If the ACC invites don't come, the California Golden Bears and Stanford Cardinal need a second option. Could the Big 12 extend an invite to Cal, Stanford, Washington State and Oregon State?
> a conference with a vastly different cultural and political profile ... you have to imagine Cal and Stanford administrators are not too keen.
> There is definite donor concerns as a result
This is a bizarre line of thinking. It's Internet message board memery metastasizing into the real world. I swear, nobody even considered the "culture" of a football conference a few years ago, let alone made important, program-saving decisions based on hypothetical intra-conference culture clashes.
An athletics conference is the collection of teams you play against. It's not a declaration of love or a celebration of everything (anything?) else about those schools. They used to be bound by geography and history, but that ship has sailed too.
Yes, Lubbock is pretty different from Berkeley. It does not matter, not one iota, on the football field or in the scheduling of conference play. Not to mention, the ways in which Berkeley the place is culturally different from Lubbock are least exemplified in Memorial Stadium. On Saturdays in the fall, we're powerfully connected to a strangers in college towns across the country, often moreso than we are to the people we'd otherwise feel kin to at the local gourmet grocery.
Of course there's a limit, but let's call that what it is. BYU's and Baylor's anti-LGBTQ policies are bigotry. If they were asking to join the Pac-12 it would be a moral exercise of our power and authority to demand they modernize, or face rejection. Alas, we have no such power and authority. We have nothing to withhold to influence them. To refuse to join the Big 12 for that reason would be to cut off our nose to spite their faces.
Let me say it plainly: if we fail(ed) to pursue a $30M+ / year spot in a conference with more of our traditional rivals and better travel distances, just so we could be in the AAC and feel culturally/politically superior on 6-12 Saturdays each year, that is as colossal a mistake as any made by Christ, Knowlton, et al in the past few years. To be angry at them while advocating to eschew the B12 is hypocrisy of a ludicrous degree.
I agree with you, but some think the Big-12 is middling (because it lacks star power) and playing the ACC schools will give us more visibility.
I think it's partly b/c the snooty administrators much rather hob knob with the likes of UNC, Duke, UVA, and GTech than hang out with the unlikes of Okie State and Baylor...but that's just my own speculation.
If you're SMU and money is no object, you could strike a backroom deal with Clemson to get us voted into the conference, and in return, they would cover their exit fee. Problem solved
I think he was referring to the expansion because he also said that it wouldn't be good for Calford athletes to subjected to almost weekly (or for basketball more than weekly) cross country trips. However I wouldn't be surprised if there also was some prejudice based on the California stereotype.
I find myself preferring the ACC, only because I think the games would be really interesting. Playing in the ACC would be like an entire season of really cool non-conference games. B12 would be like an endless rehash of the cheez-it bowl and Holiday Bowl disaster against TTech.
Cal needs to join a conference other than the pac, that way ucla is off the hook as far as that stupid calimony thing goes. And another thing if it is true that cal were to reject an invite from the big 12, then ucla should be off the hook. This is a situation where cal is basically on welfare right now. When you are on welfare, you can’t reject money that is offered to you. It was reported that stanford rejected the big 12, and if cal did the same they are in big trouble. It was said by someone on this site, that cal has the richest alumni base in the nation. Well they are going to have to reach out to those people because the athletic department could go bankrupt!
Honestly, I am not sure what your thing is about Cal, but maybe you need to get out more.
And if you're going on about Cal/Berkeley's extreme politics, there's plenty of us, Cal graduates, that may agree with you. That being said, I'm not sure what your endgame is, here, trolling this site.
I never had a dislike for cal, until the calimony thing! This is all about cal alums, and their ego’s. Those regents, many who are cal alums, did everything they could to stop ucla from going to the big ten. They didn’t want to see ucla go to a higher level than cal. They work for the state of California, and they were trying to deny ucla from making more money, and getting out of debt. Those regents should have been fired the minute they voted no on ucla going to the big ten.
You may blame the Regents for giving Cal alums the very idea that some manner of restitution was/is owed. As others have pointed out, we are both subsidiaries of the same greater body, so the boss can do as the boss sees fit.
The issue is not UCLA making more, it's Cal getting damaged in the process. If UCLA had informed people through the proper channels, Cal could have worked together for a reduced Big Ten invite or gotten the gears moving earlier to make more proactive rather than reactive moves. Right now we are taking the worst deal possible as a result of UCLA acting independently.
We are all members of one public university system. If UCLA damages UC Berkeley from making money (and at this point definitely losing out on it), that is going to peeve the Regents. That's why Calimony was introduced.
Let’s put calimony aside. Why did those regents vote no on ucla going to the big ten. Ucla is in debt, and that was their lifeline. Calimony had already been introduced, but those cal alum regents still voted no. It was all about ego’s!
So you're taking it out on us? It's my understanding, under some states' laws, such as North Carolina, both UNC and NCState must be in the same conference. One can understand why public schools would be subject to such limitations, if only to simplify costs.
