Does Cal still get $2-10 million/yr from UCLA? I believe that was the condition the UC Regents had for permitting UCLA to move to the BIG 10. Or does the dissolution of the PAC 12 negate that condition?
So if Cal and Stanford end up going to the Big 12 (as now being floated), and gets say $5 million from UCLA, the advantages UCLA gained by going to the BIG are negligible after traveling costs and time are considered.
UCLA will still be WAY ahead (tens of millions) since they're coming in with a full share on Day 1. Traveling costs will probably be a few million. Their program should be stabilized as long as they don't do anything stupid. Also doubt we'll get any Calimony with a full B12 share.
Furd willing to go to ACC for free? That's not a deal we can afford to match but we'll just hope that means it's more affordable to also take us. Right????
The Big 12 doesn't want Cal or Stanford, so I can tell you (level 2 source) if Cal/Stanford suddenly became open to the Big 12 the feeling wouldn't be mutual. They best hope the ACC rescues them, although I have no idea why the ACC would want to devalue their brand by adding two schools that have been Pac 12 bottom feeders for years. If the ACC wants decent athletic programs they'd look to WSU and OSU, but we all know that won't happen either. Cal and Stanford really deserve to be left to stew in their own juices for awhile instead of dragging any other conferences down the tubes with them.
If I were Cal's Board of Trustees I'd retain the services of Donna Shalala and Barry Alverez for the next 120 days to advise them on how to get into the Big Ten. It might be the best $200,000 Cal ever spends.
They don't deserve the Big Ten and I doubt Big Ten presidents want to have to split their money between two more schools that will simply drag down their value without adding revenue. It would be a horrendous business decision, and since the Big Ten doesn't have pro-rata with the networks it would have to pony up the money out of their own earnings -- something the BigTen presidents would be crazy to do for two schools which bring next to nothing.
1. Stanford and Cal have better athletic depts overall than Oregon. See 2023 Directors Cup standings which has Stanford #1, Cal #21, and Oregon #38.
2. Stanford and Cal represent a larger media market than Oregon.
3. Stanford and Cal are better schools than Oregon, and would bring some academic prestige to any conference, which is something conference presidents do care about.
No they don't -- they have better OLYMPIC sports but the revenue sports that drive everything are worse than WSU and OSU. That's what matters, not volleyball and basketweaving.
That's great and the Director's Cup is great, but olympic sports don't move the needle on media marketability. They are great for the students and students' parents, but beyond that they don't move the needle.
Fun fact: I remember in the 70s and 80s when Oregon was usually a win, no matter how bad our season was. Of course they got one whale of a donor, to whom they owe 90% of their success in recent decades, but let’s pretend Oregon itself made it all happen.
I know Barry. He’s a great guy and a straight shooter. At present, he is the special advisor for football in the Big 10 conference. I hope someone at Cal is having some discussions with him.
It makes no sense financially, athletically, or strategically. Cal and Stanford add nothing and would simply water down the existing revenue without bringing any sort of increase.
Just wish we had forward thinking leadership that would have thought to do this when SC/UCLA announced they were leaving last year, you know…when did Noah build the arc? BEFORE THE RAINS.
Let's clarify. Who exactly, names please, is looking at the options for Cal? Just Christ and Knowlton?
Who is our Condi Rice and Jerry Yang? Oliver Luck is trying to save the PAC 12, not Cal specifically. Is someone not named aggressively working towards a specific outcome or are we just sitting by the phone? Wishful thinking ain't going to cut it. We need a hard core negotiator.
You need a magician to find value and revenue increases that simply aren't there. Cal and Stanford would be a drag to the Big Ten's bottom line -- they add nothing financially or athletically. The Big Ten presidents aren't going to water down their earnings by subsidizing two schools that bring nothing to the table.
Apparently, Condi is very much approaching the conferences with both Cal and Stanford as a package. I know that there has been Twitter conjecture otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be accurate. And I think while she was working on the B1G earlier in the week, Cal was taking lead on the ACC. Divide and conquer. Now all are concentrating on the ACC while Luck works on the PAAC fallback and options for OSU and WSU.
You do realize that Condi is a Republican, right? I'm surprised they haven't disowned her because she thinks so many of Stanford's initiatives are silly and wasteful.
Both Christ and Knowlton's recent communications have included direct quotes from UC President Michael Drake, suggesting he's taking the wheel:
“I want to assure the Berkeley community that ever since the initial changes in the Pac-12’s membership, I have been working in close partnership with Chancellor Christ and A.D. Knowlton to ensure that Cal Athletics will continue to be an integral contributor to the university’s excellence. We know that time is of the essence, and while challenges remain, I am optimistic they will be surmounted.”
