Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina and NC State are reportedly the holdouts for expanding the ACC to include the California Golden Bears and Stanford Cardinal.
No one is leaving the ACC for at least the next 7 years, FSU can get mad all they want the reality is if there was an exit path for them they would have taken it already. No school is prepared to pay the price ( possibly a billion dollars) to leave.
Exactly. If TV wants Florida State and Clemson in the SEC, and UNC in the B1G, which they do, the ACC is done...only a matter of time. No way it lasts until 2030.
That's why NC State simply going along with UNC is so short sighted, given what Oregon did to Oregon State, Washington to Wazzu, UCLA to Cal.
According to this channel, the grant of rights only applies to home games and as long as FSU pays the exit fee, they can bolt to the B1G or the SEC where they would be worth 3x more than what they are making in the ACC. If this is correct, we could see another shift before the 15th which could have implications for Cal.
Why would the ACC sign off on their demise? That makes no sense, UNC’s AD comments about FSU pretty much make clear they’re interested in the ACC surviving.
Listen FSU football hasn’t been relevant in 5 years . Stanford was a power up until David Shaw checked out and screwed this ga up . The ACC are morons not taking Stanford because the big 10 will reconsider any take them
Where are they going to get a billion dollars? Immediately they would have to come up with at minimum a $75 million exit fee then they forfeit their tv revenue to the ACC through 2036.
FSU’s Athletics Department was in a deficit as recently as 2021. They can front all they want they can’t get out of the agreement they’re stuck unless a force majeure occurs like their TV partner files for bankruptcy. That’s not happening.
I think it is over. It is looking more and more likely that we are destined to be exiled to the Mountain West.
The Pac4 are caught between a rock and a cliff. To make matters worse, time and money isn’t on our side. We can’t even build a newly constructed PacX because the MWC conference has a commissioner who is smart, proactive and competent so the MWC schools can’t pay for their buyout. Even if they could, we don’t even have a media deal to offer them.
Cal/Stanford/OSU/WSU are truly fucked and boxed in with no way out.
They don’t have a media deal cause they’re only looking at traditional outlets, yes they looked at Apple but who wants to watch a game on the IPhone or IPad.
They need to partner with a entity that has a need to fill programming, the logical deal would be with CBS/CW. CBS could broadcast on CBS their CBS Sports cable and over the air CW.
If I was the commissioner and university presidents I’d reach out to Berkshire Hathaway and see about facilitating a media partnership.
ESPN/Fox likely have all they want and wouldn’t enter into a deal unless it was a bargain basement deal for them.
Ha, no. All TVs from the past several+ years have ability to add the Apple TV app (or come with it already embedded into the TV's options), it is just a toggle on your regular TV clicker. This convo is valuable though in showing there is definitely a generational gap in understanding what was on offer with the Apple deal-- though I also preferred to go the regular linear tv route for a big portion of the distribution package. Side note- you should try out Apple TV, Ted Lasso was really great.
I believe you can even get Apple TV on an Amazon Firestick (which are cheap when they go on sale). I should probably download the app on Firestick to test since T-Mobile gave a MLS subscription for free.
As much as I want to watch Ted Lasso, I can't justify yet another subscription. I suppose I can just subscribe for a month and binge...
All TV's sold now are "smart" TV's. In other words you can get almost everthing that's on local TV and on cable by using a smart TV. Peaclock, ROKU, FUBO, etc. l
The MWC commish is a Berkeley Law grad, who eventually worked at Cal and the Pac-12 Network. Heard her talk. She's really sharp and pragmatic. If only we had someone like her as our AD or conference commish, we very likely wouldn't be in the heaping pile we find ourselves in.
Just finished a business case for a holding company which will control media rights for Cal while getting funded by private equity investors. The university also will own a share of the company. There is a clear pathway for a significant rate of return to investors and also an escalator allowing sales of stock at predetermined points as the valuation increases. One benefit to the university is the ability to pay back the stadium debt at an accelerated schedule. The plan will be shared with a specific investor group this afternoon. Will see what happens. Alternative to the hat in hand approach if no power 5 conference deal is in the offing.
Is Cal Athletics a non-profit entity? If so, did the investment group include some tax experts on moving assets (GOR) from a non-profit to a for-profit?
fwiw: Florida State has contracted with JPMorgan to see if they can do something similar, but FSU Athletics is a Dept of the nonprofit University and I think they'll find that they can't get there from here. At best, they can get an unsecured loan.
It's more that has to do with nonprofit law in CA. (I was a former CFO of a nonprofit and we spend a whole lotta time and legal expense trying to think of creative ways to raise capital.)