One potential advantage of a package deal of the remaining PAC-4 is that we might be able to structure the deal as a merger, and retain access to whatever loose change is floating around in the PAC-12 couch cushions. I read (on the internet, so take that with a grain of salt) that even accounting for the Comcast over-payment, there is/should be some cash floating around, and that there will be some money coming in for the next few years (from non-media sources).
Again, I have no idea how accurate this is. But from what I read, split four ways, the money actually ends up being close to what we would get in a media deal, i.e. $20-40 million. If this is true, then ditching WSU/OSU for a minuscule partial share in the ACC would make even less sense. And a merger with Big 12 would actually make a little more sense if that money stays with the four of us (or offsets a reduced share).
This is also another consideration for rebuilding the PAC-X. If that money is actually there, it can hold us over until we are able to pull some MWC/AAC schools into the new conference.
The problem is that the ACC is being dominated by a handful of schools at the top that have wandering eyes and are more than ready fuck over everybody else when the time arises. Why beg our way into a situation like that for pennies on the dollar, especially if the kids will be at a major disadvantage because they will have to travel across the country for 90% of the games, while the other schools only have to do so 10-20% of the time. It would be different if the ACC were actively trying to save itself by aggressively expanding...but they are not. It is a euthanasia conference right now. Until they get serious about preserving their own future...it just ain't worth it.
It will be very difficult to improve our repetitional standing to get a piece of the next phase of the pie vying for an invite outside of the P4. Major recruiting disadvantage and a lot of the donors that need to underwrite athletics will bail. It’s hard to know where realignment goes, but one theory is that expansion will be followed by contraction. That would make it impossible for anyone on the outside looking in.
The NC schools will always vote the same way. They are legally required to be in the same conference. UVA and VT are also required by state law to be in the same athletic conference. NC newspapers have written that there is little net value in adding Cal and Stanford even under the proposed terms. These schools want to join the SEC, not expand the ACC.
There was a Clemson administrator that was quoted as being agreeable with adding Calford. No idea if that person held any sway though.
FWIW, Clemson strikes me as the more reasonable one of the four original "No's". They have not been nearly as apoplectic as FSU about the GOR, and the NC schools seem to be against it for cultural reasons as much as realignment reasons.
Unfortunately I think there is a lot of hype being emitted by those schools who want the ACC to expand. Recall all the hype about how everyone was on board for the great new PAC-12 media contract? Although I have ties to Cal, Stanford and Wisconsin, I live in VA and am familiar with the politics of the ACC. I hope Cal and Stanford can obtain the votes, but I’m not confident they will.
When the ACC added Miami, Boston U and Syracuse, UNC only voted to add Miami because it didn’t want the northern schools. This was two decades ago, but I suspect their sentiments may remain the same.
I would be completely happy with the BIG 12. They seem more stable.
Honestly, though, I just want to be in a P5 conference. I’ll take BIG 12, ACC, or (obviously) BIG 10 (though it sounds like that ship has sailed). But none of the MWC or AAC crap. Might as well close the doors.
The ACC does have some schools with excellent academic reputations, but that doesn't mean the conference is necessarily a better cultural fit for Cal. When it was created in 1953, it was a conference of southern schools. In 2004, the ACC raided the Big East and caused its eventual collapse. The northern schools were added then and in 2013 - 2014, but the conference retains much of its southern feel. If you visit the campuses of Clemson, FSU, UNC, or even UVA, you'll feel a different vibe compared to Cal or Stanford. There's nothing wrong with this, but people shouldn't think that the ACC is a better cultural fit to the Big-12. It's the wrong criterion to use.
Matters of academics and culture (or the welfare of 'student athletes') are window dressing that hold little, if any, weight in the discussions of those making the decision.
“Culture” is not really a big deal. Does anyone think that Washington State or Arizona State had a “culture” similar to Cal or Stanford? No.
The academic rankings are probably the real reason Stanford (in particular) does not want to be in the Big 12, and they seem to mostly be driving this bus. The ACC is academically strong enough to be palatable.
I think people constantly confound selectivity and quality. Washington State and ASU have great faculty. ASU is all business nowadays and does not hire any tenure track faculty that are not major grant pullers. Sure, the student body might be slightly different, but they have some good students too (they created things like honors colleges to try and attract some of the better students). The situation was different in the 1980s.
There are nuanced differences between Western "Southerners" versus Eastern "Southerners." Honestly, if we're talking plain ordinary daily life, accents, and general P.O.V., the more western, the more kindred to us. So, IMHO, either Big > ACC for "culture."
I grew up regarding "Easterners" as somewhat snobby, overbearing, meddling, and impractical.
"Cal and Stanford administrators are not too keen." As if they are going to invite some B12 players over for their French literature salon after the game.
The reports out today say the Big 12 hasn't engaged with the remaining Pac schools and has no intention of doing so, and they had already said they were done with expansion for the time being. I think this rumor was probably leaked to create some urgency with the ACC. The Big 12 never had interest and we all know they wouldn't be Cal's choice either.
Yes, though if the ACC deal falls through . . . I would not be shocked to see ESPN miraculously find more money to get the B12 to add more west coast schools.