As for cal and Stanford joining the acc, they have a LONG ways to go! That vote where they got 4 no’s was just a preliminary vote. All the schools voting yes were just saying “we will explore the possibility of adding Stanford and cal.” 3 schools that voted no were Florida state, Clemson, and North Carolina. Those 3 schools are huge cash cows for the acc, and the acc needs to make those schools happy. With the exception of duke, and Miami none of the other acc schools carry any weight. What I am trying to say is it is going to be a serious uphill battle for cal, and Stanford to gain admittance into the acc!
Yes, but what good does replacing revenue producing schools like FSU, Clemson, and UNC with two schools like Cal and Stanford which bring nothing to the table financially or athletically? You'd be replacing positive revenue with negative revenue and that makes no sense if the ACC wants to still be relevant in the future. Next...
Jimmy chitwood, you are one of those pricks, who acts like a child when they hear stuff they don’t want to hear. The reality is cal is screwed, and a whole lot of sports teams are about to get axed. The pac presidents made a huge mistake by rejecting that $300 million offer. I wonder if football will eventually get axed!
That very well may be the case, you a$$hat, but you’re gonna get pushback from Cal fans when you come on a Cal board and simply regurgitate OLD news that we are ALL aware of. Truth is, there is NOTHING new in your post, you have nothing new to add, and you’re literally just trolling and trying to kick a fan base when they’re down.
Name calling just makes you look like a tool so you can go f-yourself, you clown.
No, you're just mad that he's regurgitating TRUE info. The truth of the matter is Cal and Stanford bring nothing additive to the table and both are horrendous in the revenue sports. They are bottom feeders looking to suck away revenue that they can't add to, and that's not what realignment is about. Cal and Stanford are worthless to any Power 5 conference right now.
Our main problem now is that we don't have *a* viable option with a decent dollar value attached. As such, the limited number of TV networks can just bid us downward. If we can at least get an offer in the $20M range, we can start bidding upward.
Unfortunately, there is a HUGE gap between P5 and G5 money, right where we're trying to get our toe in. The most likely way to hit that number is a partial share from a P5 conference. From there, we would either 1) negotiate upward between P5 conferences or 2) re-form the Pac with the bigger G5 teams and negotiate with Fox/ESPN/whoever.
It would be helpful if we can break the link between UNC and NC State but my understanding is that we may just have to flip both since NC State can't jeopardize that connection. Likewise, we and Furd have to be tied at the hip (eww, Furd Banned cooties). As far as I've read, Furd advocates have included Cal in the package (covering the entire BA media market), it's just not always explicitly stated in each article. Oliver Luck seem to be active on all these fronts.
Your main problem is you have no viable option because your athletic programs are at the level of G5 universities. You bring nothing to the table for a Power 5 league (this is about athletics, not how much research you do). Cal has no more value athletically than SMU or San Jose State, and arrogance is not a substitute for additive revenue. Neither the ACC, Big 12, or Big Ten want anything to do with bottom feeding programs right now so Cal needs to suck it up and try to rebuild whats left of the Pac12.
Because they don't want to add a bottom feeding school like Cal? Neither does the Big Ten, Big 12, or SEC so from what I can tell they're no different than any other Power 5 league.
Even from a non-Cal fan perspective, while the logistics are undoubtedly a mess, the Bears and Stanford do offer the ACC a chance to grab two of the final available, P5 programs…
I think we really need to get the Big12 on phone in order to play Big12 and ACC off each other. BigTen has zero concern about its continued existence, so creating leverage with them is difficult, but both Big12 and ACC do, and I think they both realize that one of the two will eventually dissolve as part of this ongoing realignment
The Big 12 ain't picking up a call from Cal. Why would they? They've already added the schools that bring value to them, and if Cal brought value they would have already gone down that road. They are no longer open for business.
Ugh, I tried to forget that game. One of those stupid Thursday night games, as I recall. Took me forever to find parking and Cal was down by 21 before I was able to get to my seat.
Wisconsin will have as many 4* as OSU. Players want time on the field and TV exposure. a top tier non P4 team will git them more of that than Rutgers. Look at how well CAL did in the Portal this year.
Rugbear: All of those transfers came when they thought they were going to play in the Pac-12, not the Pac-4, Mountain West or AAC. Good luck finding any top transfers if we end up in any of those non-P5 leagues. The bottom line is that we may have to learn to be happy playing football in a non-Power 5 conference and slashing all of the Olympic Sports that used to make us forget how bad we usually were in football or basketball. "I know we finished with another losing record but we have more Olympians than entire countries!!!" The problem is that Christ and Knowlton probably thought that would be enough (along with our academic rep.) to get an invite to the Big-10 or ACC. What idiots.
