The future schedules for ACC football appear to be taking shape. It looks like they want to stick with 8 conference games per year with a system similar to the B1G's Flex Protect Plus that allows for uneven numbers of rivalries. They're also trying to guarantee that the existing 14 teams only travel to California three times over a seven-year span, which means that SMU would become an annual rival for both Cal and Stanford. Link to the Times Dispatch article is below:
Given the craven interests of NCAA for TV money, isn't it about time that Cal and other responsible universities re-order their priorities between their academic program and the professional sports training and recruiting program known as 'collegiate athletics'?
This entire deal has "die another day" written all over it.
FSU, Clemson, and perhaps even UNC are now as good as gone. They will bolt for the SEC or the B1G the moment they can come up with a way out of the ACC's grant of rights. And then everyone else will go into self-preservation mode and the ACC will go the way of the Pac-12.
Cal and Stanford are joining a teetering conference three time zones away full of schools with which they have no historic, cultural, or academic nexus (with the sole exception of Notre Dame, which isn't even a full-time member).
SMU is taking a major financial hit to become a full-time unpaid intern for a conference with an uncertain future, just so it can finally end the rehab process from its death penalty days.
Notre Dame gave up leverage in its never-ending quest to continue being a pain in the ass just so it could go to bat for Cal and Stanford, who probably couldn't care less about Notre Dame.
Marriages of (in)convenience never last, especially when they're entered into out of mutual desperation.
I’m not so sure. FSU and Clemson aren’t AAU members and are unlikely to be pursued by the B1G (UNC, UVA, and Miami are likely their top ACC targets) while Florida and South Carolina will likely block the SEC from pursuing them. Free Shoe U can whine all they want about wanting out but without a viable destination I can’t take them too seriously right now.
Thank you for breaking down the potential revenue distribution and contributions. What you outline was the best possible outcome available for Cal and Stanford. Frankly, Stanford does not need the funding given their endowment and donors, so we owe them a debt of gratitude for sticking with us unlike Washing and Oregon that abandoned their traditional rivals. I hope the Regents will stand by their proposal to have UCLA continue to pay Cal until we reach parity in the ACC conference revenue distribution.
It's obvious the Empty Suit in the Empty Office (Jim Knowlton) doesn't have the chops, stones, grey matter, nor vision, nor leadership ability to take Cal forward as AD from this point on. This begs the question, who should Cal select to replace the him? My selection would be Gloria Nevarez, commissioner of the Mountain West Conference. I know, she just recently took the position, but it's going to nothing but a migraine for the next few years and she will only be on the losing side of defections battle after defections battle as the bigs poach teams from the smaller conferences including the MW. Perhaps, the Cal situation might be an appealing challenge for her. Anyhow, that's where I'd start. Capable alternatives?
The best path forward for Washington State & Oregon State is to immediately extend invites to Idaho, Idaho State, Montana, Montana State , New Mexico State . Then next summer get San Diego State, Colorado State, South Dakota State, Wyoming & Air Force. That puts them at 12 schools it’ll never be the same but it’s not a bad conference. Now some of this schools will have to upgrade their facilities like Idaho and Idaho State. I could see them getting a TV deal in the 12-15 million range per school.
No one who is still around is up to the task of rebuilding the Pac-12. Not Oregon State, not Washington State, not George Kliavkoff. There's a reason why they're all still around.
It would NOT generate $12-15 million. Such a conference MIGHT get a smidge more than the MWC and AAC currently get. So, $8-10 million might be a reasonable goal. Perhaps, ten years down the road, some of the old PAC-12 will want back in, resulting in power status and power revenues, once again.
The reason I listed them is they are in conferences that don’t have an exorbitant exit fee and they need new members asap, I think they need at least 4 members to hold the current conference status.
Why would UCLA have to pay more for Cal when the PAC-12 had a $30 million annual TV deal from ESPN they turned down? At some point, you have to take responsibility for your own decisions. Calimony is a one time contribution based on the value of the PAC-12 deal relative to the impact of UCLA’s loss. It’s not intended to be Cal’s main source of revenue. The UC Regent Impact Report concluded UCLA’s loss only impacts Cal by $3.3 million a year. Just think about it, Cal is getting $8 million in the ACC, yet they expect more than $10 million a year from UCLA? If anything, the $30 million offer from ESPN that the PAC-12 inexplicably rejected should be the metric used to calculate the $2-$10 million single contribution.
