So UCLA bears not even the slightest responsibility for the demise of the Pac-12? Now that's a real "LOL". Look, you've made you case as to why UCLA decided to bolt. It's done. I wish UCLA the best in the Big-10 and I hope they thrive.
Please cut the sanctimonious bashing of a fellow UC institution and long time Pac-12 compatriot. It's something one would expect that from USC, not UCLA. You are better than that.
For all the slights and demeaning references to "socialism", "welfare recipients" and "handouts" why not just step up and accept a modicum of "responsibility" for the fall out and stop complaining (yes, complaining) of having to live up to the financial conditions imposed to exit the conference. Oh yes, you might try wishing Cal well. It doesn't cost anything and it's the right thing to do.
Describing ucla as a “UC institution and long time Pac-12 compatriot” in the wake of their deliberate, causal participation in the Pac-12’s destruction is funny.
Not sure about "funny" more like "ironic" in light of their subsequent actions! My characterization was of the UCLA we once knew before they jumped ship.
Other than some Cal fans' sense of unwarranted entitlement, what reason is there that UCLA should ever disadvantage their students, athletes, staff, customers, and investors, by diverting any funds that would and should be invested in their programs and products to bale out Cal for their lack of planning and program building?
You think? My understanding of the 'agreement' outlined by the UC Regents was that the 'Calimony' tax exerted upon UCLA was to make up for any shortfall in the Pac-12 media deal as a result of UCLA departing the Pac-12. It's athletic welfare at the most ridiculous level - expecting and demanding a handout because you mishandled your athletic department and it's finances is ridiculous. Cal alums should be (and a few are) embarrassed of such action.
I hear the socialistic leaning UC Regents should expect to get some push back from UCLA regarding this 'Calimony' tax they would like to levy now that Cal as abandoned the Pac-12 media deal for a much lower media deal in a league that clearly doesn't want them.
It will get even more interesting when Clemson & FSU figure out a way to dump the ACC and move to one of the tier 1 power conferences.
Now for a different perspective. My entire family (parents, aunts, uncles, brother and wife) are UCLA grads. I was raised as an avid and partisan UCLA football and basketball fan going back to the 1950's. I broke the mold and went to Cal in the late '60's. Being raised in LA, I have countless lifelong friends who attended UCLA and not a single one has expressed anything but abject sadness and disappointment for UCLA's decision to join with USC to abandon the Pac-12. That said, it was clear that the decision came on the coattails of USC, based on $$$$ and motivated, in significant part, by the dire financial condition of UCLA's Athletic Department (dare I say, in your own words, "(They) mishandled (their) Athletic Department and it's finances"). This was conceived under the cloak of darkness and done, initially, without the advance knowledge and/or prior approval of the Board of Regents (BofR). Once it all came out and the furor ensued, the General Counsel of the BofR opined that the BofR could nix the deal. That's when the compromise was worked out: UCLA could leave but must pay Calimony to Cal in order to do so. That's not "socialism". It's the cost of doing business and, on balance, still a better deal than you deserved. UCLA and USC doomed the Pac-12 and their actions precipitated all that was to follow. Note to UCLA - Take your $45-$65 million, less Calimony, and stop complaining. Save your regrets (and apologies) for Oregon St and Washington St and their fans.
LOL....are you kidding me? Complaining....Cal supporters are the ones whining. They finally have to carry their own weight and can't stop crying about moving to a second tier conference. And I need to clear up some 'misinformation' you and other Cal supporters continue to spread.
First of all, UCLA's athletic department's debt wasn't due to any 'mishandling', it was the direct result of a global pandemic which stopped all of UCLA's revenue sources - ticket sales, media revenue, brand partnership revenue (i.e., Under Armour), etc. For the most recent academic year, the UCLA athletic department (via the ever so generous BofR) was given $60,000.00 in direct institutional support. In the same year Cal received over $20,000,000.00 in direct institutional support. So no one can fault the UCLA AD for not anticipating a global pandemic that killed practically all of it's revenue sources.