I don't disagree. but with 4 Power Conferences and 16 +/- teams in each conference, only 3 or 4 will be at the top. Talented kids who are not getting playing time at those top teams will look elsewhere, and I think a top team in a non-P4 Conference will be more attractive to those players than a bottom 8 or 12 team in a 16 team P4 Conference. Why? Because the top team from the lesser conference will still have a better shot at the playoffs than a number 5 or lower team in a P4 Conference.
A reduced offer into the B1G similar to Oregon, Washington, UCLA, and USC is better revenues to Cal and/or Stanford than full membership to ACC or BIG 12 should such an offer arise. All the B1G membership since 2011 came in at reduced shares for, if memory serves, 3 years before gaining full share membership into the B1G. Cal and Stanford align academically best with the B1G. However, does the TV revenue that Cal and Stanford bring match or exceed the outlay to the B1G? The best thing Cal and Stanford offer regarding sports is their historical record in the Director's Cup and Olympic sport programs. There seems to exist some B1G Presidents Commission who favor membership for Stanford and Cal, but not enough currently to make an offer. It all seemingly comes down to the almighty dollar value and first stabilized the current membership of the B1G
The Big 10 Council of Presidents and Chancellors is the governing body of the conference. Typical of academics, they are more impressed by the academic prestige of an institution than its athletic program. It’s the ADs who focus on the athletic competitiveness of potential conference additions. The Council wanted to offer Cal and Stanford membership along with UW and UO. Fox, which is concerned with profitability, didn’t see any value added from Cal and Stanford. Grudgingly they found some money for UW and UO, but were unwilling to pay the full amount. As much as the Council was interested in Cal and Stanford, no one was going to contribute a part of their share of the funds to pay for them to join. Stanford, who has a huge endowment and lots of influential supporters, still might be able to swing a deal with the Big 10, but Cal, with its heavy debt burden, can’t play this game.
USC and UCLA are coming in at full share. UO and UW are the ones receiving a reduced share. If Cal and Stanford get an offer, which is a big if, it could be something as slim as 25, 30 %. If Cal and Stanford has nothing on the table besides MW, B1G has all the leverage to underbid the crap out of us.
It was reported back in B1G territory that full share was discussed for USC and/or UCLA due to having such a high TV revenue draw (supposedly top 5 area nationwide), however it was also discussed to have a partial share initially. To provide a full share initially would go against B1G history but it's possible. Neither Oregon or Washington has that TV market draw currently although future marketing is exciting. The B1G is historically quite regarding revenue and discussion of future considerations until the President's Commission has formally finalized whatever issue(s) under consideration. But, every once in awhile an AD or member might slip on information under consideration leading to sports scribes guessing the intent. Politics at every level it seems.
It's not a "possibility", it has already been decided that the LA schools will enter as full members with a full share. B1G commissioner Kevin Warren said as much publicly last summer.
I just don't understand how they gauge media markets. Given the exchange of students between NoCal and SoCal, how can they say that the SoCal market does not include Cal and that the NoCal market does not include UCLA. I could understand that UCLA has a much better basketball following on TV, but their football turnout is as bad if not worse than us (especially in down years). Can somebody explain this to me? I get that the local broadcast market in LA is certainly larger, but I don't see how this affects the national game. Is it also T-shirts in shops?
It's hard to discern. I think what's odd is that it seems to be guided by what a school's value is today, not yesterday, or better, projected into the future. However, we know that the schools that get the bank, will be the ones that will be the most competitive, so I guess it's wish fulfillment for those schools lucky enough to get an invite. And leaders don't always make the best decisions, whether its uni presidents, ADs, conference presidents, TV execs or hedge fund managers. We've learned that the hard way. No need to assume whoever is running this game actually is making the right calls or that it will play out the way they think it will.
I think the TV execs, from afar, don't necessarily understand the internal fan dynamics of California: it is largely alumni (or legacy) based. Sure, you get a concentration of alums near the school and some local support, but fan support is spread throughout the state and beyond. U$C is probably the only one that gets band-wagon locals limited to the SoCal region.
The B1G or, specifically, Fox Sports' perception of "value" seems to be heavily short-term: like, what are your TV ratings like for the last two years? Something like that. If you stretched it out just a little bit further, Stanford would probably be higher on that list, and just a little bit further than that you would also find Cal doing well (and meanwhile, Washington doing horribly). But the arguments about the potential of the Bay Area/NorCal market don't seem to have moved them.
They might also be looking at fan support in times where the team is not performing well. If I were a Stanfurd fan (and let's just rule that out as an impossibility but as a premise strictly for theoretical purposes), I would be going ape shit crazy given the run they had. That said, the support QUICKLY dwindled when the results tanked. I always though Cal fans were tougher, but we did the same thing (albeit it took a few extra years to drain out).
Also, how much our value within market has not only been driven by our poor recent performance, but also the fact that we are hard to find at all on TV? It's difficult to build an audience if they can't find you or you're on national TV so seldom. You build engagement from repetition. I can't tell you how many text and calls I got about the ND game last year from folks that don't generally care much about Cal, and less about ND.