If Cal athletics (CA) is a nonprofit, then the "assets" of Cal Athletics really belongs to the state of California; essentially, they are just held by CA in trust for the Secretary of State.. If CA wants to convert some/all of the legal ownership of those assets into a for-profit C corp, CA needs to assign an FMV to those assets and give that amount to the State in recompense for the State losing the Asset. So, CA can't just assign its 2025 GOR rights into a C Corp without paying the piper and getting approval from California Secretary of State.
It gets technical, but if you have folks working on it, suggest you look up the hoops that Anthem healthcare went thru to convert from a nonprofit to a for profit corp. They had to pay millions to the State, and do a bunch of other things, such as free health care, estabshipment of a research foundation...
Meh. I hate all of this. The organizer and activist in me wants Cal and Stanford to require any package to include OSU and WSU. I recognize that, at least for a little while longer, money means everything and tradition means nothing. Perhaps a few years down the road, the logistics will expose the gross unfeasibility of these latest rearrangements. Perhaps the NCAA steps up and reorganizes the teams into regional pods. Perhaps DeSantis becomes president and declares a war on the WoKe NCAA because of Title IX, and football gets cancelled. Maybe Trump, serving as Precedent under house arrest at Mar-a-Lago. works with the brilliant Tommy Tuberville to only allow football in red states, and we get cancelled that way. "Make Football Great Again!" A myriad of long term outcomes are potential, if we can survive that long. IDK, maybe I'm reaching. Will be in Memorial for the smashing of Auburn anyway. Stay Sturdy, a sad Bear.
Agree, it all sucks. But sadly, the Bears have to cut ties with Oregon St and Wazzu. It's imperative - tragic that it's come to this, but it is essential that Cal remain in a Power "5" Conference moving forward, and OSU and Wazzu are not in a position right now to do that.
If Cal joins/merges with the MWC, it's over. The money absolutely does not work, and it places them on the mid-major track. Recruiting will suffer, budgets will be trimmed, sports will be cut...worst case scenario.
They have to find a way into the ACC/B1G/B12...somehow.
Big 12 is not an option to revisit? Since they now have Arizona, ASU, Colorado and Utah could form western pod and limit travel? I’m not up on the history and why there seems to be bad blood or if it’s as simple as all involved think there is not a “cultural fit”. Just want any reasonable option that limits cuts to our sports programs.
I agree. The Big 12 is the best option if it is an option at all. TV G*ds again. You know your attendance and admin sucks when Stillwater has you beat.
All of my other-conference ire is still aimed at the B1G- I want to run all of those college presidents down a Game of Thrones-style gauntlet of "Shame, Shame." University presidents my a**.
Here's an interesting breakdown of the rankings, budgets, etc. for football, MBB, the entire athletic department, and academic/fiscal/enrollment numbers for the assorted universities that could serve as Pac expansion candidates. Of the 19 candidates, 13 are R1 institutions but the R2 institutions have some of the stronger football/athletic departments (SDSU, SMU, FSU and BSU). Only Tulane (good athletic candidate), Rice (bad athletics candidate) and USF (good candidate but far away) are AAU schools. Https://twitter.com/TJAltimore/status/1690333798251089921
The Big 10 doesn’t care about FSU or Clemson they are 18 teams right now and likely will stop at 20 as it’ll give them 2 10 team division. If they were going to poach a school from the ACC it’s far more likely to be Pittsburgh or Miami and it probably would be only 1 of them leaving the last spot for Notre Dame. North Carolina is a basketball school and is going to be happy remaining in the ACC.
Fear not because the regents have assured us that Clueless Carol and Empty Suit Jim are all over this one. Clueless, Empty, and the other presidents / ADs of the 4 Orts (Cal, Stanford, OSU, WSU), let's call it the Council of Dumb Shits based upon recent decision making revelations, have hired Andrew Luck's dad to come to their rescue. His first act was to contact Evergreen State College and The New College of Florida to enquire if they are interested in joining the Pac 4, no word yet as to their decisions. Having 6 schools in the fold would allow the Pac ? to retain its level 5 conference rating thereby giving the 4 Orts + 2 time to restock the conference with like-minded athletic powerhouses. At last, we can sleep well again.
Wait, wait, breaking news flash: the 4 Orts Council of Dumb Shits has just replaced Luck with Sam Bankman-Fried, sheer genius on the part oft the oft-maligned council.
The only thing cal and Stanford would bring to the acc is academic prestige! As for the bottom line, it would have been a HORRIBLE business decision to add Stanford and cal. I don’t know how you think that these 2 schools would add value?
You really don't know much about the process, apparently.
Cal and Stanford clearly DO add value, otherwise you would not have Duke, UVA, Va Tech, Louisville, Boston College, Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse, Georgia Tech, and Miami, plus Notre Dame, ALL in favor of adding the Bay Area schools. The travel schedules are admittedly a hurdle, but that's where ESPN comes in. In fact, the reasons why the 4 are against adding the West Coast schools have less to do with the "business" decisions and more because they want the ACC to die so they can jet. If not for that, the deal's done already.