ESPN may find the money but their presidents and ADs don't want it for several reasons. I don't think they feel like it's a fit in any way, and I tend to agree with them. Totally different culturally and athletically neither simply brings any value to the table. They need to be focused on sending teams to the CFP and increasing their revenue per school, closer to the SEC. Adding two or all four of the Pac 4 won't achieve either goal, plus it makes future expansion when the ACC implodes harder if they already have 20 schools.
If this comes to pass (which it probably won't because Cal and Stanford will be in the ACC), then some of those presidents will complain and then take the money and expand.
That's the issue -- there isn't enough additional money to make them want to expand. Unlike the ACC they aren't asking schools to take half share or zero shares because they want harmony throughout the league. But bringing in the Pac 4 doesn't up the 'per school revenue' and would lower the overall payout per school because it'll be split between more schools. You don't do that for schools that aren't a great fit in the first place. Even if Yormark wanted to do it, their presidents are the ones who have to agree to it.
Net I don't see any value to Cal/Stan/SMU since they would all be taking little to nothing for the first five years or so. The net for the conference would be substantial and it would help them pay the Clemsons and FSUs more money. But what about in five years when it's time to pay the three new schools? Is the ACC going to take away the uplift for FSU and Clemson, or will the new schools be stuck earning a pittance?
For the Big 12 there is no net increase and it would actually be modest loss. They'll pay the new schools more money up front, but the existing schools would get no uplift out of it and would actually have to split the remaining parts of the total payout between four additional schools. It would be a net loss for them but a much better deal for the Pac 4.
Big 12 would probably be easier on non-revenue sports because of shorter distances, including 7 other Pac schools they already go to. Though the primary concern for non-revenue sports is staying off the chopping block (which takes money).
I don't understand the donor fatigue aspect. I'd imagine donors will adapt like everyone else around the larger forces at play.
Avi shared the notion that we might lose some whales and ordinary donors, if we joined the Big 12, but, IMHO, it's much ado about nothing and more than a bit suggesting that Cal donors have fragile egos. Honestly, Big 12, as is the B!G, is heartland America and if that does not suit somebody, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Then why even entertain going there. First, they are going to fight tooth and nail not to invite the Pac 4 -- there is nothing it it for the legacy Big 12 schools. Second, we all know Cal doesn't want to go and would even lose donors (I don't understand that at all -- those donors ought to just be happy to see their school not in the MWC next year). The bottom line is neither side wants it so why do it? And after losing their resident primadonna Texas there's no doubt they don't want to add another couple of primadonnas, especially if they aren't adding any increases to the overall payouts.
The Big 12 isn't interested -- there are reports out all over the place today saying they haven't and have no intention of pursuing the Pac 4. I'm certain this rumor was leaked to try and get some leverage on the ACC. I agree re: the cultural / political reasoning is stupid, but that's the way everything is these days. I imagine it's a two way street with the Big 12.
Elsewhere, X/Twitter, someone opined, there will only be three power conferences left standing, it's just a question of whether or not the 3rd one is ACC or the Big12.
Agree, and I imagine it will be the Big 12 since the ACC is going to get poached like crazy at the first sign of a break in their GOR. The Big 12 has a huge advantage of being poached first, although I could see the Big Ten going after Kansas and the SEC going after Oklahoma State and Texas Tech later.
I never have trolled. Why is it that folks at Cal (in general but not everyone) think that any opinions that aren't what they want to hear are trolling?
These message boards are to state opinions which is exactly what I've done. It seems you believe it's trolling because you don't agree with my opinions. You have every right to disagree with me, but it's quite arrogant to say someone is only a troll because you don't agree with them. You won't see me call people names or insult people (although I admittedly might if someone attacks me first), but I'll definitely give my thoughts and you should too. If you think I'm wrong tell me so -- that's ok too. You may give me info I wasn't aware of that changes my view. I'll never be so arrogant to believe any view different than mine is automatically wrong.
I just tend to not form opinions based on emotion or try to be a PR plant/Susie Sunshine when it comes to my opinions on Cal. I'm pretty straight forward so while I can understand someone not liking my opinion, that doesn't mean I'm trolling.
You stated some emphatically anti-Cal opinions that from our POV seem to imply we do not belong in a P4/5 conference. Of course my memory may be befuddled with some other posters and you were unfairly lumped in.
Bottom line, and I believe I speak for most Cal supporters, we are definitely disappointed with our current state and, some of that group, is disappointed with a longer span of historical disappointments. So, I, for one, want to here positives or constructive negatives, since the back of my mind is screaming existential despair.
Yeah I have some emphatic opinions -- several on here do -- but anti-Cal opinions? No, those were just opinions, period. They are anti-Cal to you because of your emotions. Anti-Cal would be saying it's a terrible place to be, which it isn't. But saying it brings no additive value to a conference where it doesn't bring additive value isn't anti-Cal. I get it, no one likes it when the school they love isn't Notre Dame in value and prestige, but there's only one Notre Dame and most of the rest of the schools have places they fit and places they don't. The truth is Cal brings no value to most athletic conferences right now because quite frankly it hasn't been good in football and basketball for quite some time. That's not anti-Cal, that's the unfortunate truth.