Short term we will see disparity between the P4 teams and the rest, but long term I see a great deal more parity. If you are a 4* player at any of the top schools and aren't getting playing time, what are you going to do? Hit the portal. Where is the natural landing spot instead of the FCS. I believe it will be the better programs in the none P4 conferences. As a result those teams will do well and challenge for playoff positions. Long term, because of the portal, an equilibrium will found for schools who have alumni willing to help fund NIL and other program expenses needed to attract talent.
If there is an option to join the Big-12 it would be stupid not to take it. No other option would be better (except for the B1G, which is questionable).
Yeah, it's a concern. Less so for football than it will be for basketball. And I can't even begin to imagine what it will mean for the other sports. But I think from a fan/donor engagement and cultural standpoint, it's the next best option to the B1G. And I don't think the conference as currently constructed is what it will look like even two three years from now. FSU and Clemson might defect and the whole thing crumbles, only to be re-sorted again. Or the ACC expands further and we end up with other west coast and midwest neighbors. I for one, am more excited to travel to Miami, NC, Pittsburgh, Chapel Hill and Atlanta than I am virtually any of the B12 schools.
I mean yeah, but those are long, expensive flights. I guess I would rather sustain some semblance of normality with the old Pac-12 south than play a bunch of randoes. I think it would also be fun to play BYU, TCU (with Sonny), and Texas Tech (minus the embarrassment from 2004).
We should just merge with the MW and have a two tiered (8 /8 team) relegation style framework (similar proposal to GoldenSD81, but no longer involving the traitor teams from the NW). We renegotiate the media deal and try to get 10-20 million, with payout dependent on tier.
Everybody is focused on media markets, which makes an AAC merger sexy, but quality and perception matter. I think a starting premier league of the Pac-4 with the four teams from MW that have the best overall records in the last 3-5 years would make for a very compelling league (that I would be excited to watch). We could also make it a 10/10 tiered-league if need be, and open up a couple of more spots to add other markets (such as SMU, Tulane, and Rice). I think this format would be exciting and would help to sell tickets for relegation and promotion games in both tier (that normally would not be interesting).
I still say the ACC would be The path Cal will take. However, I would not care if the big 12 or the big 10 hate The University of California. This is about money.
Does Cal still get $2-10 million/yr from UCLA? I believe that was the condition the UC Regents had for permitting UCLA to move to the BIG 10. Or does the dissolution of the PAC 12 negate that condition?
Potentially. I believe it would depend on what money Cal gets. Doesn't depend on the PAC existing, I would imagine.
So if Cal and Stanford end up going to the Big 12 (as now being floated), and gets say $5 million from UCLA, the advantages UCLA gained by going to the BIG are negligible after traveling costs and time are considered.
UCLA will still be WAY ahead (tens of millions) since they're coming in with a full share on Day 1. Traveling costs will probably be a few million. Their program should be stabilized as long as they don't do anything stupid. Also doubt we'll get any Calimony with a full B12 share.
Furd willing to go to ACC for free? That's not a deal we can afford to match but we'll just hope that means it's more affordable to also take us. Right????
https://apnews.com/article/pac12-stanford-acc-conference-realignment-oregon-washiington-0722c523671cd2e4ac8b42151000bf48
https://www.si.com/college/stanford/football/stanford-and-cal-have-momentum-in-their-favor-to-join-the-acc
In the past week, we've had many new commenters and they refer to Cal as "they" instead of "us" and you can tell they are mostly trolls.
The Big 12 doesn't want Cal or Stanford, so I can tell you (level 2 source) if Cal/Stanford suddenly became open to the Big 12 the feeling wouldn't be mutual. They best hope the ACC rescues them, although I have no idea why the ACC would want to devalue their brand by adding two schools that have been Pac 12 bottom feeders for years. If the ACC wants decent athletic programs they'd look to WSU and OSU, but we all know that won't happen either. Cal and Stanford really deserve to be left to stew in their own juices for awhile instead of dragging any other conferences down the tubes with them.
Nope.
We both know I'm right.
Duck troll.
We both know I'm right.
If it types like a duck ...
If I were Cal's Board of Trustees I'd retain the services of Donna Shalala and Barry Alverez for the next 120 days to advise them on how to get into the Big Ten. It might be the best $200,000 Cal ever spends.
They don't deserve the Big Ten and I doubt Big Ten presidents want to have to split their money between two more schools that will simply drag down their value without adding revenue. It would be a horrendous business decision, and since the Big Ten doesn't have pro-rata with the networks it would have to pony up the money out of their own earnings -- something the BigTen presidents would be crazy to do for two schools which bring next to nothing.
