up to it. I may not like it, but we're not a powerhouse (...YET! lol). I also don't know about "$45M would be a wash". Not getting anywhere near that with whatever Pac deal may materialize.
$9M would be more than enough to cover travel costs. In FY22, all of Cal Athletics spent $2.3M on travel expenses. You're telling me going to the midwest/potentially east coast a few times per year quadruples this? The math ain't mathing... After all, not every sport goes everywhere every year.
"Downgrade the program, sign a steaming deal, get out of the race."
Personally, I'd find this outcome much more devastating than some deal where Cal gets much more money than the alternative, even while still less than Ohio State and Michigan, for X number of years before "full member" status or whatever.
On the travel: folks need to remember that a scenario with Cal going to the Big Ten likely involves Oregon, Washington, and Stanford also joining and USC and UCLA already being there, which probably means we're in some kind of Western Division within the conference. With that setup, most of the road games will be the normal kinds of trips we're already used to. A handful more will have us going back east, but that's not a major hardship.
Yes, my point exactly. If maybe 25% of our sports schedules shifts to east-coast/midwest trips, no way does that translate to a quadrupling of travel costs. If those trips end up doubling the cost compared to what would have been in the old Pac-12, that's still only a 25% increase in spending, or ˜$0.5M. Financially speaking, it really is a no-brainer to join if given the invitation at any increase in revenue considering long term prospects.
My dream scenario....Please Cal Admin don't screw this up......Really feels like the future of relevant Cal Athletics is hanging in the balance. If we end up left behind in a nuked Pac-# than there truly is no future
Cal should be in total tag-along mode. If Oregon and UW are leaving like they want to, Cal absolutely needs to make itself as appealing as possible to ride along. We're certainly not in a strong position right now, but we should be trying to get UCLA and USC to advocate for additional west coast partners.
One would think UCLA is an advocate as they would not have to share their Big10 allowance with Cal, and there would be very little downside from Cal joining otherwise.
Why wouldn’t they. If they get a larger share than Cal, they could (and should) still be on the hook for Calimony since they initiated this whole clusterfarce.
You guys have played monopoly, right? You know what happens in the end. That's why the government created regulatory bodies, to keep this sort of stupid sh*t from happening. I know that Texas and Oklahoma sort of kicked this storm off, but their move was not as destabilizing. The powers at be should prevent UCLA and USC from moving, period. The financial whims of two institutions should not be allowed to destabilize college athletics in an entire region. I know many of you will say that this is just the way things are now...but damned, sombody has to stand up and call this sh*t out.
Washington and Oregon are headed to the Big 10. Way too much smoke for it to not happen.
When that happens, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and ASU will all be welcomed to the Big 12.
Washington State and Oregon State will have to accept the Mountain West.
Only question is does Stanford and Cal get the golden parachute to the Big 10 or are we left in the cold with the Mountain West (or worse).
Best case is we get a 50% share for the Big 10. And I do think that happens once they know how low they can go with their offer. Worst case is are too proud for Mountain West and try an independent deal with Stanford or drop a level to the rest of the IC schools.
The independent option is interesting. Had never considered that, though I don't know how we could pull that off without TV money. The Memorial debt alone dictates that Cal will never quite be able to get out of big time football even if we wanted to.
Cal fans: This article supports what I've suspected all along. Cal will probably get an invite to the Big-10 but not for the same money as U$C and FUCLA. The Bay Area and the Pacific Northwest are not insignificant TV markets so I don't see the Big-10 just leaving them to someone else. I hope that Avi is right and we can get somewhere near $40 million to join. It's not the same big money that U$C and FUCLA will be getting but hey, half a loaf is better than nothing at all (and it's still more than the $30-35 million we were getting before).
(Common sense would indicate that Scott's pipe dreams were just that on Day 1. Yeah, he sold the 12 Presidents a bill of goods, but that was easy. He just told them what they wanted to hear, just like parroting back the Prof on an essay final, and they swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The Presidents were the supposed adults in the room.)