Sounds like USC, UCLA, and UO would be the most-likely culprits. So it seems that SOME SCHOOLS may have killed the ESPN deal and then 2 of them immediately jumped to B1G. So, for UCLA, at some point, you have to take responsibility for your own decisions.
That’s not remotely true. The ESPN deal came after UCLA/USC agreed to leave the conference. UCLA/USC left the PAC-12 on June 30, 2022. The ESPN deal was rejected in December 2022. UCLA and USC had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to reject the $30 million annual offer. The PAC-12 wasn’t even negotiating media deals until UCLA and USC announced their departures in Summer 2022.
October was when the ESPN deal was killed (after the Fox exclusive period ended) so that's a more specific time. Kliavkoff was trying to get the Regents to block the move but the Regents told him he'd have to provide UCLA $52M/yr and they decided the tax was the better option. Oregon also refused to take less money than UCLA. That's just background on why UCLA is on the hook.
Interestingly, Folt from USC (designated to represent the "travel pairing" for USC/UCLA) killed the Big-12-Pac merger back in '21 but she won't say when the plan for both schools to leave was hatched.
UCLA did devalue the deal when they left because they were deep in debt (though that's not unique to them). But they did not vote on it in October. My bad on that point. People suspect it's Crow at ASU leading the $50M stupidity but no one knows (there is a sports econ professor at ASU but no evidence he was involved). UW and UO would be other possibilities but the UO president left in the summer and the president was referred to as "he" which excludes UW prez Cauce (and Cal Chancellor Christ).
It's very unlikely that Cal voted against the $30M deal since they were willing to accept the crappy Apple deal. But the Pac tends to report every vote as unanimous so it's uncertain.
Long story short, if the Regents want to tax UCLA, they will tax UCLA as much and as often as they want. And it doesn't even have to be proportionate to "the crime." They left UCLA walk because they were concerned about income to the UC system and they'll make UCLA pay because they feel it's useful for Cal to be a P5 program.
That’s what the UC Regents agreed to. Read the minutes of the meeting. They recommended a $2-$10 million contribution. The UC Regents concluded that UCLA impact on Cal is a mere $3.3 million a year.
Now that we’re officially in the ACC, we can finally take a breath because things looked scary these past few weeks. After all this conference realignment, hopefully we’ve learned our lesson and get serious about having a solid athletic department and building winning sports teams… especially football and men’s basketball. So in the future, when the next wave of conference realignment comes (and it will), we’ll be ahead of the curve instead of behind it like we were this time around. Now let’s show up big and support our Bears at our beautiful venues, and tune in whenever we’re on tv. Go Bears
Yeah the show up part is huge. We need the admin to support and the fans to tune in. Hard to argue that our miserable attendance and viewership the last five years did not hurt us. Most of us here are hard core Cal fans, but we have to convince people we knew who enjoyed Cal sports while in college to come back and give a little love to the teams.
I just ditched my cable app and bought Fubo. Wife is pissed but I am finally not going to miss any Cal basketball or football game this season (plus one or two home games live). Looking forward to the ACC because it will be easier for me to watch and attend (since I am east coast).
More than ever, need a coach who can actually win and have a winning conference record. We need to hit some of those performance bonuses. IMO, Wilcox gets this year to prove he can win or we hire a new coach next season for ACC play.
4-8 and you can not afford to keep him, regardless of buyout…the stakes are too high.
I still haven’t seen confirmation that he actually has a fully guaranteed deal, though many are saying it is true. Still not sure how the Regents signed off on a fully guaranteed contract for a HC that was barely .500.
Either way, hopefully Spavital gets this thing turned around.
Would have been really tough for Wilcox if we were relegated to G5. Wonder how much they have to recalibrate their recruiting operation to adjust to the ACC geography.