1. Stanford and Cal have better athletic depts overall than Oregon. See 2023 Directors Cup standings which has Stanford #1, Cal #21, and Oregon #38.
2. Stanford and Cal represent a larger media market than Oregon.
3. Stanford and Cal are better schools than Oregon, and would bring some academic prestige to any conference, which is something conference presidents do care about.
No they don't -- they have better OLYMPIC sports but the revenue sports that drive everything are worse than WSU and OSU. That's what matters, not volleyball and basketweaving.
Between the Director’s Cup and you, I choose the Director’s Cup.
That's great and the Director's Cup is great, but olympic sports don't move the needle on media marketability. They are great for the students and students' parents, but beyond that they don't move the needle.
Feeding trolls, today.
I’ll get some duck food.
Fun fact: I remember in the 70s and 80s when Oregon was usually a win, no matter how bad our season was. Of course they got one whale of a donor, to whom they owe 90% of their success in recent decades, but let’s pretend Oregon itself made it all happen.
Nope
I know Barry. He’s a great guy and a straight shooter. At present, he is the special advisor for football in the Big 10 conference. I hope someone at Cal is having some discussions with him.
Too strategic and makes too much sense for the political hacks we call Trustees.
It makes no sense financially, athletically, or strategically. Cal and Stanford add nothing and would simply water down the existing revenue without bringing any sort of increase.
Boring repetitive trolling. Nope
Just wish we had forward thinking leadership that would have thought to do this when SC/UCLA announced they were leaving last year, you know…when did Noah build the arc? BEFORE THE RAINS.
That’s not an all bad idea, if it’s not a conflict of interests.
Let's clarify. Who exactly, names please, is looking at the options for Cal? Just Christ and Knowlton?
Who is our Condi Rice and Jerry Yang? Oliver Luck is trying to save the PAC 12, not Cal specifically. Is someone not named aggressively working towards a specific outcome or are we just sitting by the phone? Wishful thinking ain't going to cut it. We need a hard core negotiator.
You need a magician to find value and revenue increases that simply aren't there. Cal and Stanford would be a drag to the Big Ten's bottom line -- they add nothing financially or athletically. The Big Ten presidents aren't going to water down their earnings by subsidizing two schools that bring nothing to the table.
When does your trial membership end?
Apparently, Condi is very much approaching the conferences with both Cal and Stanford as a package. I know that there has been Twitter conjecture otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be accurate. And I think while she was working on the B1G earlier in the week, Cal was taking lead on the ACC. Divide and conquer. Now all are concentrating on the ACC while Luck works on the PAAC fallback and options for OSU and WSU.
You do realize that Condi is a Republican, right? I'm surprised they haven't disowned her because she thinks so many of Stanford's initiatives are silly and wasteful.
Being a Republican isn't the problem. That whole war criminal thing...well...
Both Christ and Knowlton's recent communications have included direct quotes from UC President Michael Drake, suggesting he's taking the wheel:
“I want to assure the Berkeley community that ever since the initial changes in the Pac-12’s membership, I have been working in close partnership with Chancellor Christ and A.D. Knowlton to ensure that Cal Athletics will continue to be an integral contributor to the university’s excellence. We know that time is of the essence, and while challenges remain, I am optimistic they will be surmounted.”
Drake used to serve as the president of the Ohio State University. Hope that helps.
Maybe no one.
Maybe someone, but I have not seen any name mentioned yet
As for cal and Stanford joining the acc, they have a LONG ways to go! That vote where they got 4 no’s was just a preliminary vote. All the schools voting yes were just saying “we will explore the possibility of adding Stanford and cal.” 3 schools that voted no were Florida state, Clemson, and North Carolina. Those 3 schools are huge cash cows for the acc, and the acc needs to make those schools happy. With the exception of duke, and Miami none of the other acc schools carry any weight. What I am trying to say is it is going to be a serious uphill battle for cal, and Stanford to gain admittance into the acc!
Thanks, Ty, for updating us on the info as it stood when it broke well over a week ago. Those cash cows now ALL have one foot out of the ACC.
The Cal/Stanford talk is literally happening because Fla St, Clemson and UNC all figure to be playing elsewhere within 36 months.
Yes, but what good does replacing revenue producing schools like FSU, Clemson, and UNC with two schools like Cal and Stanford which bring nothing to the table financially or athletically? You'd be replacing positive revenue with negative revenue and that makes no sense if the ACC wants to still be relevant in the future. Next...
Another option would be not to reply at all if you find his post old news......just saying, and I have no dog in this fight....
And I often do. But trolling is trolling, B.
“Go woke, go broke”…c’mon.