In addition, it was not a secret that both UCLA & USC AD's were interested in adding new members to the Pac-12 or to merge with another league to increase the exposure and competitiveness of their athletes, as well as create a larger stage to enhance future NIL opportunities (remember it was a former UCLA athlete who's lawsuit led to the NIL ruling). This was no secret. UCLA athletes shouldn't be punished for embracing the changes in college sports.
And like any other entity considering a merger or acquisition, the deal was not shared or published until it was signed and done. Why would they need to engage the BofR? The BofR has never had any type of oversight over UC athletes before why would they start now? Suddenly now the BofR wants to get involved? Where has their support been in the past?
The furor was over being left behind. The furor is over the fact that Cal has to now carry it's own weight, and it clearly is not able to do so. So like any other welfare recipient about to lose it's handout, it is grasping at whatever is nearby. Since UCLA & USC didn't violate any 'rule' or 'bylaw' of the Pac-12 Cal had no choice but to shakedown UCLA.
UCLA & USC didn't kill the Pac-12, the Pac-12 leadership or lack thereof did. Athletics has always been a big part of each school's culture, and they realized that in order to stay competitive and attract top athletes they needed to change too.
We'll see what the BofR decides when they meet next week. The circumstances around the agreement reached last December have changed. Cal has voluntarily chosen to leave the Pac-12 and move to a different conference for significantly less media revenue. And yet they still appear to expect a handout from UCLA to do so. As a former UCLA athlete myself, I hope and expect the Bruins to push back on that unfairness.
IMHO Big 12 is a better option for Cal and Stanford. Does the league a school plays sports in really impact a school's academic reputation? Anyone interested in serious academic pursuits is not going to choose a school based on their athletic associations. It's too bad the Pac 12 leadership was too arrogant as to not pursue a merger with the Big 12 to begin with. Everyone could have risen together with the tide instead of everyone just looking out for themselves. If Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU end up in the Big 12, will the 4 teams that jumped to the BIG really be that much better off when travel, and impact on athletes are accounted for? I live in socal and I don't think the LA TV market is any less fickle than the SF Bay Area. Neither USC nor UCLA attract much TV interest or fan interest when they are losing...UCLA especially.
YES, the academic reputation matters. Government contracts to just the physics department typically pay 10x the athletics budget (haven't seen the actual numbers in a few years esp. since the Livermore Labs reorg). B1G REQUIRES academic cooperation so that money gets sloshed a little among all the members to share in research (obviously some goes out and some comes back from the other schools). I *think* the ACC has similar but weaker sharing. I don't know at all about the B12 but without Texas I'm not optimistic about their collective incoming grant money. Imagine if CAL has to start effectively subsidizing other schools' academic research in order to get their football team into a conference... The Academic Senate really will shut down all athletics if that happens.
Jumping in as I stumbled across this article and I really didn't have a horse in this race. I pull for an FCS team though Cal is one of my favorite FBS schools.
To those saying that UCLA was as desirable as USC: if the Big Whatever could only choose one, who would they pick? My money is on USC for many reasons.
Whatever happens, what's happening to college football is ridiculous. As someone in the West Coast market I won't actively seek I out either of those two teams but I might if it's a good game against other regional teams. But I really don't have a ton of interest in tuning in to UCLA vs. Illinois.
At this point the way things are going I might as well watch the NFL instead of what will be the new iteration of big time college football.
I would love to see this happen. The Big XX lacks star power, but would be one hell of a conference from top to bottom, a lot less lop sided than the B1G and SEC.
There are a lot of reasons why Big 12 would be the most sensible option. We're just a weird cultural fit. But money > culture every day of the week in our situation.
Though Spavital would love all that Texas recruiting time. (He'll be around. Ain't no one getting fired early since we can't afford to pay off contracts right now).
Interesting with the whole 4-Pac going in (if this is true). What's especially interesting is that this establishes that ESPN sees value in us.
We should be able to survive based on a full B12 share so probably won't get much or any Calimony. B1G would still be my preferred landing place but Fox already has the premiere West Coast teams so would want us less.
Our hope is that Fox makes a partial share counter offer to shut ESPN out of the time zone (P5-wise) completely.