Yup. Same thing happened to PAC vs Big 12. Unless we get more major networks as primary dealmakers, this is the future. Maybe the streamers will finally emerge as an alternative to Fox and ESPN before 2030 but it's still amateur hour with them in 2023.
I suppose you're right re: getting more major networks. I just have a hard time believing that the networks as they are today didn't have room for five power leagues when they've had time the last 40 years on linear TV. And today they have tons of extra channels (FS1, ESPN2, ESPN3, ESPNU, ESPNews) to spread content across.
Streamers can absorb a massive amount of content but production is what's expensive. Fortunately the Pac-12 Network is high-quality but funded by a garbage revenue plan. That's part of the value baked into the PAC remnant. It's not clear how that asset would be handled at the end.
ESPN+ is unique because it has a subscription model that is complimentary to ESPN's linear programming. Maybe we'll see Apple or Amazon partner with an existing network with a struggling streaming network or a network that wants a turnkey entry into the space.
Right now, we're seeing early-mid-20th century baseball where the AL and NL (B1G and SEC) expanded westward. There was the PCL and Negro League which were effectively AAAA-level. I think the market may be "thick" enough to support a AAAA level but it won't be able to compete with the majors very easily.
People have said that some European soccer leagues are set up this way but I don't really watch European soccer.
The ACC is locked up for over a decade still with huge buyouts. Big 12 has a 6-year deal to start. Given that, I would say Big 12 is more vulnerable but I wouldn't say particularly vulnerable because I'm not sure how much more consolidation we'll see.
I think we were seeing a scenario where only one of the Pac and Big 12 could survive and...welp.
Yeah the low-ball thing will be the major issue. If Fox and ESPN incentivize B1G and SEC to expand (especially with a "partial share tier" above the B12 or ACC full share) you'll see some defections. B12 media deal ends before the ACC GOR contract ends, though dollars may start becoming high enough to make it worth breaking.
Agree. The Big 12 got poached first so I think that gives them the advantage. The ACC has a longer term contract, but the first sign of a break in their GOR and they'll get absolutely pillaged. If the Big 12 is still around at that time I imagine they'll be the winner since they were poached first. There's only a few schools in the Big 12 that I think the Big Ten and SEC would go after later.
"Cal athletics needs every dollar they can get" - this crisis lands squarely at the feet of Mike Williams, Clueless Carol Christ, and Empty Suit Jim Knowlton--- these amateurs ignored / mismanaged Cal athletics and let them deteriorate to the point that Cal has very little currency in the world of intercollegiate athletics - even now, Cal is riding on Stanford's coattails (and better be gripping hard, white knuckled hard) - once Cal does settle into a new conference (unlike Stanford, Cal can't opt to go the independent route), you can bet there will be a clarion call to all alums to ante up - we're going to be dunned to cover for the endless, costly mistakes made by this trio of naif amateurs - for me to commit anything, I want the three dolts to be punished - I realize there are no stocks in any public park in Berkeley, but their "crimes" must be acknowledged in some way - Fire Clueless Carol at once (I don't care if she's got a week left, she needs to know that she screwed up) - Fire Empty Suit Jim immediately with no severance and contest his pension due to the women's swimming fiasco. Make his life miserable. - Williams? Somehow someone needs to rub his nose deep down in the shitpile he helped to create. I guess I'm too Old Testament, but these three dolts shouldn't be allowed to skate off into the sunset and live happily ever after. We're all suffering now and these oblivious perps need to suffer along with the rest of us. - Finally, the regents need to be made aware that their affirmations of the leadership nominees led directly to failures. They need to know that when it comes to leadership of a complicated institution like Cal, merit needs emphasis and prime consideration, not diversity just for diversity's sake.
Years of mismanagement while cashing revenue sharing checks and letting the revenue sports wither finally revealed that the mighty Oz wasn't so mighty after all. Just hope either a big 12 or ACC deal is in the offing and preferably the former. Otherwise the PAC 4 will need to reboot the conference with new members.
> a conference with a vastly different cultural and political profile ... you have to imagine Cal and Stanford administrators are not too keen.
> There is definite donor concerns as a result
This is a bizarre line of thinking. It's Internet message board memery metastasizing into the real world. I swear, nobody even considered the "culture" of a football conference a few years ago, let alone made important, program-saving decisions based on hypothetical intra-conference culture clashes.
An athletics conference is the collection of teams you play against. It's not a declaration of love or a celebration of everything (anything?) else about those schools. They used to be bound by geography and history, but that ship has sailed too.
Yes, Lubbock is pretty different from Berkeley. It does not matter, not one iota, on the football field or in the scheduling of conference play. Not to mention, the ways in which Berkeley the place is culturally different from Lubbock are least exemplified in Memorial Stadium. On Saturdays in the fall, we're powerfully connected to a strangers in college towns across the country, often moreso than we are to the people we'd otherwise feel kin to at the local gourmet grocery.
Of course there's a limit, but let's call that what it is. BYU's and Baylor's anti-LGBTQ policies are bigotry. If they were asking to join the Pac-12 it would be a moral exercise of our power and authority to demand they modernize, or face rejection. Alas, we have no such power and authority. We have nothing to withhold to influence them. To refuse to join the Big 12 for that reason would be to cut off our nose to spite their faces.