He's been a disaster for years...but he's been gone for 2 years come May and apparently the Conference still has yet to bottom out because of his tenure. That's something.
The Pac 12 is sucking wind in its own media negotiations and has no leverage, that's the big problem. If it's ESPN alone it will be a low, low price. However if the Big 10 bails us out then all could end up rainbows and unicorns for Cal, and we get way more shekels than if we were relegated to Siberia of college football, Mt West, etc.
There's a lot of great thoughts, ideas and conjecture here, but no one really know what's in Kliavfoff's head right now and how the rest of the PAC is involved. Ima gonna pour a beer, and then another, and maybe another, and wait and see.
My bet?
The Big Ten is gonna wait until the Pac 12 reveals its number: $32 million per year or so. Then they'll offer Cal, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon a take it or leave it $40 million until the next deal, and the four will take it. The Big 12 will take the rest, and we're done. I just hate that we lose the idea of West Coast football. Like seeing an In N Out in Missouri. Doesn't seem right.
The Pac 12 will be lucky to get $25 million as it's number. It'll most likely be between 20 and 25 million. No one bidding is really competing against anyone so there is no incentive to bid any higher. The Pac will be forced to take whats offered or hope it's fans can all use their iPhone Face Time to transmit the games.
I need better friends
Do they have an In N Out in Missouri?
Aurora, CO & Denton, TX appear to be about as close as they come. But you can probably find some good take-out ribs somewhere near KC.
NO, but, I think Texas.
Why, exactly, would the B1G offer Cal or Stanford anywhere near that? For an average home attendance, FB & BB, that are a fraction of what most of them get for a pre-season scrimmage. The B1G is not in business to throw money away.
This isn't about attendance. Think of this as a television show. This is about Ohio State coming to the Bay Area to play Cal. Eyeballs and advertising rates.
Yup, it's about the whole Big Ten getting more regular trips to California. Increases the reach those programs get too.
And it's about all the cable subscribers in the Bay Area market paying for access even if they don't watch.
Ohio State coming to the Bay Area to win 70-7? That doesn't excite anyone.
So they can essentially gain ownership of all the big West Coast media markets, plus the academic prestige helps win over the university presidents.
Attendance figures for Northwestern, Maryland, Rutgers, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, etc. aren't much better.
Purdue had two sellouts at 61,320 and their lowest attended home game was 53,676 and so I don't think you can include Purdue as having poor attendance. I did not look up the other schools. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Purdue_Boilermakers_football_team
The idea that we would get a lesser payout than any of the teams above (for the Bay Area/California market) is ludicrous. I get that they have us on our knees, but that does not sound like a happy long term situation.
Most likely there would be a plan for the share to gradually increase to a full one. Rutgers came in under that kind of arrangement.
I'm not sure Big 10 will offer but agree they'll do it when you say, if they do. Kliavkoff needs a big enough number to keep the northern schools from the Big 10 and eastern schools from Big 12. He also needs the number big enough to lock schools in for the duration of the contract so they don't jump at an offer like the one you propose, which Oregon and Washington may not accept. Big 12's deal made that needle so much harder to thread by setting a price cap, hence Kliavkoff looking under every rock for money.
Additionally, if we join the Big 10, UCLA wouldn't have to pay Calimony so I could see the Regents forcing us to take that deal (and UCLA pushing for it). I wouldn't mind a 6-Pac division of the Big 10, which is what we'd have if things break as you predict. It seems about right for scheduling.
If Cal were to get a smaller share, I would think the regents would still want UCLA to pony up something, as their move still 'hurts' Cal and would make for an uneven playing field between the 2 schools.
Exactly. Don’t see the Calimony going away anytime soon…it’s the Regents only play.
I don’t know that I totally agree. I’m a little pessimistic about the Regents cunning, but you could maybe make a case that the stipend was also a way to encourage UCLA to try to drag us into the B1G.
Dunno. The regents were legitimately pissed at being bypassed with UCLA’S move, and the economic impact such a move has on Cal is real. I share your pessimism about the Regents cunning, as well as skepticism over the long term legality of such punitive measures. But it’s the only way for the Regents to show any teeth.