MHver3 saying the Big12 push is from ESPN because of the ACC stalling. ESPN is willing to foot the bill of adding 4 teams as it would be similar to adding 3 ACC teams. Fox wouldn’t pay anything extra.
Any extra inventory may be part of ongoing ESPN/Amazon negotiations/deal where he mentions existing Pac12Networks infrastructure, which would make a ton of sense.
Bleeding edge rumors for sure, but shocker, another few days will definitely change the direction of where things are headed.
Nick probably has the best opinion. Just wait until something happens then analyze.
This is my first day commenting actively in months(?) and I’ve learned that UCLA fan arguments have mostly been name calling and nothing objective. Fair assessment?
It’s the truth. Why should UCLA subsidize Cal athletics? We acted in accordance with the bylaws established and were well within our rights to join another conference without informing anyone else. The UC schools aren’t all part of a single conference, where you can bound every school together. We are and were well within our rights to do what’s in our self interest.
And, if it was not an issue, well within UCLA's rights to leave, why not communicate?
Or was it a last minute surprise to UCLA and, when $C whistled, "Hey, we're leaving a decades-old conference," UCLA came a runnin', no questions asked?
Stop it. Jealousy and entitlement all throughout the Cal fan base. UCLA is the more valuable athletic brand in a better market and deserves to get paid more and be part of an elite conference. Cal doesn’t.
College athletics is a big business: we made a big boy move. Why should UCLA athletics care about Cal athletics when we are direct competitors? By communicating this move we ran the risk of it being derailed through the application of political pressure even thought we had the legal right and authority to make this happen.
Globally, no one knows what UCLA is. They've likely never even heard of it. Tyus Edney won't ring any bells.
The name "Berkeley" is instantaneously equated with academic exceptionalism and cultural impact the world over, in every major capital of every major country.
For such confident and well-based folks, there seem to be some frayed nerves amongst our PAC12 escapees. Trolling Ducks, Bruins, or maybe all are just trolling Trojan Horses.
So needy and hurt.
If your so Harvahd, why are you bothering to put us down?
Here's a question worth considering given the Big !2's reported re-entry into the conversation: From an athletics standpoint, is the ACC minus FSU, Clemson, North Carolina and Miami stronger than the B12 without Texas and Oklahoma? Those teams have either scheduled their exits or are likely to do so in the coming years. I'm not so sure it is. Academics and culture -- whatever that means -- is a separate issue.
Gives us leverage. Right now we're screwed because there are so few conferences and media companies. But get a couple offers and now the tables turn a bit. There aren't an unlimited number of schools with P5-sized programs on the free agent market anymore. That pro rata is still money coming into a conference.
Amazing twists and turns in the negotiations. It's like the problem of an investment bank trying to hold an auction with only one buyer of a company. Typically the buyer takes out the baseball bat and whacks the acquiree during due diligence to drive the price down. Without a second interested party to hold the first party honest it's hard to get a favorable deal done.
I hope that article is accurate. Moving the Pac-4 to the Big 12 would keep most of the Pac-12 together and be more geographically appropriate and potentially more lucrative than the current ACC offer.
So UCLA bears not even the slightest responsibility for the demise of the Pac-12? Now that's a real "LOL". Look, you've made you case as to why UCLA decided to bolt. It's done. I wish UCLA the best in the Big-10 and I hope they thrive.
Please cut the sanctimonious bashing of a fellow UC institution and long time Pac-12 compatriot. It's something one would expect that from USC, not UCLA. You are better than that.
For all the slights and demeaning references to "socialism", "welfare recipients" and "handouts" why not just step up and accept a modicum of "responsibility" for the fall out and stop complaining (yes, complaining) of having to live up to the financial conditions imposed to exit the conference. Oh yes, you might try wishing Cal well. It doesn't cost anything and it's the right thing to do.
Describing ucla as a “UC institution and long time Pac-12 compatriot” in the wake of their deliberate, causal participation in the Pac-12’s destruction is funny.
Not sure about "funny" more like "ironic" in light of their subsequent actions! My characterization was of the UCLA we once knew before they jumped ship.