Let me say it plainly: if we fail(ed) to pursue a $30M+ / year spot in a conference with more of our traditional rivals and better travel distances, just so we could be in the AAC and feel culturally/politically superior on 6-12 Saturdays each year, that is as colossal a mistake as any made by Christ, Knowlton, et al in the past few years. To be angry at them while advocating to eschew the B12 is hypocrisy of a ludicrous degree.
I agree with you, but some think the Big-12 is middling (because it lacks star power) and playing the ACC schools will give us more visibility.
I think it's partly b/c the snooty administrators much rather hob knob with the likes of UNC, Duke, UVA, and GTech than hang out with the unlikes of Okie State and Baylor...but that's just my own speculation.
If you're SMU and money is no object, you could strike a backroom deal with Clemson to get us voted into the conference, and in return, they would cover their exit fee. Problem solved
I think he was referring to the expansion because he also said that it wouldn't be good for Calford athletes to subjected to almost weekly (or for basketball more than weekly) cross country trips. However I wouldn't be surprised if there also was some prejudice based on the California stereotype.
I find myself preferring the ACC, only because I think the games would be really interesting. Playing in the ACC would be like an entire season of really cool non-conference games. B12 would be like an endless rehash of the cheez-it bowl and Holiday Bowl disaster against TTech.
Also basketball.
Cal needs to join a conference other than the pac, that way ucla is off the hook as far as that stupid calimony thing goes. And another thing if it is true that cal were to reject an invite from the big 12, then ucla should be off the hook. This is a situation where cal is basically on welfare right now. When you are on welfare, you can’t reject money that is offered to you. It was reported that stanford rejected the big 12, and if cal did the same they are in big trouble. It was said by someone on this site, that cal has the richest alumni base in the nation. Well they are going to have to reach out to those people because the athletic department could go bankrupt!
lolwut
Why is this worth your time?
Honestly, I am not sure what your thing is about Cal, but maybe you need to get out more.
And if you're going on about Cal/Berkeley's extreme politics, there's plenty of us, Cal graduates, that may agree with you. That being said, I'm not sure what your endgame is, here, trolling this site.
I never had a dislike for cal, until the calimony thing! This is all about cal alums, and their ego’s. Those regents, many who are cal alums, did everything they could to stop ucla from going to the big ten. They didn’t want to see ucla go to a higher level than cal. They work for the state of California, and they were trying to deny ucla from making more money, and getting out of debt. Those regents should have been fired the minute they voted no on ucla going to the big ten.
You may blame the Regents for giving Cal alums the very idea that some manner of restitution was/is owed. As others have pointed out, we are both subsidiaries of the same greater body, so the boss can do as the boss sees fit.
The issue is not UCLA making more, it's Cal getting damaged in the process. If UCLA had informed people through the proper channels, Cal could have worked together for a reduced Big Ten invite or gotten the gears moving earlier to make more proactive rather than reactive moves. Right now we are taking the worst deal possible as a result of UCLA acting independently.
We are all members of one public university system. If UCLA damages UC Berkeley from making money (and at this point definitely losing out on it), that is going to peeve the Regents. That's why Calimony was introduced.
Let’s put calimony aside. Why did those regents vote no on ucla going to the big ten. Ucla is in debt, and that was their lifeline. Calimony had already been introduced, but those cal alum regents still voted no. It was all about ego’s!
So you're taking it out on us? It's my understanding, under some states' laws, such as North Carolina, both UNC and NCState must be in the same conference. One can understand why public schools would be subject to such limitations, if only to simplify costs.
One potential advantage of a package deal of the remaining PAC-4 is that we might be able to structure the deal as a merger, and retain access to whatever loose change is floating around in the PAC-12 couch cushions. I read (on the internet, so take that with a grain of salt) that even accounting for the Comcast over-payment, there is/should be some cash floating around, and that there will be some money coming in for the next few years (from non-media sources).
Again, I have no idea how accurate this is. But from what I read, split four ways, the money actually ends up being close to what we would get in a media deal, i.e. $20-40 million. If this is true, then ditching WSU/OSU for a minuscule partial share in the ACC would make even less sense. And a merger with Big 12 would actually make a little more sense if that money stays with the four of us (or offsets a reduced share).
This is also another consideration for rebuilding the PAC-X. If that money is actually there, it can hold us over until we are able to pull some MWC/AAC schools into the new conference.
Running to the ACC is about maintaining the level of competition and national visibility, not the short term money.
The problem is that the ACC is being dominated by a handful of schools at the top that have wandering eyes and are more than ready fuck over everybody else when the time arises. Why beg our way into a situation like that for pennies on the dollar, especially if the kids will be at a major disadvantage because they will have to travel across the country for 90% of the games, while the other schools only have to do so 10-20% of the time. It would be different if the ACC were actively trying to save itself by aggressively expanding...but they are not. It is a euthanasia conference right now. Until they get serious about preserving their own future...it just ain't worth it.