I just don’t see us joining the B1G, at least not anytime soon….our athletic department and administrators are clueless, and coupled with the bureaucratic mess that is singular to Cal, the chances of such a big move getting approved seem slim, at least with the current leadership in place. We’re really going to need dynamic, innovative thinkers in the correct positions, like a Martin Jarmond…Cal doesn’t usually employ folks with that kind of vision in key spots, unfortunately.
Also, the logistics would be a challenge. Though pretty much the same geographic obstacles exist for UCLA, something tells me the impact/hardship the travel would have on students would be a much, much tougher sell at Cal.
I will gladly eat these words, as I hope to do!
Especially with all that flying in coach.
The gutless feckless regents aren't going to "force" anything.
We need to prioritize long-tern security over our preference to keep the conference together unfortunately. Too much unending risk in UW/UO and any of the corner schools going rogue. Eat or be eaten. If you can go to the B1G even on discount, but with assurances of increasing stake in the next media rights cycle, you have to do it.
Cal would take a 75% for a specific amount of time in a heartbeat.
I agree that Cal probably would and should take a smaller cut in the short term, especially since that smaller cut would probably be more than whatever the Pac 10 would get.
Cal better be happy with 50% or 33% with where Pac-12 media rights are pointing. Even 33% of a Big 10 share is more than we may get in the Pac-12.
Cal won't get an offer anywhere near that lucrative. And probably not an offer of any size. Utah & Colorado & ASU are all vastly more attractive and lucrative. Utah approaches Washington & Oregon in terms of attractiveness. ASU & Colorado are at least within site of attractive & lucrative.
Nope. There are two forces at work. The sports part is fine, but that ain't how the Pac 12 and Big 10 school presidents and higher admins work. They consider the Colorado and ASU to be the unwashed masses academically. Seems like that wouldn't be the case, but it truly is the case. ASU could make a gazillion dollars and they'd still not get into the club.
Yeah, I'd say ASU is never getting into the Big Ten. They still want a certain level of academic prestige in that conference, and Arizona State ain't it.
You are basing your opinion here on 'selectivity' not on academic quality of the institution. ASU is a tough place to get a tenure track job nowadays; they pretty much only hire whales who bring in the big $$$ (for the good or bad). In fact, all of the schools in the current PAC are heavy hitting R1s.
What does all this say about the Pac 12?
The PAC 12 whored out for ASU? Not to mention CO?
Colorado is an AAU member, not a poor academic fit at all.
ASU was admitted during a different era, when conferences didn't venture outside of their immediate geographic areas. Also, it was pretty clear they were a package deal with Arizona (like Oregon-OSU and UW-WSU).
Wrong. Why post when you don't know what you're talking about? The Pac 8 wanted ASU because they were selling out their 70,000 seat stadium, winning their conference and major bowl games. The U of A wasn't. The PAC also wanted the valley because they are a big market. Oh, and ASU is a AAU member. Do you know how to do research?
https://youtu.be/xRqmr8rnKUg
LOL
Compare ASU's attendance to the other schools when it was accepted.
ASU is the closest one aside from Cal/Stanford/UDub. But I agree aside from those three no one fits, but they'll make an allowance for Oregon's football program and Nike.
ASU is not in the AAU (Association of American Universities). Historically the Big Ten presidents have wanted this as a precondition for membership. The only current member not in the AAU is Nebraska, but they were members for a long time until 2011.
Cal, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon are all in. Among Pac-12 schools, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah are also in. The Big Ten might want any of those schools before ASU. Among non-AAU members I think the only one they would clearly make an exception for is Notre Dame.
Agree, Big 10 is in a position where they can be selective. AAU membership is something that they have long supported. Even Nebraska was an AAU member until they got booted (possibly by Big 12 AAU programs who pulled their support since they were allegedly marginal members).
ASU is a AAU member. ASU has a bigger media market.
You might want to jump into this century. ASU is not the party school of the 1980's. You might want to check on their program rankings before you post.