Other than some Cal fans' sense of unwarranted entitlement, what reason is there that UCLA should ever disadvantage their students, athletes, staff, customers, and investors, by diverting any funds that would and should be invested in their programs and products to bale out Cal for their lack of planning and program building?
That's just the cost of doing business the way ucla has chosen. “You want to be the boss? You got to pay the cost” (Anon).
Or be more careful regarding contracts you sign on behalf of ucla.
Wait until UCLA tries to sell tickets for Rutgers, Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Purdue. Mchigan, OSU at most every other year. Good luck with that.
You think? My understanding of the 'agreement' outlined by the UC Regents was that the 'Calimony' tax exerted upon UCLA was to make up for any shortfall in the Pac-12 media deal as a result of UCLA departing the Pac-12. It's athletic welfare at the most ridiculous level - expecting and demanding a handout because you mishandled your athletic department and it's finances is ridiculous. Cal alums should be (and a few are) embarrassed of such action.
I hear the socialistic leaning UC Regents should expect to get some push back from UCLA regarding this 'Calimony' tax they would like to levy now that Cal as abandoned the Pac-12 media deal for a much lower media deal in a league that clearly doesn't want them.
It will get even more interesting when Clemson & FSU figure out a way to dump the ACC and move to one of the tier 1 power conferences.
If the ACC didn't want Cal, they would not have approved Cal joining.
I enjoy socal people whining about Calimony. fucla has to pay it, tears not withstanding.
Now for a different perspective. My entire family (parents, aunts, uncles, brother and wife) are UCLA grads. I was raised as an avid and partisan UCLA football and basketball fan going back to the 1950's. I broke the mold and went to Cal in the late '60's. Being raised in LA, I have countless lifelong friends who attended UCLA and not a single one has expressed anything but abject sadness and disappointment for UCLA's decision to join with USC to abandon the Pac-12. That said, it was clear that the decision came on the coattails of USC, based on $$$$ and motivated, in significant part, by the dire financial condition of UCLA's Athletic Department (dare I say, in your own words, "(They) mishandled (their) Athletic Department and it's finances"). This was conceived under the cloak of darkness and done, initially, without the advance knowledge and/or prior approval of the Board of Regents (BofR). Once it all came out and the furor ensued, the General Counsel of the BofR opined that the BofR could nix the deal. That's when the compromise was worked out: UCLA could leave but must pay Calimony to Cal in order to do so. That's not "socialism". It's the cost of doing business and, on balance, still a better deal than you deserved. UCLA and USC doomed the Pac-12 and their actions precipitated all that was to follow. Note to UCLA - Take your $45-$65 million, less Calimony, and stop complaining. Save your regrets (and apologies) for Oregon St and Washington St and their fans.
LOL....are you kidding me? Complaining....Cal supporters are the ones whining. They finally have to carry their own weight and can't stop crying about moving to a second tier conference. And I need to clear up some 'misinformation' you and other Cal supporters continue to spread.
First of all, UCLA's athletic department's debt wasn't due to any 'mishandling', it was the direct result of a global pandemic which stopped all of UCLA's revenue sources - ticket sales, media revenue, brand partnership revenue (i.e., Under Armour), etc. For the most recent academic year, the UCLA athletic department (via the ever so generous BofR) was given $60,000.00 in direct institutional support. In the same year Cal received over $20,000,000.00 in direct institutional support. So no one can fault the UCLA AD for not anticipating a global pandemic that killed practically all of it's revenue sources.
In addition, it was not a secret that both UCLA & USC AD's were interested in adding new members to the Pac-12 or to merge with another league to increase the exposure and competitiveness of their athletes, as well as create a larger stage to enhance future NIL opportunities (remember it was a former UCLA athlete who's lawsuit led to the NIL ruling). This was no secret. UCLA athletes shouldn't be punished for embracing the changes in college sports.
And like any other entity considering a merger or acquisition, the deal was not shared or published until it was signed and done. Why would they need to engage the BofR? The BofR has never had any type of oversight over UC athletes before why would they start now? Suddenly now the BofR wants to get involved? Where has their support been in the past?