Getting their network on basic cable/satellite/streaming TV packages in California would certainly add value. Having access to CA as a recruiting ground would have value. The question is how much is that offset by the travel issues?
Reporting has suggested that ESPN has offered to kick in extra to cover the additional travel to the west coast, and that SMU has also offered to come along and take zero share for the first five years if they are also added, so that would bring extra money to the existing schools. This is more about the holdouts who think they can do better if and when the ACC collapses not wanting to add more voting members.
ESPN wants something to put in the late night slot. As is, they're shut out of the Pacific time zone. I think ultimately they'll put enough sweeteners in there to flip UNC and/or NCSU. I wouldn't be surprised if we end also end up taking a weaker deal than was originally on the table.
I’m not sure how much value Cal & Stanford bring if they had considerable value then I think the Big 10/SEC would be beating down their door, instead they’re hat in hand looking for a room in the INN.
ACC and Big10 in different situations. Size matters - for media negotiation and to stave off other conferences. But the latter is now in a position of strength whereas the former is now vulnerable. What Cal and Stanford bring to the table may not make great financial sense to the ACC, but with Clemson and FSU potentially out the door adding the bay area helps for general survival.
The B1G can afford to wait and watch the ACC thing play itself out before even considering a further offer to Cal and Stanford. They are in no hurry, even if they might want to add the Bay Area schools eventually.
A chart showed up that showed that the Bay Area is basically the only remaining major market that has a significant number of alumni from every single B1G team. Even Chicago doesn't have that.
Regardless of Cal viewership size (which is pretty average), the sheer attach rate just from current B1G alumni should make us valuable.
It's true that there's a relatively lower share of football viewers given the size of the market, but even so . . . there are not going to be a lot of opportunities for the ACC to add a market of that size at all. And even though it's less of a benefit than it used to be, lots of people still have cable subscriptions that will pay extra for the network automatically if you're in region.
Do you remember when Ohio State came to play in Memorial? All those Buckeye fans didn’t just fly into the Bay Area. A lot of B1G alum in the Bay Area who would absolutely watch games.
Keeps us in the P5 and with a complete turnaround of Cal administrative philosophy where they suddenly appreciate, embrace, support, and enable money sports and incorporate this new appreciation into a new culture for the entire campus and alumni network, well, Cal will be a national power and we control the NCAAF universe.
Actually, without the second part of the above sentence, then we remain at status quo- middling.
How much value did Colorado and Arizona add? It wasn’t so much about the dollars and media market they brought, it was about bringing stability.
As bad as Cal/Stanford are or have been in terms of filling stadiums and people watching games, they are certainly worth as much and even more than Colorado and Arizona.
Colorados medias numbers and attendance for the last decade have to be worse than Cals and they are in a much smaller market they equally doesn’t seem to care about CFB.
I didn't ever guess I'd be playing that part of Buffs defender, but I think their fan base is very, very much like ours. They show up and are passionate when they have something to show up and be passionate for. But their football program has been starved to death. But as you can see from the response to the Deon hire, the fans were there and ready to support the program once the program showed them something/anything. To much a lesser extent, the Madsen hire is analogous. There became a narrative that folks don't care about Cal basketball, which was never true. You get what you put into it.
I went to Cal at Colorado last year. I can attest that their attendance is not down. It was a sold out stadium and they were a winless team! The fans I talked to were realistic, knew their team was terrible yet they still support their team.
It makes logical sense if you’re not one of the programs not likely to get picked up by the B1G or SEC, cause it means you can 1) make it more difficult for those teams to leave, and 2) if they do leave en masse, you can trudge on with a less potent version. I get UNC not wanting to budge, but if NC State thinks UNC has the pull to drag them along with them to the B1G or SEC, I think it’s not a great bet.
NC State should learn at this point that the little brothers get left behind. The only reason UCLA made it was because they're from LA and not a smaller city/state.
West coast inventory. If ESPN had a choice we’d be in. We’re stymied because FSU, Clemson and UNC don’t want to make it any more difficult for themselves to leave the conference.
1. If there's a deadline it would be for joining in a specific year but I've seen it reported that there isn't a specific one. Cal has no deadline since the Pac deal is expiring (and probably the conference too).
2. What do you mean by chisel down treatment?
3) I'd guess we'd be locked in if we formally joined. We could theoretically go independent with our own media deal but contact to play ACC teams as our "conference." The ACC GOR only covers home games, not away.
If ESPN defaults, I am not sure if the contract is sold off or just severed. But that would set into motion far bigger changes to the media landscape anyway.
I don't think we're being chiseled down since we don't have any leverage and everyone knows it. We're at everyone else's mercy.