Well happy for California but them and Stanford will be at a great disadvantage in the conference. The teams other than football will have to be out on the east coast for at least 14 days twice a year. Now with technology and video conferencing that probably won't be a big deal but even with technology they'll miss classes due to the time difference when they're on the road.
Then they're locked into a grant of rights through 2036. I get they were in a very difficult position but this move makes no sense from a financial standpoint or a student-athlete standpoint.
There has been some talk about using Dallas as a neutral site for some sports. It's still traveling but faster and easier to fly into with less time zone disruption. Granted, it does take using a bus entirely out of the equation except for Furd.
As for the finances, this deal was entirely about Cal and Furd being the ACC's lifeline and the ACC being Cal and Furd 's lifeline. Not a coincidence that the accelerators come after B1G and Big12 deals end.
It has to come soon because OSU and Wazzu will get locked into a GOR deal.
MWC makes less than AAC but may be a better option than AAC since it only runs through 2026. The remnant Pac assets may help get them through those 2 seasons and they can either try again to get into a P4 conference or join AAC. Unless B12 tosses them a lifeline of some sort. Regardless, it's a lot of tough decisions.
Edit: AAC says no to OSU and WSU. It's either MWC or they use the remaining money to poach MWC and AAC teams and rebuild the Pac. Tough road no matter what.
We couldn't really do much lobbying until we officially join and earn a vote. And I'm not sure there will be any "free agent" programs before MWC deal ends after 2026. SDSU and UNLV would probably be the most reasonable targets that I could think of.
I am very happy that Stanford stuck by us, and Notre Dame went to the bat for us moving to the ACC.
It seems to me that Notre Dame is very upset as to how this all unfolded with teams bolting from the Pac 12. It would please me forever if Notre Dame halted its annual meeting with USC and start one up with Cal.
At first that seems very unlikely as we all know that Notre Dame uses that trip to SoCal every other year for recruiting purposes. But, what if either Cal or Stanford agreed to play the game at a neutral site in Los Angeles (e.g. SoFi Stadium) similar to Texas and Oklahoma meeting in Dallas, Texas every year? Notre Dame could still play the game in South Bend every other year. For example, Cal and Notre Dame could play at SoFi Stadium in LA in even years and at South Bend in odd years. And Notre Dame and Stanford would continue to play in Palo Alto in odd years and South Bend in even years.
Or, they could flip it so Stanford and Notre Dame meet in LA.
I know it is a crazy thought, and Notre Dame is unlikely to mess with tradition, but if Notre Dame really wanted to send a message to the college football world about all of these conference changes, this would definitely send that message.
UCLA's 7 year itch should bring us 7 years of Calimony. The B1G media deal ends in 2030, 1 year before we hit our accelerator. Curious how the Regents are going to handle things. Maybe it will be a yearly decision since UCLA's finances were a dumpster fire and Regents need to care about them, I dunno.
Glad to have some clarity that the other revenue streams aren't partial shares so the cut isn't as painful. Crazy times. A lot to digest. Thanks, Avi!
They're rolling out the 2024-2030 schedules on the ACC Network. This article is tracking team-by-team schedules for each year as they're revealed:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/acc-football-schedule-for-2024-2030/ar-AA1j6UkP
The future schedules for ACC football appear to be taking shape. It looks like they want to stick with 8 conference games per year with a system similar to the B1G's Flex Protect Plus that allows for uneven numbers of rivalries. They're also trying to guarantee that the existing 14 teams only travel to California three times over a seven-year span, which means that SMU would become an annual rival for both Cal and Stanford. Link to the Times Dispatch article is below:
https://richmond.com/sports/new-acc-football-scheduling-model/article_6c57cf30-67df-11ee-b164-6bd7e7a91da9.html
Given the craven interests of NCAA for TV money, isn't it about time that Cal and other responsible universities re-order their priorities between their academic program and the professional sports training and recruiting program known as 'collegiate athletics'?
This entire deal has "die another day" written all over it.
FSU, Clemson, and perhaps even UNC are now as good as gone. They will bolt for the SEC or the B1G the moment they can come up with a way out of the ACC's grant of rights. And then everyone else will go into self-preservation mode and the ACC will go the way of the Pac-12.