The furor was over being left behind. The furor is over the fact that Cal has to now carry it's own weight, and it clearly is not able to do so. So like any other welfare recipient about to lose it's handout, it is grasping at whatever is nearby. Since UCLA & USC didn't violate any 'rule' or 'bylaw' of the Pac-12 Cal had no choice but to shakedown UCLA.
UCLA & USC didn't kill the Pac-12, the Pac-12 leadership or lack thereof did. Athletics has always been a big part of each school's culture, and they realized that in order to stay competitive and attract top athletes they needed to change too.
We'll see what the BofR decides when they meet next week. The circumstances around the agreement reached last December have changed. Cal has voluntarily chosen to leave the Pac-12 and move to a different conference for significantly less media revenue. And yet they still appear to expect a handout from UCLA to do so. As a former UCLA athlete myself, I hope and expect the Bruins to push back on that unfairness.
The Pandemic done it! Now that's funny LOL
The difference in overall direct institutional support is because Cal is the #1 public University in the would, whereas ucla is . . . not.
Wilner not buying it.
https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1695828438933016774
“C'mon, people. Engage in reality.”
-- J. Wilner
IMHO Big 12 is a better option for Cal and Stanford. Does the league a school plays sports in really impact a school's academic reputation? Anyone interested in serious academic pursuits is not going to choose a school based on their athletic associations. It's too bad the Pac 12 leadership was too arrogant as to not pursue a merger with the Big 12 to begin with. Everyone could have risen together with the tide instead of everyone just looking out for themselves. If Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU end up in the Big 12, will the 4 teams that jumped to the BIG really be that much better off when travel, and impact on athletes are accounted for? I live in socal and I don't think the LA TV market is any less fickle than the SF Bay Area. Neither USC nor UCLA attract much TV interest or fan interest when they are losing...UCLA especially.
YES, the academic reputation matters. Government contracts to just the physics department typically pay 10x the athletics budget (haven't seen the actual numbers in a few years esp. since the Livermore Labs reorg). B1G REQUIRES academic cooperation so that money gets sloshed a little among all the members to share in research (obviously some goes out and some comes back from the other schools). I *think* the ACC has similar but weaker sharing. I don't know at all about the B12 but without Texas I'm not optimistic about their collective incoming grant money. Imagine if CAL has to start effectively subsidizing other schools' academic research in order to get their football team into a conference... The Academic Senate really will shut down all athletics if that happens.
Jumping in as I stumbled across this article and I really didn't have a horse in this race. I pull for an FCS team though Cal is one of my favorite FBS schools.
To those saying that UCLA was as desirable as USC: if the Big Whatever could only choose one, who would they pick? My money is on USC for many reasons.
Whatever happens, what's happening to college football is ridiculous. As someone in the West Coast market I won't actively seek I out either of those two teams but I might if it's a good game against other regional teams. But I really don't have a ton of interest in tuning in to UCLA vs. Illinois.
At this point the way things are going I might as well watch the NFL instead of what will be the new iteration of big time college football.
Cal to Big 12?
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/college/article/cal-stanford-explore-possibility-joining-big-12-18332157.php
Looks like there's differences of opinion.
This guy says there's no outreach by Big 12 to add the PAC4.
https://twitter.com/Brett_McMurphy/status/1695785163085447291?s=20
That's a bit of a surprise. I wonder who leaked that there was interest.
It must have the final ravings of Kliavkoff when he finally realized the he has set a new standard for leadership incompetence.
According to a post by JoJo, scuttlebutt is that ESPN might be gaming with the leak to make ACC shit or get off the pot.
Makes sense, dirty people doing dirty things.
It's not dirty, it's just business
It's dirty business, and further evidenced by the ESPN overlords deciding what TV matchups work for the alleged playoffs.
"College" football is anything but.
Some day, amatuer collegiate athletics will be controlled by institutions of higher learning and not media executives.
And in that day, my ex will present me with all the money I had to pay in the divorce settlement.