The most recent reported Pac-12 distribution (what we're "used to") was $37M. The gap between the "tiers" of conferences ($4M for MWC vs. ~$30M for even a half B1G share, or 3/4 ACC share) is so large that our "starvation" point falls into it. Internally, Cal's academic side also has a limit to what they're willing to subsidize (they recently subsidized $30M). I'd estimate we need at least $20M plus $10M support from UCLA to squeak by in the near term.
It's likely that the networks, incumbent schools, and conferences are using that tactic with each other and we're caught in the crossfire.
Not sure about #1, but #3 is an interesting question. Remember the banking mantra "too big to fail"? It's a philosophy driving the conference landscape. But what happens if the banks in this case (sports networks) become untenable? Is this all a house of cards?
You would think that some combination of USC/UCLA/OR/WA are lobbying behind the scenes to get us an opening bid. This wouldn't affect their bottom line at this point because they've already secured the bag. Getting us in would benefit their athletes and thus help them in recruiting battles with the likes of Ohio state/Michigan. If you are an athlete and split between Oregon and Michigan, why would you choose the school were you have to travel all those extra miles? It's undeniable that we are strategically positioned to add real value here.
Sadly, the evidence is that USC has been actively lobbying AGAINST that because they don't want other west coast teams encroaching on their recruiting territory. Maybe that will be different with Oregon already in (that's the one they were most concerned about).
I have a hard time getting behind this argument given that USC has not had a problem recruiting high caliber athletes for most part of the last 20 years as I remember. I don't think this was problem for them in PAC 12 and it will not be a problem if we get into the B1G. We are projected to be at the mid to low end of the conference where as USC is in the top three.
EDIT: I would love to see a scenario where it gets put to a vote and see if in fact USC votes no. (assuming the results are made puplic)
Rumors abound as to what may or may not happen to Cal and Stanford. Various sites quote unknown supposed experts as to what will happen. While the noises are being made, the real negotiations are kept quiet. Unlike the Big 12, the Big 10 rarely says anything publicly until it is ready to act. There has been a search to find a means of adding funding to their agreement with Fox to bring in Cal and Stanford, but this isn't as easy as it was with UW and UO for reasons that should be apparent to all interested. Perhaps nothing will happen, but at least the Big 10 schools would like to have Cal and Stanford even if Fox thinks they are loss leaders. As for the ACC, they are behaving exactly like a certain other conference did some years ago. The schools who think they should be receiving more funds and want to find a way out are blocking expansion. Don't expect an outcome different than the one that happened when the PAC 12 attempted to expand.
Fack Muck Brown
For all eternity.
And then some...
His house fire, where no one was hurt, made me believe in karma.
I agree with the sentiment, but in this case . . . I'm not sure he has much influence.
Clear as mud! They don't have the votes, but aren't closing off the matter either.
I wonder if everyone is waiting until that August 15 deadline, when any ACC member planning to leave has to inform the conference of such.
No one is leaving the ACC for at least the next 7 years, FSU can get mad all they want the reality is if there was an exit path for them they would have taken it already. No school is prepared to pay the price ( possibly a billion dollars) to leave.
Yeah, Florida State and Clemson are not going to sit idly by for the next 7 years.
Yeah they aren’t sitting idly by for the next 7 years. They may not sit idly by for the next 2!
Exactly. If TV wants Florida State and Clemson in the SEC, and UNC in the B1G, which they do, the ACC is done...only a matter of time. No way it lasts until 2030.
That's why NC State simply going along with UNC is so short sighted, given what Oregon did to Oregon State, Washington to Wazzu, UCLA to Cal.
According to this channel, the grant of rights only applies to home games and as long as FSU pays the exit fee, they can bolt to the B1G or the SEC where they would be worth 3x more than what they are making in the ACC. If this is correct, we could see another shift before the 15th which could have implications for Cal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laxuT836uCY
Yes, though the exit fee is pretty huge and will be hard to raise.
They don’t have 120 million kit happening
Why would the ACC sign off on their demise? That makes no sense, UNC’s AD comments about FSU pretty much make clear they’re interested in the ACC surviving.
Listen FSU football hasn’t been relevant in 5 years . Stanford was a power up until David Shaw checked out and screwed this ga up . The ACC are morons not taking Stanford because the big 10 will reconsider any take them
Where are they going to get a billion dollars? Immediately they would have to come up with at minimum a $75 million exit fee then they forfeit their tv revenue to the ACC through 2036.
FSU’s Athletics Department was in a deficit as recently as 2021. They can front all they want they can’t get out of the agreement they’re stuck unless a force majeure occurs like their TV partner files for bankruptcy. That’s not happening.
I think it is over. It is looking more and more likely that we are destined to be exiled to the Mountain West.
The Pac4 are caught between a rock and a cliff. To make matters worse, time and money isn’t on our side. We can’t even build a newly constructed PacX because the MWC conference has a commissioner who is smart, proactive and competent so the MWC schools can’t pay for their buyout. Even if they could, we don’t even have a media deal to offer them.