Cal and Stanford are joining a teetering conference three time zones away full of schools with which they have no historic, cultural, or academic nexus (with the sole exception of Notre Dame, which isn't even a full-time member).
SMU is taking a major financial hit to become a full-time unpaid intern for a conference with an uncertain future, just so it can finally end the rehab process from its death penalty days.
Notre Dame gave up leverage in its never-ending quest to continue being a pain in the ass just so it could go to bat for Cal and Stanford, who probably couldn't care less about Notre Dame.
Marriages of (in)convenience never last, especially when they're entered into out of mutual desperation.
I’m not so sure. FSU and Clemson aren’t AAU members and are unlikely to be pursued by the B1G (UNC, UVA, and Miami are likely their top ACC targets) while Florida and South Carolina will likely block the SEC from pursuing them. Free Shoe U can whine all they want about wanting out but without a viable destination I can’t take them too seriously right now.
Realism is our specialty.
We know this is a desperate measure and the clock is ticking.
We estimate a 5-6 year window to get our brand to a marketable point.
Or we die in relegation.
The PAC 12 was steered by $C on a collision course for The Iceberg; notice they were the first to jump ship.
We took the Carpathia because it was there.
We live to fight or swim another day.
We know there's schemers in the ACC aiming for the same PAC 12-style demise for that conference.
Maybe the NCAA grows a pair and does something to stop the run away monopolism.
And we can all take a breath.
Thank you for breaking down the potential revenue distribution and contributions. What you outline was the best possible outcome available for Cal and Stanford. Frankly, Stanford does not need the funding given their endowment and donors, so we owe them a debt of gratitude for sticking with us unlike Washing and Oregon that abandoned their traditional rivals. I hope the Regents will stand by their proposal to have UCLA continue to pay Cal until we reach parity in the ACC conference revenue distribution.
It's obvious the Empty Suit in the Empty Office (Jim Knowlton) doesn't have the chops, stones, grey matter, nor vision, nor leadership ability to take Cal forward as AD from this point on. This begs the question, who should Cal select to replace the him? My selection would be Gloria Nevarez, commissioner of the Mountain West Conference. I know, she just recently took the position, but it's going to nothing but a migraine for the next few years and she will only be on the losing side of defections battle after defections battle as the bigs poach teams from the smaller conferences including the MW. Perhaps, the Cal situation might be an appealing challenge for her. Anyhow, that's where I'd start. Capable alternatives?
The best path forward for Washington State & Oregon State is to immediately extend invites to Idaho, Idaho State, Montana, Montana State , New Mexico State . Then next summer get San Diego State, Colorado State, South Dakota State, Wyoming & Air Force. That puts them at 12 schools it’ll never be the same but it’s not a bad conference. Now some of this schools will have to upgrade their facilities like Idaho and Idaho State. I could see them getting a TV deal in the 12-15 million range per school.
No one who is still around is up to the task of rebuilding the Pac-12. Not Oregon State, not Washington State, not George Kliavkoff. There's a reason why they're all still around.
It’s only 2 schools but it’s still a established brand name.
So was Kodak.
It would NOT generate $12-15 million. Such a conference MIGHT get a smidge more than the MWC and AAC currently get. So, $8-10 million might be a reasonable goal. Perhaps, ten years down the road, some of the old PAC-12 will want back in, resulting in power status and power revenues, once again.
Perhaps but you keep having schools like Wyoming beat Big 12 schools like they did tonight then it’s not so far fetched.
you should probably double check Idaho State and a few of the others, not so sure they have the "football potential" needed
Yeah, I don't think inviting programs that aren't already in FBS is a good idea.
Idaho is a former PAC member and they were FBS up until a few years ago they dropped down cause they couldn’t get in a league.
Idaho was in the PAC 8-10-and/or 12? I do not recall that. Got a link?
I mentioned Idaho State from your list, not Idaho
The reason I listed them is they are in conferences that don’t have an exorbitant exit fee and they need new members asap, I think they need at least 4 members to hold the current conference status.