They would consider Utah to be the unwashed masses as well, certainly below ASU.
It’s all about the number of TVs in the market. Cal &’Furd have the 2nd most to LA. Also, selling a winter trip to people in Ohio or Michigan is much more attractive than Eugene or Seattle.
Market Households
1 LA 5,735,230
2 SF 2,653,270
3 Phoenix 2,158,240
4 Seattle 2,098,800
5 Denver 1,798,440
6 Sacramento 1,459,260
7 Portland 1,143,670
8 San Diego 1,132,300
9 Salt Lake City 1,100,260
Other DFW 2,962,520
Other Boise 517,000
Cal/'Furd SF/Sac 4,112,530
Don't have Vegas readily available. FYI, these are all from John Canzano's articles...
Nope. ASU and Colorado are very good schools. You might want to look something up.
I disagree about Utah and Colorado being more valuable. ASU probably, but not the other two. And the Big Ten sees more value in academics than the other conferences so that would also favor Cal and drop Utah and Colorado down.
Utah academics suck. Colorado is average. ASU is a AAU school.
Honestly, I think Cal would take 50% for now to insure it's long term survival
I question the validity of the claim that the Big Ten is ready to add four more PAC 12 schools. Until a new commissioner is hired, I can’t see the Big Ten making any major moves. Adding schools not only requires the agreement of the university presidents but also an accord with Fox, CBS and NBC. This involves considerable negotiations within the Big Ten before any move would be made to add more schools. There is no reason for the Big Ten to rush into this nor do I believe there is yet a consensus to do so. The rumors about further expansion are highly unlike to be based on factual information at this point in time. BTW, when Nebraska and later Rutgers and Maryland were added, none of these schools received full revenue shares during their initial years in the Big Ten, so there is a precedent for doing this in the future. Once the PAC 12 announces the new media deal, then if it is a poor deal, the Big Ten might be open to talking with Oregon, UW, Cal and Stanford should they call.
$45M would be a wash. ~$9M over our current payout which would probably just cover the huge increase in travel & lodging expenses for our 16 sports. $50M is probably the minimum Cal would accept, but they shouldn't. The perception would be devastating - 16 'haves' and 2 or 4 'have nots'? Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, Illinois all getting double what Cal & Stanford would get? That's a really bad look & assures that neither bay area school would ever be competitive in the BIG 20. If not offered close to an equal share, decline. If UW & UO go, and the 4 corners schools bail to the big12, join whatever conference, make it the PAC-2, go independent, whatever. Downgrade the program, sign a steaming deal, get out of the race.
Respectfully disagree. There is precedent for new members that aren't powerhouses joining for less than a full share and working up to it. I may not like it, but we're not a powerhouse (...YET! lol). I also don't know about "$45M would be a wash". Not getting anywhere near that with whatever Pac deal may materialize.
$9M would be more than enough to cover travel costs. In FY22, all of Cal Athletics spent $2.3M on travel expenses. You're telling me going to the midwest/potentially east coast a few times per year quadruples this? The math ain't mathing... After all, not every sport goes everywhere every year.
"Downgrade the program, sign a steaming deal, get out of the race."
Personally, I'd find this outcome much more devastating than some deal where Cal gets much more money than the alternative, even while still less than Ohio State and Michigan, for X number of years before "full member" status or whatever.
On the travel: folks need to remember that a scenario with Cal going to the Big Ten likely involves Oregon, Washington, and Stanford also joining and USC and UCLA already being there, which probably means we're in some kind of Western Division within the conference. With that setup, most of the road games will be the normal kinds of trips we're already used to. A handful more will have us going back east, but that's not a major hardship.
Yes, my point exactly. If maybe 25% of our sports schedules shifts to east-coast/midwest trips, no way does that translate to a quadrupling of travel costs. If those trips end up doubling the cost compared to what would have been in the old Pac-12, that's still only a 25% increase in spending, or ˜$0.5M. Financially speaking, it really is a no-brainer to join if given the invitation at any increase in revenue considering long term prospects.
agreed, plus travel cost doesn't scale linearly with distance. cheaper food and hotels in the midwest might actually make it a comparable cost.