Cal/Stanford/OSU/WSU are truly fucked and boxed in with no way out.
They don’t have a media deal cause they’re only looking at traditional outlets, yes they looked at Apple but who wants to watch a game on the IPhone or IPad.
They need to partner with a entity that has a need to fill programming, the logical deal would be with CBS/CW. CBS could broadcast on CBS their CBS Sports cable and over the air CW.
If I was the commissioner and university presidents I’d reach out to Berkshire Hathaway and see about facilitating a media partnership.
ESPN/Fox likely have all they want and wouldn’t enter into a deal unless it was a bargain basement deal for them.
First of all, I watch AppleTV shows, movies and MLB games in my 85 inch TV all the time.
Second, the MWC already has a deal with CBS Sports to broadcast over cable, so this is another point where the MWC has us beat.
You know that you can watch Apple TV on a regular TV, right?
What like connecting your phone to the TV?
Ha, no. All TVs from the past several+ years have ability to add the Apple TV app (or come with it already embedded into the TV's options), it is just a toggle on your regular TV clicker. This convo is valuable though in showing there is definitely a generational gap in understanding what was on offer with the Apple deal-- though I also preferred to go the regular linear tv route for a big portion of the distribution package. Side note- you should try out Apple TV, Ted Lasso was really great.
I believe you can even get Apple TV on an Amazon Firestick (which are cheap when they go on sale). I should probably download the app on Firestick to test since T-Mobile gave a MLS subscription for free.
As much as I want to watch Ted Lasso, I can't justify yet another subscription. I suppose I can just subscribe for a month and binge...
Haven’t watched Lasso but their spy thriller series Tehran is really good.
I’ve been watching The Foundation since I’ve always been interested in Asimov’s short stories, and the premise seemed interesting.
Really didn’t want another prescription either but eventually caved into the 3mo trial 😅
Silo was good. Shrinking was funny. Dear Edward was poignant.
All TV's sold now are "smart" TV's. In other words you can get almost everthing that's on local TV and on cable by using a smart TV. Peaclock, ROKU, FUBO, etc. l
I would LOVE to be able to watch games in my phone and iPad. Which I could then effortlessly stream to my TV.
The MWC commish is a Berkeley Law grad, who eventually worked at Cal and the Pac-12 Network. Heard her talk. She's really sharp and pragmatic. If only we had someone like her as our AD or conference commish, we very likely wouldn't be in the heaping pile we find ourselves in.
There is absolutely Stanford football will compete in MWC impossible they will go Independent before that in football
Meant no way
Just finished a business case for a holding company which will control media rights for Cal while getting funded by private equity investors. The university also will own a share of the company. There is a clear pathway for a significant rate of return to investors and also an escalator allowing sales of stock at predetermined points as the valuation increases. One benefit to the university is the ability to pay back the stadium debt at an accelerated schedule. The plan will be shared with a specific investor group this afternoon. Will see what happens. Alternative to the hat in hand approach if no power 5 conference deal is in the offing.
Is Cal Athletics a non-profit entity? If so, did the investment group include some tax experts on moving assets (GOR) from a non-profit to a for-profit?
fwiw: Florida State has contracted with JPMorgan to see if they can do something similar, but FSU Athletics is a Dept of the nonprofit University and I think they'll find that they can't get there from here. At best, they can get an unsecured loan.
Good point. The way it is being planned is that the program doesn't kick in until 2024 when the grant of rights expires. I'll look into it.
It's more that has to do with nonprofit law in CA. (I was a former CFO of a nonprofit and we spend a whole lotta time and legal expense trying to think of creative ways to raise capital.)
If Cal athletics (CA) is a nonprofit, then the "assets" of Cal Athletics really belongs to the state of California; essentially, they are just held by CA in trust for the Secretary of State.. If CA wants to convert some/all of the legal ownership of those assets into a for-profit C corp, CA needs to assign an FMV to those assets and give that amount to the State in recompense for the State losing the Asset. So, CA can't just assign its 2025 GOR rights into a C Corp without paying the piper and getting approval from California Secretary of State.
It gets technical, but if you have folks working on it, suggest you look up the hoops that Anthem healthcare went thru to convert from a nonprofit to a for profit corp. They had to pay millions to the State, and do a bunch of other things, such as free health care, estabshipment of a research foundation...
NC State voting against expansion is exactly as dumb as the Pac-12 voting against CFP expansion.
Meh. I hate all of this. The organizer and activist in me wants Cal and Stanford to require any package to include OSU and WSU. I recognize that, at least for a little while longer, money means everything and tradition means nothing. Perhaps a few years down the road, the logistics will expose the gross unfeasibility of these latest rearrangements. Perhaps the NCAA steps up and reorganizes the teams into regional pods. Perhaps DeSantis becomes president and declares a war on the WoKe NCAA because of Title IX, and football gets cancelled. Maybe Trump, serving as Precedent under house arrest at Mar-a-Lago. works with the brilliant Tommy Tuberville to only allow football in red states, and we get cancelled that way. "Make Football Great Again!" A myriad of long term outcomes are potential, if we can survive that long. IDK, maybe I'm reaching. Will be in Memorial for the smashing of Auburn anyway. Stay Sturdy, a sad Bear.