I would love to see this happen. The Big XX lacks star power, but would be one hell of a conference from top to bottom, a lot less lop sided than the B1G and SEC.
There are a lot of reasons why Big 12 would be the most sensible option. We're just a weird cultural fit. But money > culture every day of the week in our situation.
Though Spavital would love all that Texas recruiting time. (He'll be around. Ain't no one getting fired early since we can't afford to pay off contracts right now).
I don't see any reason to cancel Spav or Bloesch, both of whom should enjoy the Big 12 environment.
Not as weird as some make it out to be. Universities of Texas, Oklahoma, certainly our cultural kin.
Agree about Texas and Oklahoma but they are leaving to the SEC. But having 8(!) ex-Pac schools would very much dilute the overall concern.
I mention Spav because his job security is tied to Wilcox. Kind of a bankshot.
I think B12 solves a ton of issues that ACC would create.
Agreed, I know Texas and Oklahoma are moving. All may be moot, since there's no intention on the part of the Big12 to engage us.
👀
https://x.com/mhver3/status/1695606124639146479?s=46&t=8ZmDJmrbyT_EV72y2qjZnw
Interesting with the whole 4-Pac going in (if this is true). What's especially interesting is that this establishes that ESPN sees value in us.
We should be able to survive based on a full B12 share so probably won't get much or any Calimony. B1G would still be my preferred landing place but Fox already has the premiere West Coast teams so would want us less.
Our hope is that Fox makes a partial share counter offer to shut ESPN out of the time zone (P5-wise) completely.
Nothing coming up JOJO.
MHver3 saying the Big12 push is from ESPN because of the ACC stalling. ESPN is willing to foot the bill of adding 4 teams as it would be similar to adding 3 ACC teams. Fox wouldn’t pay anything extra.
Any extra inventory may be part of ongoing ESPN/Amazon negotiations/deal where he mentions existing Pac12Networks infrastructure, which would make a ton of sense.
Bleeding edge rumors for sure, but shocker, another few days will definitely change the direction of where things are headed.
Nick probably has the best opinion. Just wait until something happens then analyze.
About as I expected. ESPN wants to get “Calford” in a major conference so they have more west coast inventory and are tired of the ACC’s dithering.
SJSU looking good so far.
Love that they forced WIlliams to ground it.
Branch kid gonna be a problem. Do not kick to him.
OMG. You ain't kiddin.'
Half these $C players seem ready for Sunday.
I was really hoping for a Spartan upset.
Nash = Superman catch
Yep. He looked good.
Ouch. $C just scored.
Wow USC lost in secondary like it’s 2022
SO true.
"You got the middle of the end zone?"
"Yeah, but you run in, while their tight end runs around us both."
Five minutes left in the second half and SJSU's defense is already gassed.
Ouch.
Just scored 21-14 at the half. A Chorus of boos rained down on the Trojans.
$C fans are so classy.
Since we've had Duck and UCLA trolls, have we ruled out the possibility of Chip Kelly burner accounts?
LOL. His criticism of the B!G move was just cover.
I get it. The rascal.
This is my first day commenting actively in months(?) and I’ve learned that UCLA fan arguments have mostly been name calling and nothing objective. Fair assessment?
I've learned that on Twitter months ago. Apparently some of them walked away with an elitist education instead of an elite one.
Cal deserves nothing. You bunch of entitled pricks, stick to academics.
Royalties for the Fight Song. It’s just weird & pathetic for UCLA
When does your trial membership end?
This kind of comment is like farts. No material substance. Just leaves a foul stench after loud noises.
It’s the truth. Why should UCLA subsidize Cal athletics? We acted in accordance with the bylaws established and were well within our rights to join another conference without informing anyone else. The UC schools aren’t all part of a single conference, where you can bound every school together. We are and were well within our rights to do what’s in our self interest.
Bless your heart.
Because communication was skipped, maybe? Simple as that.
We had no legal obligation to do so.
And, if it was not an issue, well within UCLA's rights to leave, why not communicate?
Or was it a last minute surprise to UCLA and, when $C whistled, "Hey, we're leaving a decades-old conference," UCLA came a runnin', no questions asked?