It will be very difficult to improve our repetitional standing to get a piece of the next phase of the pie vying for an invite outside of the P4. Major recruiting disadvantage and a lot of the donors that need to underwrite athletics will bail. It’s hard to know where realignment goes, but one theory is that expansion will be followed by contraction. That would make it impossible for anyone on the outside looking in.
Money is one aspect, P4 recruiting and prestige are another.
it's called a demotion to the Minor Leagues
For whatever it’s worth (which may be little), there’s a new rumor circulating that a fifth ACC school is now opposed to adding Cal and Stanford.
Which would not matter if both NC schools become yes votes.
Do you have any reason to think the NC schools are going to change their votes? I haven’t seen any indication of this.
1. A lot of recent reports are saying the ACC is now “on track” to approving the expansion.
2. The NC schools were two of the four originally reported as (informally) voting to block the move and seem like the easier votes to change.
3. They seem to be voting as a bloc.
4. Therefore, if the ACC is going to add schools it’s very likely those are the votes that would shift to do it.
The NC schools will always vote the same way. They are legally required to be in the same conference. UVA and VT are also required by state law to be in the same athletic conference. NC newspapers have written that there is little net value in adding Cal and Stanford even under the proposed terms. These schools want to join the SEC, not expand the ACC.
Again, if those aren’t the votes to flip then I don’t know which ones will be. Clemson and FSU wouldn’t flip first.
There was a Clemson administrator that was quoted as being agreeable with adding Calford. No idea if that person held any sway though.
FWIW, Clemson strikes me as the more reasonable one of the four original "No's". They have not been nearly as apoplectic as FSU about the GOR, and the NC schools seem to be against it for cultural reasons as much as realignment reasons.
Unfortunately I think there is a lot of hype being emitted by those schools who want the ACC to expand. Recall all the hype about how everyone was on board for the great new PAC-12 media contract? Although I have ties to Cal, Stanford and Wisconsin, I live in VA and am familiar with the politics of the ACC. I hope Cal and Stanford can obtain the votes, but I’m not confident they will.
When the ACC added Miami, Boston U and Syracuse, UNC only voted to add Miami because it didn’t want the northern schools. This was two decades ago, but I suspect their sentiments may remain the same.
I would be completely happy with the BIG 12. They seem more stable.
Honestly, though, I just want to be in a P5 conference. I’ll take BIG 12, ACC, or (obviously) BIG 10 (though it sounds like that ship has sailed). But none of the MWC or AAC crap. Might as well close the doors.
The ACC does have some schools with excellent academic reputations, but that doesn't mean the conference is necessarily a better cultural fit for Cal. When it was created in 1953, it was a conference of southern schools. In 2004, the ACC raided the Big East and caused its eventual collapse. The northern schools were added then and in 2013 - 2014, but the conference retains much of its southern feel. If you visit the campuses of Clemson, FSU, UNC, or even UVA, you'll feel a different vibe compared to Cal or Stanford. There's nothing wrong with this, but people shouldn't think that the ACC is a better cultural fit to the Big-12. It's the wrong criterion to use.
Matters of academics and culture (or the welfare of 'student athletes') are window dressing that hold little, if any, weight in the discussions of those making the decision.
“Culture” is not really a big deal. Does anyone think that Washington State or Arizona State had a “culture” similar to Cal or Stanford? No.
The academic rankings are probably the real reason Stanford (in particular) does not want to be in the Big 12, and they seem to mostly be driving this bus. The ACC is academically strong enough to be palatable.
I think people constantly confound selectivity and quality. Washington State and ASU have great faculty. ASU is all business nowadays and does not hire any tenure track faculty that are not major grant pullers. Sure, the student body might be slightly different, but they have some good students too (they created things like honors colleges to try and attract some of the better students). The situation was different in the 1980s.
BINGO.
There are nuanced differences between Western "Southerners" versus Eastern "Southerners." Honestly, if we're talking plain ordinary daily life, accents, and general P.O.V., the more western, the more kindred to us. So, IMHO, either Big > ACC for "culture."
I grew up regarding "Easterners" as somewhat snobby, overbearing, meddling, and impractical.
Almost certainly this is/was a leverage play by Stanford, Cal, and/or ESPN, intended to make the ACC move things along faster.
Perhaps not coincidentally, today we are also seeing more reports that the ACC is close to an agreement.
"Cal and Stanford administrators are not too keen." As if they are going to invite some B12 players over for their French literature salon after the game.
Yes, "Fiat Enlightenment... or just go away."
The reports out today say the Big 12 hasn't engaged with the remaining Pac schools and has no intention of doing so, and they had already said they were done with expansion for the time being. I think this rumor was probably leaked to create some urgency with the ACC. The Big 12 never had interest and we all know they wouldn't be Cal's choice either.
We’re not going to the Big 12.
No -- they aren't interested. This was leaked to try and make the ACC more faster.
*trolling and gloating intensifies
Yes, though if the ACC deal falls through . . . I would not be shocked to see ESPN miraculously find more money to get the B12 to add more west coast schools.