Agree, it all sucks. But sadly, the Bears have to cut ties with Oregon St and Wazzu. It's imperative - tragic that it's come to this, but it is essential that Cal remain in a Power "5" Conference moving forward, and OSU and Wazzu are not in a position right now to do that.
If Cal joins/merges with the MWC, it's over. The money absolutely does not work, and it places them on the mid-major track. Recruiting will suffer, budgets will be trimmed, sports will be cut...worst case scenario.
They have to find a way into the ACC/B1G/B12...somehow.
Big 12 is not an option to revisit? Since they now have Arizona, ASU, Colorado and Utah could form western pod and limit travel? I’m not up on the history and why there seems to be bad blood or if it’s as simple as all involved think there is not a “cultural fit”. Just want any reasonable option that limits cuts to our sports programs.
I agree. The Big 12 is the best option if it is an option at all. TV G*ds again. You know your attendance and admin sucks when Stillwater has you beat.
Maybe Oliver Luck who has Big 12 ties can make something happen
People think cause he was an AD at a Big 12 school that he was juice.
They likely brought him in for guidance and thoughts on how to rebuild their league.
All of my other-conference ire is still aimed at the B1G- I want to run all of those college presidents down a Game of Thrones-style gauntlet of "Shame, Shame." University presidents my a**.
I think we are able to get the vote. If Notre Dame really wants to bank on this, I think it’ll happen.
As would be our luck, I'm not sure ND has much leverage here for once.
good thing the California state government's 2016 "travel ban" to North Carolina (and now 25 other states) is being reconsidered.
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/03/1192015730/california-reconsiders-its-state-business-travel-ban-to-states-with-anti-lgbtq-l
Here's an interesting breakdown of the rankings, budgets, etc. for football, MBB, the entire athletic department, and academic/fiscal/enrollment numbers for the assorted universities that could serve as Pac expansion candidates. Of the 19 candidates, 13 are R1 institutions but the R2 institutions have some of the stronger football/athletic departments (SDSU, SMU, FSU and BSU). Only Tulane (good athletic candidate), Rice (bad athletics candidate) and USF (good candidate but far away) are AAU schools. Https://twitter.com/TJAltimore/status/1690333798251089921
The Big 10 doesn’t care about FSU or Clemson they are 18 teams right now and likely will stop at 20 as it’ll give them 2 10 team division. If they were going to poach a school from the ACC it’s far more likely to be Pittsburgh or Miami and it probably would be only 1 of them leaving the last spot for Notre Dame. North Carolina is a basketball school and is going to be happy remaining in the ACC.
If UNC was happy remaining in the ACC they would not have been a declining vote.
Fear not because the regents have assured us that Clueless Carol and Empty Suit Jim are all over this one. Clueless, Empty, and the other presidents / ADs of the 4 Orts (Cal, Stanford, OSU, WSU), let's call it the Council of Dumb Shits based upon recent decision making revelations, have hired Andrew Luck's dad to come to their rescue. His first act was to contact Evergreen State College and The New College of Florida to enquire if they are interested in joining the Pac 4, no word yet as to their decisions. Having 6 schools in the fold would allow the Pac ? to retain its level 5 conference rating thereby giving the 4 Orts + 2 time to restock the conference with like-minded athletic powerhouses. At last, we can sleep well again.
Wait, wait, breaking news flash: the 4 Orts Council of Dumb Shits has just replaced Luck with Sam Bankman-Fried, sheer genius on the part oft the oft-maligned council.
Correct, meant to say Andrew Luck's dad, because I couldn't remember his dad's name --- thanks for the correction (old age take's its toll)
It just doesn’t make logistical sense and there’s really not much value added.
Logistically it’s a mess but it absolutely adds value to both schools AND the ACC.
The only viable future for Cal is at the Power 5 level.
The only thing cal and Stanford would bring to the acc is academic prestige! As for the bottom line, it would have been a HORRIBLE business decision to add Stanford and cal. I don’t know how you think that these 2 schools would add value?
You really don't know much about the process, apparently.
Cal and Stanford clearly DO add value, otherwise you would not have Duke, UVA, Va Tech, Louisville, Boston College, Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse, Georgia Tech, and Miami, plus Notre Dame, ALL in favor of adding the Bay Area schools. The travel schedules are admittedly a hurdle, but that's where ESPN comes in. In fact, the reasons why the 4 are against adding the West Coast schools have less to do with the "business" decisions and more because they want the ACC to die so they can jet. If not for that, the deal's done already.