Jimmy chitwood, you are one of those pricks, who acts like a child when they hear stuff they don’t want to hear. The reality is cal is screwed, and a whole lot of sports teams are about to get axed. The pac presidents made a huge mistake by rejecting that $300 million offer. I wonder if football will eventually get axed!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mah3SVWXNUg&pp=ygUUQ2FsIHN0YW5mb3JkIGNvd2hlcmQ%3D
Ty, we are at a random point on a line right now. At the end of this the Power 4 will be the Power 2 and the ACC won’t exist. Cheers, bruh
That very well may be the case, you a$$hat, but you’re gonna get pushback from Cal fans when you come on a Cal board and simply regurgitate OLD news that we are ALL aware of. Truth is, there is NOTHING new in your post, you have nothing new to add, and you’re literally just trolling and trying to kick a fan base when they’re down.
Name calling just makes you look like a tool so you can go f-yourself, you clown.
No, you're just mad that he's regurgitating TRUE info. The truth of the matter is Cal and Stanford bring nothing additive to the table and both are horrendous in the revenue sports. They are bottom feeders looking to suck away revenue that they can't add to, and that's not what realignment is about. Cal and Stanford are worthless to any Power 5 conference right now.
Boys we are all united as CAL fans. Everybody Love Everybody....Everybody Love Everybody! E.L.E.
Ty is not a Cal fan. That’s the point.
I love all my Cal brethren…even if I disagree with them.
You love them if they are progressive liberals but not so much if they are conservatives like Condi,right? Be honest now.
I legit think he created a burner account just to troll us. Dude needs a hobby! May I suggest masturbation? He seems to need it…
Yeah and it seems an odd fit tbh. We cannot approach these folks one by one as we have no leverage if we are doing one off bilateral talks
Our main problem now is that we don't have *a* viable option with a decent dollar value attached. As such, the limited number of TV networks can just bid us downward. If we can at least get an offer in the $20M range, we can start bidding upward.
Unfortunately, there is a HUGE gap between P5 and G5 money, right where we're trying to get our toe in. The most likely way to hit that number is a partial share from a P5 conference. From there, we would either 1) negotiate upward between P5 conferences or 2) re-form the Pac with the bigger G5 teams and negotiate with Fox/ESPN/whoever.
It would be helpful if we can break the link between UNC and NC State but my understanding is that we may just have to flip both since NC State can't jeopardize that connection. Likewise, we and Furd have to be tied at the hip (eww, Furd Banned cooties). As far as I've read, Furd advocates have included Cal in the package (covering the entire BA media market), it's just not always explicitly stated in each article. Oliver Luck seem to be active on all these fronts.
Your main problem is you have no viable option because your athletic programs are at the level of G5 universities. You bring nothing to the table for a Power 5 league (this is about athletics, not how much research you do). Cal has no more value athletically than SMU or San Jose State, and arrogance is not a substitute for additive revenue. Neither the ACC, Big 12, or Big Ten want anything to do with bottom feeding programs right now so Cal needs to suck it up and try to rebuild whats left of the Pac12.
The ACC and NC State showing they’ve learned NOTHING from the past year of realignment. Nothing.
Because they don't want to add a bottom feeding school like Cal? Neither does the Big Ten, Big 12, or SEC so from what I can tell they're no different than any other Power 5 league.
Nothing better to do on a Thursday night than troll Cal fans on a Cal sports website? That’s pathetic.
Average Oregon Thursday.
Yeah, pretty amazing! Also crazy how the saboteurs can control the direction and then screw everybody else on their way out.
Exactly.
Even from a non-Cal fan perspective, while the logistics are undoubtedly a mess, the Bears and Stanford do offer the ACC a chance to grab two of the final available, P5 programs…
I think we really need to get the Big12 on phone in order to play Big12 and ACC off each other. BigTen has zero concern about its continued existence, so creating leverage with them is difficult, but both Big12 and ACC do, and I think they both realize that one of the two will eventually dissolve as part of this ongoing realignment
The Big 12 ain't picking up a call from Cal. Why would they? They've already added the schools that bring value to them, and if Cal brought value they would have already gone down that road. They are no longer open for business.
"One ACC source in favor of adding the Bay Area schools described it as a “third and 15” situation instead of trying to execute a Hail Mary."
3rd and 15 is nothing. Cal isn't scared of running a draw play on 3rd and 36!
The problem is Cal couldn't convert a 2nd and 1 much less a 3rd and 15.
If we have Ott running it, I like our chances.
Or better, my guy Stredick!
Nope. Give it to Vic Enwere
(He literally converted a 3rd and 36 on a draw against Wazzu)
Pawlawski to Treggs!
Love Stredick
There was always the Holmoe-esque fake punt on 4th and 20
We had some more recent too
https://youtu.be/zvp7I0KIprQ
Ugh, I tried to forget that game. One of those stupid Thursday night games, as I recall. Took me forever to find parking and Cal was down by 21 before I was able to get to my seat.
I forgot about this game. It's impossible to forget that play though.