ESPN may find the money but their presidents and ADs don't want it for several reasons. I don't think they feel like it's a fit in any way, and I tend to agree with them. Totally different culturally and athletically neither simply brings any value to the table. They need to be focused on sending teams to the CFP and increasing their revenue per school, closer to the SEC. Adding two or all four of the Pac 4 won't achieve either goal, plus it makes future expansion when the ACC implodes harder if they already have 20 schools.
If this comes to pass (which it probably won't because Cal and Stanford will be in the ACC), then some of those presidents will complain and then take the money and expand.
That's the issue -- there isn't enough additional money to make them want to expand. Unlike the ACC they aren't asking schools to take half share or zero shares because they want harmony throughout the league. But bringing in the Pac 4 doesn't up the 'per school revenue' and would lower the overall payout per school because it'll be split between more schools. You don't do that for schools that aren't a great fit in the first place. Even if Yormark wanted to do it, their presidents are the ones who have to agree to it.
I vote for the conference that gives us the most money (whatever percentage of share we're dealing with). Is there a poll choice for that?
Literally, everything else is trivial given our situation.
Great point. I would put it in terms of net takeaway, like a balance sheet, revenue versus expenses (e.g. travel).
Exactly. Gotta be net.
Net I don't see any value to Cal/Stan/SMU since they would all be taking little to nothing for the first five years or so. The net for the conference would be substantial and it would help them pay the Clemsons and FSUs more money. But what about in five years when it's time to pay the three new schools? Is the ACC going to take away the uplift for FSU and Clemson, or will the new schools be stuck earning a pittance?
For the Big 12 there is no net increase and it would actually be modest loss. They'll pay the new schools more money up front, but the existing schools would get no uplift out of it and would actually have to split the remaining parts of the total payout between four additional schools. It would be a net loss for them but a much better deal for the Pac 4.
Might want to project possible donor fatigue of Big 12 versus ACC.
Also factor the relative benefits for non-revenue sports.
Big 12 would probably be easier on non-revenue sports because of shorter distances, including 7 other Pac schools they already go to. Though the primary concern for non-revenue sports is staying off the chopping block (which takes money).
I don't understand the donor fatigue aspect. I'd imagine donors will adapt like everyone else around the larger forces at play.
Agree. Maybe there are donors trying to steer in a certain direction but seems odd they would cut off funding if Big 12.
Avi shared the notion that we might lose some whales and ordinary donors, if we joined the Big 12, but, IMHO, it's much ado about nothing and more than a bit suggesting that Cal donors have fragile egos. Honestly, Big 12, as is the B!G, is heartland America and if that does not suit somebody, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Then why even entertain going there. First, they are going to fight tooth and nail not to invite the Pac 4 -- there is nothing it it for the legacy Big 12 schools. Second, we all know Cal doesn't want to go and would even lose donors (I don't understand that at all -- those donors ought to just be happy to see their school not in the MWC next year). The bottom line is neither side wants it so why do it? And after losing their resident primadonna Texas there's no doubt they don't want to add another couple of primadonnas, especially if they aren't adding any increases to the overall payouts.
sometimes I imagine the reaction to "different (read unsavory)" is as if they were like the old actress Margaret Dumont who was in many Marx Brothers movies.https://www.lordheath.com/web_images/margaret_dumont___the_dancing_masters.jpg
I don’t at all understand the donor attrition bit, particularly when compared to relegation.
The idea that we wouldn’t want to join the Big 12 bc of cultural/political reasons is stupid and embarrassing if true.
My concern re the Big 12 is its own survival after losing OU and Texas, but the ACC has similar concerns.
The Big 12 isn't interested -- there are reports out all over the place today saying they haven't and have no intention of pursuing the Pac 4. I'm certain this rumor was leaked to try and get some leverage on the ACC. I agree re: the cultural / political reasoning is stupid, but that's the way everything is these days. I imagine it's a two way street with the Big 12.
Elsewhere, X/Twitter, someone opined, there will only be three power conferences left standing, it's just a question of whether or not the 3rd one is ACC or the Big12.
Agree, and I imagine it will be the Big 12 since the ACC is going to get poached like crazy at the first sign of a break in their GOR. The Big 12 has a huge advantage of being poached first, although I could see the Big Ten going after Kansas and the SEC going after Oklahoma State and Texas Tech later.
So, no trolling, today? 😉
I never have trolled. Why is it that folks at Cal (in general but not everyone) think that any opinions that aren't what they want to hear are trolling?
These message boards are to state opinions which is exactly what I've done. It seems you believe it's trolling because you don't agree with my opinions. You have every right to disagree with me, but it's quite arrogant to say someone is only a troll because you don't agree with them. You won't see me call people names or insult people (although I admittedly might if someone attacks me first), but I'll definitely give my thoughts and you should too. If you think I'm wrong tell me so -- that's ok too. You may give me info I wasn't aware of that changes my view. I'll never be so arrogant to believe any view different than mine is automatically wrong.
I just tend to not form opinions based on emotion or try to be a PR plant/Susie Sunshine when it comes to my opinions on Cal. I'm pretty straight forward so while I can understand someone not liking my opinion, that doesn't mean I'm trolling.
You stated some emphatically anti-Cal opinions that from our POV seem to imply we do not belong in a P4/5 conference. Of course my memory may be befuddled with some other posters and you were unfairly lumped in.