^^^Simple as this!^^^
Getting their network on basic cable/satellite/streaming TV packages in California would certainly add value. Having access to CA as a recruiting ground would have value. The question is how much is that offset by the travel issues?
Reporting has suggested that ESPN has offered to kick in extra to cover the additional travel to the west coast, and that SMU has also offered to come along and take zero share for the first five years if they are also added, so that would bring extra money to the existing schools. This is more about the holdouts who think they can do better if and when the ACC collapses not wanting to add more voting members.
Could they offer to bring us in and withhold voting rights?
Theoretically yes.
Then it sounds like we can dispel this as a legitimate roadblock and move on to the next possible point of contention.
ESPN wants something to put in the late night slot. As is, they're shut out of the Pacific time zone. I think ultimately they'll put enough sweeteners in there to flip UNC and/or NCSU. I wouldn't be surprised if we end also end up taking a weaker deal than was originally on the table.
Have you watched ESPN lately they’re putting tag and cornhole on late night which is probably infinitely cheaper.
But nobody watches those sports, so bringing in major sports from the west coast would defilnately bring in many more viewers.
You mean “The Ocho”?
I’m not sure how much value Cal & Stanford bring if they had considerable value then I think the Big 10/SEC would be beating down their door, instead they’re hat in hand looking for a room in the INN.
ACC and Big10 in different situations. Size matters - for media negotiation and to stave off other conferences. But the latter is now in a position of strength whereas the former is now vulnerable. What Cal and Stanford bring to the table may not make great financial sense to the ACC, but with Clemson and FSU potentially out the door adding the bay area helps for general survival.
The B1G can afford to wait and watch the ACC thing play itself out before even considering a further offer to Cal and Stanford. They are in no hurry, even if they might want to add the Bay Area schools eventually.
Agree but I don’t see lure of the Bay area media market. Yes I think they are #6 but how many in that market are watching the PAC 12?
A chart showed up that showed that the Bay Area is basically the only remaining major market that has a significant number of alumni from every single B1G team. Even Chicago doesn't have that.
Regardless of Cal viewership size (which is pretty average), the sheer attach rate just from current B1G alumni should make us valuable.
It's true that there's a relatively lower share of football viewers given the size of the market, but even so . . . there are not going to be a lot of opportunities for the ACC to add a market of that size at all. And even though it's less of a benefit than it used to be, lots of people still have cable subscriptions that will pay extra for the network automatically if you're in region.
Lots of B1G alum in the Bay Area media market.
Do you remember when Ohio State came to play in Memorial? All those Buckeye fans didn’t just fly into the Bay Area. A lot of B1G alum in the Bay Area who would absolutely watch games.
yep that is right
They really want to add Stanford and Notre Dame
Everyone wants to add Notre Dame. But there's no indication that ND is interested in joining.
Keeps us in the P5 and with a complete turnaround of Cal administrative philosophy where they suddenly appreciate, embrace, support, and enable money sports and incorporate this new appreciation into a new culture for the entire campus and alumni network, well, Cal will be a national power and we control the NCAAF universe.
Actually, without the second part of the above sentence, then we remain at status quo- middling.
How much value did Colorado and Arizona add? It wasn’t so much about the dollars and media market they brought, it was about bringing stability.
As bad as Cal/Stanford are or have been in terms of filling stadiums and people watching games, they are certainly worth as much and even more than Colorado and Arizona.
Might be a quick sugar rush, but Deon will bring a ton of TV eyeballs.
And Cal might go 12-0.
Colorados medias numbers and attendance for the last decade have to be worse than Cals and they are in a much smaller market they equally doesn’t seem to care about CFB.
I didn't ever guess I'd be playing that part of Buffs defender, but I think their fan base is very, very much like ours. They show up and are passionate when they have something to show up and be passionate for. But their football program has been starved to death. But as you can see from the response to the Deon hire, the fans were there and ready to support the program once the program showed them something/anything. To much a lesser extent, the Madsen hire is analogous. There became a narrative that folks don't care about Cal basketball, which was never true. You get what you put into it.
I went to Cal at Colorado last year. I can attest that their attendance is not down. It was a sold out stadium and they were a winless team! The fans I talked to were realistic, knew their team was terrible yet they still support their team.
Until he loses the first 3 games.
Hence the sugar rush part.
I agree. Although ASU looks like it was brought in for conference stability.
I agree. We should have a legitimate case for getting picked up by the B12 at some point if we pursue membership.
It makes logical sense if you’re not one of the programs not likely to get picked up by the B1G or SEC, cause it means you can 1) make it more difficult for those teams to leave, and 2) if they do leave en masse, you can trudge on with a less potent version. I get UNC not wanting to budge, but if NC State thinks UNC has the pull to drag them along with them to the B1G or SEC, I think it’s not a great bet.