Perfectly executing a designed play and converting the third down is a different story.
good thing we hired spav in the offseason
Just gotta get to 6…bowling this year would sure be huge for the brand!
North Texas, Idaho, ASU, Stanford, Wazzu, Oregon St., Auburn…just get to 6 baby!!
Wisconsin will have as many 4* as OSU. Players want time on the field and TV exposure. a top tier non P4 team will git them more of that than Rutgers. Look at how well CAL did in the Portal this year.
Rugbear: All of those transfers came when they thought they were going to play in the Pac-12, not the Pac-4, Mountain West or AAC. Good luck finding any top transfers if we end up in any of those non-P5 leagues. The bottom line is that we may have to learn to be happy playing football in a non-Power 5 conference and slashing all of the Olympic Sports that used to make us forget how bad we usually were in football or basketball. "I know we finished with another losing record but we have more Olympians than entire countries!!!" The problem is that Christ and Knowlton probably thought that would be enough (along with our academic rep.) to get an invite to the Big-10 or ACC. What idiots.
I don't disagree. but with 4 Power Conferences and 16 +/- teams in each conference, only 3 or 4 will be at the top. Talented kids who are not getting playing time at those top teams will look elsewhere, and I think a top team in a non-P4 Conference will be more attractive to those players than a bottom 8 or 12 team in a 16 team P4 Conference. Why? Because the top team from the lesser conference will still have a better shot at the playoffs than a number 5 or lower team in a P4 Conference.
Not if OSU or Cal ends up in G5 conference.
A reduced offer into the B1G similar to Oregon, Washington, UCLA, and USC is better revenues to Cal and/or Stanford than full membership to ACC or BIG 12 should such an offer arise. All the B1G membership since 2011 came in at reduced shares for, if memory serves, 3 years before gaining full share membership into the B1G. Cal and Stanford align academically best with the B1G. However, does the TV revenue that Cal and Stanford bring match or exceed the outlay to the B1G? The best thing Cal and Stanford offer regarding sports is their historical record in the Director's Cup and Olympic sport programs. There seems to exist some B1G Presidents Commission who favor membership for Stanford and Cal, but not enough currently to make an offer. It all seemingly comes down to the almighty dollar value and first stabilized the current membership of the B1G
The Big 10 Council of Presidents and Chancellors is the governing body of the conference. Typical of academics, they are more impressed by the academic prestige of an institution than its athletic program. It’s the ADs who focus on the athletic competitiveness of potential conference additions. The Council wanted to offer Cal and Stanford membership along with UW and UO. Fox, which is concerned with profitability, didn’t see any value added from Cal and Stanford. Grudgingly they found some money for UW and UO, but were unwilling to pay the full amount. As much as the Council was interested in Cal and Stanford, no one was going to contribute a part of their share of the funds to pay for them to join. Stanford, who has a huge endowment and lots of influential supporters, still might be able to swing a deal with the Big 10, but Cal, with its heavy debt burden, can’t play this game.
USC and UCLA are coming in at full share. UO and UW are the ones receiving a reduced share. If Cal and Stanford get an offer, which is a big if, it could be something as slim as 25, 30 %. If Cal and Stanford has nothing on the table besides MW, B1G has all the leverage to underbid the crap out of us.
And they should. We will make up some difference with Calimony and Furd is fine.
It was reported back in B1G territory that full share was discussed for USC and/or UCLA due to having such a high TV revenue draw (supposedly top 5 area nationwide), however it was also discussed to have a partial share initially. To provide a full share initially would go against B1G history but it's possible. Neither Oregon or Washington has that TV market draw currently although future marketing is exciting. The B1G is historically quite regarding revenue and discussion of future considerations until the President's Commission has formally finalized whatever issue(s) under consideration. But, every once in awhile an AD or member might slip on information under consideration leading to sports scribes guessing the intent. Politics at every level it seems.
It's not a "possibility", it has already been decided that the LA schools will enter as full members with a full share. B1G commissioner Kevin Warren said as much publicly last summer.
https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/2022/07/usc-ucla-will-receive-full-big-ten-revenue-share-before-rutgers-heres-why.html
I just don't understand how they gauge media markets. Given the exchange of students between NoCal and SoCal, how can they say that the SoCal market does not include Cal and that the NoCal market does not include UCLA. I could understand that UCLA has a much better basketball following on TV, but their football turnout is as bad if not worse than us (especially in down years). Can somebody explain this to me? I get that the local broadcast market in LA is certainly larger, but I don't see how this affects the national game. Is it also T-shirts in shops?