I understand
Why would UCLA have to pay more for Cal when the PAC-12 had a $30 million annual TV deal from ESPN they turned down? At some point, you have to take responsibility for your own decisions. Calimony is a one time contribution based on the value of the PAC-12 deal relative to the impact of UCLA’s loss. It’s not intended to be Cal’s main source of revenue. The UC Regent Impact Report concluded UCLA’s loss only impacts Cal by $3.3 million a year. Just think about it, Cal is getting $8 million in the ACC, yet they expect more than $10 million a year from UCLA? If anything, the $30 million offer from ESPN that the PAC-12 inexplicably rejected should be the metric used to calculate the $2-$10 million single contribution.
Just occupying space in Bruin minds is a fair exchange.
Thank you for the evidence of our rent-free space in the Bruinverse, but the Regents will do as they please.
Calimony is whatever The Regents decide it is whenever they decide upon it. That's what they told UCLA before they left and UCLA accepted that.
And regarding the 2022 ESPN deal, we don't know what the individual votes were but it was before UCLA and USC decided to leave in December (Canzano said it was in the fall). According to this interview with WSU president (https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/wsu-cougar-football/multiple-pac-12-presidents-declined-deal-from-espn-last-year-to-pursue-unrealistic-offer/) "2 or 3 schools" were chasing that $50M number.
Sounds like USC, UCLA, and UO would be the most-likely culprits. So it seems that SOME SCHOOLS may have killed the ESPN deal and then 2 of them immediately jumped to B1G. So, for UCLA, at some point, you have to take responsibility for your own decisions.
That’s not remotely true. The ESPN deal came after UCLA/USC agreed to leave the conference. UCLA/USC left the PAC-12 on June 30, 2022. The ESPN deal was rejected in December 2022. UCLA and USC had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to reject the $30 million annual offer. The PAC-12 wasn’t even negotiating media deals until UCLA and USC announced their departures in Summer 2022.
October was when the ESPN deal was killed (after the Fox exclusive period ended) so that's a more specific time. Kliavkoff was trying to get the Regents to block the move but the Regents told him he'd have to provide UCLA $52M/yr and they decided the tax was the better option. Oregon also refused to take less money than UCLA. That's just background on why UCLA is on the hook.
Interestingly, Folt from USC (designated to represent the "travel pairing" for USC/UCLA) killed the Big-12-Pac merger back in '21 but she won't say when the plan for both schools to leave was hatched.
(https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2023-08-16/pac-12-collapse-decisions-realignment-ucla-oregon)
UCLA did devalue the deal when they left because they were deep in debt (though that's not unique to them). But they did not vote on it in October. My bad on that point. People suspect it's Crow at ASU leading the $50M stupidity but no one knows (there is a sports econ professor at ASU but no evidence he was involved). UW and UO would be other possibilities but the UO president left in the summer and the president was referred to as "he" which excludes UW prez Cauce (and Cal Chancellor Christ).
It's very unlikely that Cal voted against the $30M deal since they were willing to accept the crappy Apple deal. But the Pac tends to report every vote as unanimous so it's uncertain.
Long story short, if the Regents want to tax UCLA, they will tax UCLA as much and as often as they want. And it doesn't even have to be proportionate to "the crime." They left UCLA walk because they were concerned about income to the UC system and they'll make UCLA pay because they feel it's useful for Cal to be a P5 program.
Originally the Regents said Calimony would be $2-10m, right? How likely do we think that they’ll go over $10m?
Calimony is a one-time payment, not annual.
Wait, what?!? I didn’t agree to that!
That’s what the UC Regents agreed to. Read the minutes of the meeting. They recommended a $2-$10 million contribution. The UC Regents concluded that UCLA impact on Cal is a mere $3.3 million a year.
😭
live chat is for paid subscribers only?
Yeah, I hit that pay wall, but decided this is the year to indulge things about Cal, so I joined. ;)
Is it worth it? Is the info deeper, better? I'm considering the same if the "smuggies" don't still rule the roost.
I feel like after 10 years, I should support W4C/California Golden Blogs. LOL
Especially now with all the bullshit ongoing.