NC State should learn at this point that the little brothers get left behind. The only reason UCLA made it was because they're from LA and not a smaller city/state.
No, no, no, North Carolina is “different” and won’t let UNC leave NC State behind.
Lol. I don't see why. Need a big donor to send a little seed money to change someone's opinion. It's going to happen. ESPN needs to help.
Why would ESPN need to help, they have their financial problems.
West coast inventory. If ESPN had a choice we’d be in. We’re stymied because FSU, Clemson and UNC don’t want to make it any more difficult for themselves to leave the conference.
1. Is there a deadline for expansion in any of these P5s? Or are they all on different deadlines for such?
2. Are we getting the chisel down treatment?
3. If we did go ACC, would we be locked in for the decade + of the current GOR with ESPN? What happens if ESPN defaults?
1. If there's a deadline it would be for joining in a specific year but I've seen it reported that there isn't a specific one. Cal has no deadline since the Pac deal is expiring (and probably the conference too).
2. What do you mean by chisel down treatment?
3) I'd guess we'd be locked in if we formally joined. We could theoretically go independent with our own media deal but contact to play ACC teams as our "conference." The ACC GOR only covers home games, not away.
If ESPN defaults, I am not sure if the contract is sold off or just severed. But that would set into motion far bigger changes to the media landscape anyway.
2. “Chisel down” walking away as a bargaining tactic.
I don't think we're being chiseled down since we don't have any leverage and everyone knows it. We're at everyone else's mercy.
The most recent reported Pac-12 distribution (what we're "used to") was $37M. The gap between the "tiers" of conferences ($4M for MWC vs. ~$30M for even a half B1G share, or 3/4 ACC share) is so large that our "starvation" point falls into it. Internally, Cal's academic side also has a limit to what they're willing to subsidize (they recently subsidized $30M). I'd estimate we need at least $20M plus $10M support from UCLA to squeak by in the near term.
It's likely that the networks, incumbent schools, and conferences are using that tactic with each other and we're caught in the crossfire.
Not sure about #1, but #3 is an interesting question. Remember the banking mantra "too big to fail"? It's a philosophy driving the conference landscape. But what happens if the banks in this case (sports networks) become untenable? Is this all a house of cards?
It's 100% a house of cards. The TV network gravy train isn't lasting forever. Heck, this may be the last stop right now.
Which is why we need to get in on it even if it crumbles with us.
Disney owns ESPN so they would have to back whatever deals they enter into.
And Disney doesn't have endless reserves to prop up ESPN. ESPN ultimately has to survive on its business model.
What if this happens?
https://apnews.com/article/pac12-stanford-cal-acc-big-ten-conference-realignment-c2672f46547efc1689b1017b019ac308
"The Big Ten switched gears on adding Oregon and Washington when it became a buy-low opportunity"
This should apply to us as well. They should at least make us an offer. Even a low ball offer would eclipse anything we could get in the MWC.
Exactly. We need someone to set a feasible opening bid (probably around $20M) but no one wants to do that yet.
You would think that some combination of USC/UCLA/OR/WA are lobbying behind the scenes to get us an opening bid. This wouldn't affect their bottom line at this point because they've already secured the bag. Getting us in would benefit their athletes and thus help them in recruiting battles with the likes of Ohio state/Michigan. If you are an athlete and split between Oregon and Michigan, why would you choose the school were you have to travel all those extra miles? It's undeniable that we are strategically positioned to add real value here.
Sadly, the evidence is that USC has been actively lobbying AGAINST that because they don't want other west coast teams encroaching on their recruiting territory. Maybe that will be different with Oregon already in (that's the one they were most concerned about).
I have a hard time getting behind this argument given that USC has not had a problem recruiting high caliber athletes for most part of the last 20 years as I remember. I don't think this was problem for them in PAC 12 and it will not be a problem if we get into the B1G. We are projected to be at the mid to low end of the conference where as USC is in the top three.
EDIT: I would love to see a scenario where it gets put to a vote and see if in fact USC votes no. (assuming the results are made puplic)
Rumors abound as to what may or may not happen to Cal and Stanford. Various sites quote unknown supposed experts as to what will happen. While the noises are being made, the real negotiations are kept quiet. Unlike the Big 12, the Big 10 rarely says anything publicly until it is ready to act. There has been a search to find a means of adding funding to their agreement with Fox to bring in Cal and Stanford, but this isn't as easy as it was with UW and UO for reasons that should be apparent to all interested. Perhaps nothing will happen, but at least the Big 10 schools would like to have Cal and Stanford even if Fox thinks they are loss leaders. As for the ACC, they are behaving exactly like a certain other conference did some years ago. The schools who think they should be receiving more funds and want to find a way out are blocking expansion. Don't expect an outcome different than the one that happened when the PAC 12 attempted to expand.