Bottom line, and I believe I speak for most Cal supporters, we are definitely disappointed with our current state and, some of that group, is disappointed with a longer span of historical disappointments. So, I, for one, want to here positives or constructive negatives, since the back of my mind is screaming existential despair.
Yeah I have some emphatic opinions -- several on here do -- but anti-Cal opinions? No, those were just opinions, period. They are anti-Cal to you because of your emotions. Anti-Cal would be saying it's a terrible place to be, which it isn't. But saying it brings no additive value to a conference where it doesn't bring additive value isn't anti-Cal. I get it, no one likes it when the school they love isn't Notre Dame in value and prestige, but there's only one Notre Dame and most of the rest of the schools have places they fit and places they don't. The truth is Cal brings no value to most athletic conferences right now because quite frankly it hasn't been good in football and basketball for quite some time. That's not anti-Cal, that's the unfortunate truth.
Yup. Same thing happened to PAC vs Big 12. Unless we get more major networks as primary dealmakers, this is the future. Maybe the streamers will finally emerge as an alternative to Fox and ESPN before 2030 but it's still amateur hour with them in 2023.
I suppose you're right re: getting more major networks. I just have a hard time believing that the networks as they are today didn't have room for five power leagues when they've had time the last 40 years on linear TV. And today they have tons of extra channels (FS1, ESPN2, ESPN3, ESPNU, ESPNews) to spread content across.
Streamers can absorb a massive amount of content but production is what's expensive. Fortunately the Pac-12 Network is high-quality but funded by a garbage revenue plan. That's part of the value baked into the PAC remnant. It's not clear how that asset would be handled at the end.
ESPN+ is unique because it has a subscription model that is complimentary to ESPN's linear programming. Maybe we'll see Apple or Amazon partner with an existing network with a struggling streaming network or a network that wants a turnkey entry into the space.
Right now, we're seeing early-mid-20th century baseball where the AL and NL (B1G and SEC) expanded westward. There was the PCL and Negro League which were effectively AAAA-level. I think the market may be "thick" enough to support a AAAA level but it won't be able to compete with the majors very easily.
People have said that some European soccer leagues are set up this way but I don't really watch European soccer.
The ACC is locked up for over a decade still with huge buyouts. Big 12 has a 6-year deal to start. Given that, I would say Big 12 is more vulnerable but I wouldn't say particularly vulnerable because I'm not sure how much more consolidation we'll see.
I think we were seeing a scenario where only one of the Pac and Big 12 could survive and...welp.
I don't think big 12 will get poached outside of maybe KU/KSU, but will get lowballed in the next round.
Yeah the low-ball thing will be the major issue. If Fox and ESPN incentivize B1G and SEC to expand (especially with a "partial share tier" above the B12 or ACC full share) you'll see some defections. B12 media deal ends before the ACC GOR contract ends, though dollars may start becoming high enough to make it worth breaking.
An ongoing lesson in corporate oligarchy, which I hate almost as much as Communism. What's happened to our anti-trust laws?
Bob R, what say you?
Agree. The Big 12 got poached first so I think that gives them the advantage. The ACC has a longer term contract, but the first sign of a break in their GOR and they'll get absolutely pillaged. If the Big 12 is still around at that time I imagine they'll be the winner since they were poached first. There's only a few schools in the Big 12 that I think the Big Ten and SEC would go after later.
"Cal athletics needs every dollar they can get" - this crisis lands squarely at the feet of Mike Williams, Clueless Carol Christ, and Empty Suit Jim Knowlton--- these amateurs ignored / mismanaged Cal athletics and let them deteriorate to the point that Cal has very little currency in the world of intercollegiate athletics - even now, Cal is riding on Stanford's coattails (and better be gripping hard, white knuckled hard) - once Cal does settle into a new conference (unlike Stanford, Cal can't opt to go the independent route), you can bet there will be a clarion call to all alums to ante up - we're going to be dunned to cover for the endless, costly mistakes made by this trio of naif amateurs - for me to commit anything, I want the three dolts to be punished - I realize there are no stocks in any public park in Berkeley, but their "crimes" must be acknowledged in some way - Fire Clueless Carol at once (I don't care if she's got a week left, she needs to know that she screwed up) - Fire Empty Suit Jim immediately with no severance and contest his pension due to the women's swimming fiasco. Make his life miserable. - Williams? Somehow someone needs to rub his nose deep down in the shitpile he helped to create. I guess I'm too Old Testament, but these three dolts shouldn't be allowed to skate off into the sunset and live happily ever after. We're all suffering now and these oblivious perps need to suffer along with the rest of us. - Finally, the regents need to be made aware that their affirmations of the leadership nominees led directly to failures. They need to know that when it comes to leadership of a complicated institution like Cal, merit needs emphasis and prime consideration, not diversity just for diversity's sake.
Years of mismanagement while cashing revenue sharing checks and letting the revenue sports wither finally revealed that the mighty Oz wasn't so mighty after all. Just hope either a big 12 or ACC deal is in the offing and preferably the former. Otherwise the PAC 4 will need to reboot the conference with new members.