It's hard to discern. I think what's odd is that it seems to be guided by what a school's value is today, not yesterday, or better, projected into the future. However, we know that the schools that get the bank, will be the ones that will be the most competitive, so I guess it's wish fulfillment for those schools lucky enough to get an invite. And leaders don't always make the best decisions, whether its uni presidents, ADs, conference presidents, TV execs or hedge fund managers. We've learned that the hard way. No need to assume whoever is running this game actually is making the right calls or that it will play out the way they think it will.
I think the TV execs, from afar, don't necessarily understand the internal fan dynamics of California: it is largely alumni (or legacy) based. Sure, you get a concentration of alums near the school and some local support, but fan support is spread throughout the state and beyond. U$C is probably the only one that gets band-wagon locals limited to the SoCal region.
The B1G or, specifically, Fox Sports' perception of "value" seems to be heavily short-term: like, what are your TV ratings like for the last two years? Something like that. If you stretched it out just a little bit further, Stanford would probably be higher on that list, and just a little bit further than that you would also find Cal doing well (and meanwhile, Washington doing horribly). But the arguments about the potential of the Bay Area/NorCal market don't seem to have moved them.
Though of course, it's not over yet!
They might also be looking at fan support in times where the team is not performing well. If I were a Stanfurd fan (and let's just rule that out as an impossibility but as a premise strictly for theoretical purposes), I would be going ape shit crazy given the run they had. That said, the support QUICKLY dwindled when the results tanked. I always though Cal fans were tougher, but we did the same thing (albeit it took a few extra years to drain out).
Also, how much our value within market has not only been driven by our poor recent performance, but also the fact that we are hard to find at all on TV? It's difficult to build an audience if they can't find you or you're on national TV so seldom. You build engagement from repetition. I can't tell you how many text and calls I got about the ND game last year from folks that don't generally care much about Cal, and less about ND.
UCLA is coming along as a BOGO deal with USC lol
Just like Cal is to Stanford
Yup. Although usc is trending up now and furd is not.
Short term we will see disparity between the P4 teams and the rest, but long term I see a great deal more parity. If you are a 4* player at any of the top schools and aren't getting playing time, what are you going to do? Hit the portal. Where is the natural landing spot instead of the FCS. I believe it will be the better programs in the none P4 conferences. As a result those teams will do well and challenge for playoff positions. Long term, because of the portal, an equilibrium will found for schools who have alumni willing to help fund NIL and other program expenses needed to attract talent.
I agree that portal is an equalizer, but NIL seems to push in the opposite direction
Good option. Rebuilding the conference with quality teams looks increasingly attractive.
If you are a 4* at OSU and you aren't seeing playtime you go to Wisconsin.
If you are a 4* at Wisconsin and you aren't seeing playtime you go to Rutgers.
To downgrade to PAC/MWC level, you are already of pretty suspect talent to begin with
Not advicating for the Big-12 yet, but any bitterness could be negotiated around I’m sure. Yormack is a hoarder. He wants heads on his shelf.
If there is an option to join the Big-12 it would be stupid not to take it. No other option would be better (except for the B1G, which is questionable).
Yeah, it's a concern. Less so for football than it will be for basketball. And I can't even begin to imagine what it will mean for the other sports. But I think from a fan/donor engagement and cultural standpoint, it's the next best option to the B1G. And I don't think the conference as currently constructed is what it will look like even two three years from now. FSU and Clemson might defect and the whole thing crumbles, only to be re-sorted again. Or the ACC expands further and we end up with other west coast and midwest neighbors. I for one, am more excited to travel to Miami, NC, Pittsburgh, Chapel Hill and Atlanta than I am virtually any of the B12 schools.
I mean yeah, but those are long, expensive flights. I guess I would rather sustain some semblance of normality with the old Pac-12 south than play a bunch of randoes. I think it would also be fun to play BYU, TCU (with Sonny), and Texas Tech (minus the embarrassment from 2004).
Even the ACC? Not sure I agree, but interested on your rationale.
I guess the obvious travel distance.
That plus the ACC’s grant of rights until 2036 is a bit weird given the shifting media environment
And the fact that we are at a serious disadvantage if we have to travel that far, especially with the time change.
We should just merge with the MW and have a two tiered (8 /8 team) relegation style framework (similar proposal to GoldenSD81, but no longer involving the traitor teams from the NW). We renegotiate the media deal and try to get 10-20 million, with payout dependent on tier.
Everybody is focused on media markets, which makes an AAC merger sexy, but quality and perception matter. I think a starting premier league of the Pac-4 with the four teams from MW that have the best overall records in the last 3-5 years would make for a very compelling league (that I would be excited to watch). We could also make it a 10/10 tiered-league if need be, and open up a couple of more spots to add other markets (such as SMU, Tulane, and Rice). I think this format would be exciting and would help to sell tickets for relegation and promotion games in both tier (that normally would not be interesting).
I still say the ACC would be The path Cal will take. However, I would not care if the big 12 or the big 10 hate The University of California. This is about money.