My dream scenario....Please Cal Admin don't screw this up......Really feels like the future of relevant Cal Athletics is hanging in the balance. If we end up left behind in a nuked Pac-# than there truly is no future
"Please Cal Admin don't screw this up" - it appears that ship may have already sunk.
:'(
Knowlton: “Hold my beer”
Why be part of a conference where you will never win. Cal will always be in the bottom 3.
Cal should be in total tag-along mode. If Oregon and UW are leaving like they want to, Cal absolutely needs to make itself as appealing as possible to ride along. We're certainly not in a strong position right now, but we should be trying to get UCLA and USC to advocate for additional west coast partners.
One would think UCLA is an advocate as they would not have to share their Big10 allowance with Cal, and there would be very little downside from Cal joining otherwise.
Why wouldn’t they. If they get a larger share than Cal, they could (and should) still be on the hook for Calimony since they initiated this whole clusterfarce.
You guys have played monopoly, right? You know what happens in the end. That's why the government created regulatory bodies, to keep this sort of stupid sh*t from happening. I know that Texas and Oklahoma sort of kicked this storm off, but their move was not as destabilizing. The powers at be should prevent UCLA and USC from moving, period. The financial whims of two institutions should not be allowed to destabilize college athletics in an entire region. I know many of you will say that this is just the way things are now...but damned, sombody has to stand up and call this sh*t out.
Washington and Oregon are headed to the Big 10. Way too much smoke for it to not happen.
When that happens, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and ASU will all be welcomed to the Big 12.
Washington State and Oregon State will have to accept the Mountain West.
Only question is does Stanford and Cal get the golden parachute to the Big 10 or are we left in the cold with the Mountain West (or worse).
Best case is we get a 50% share for the Big 10. And I do think that happens once they know how low they can go with their offer. Worst case is are too proud for Mountain West and try an independent deal with Stanford or drop a level to the rest of the IC schools.
SEC scoops us up
The independent option is interesting. Had never considered that, though I don't know how we could pull that off without TV money. The Memorial debt alone dictates that Cal will never quite be able to get out of big time football even if we wanted to.
Cal fans: This article supports what I've suspected all along. Cal will probably get an invite to the Big-10 but not for the same money as U$C and FUCLA. The Bay Area and the Pacific Northwest are not insignificant TV markets so I don't see the Big-10 just leaving them to someone else. I hope that Avi is right and we can get somewhere near $40 million to join. It's not the same big money that U$C and FUCLA will be getting but hey, half a loaf is better than nothing at all (and it's still more than the $30-35 million we were getting before).
Yikes. Really seeing now just how devastating the Larry Scott era was for the Conference.
Seriously, Jimmy? Just now?
(Common sense would indicate that Scott's pipe dreams were just that on Day 1. Yeah, he sold the 12 Presidents a bill of goods, but that was easy. He just told them what they wanted to hear, just like parroting back the Prof on an essay final, and they swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The Presidents were the supposed adults in the room.)
Yeah, I probably misspoke. ;-)
He's been a disaster for years...but he's been gone for 2 years come May and apparently the Conference still has yet to bottom out because of his tenure. That's something.
yeah, he has had long coat-tails, but on that, I blame the Presidents who paid him royally for such stupidity.
The Pac 12’s demise has been a real team effort.
Tell the big 10 to take a hike. You will see what a mess UCLA and USC will become.
The Pac 12 is sucking wind in its own media negotiations and has no leverage, that's the big problem. If it's ESPN alone it will be a low, low price. However if the Big 10 bails us out then all could end up rainbows and unicorns for Cal, and we get way more shekels than if we were relegated to Siberia of college football, Mt West, etc.
HALLEUJAH!!! --- GREAT NEWS --- let's hope this comes to fruition
Just send us the invitation.
There's a lot of great thoughts, ideas and conjecture here, but no one really know what's in Kliavfoff's head right now and how the rest of the PAC is involved. Ima gonna pour a beer, and then another, and maybe another, and wait and see.