Stop it. Jealousy and entitlement all throughout the Cal fan base. UCLA is the more valuable athletic brand in a better market and deserves to get paid more and be part of an elite conference. Cal doesn’t.
College athletics is a big business: we made a big boy move. Why should UCLA athletics care about Cal athletics when we are direct competitors? By communicating this move we ran the risk of it being derailed through the application of political pressure even thought we had the legal right and authority to make this happen.
Explain it to the U.C. Regents, who thought differently.
From what I remember the payments were noted as a recommendation not a requirement.
Sure! Definitely had one as a satellite school though :) I mean that’s all been discussed. Just read :)
I’m not even a Cal grad and I can tell UCLA dropped the Lego and stepped on it trying to get the model airplane.
To you Westwood airheads:
Globally, no one knows what UCLA is. They've likely never even heard of it. Tyus Edney won't ring any bells.
The name "Berkeley" is instantaneously equated with academic exceptionalism and cultural impact the world over, in every major capital of every major country.
That's just the truth.
I honestly can’t remember the last time Cal-Berkeley was important in college athletics. Good luck with future MWC endeavors!
I love how committed you are to trolling us.
Must be tough to remember all the accounts you set up.
Gosh, if we're as bad you say, why are we worth your time?
I remember when Tedford was the OC at Oregon, do you?
Welp.
For such confident and well-based folks, there seem to be some frayed nerves amongst our PAC12 escapees. Trolling Ducks, Bruins, or maybe all are just trolling Trojan Horses.
So needy and hurt.
If your so Harvahd, why are you bothering to put us down?
Here's a question worth considering given the Big !2's reported re-entry into the conversation: From an athletics standpoint, is the ACC minus FSU, Clemson, North Carolina and Miami stronger than the B12 without Texas and Oklahoma? Those teams have either scheduled their exits or are likely to do so in the coming years. I'm not so sure it is. Academics and culture -- whatever that means -- is a separate issue.
I'd say Big 12 as long as we're talking football.
Long time no comment from this kimchi slapping I-believe-in-Wilcox fan.
With the Big 12 possibly interested in adding the 4 pac 12 leftovers, does that give us leverage for ACC negotiations or muddy the waters?
Gives us leverage. Right now we're screwed because there are so few conferences and media companies. But get a couple offers and now the tables turn a bit. There aren't an unlimited number of schools with P5-sized programs on the free agent market anymore. That pro rata is still money coming into a conference.
Source?
https://x.com/cal_sports_/status/1695439731872702541?s=46&t=8ZmDJmrbyT_EV72y2qjZnw
https://x.com/mikesilver/status/1695458739590226073?s=46&t=8ZmDJmrbyT_EV72y2qjZnw
https://x.com/mhver3/status/1694720972958613916?s=46&t=8ZmDJmrbyT_EV72y2qjZnw
SMU would be the loser if ACC deal fails
Amazing twists and turns in the negotiations. It's like the problem of an investment bank trying to hold an auction with only one buyer of a company. Typically the buyer takes out the baseball bat and whacks the acquiree during due diligence to drive the price down. Without a second interested party to hold the first party honest it's hard to get a favorable deal done.
IMO this is about ESPN getting impatient with the ACC completing this deal and trying to put the screws to them.
Well well
https://t.co/lU63Ic7Tqp
here's a non-paywalled version
https://www.si.com/college/stanford/football/stanford-and-cal-reportedly-exploring-the-possibility-of-joining-the-big-12
interesting that this option might include OSU and WSU
I hope that article is accurate. Moving the Pac-4 to the Big 12 would keep most of the Pac-12 together and be more geographically appropriate and potentially more lucrative than the current ACC offer.
agree, and its a good thing. Negotiating is always better than begging.
Well, if anything, this whole thread is reminding me of why UCLA is horrible
Don't judge any fanbase by its douchiest online trolls.
Frankly, I didn’t realize they had fans until now.
Fan(s).
Could all be one troll.
Uses the same phrasing and sentiment in several "different" usernames.