In there now if you have any questions.
sorry, what?
Is the policy now that you need to be a paid subscriber to comment in the game threads?
random question: I could swear Georgia Tech just played The Big C as their fight song. am I hearing things?
Back in the day, school fight sons and mascot images were heavily “copied”…
Not just that - they also “borrowed” heavily from Cal’s own Stanford Jonah:
https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2010/7/13/1455476/stanford-jonah-the-mystery
So did Montana. “Up With Montana” is the same tune but I’m not sure who got it from who.
Their primary fight song is very similar to Big C
didn't hear that , but Jack Plummer isn't looking too good for Louisville
Jack is showing some very familiar mistakes. I guess it wasn't all Musgraves.
Now that we’re officially in the ACC, we can finally take a breath because things looked scary these past few weeks. After all this conference realignment, hopefully we’ve learned our lesson and get serious about having a solid athletic department and building winning sports teams… especially football and men’s basketball. So in the future, when the next wave of conference realignment comes (and it will), we’ll be ahead of the curve instead of behind it like we were this time around. Now let’s show up big and support our Bears at our beautiful venues, and tune in whenever we’re on tv. Go Bears
Yeah the show up part is huge. We need the admin to support and the fans to tune in. Hard to argue that our miserable attendance and viewership the last five years did not hurt us. Most of us here are hard core Cal fans, but we have to convince people we knew who enjoyed Cal sports while in college to come back and give a little love to the teams.
I just ditched my cable app and bought Fubo. Wife is pissed but I am finally not going to miss any Cal basketball or football game this season (plus one or two home games live). Looking forward to the ACC because it will be easier for me to watch and attend (since I am east coast).
More than ever, need a coach who can actually win and have a winning conference record. We need to hit some of those performance bonuses. IMO, Wilcox gets this year to prove he can win or we hire a new coach next season for ACC play.
4-8 and you can not afford to keep him, regardless of buyout…the stakes are too high.
I still haven’t seen confirmation that he actually has a fully guaranteed deal, though many are saying it is true. Still not sure how the Regents signed off on a fully guaranteed contract for a HC that was barely .500.
Either way, hopefully Spavital gets this thing turned around.
Would have been really tough for Wilcox if we were relegated to G5. Wonder how much they have to recalibrate their recruiting operation to adjust to the ACC geography.
Well happy for California but them and Stanford will be at a great disadvantage in the conference. The teams other than football will have to be out on the east coast for at least 14 days twice a year. Now with technology and video conferencing that probably won't be a big deal but even with technology they'll miss classes due to the time difference when they're on the road.
Then they're locked into a grant of rights through 2036. I get they were in a very difficult position but this move makes no sense from a financial standpoint or a student-athlete standpoint.
There has been some talk about using Dallas as a neutral site for some sports. It's still traveling but faster and easier to fly into with less time zone disruption. Granted, it does take using a bus entirely out of the equation except for Furd.
As for the finances, this deal was entirely about Cal and Furd being the ACC's lifeline and the ACC being Cal and Furd 's lifeline. Not a coincidence that the accelerators come after B1G and Big12 deals end.
I believe the expansion may continue and, perhaps, Oregon State and Washington State can round out a "western division."
It has to come soon because OSU and Wazzu will get locked into a GOR deal.
MWC makes less than AAC but may be a better option than AAC since it only runs through 2026. The remnant Pac assets may help get them through those 2 seasons and they can either try again to get into a P4 conference or join AAC. Unless B12 tosses them a lifeline of some sort. Regardless, it's a lot of tough decisions.
Edit: AAC says no to OSU and WSU. It's either MWC or they use the remaining money to poach MWC and AAC teams and rebuild the Pac. Tough road no matter what.
I'm hoping we start campaigning for such an expansion immediately, since it would solve so many of the travel problems being raised.
Of course, "we" would need competent leadership to make that happen. Oh, well, maybe Furd will take the lead- AGAIN.
We couldn't really do much lobbying until we officially join and earn a vote. And I'm not sure there will be any "free agent" programs before MWC deal ends after 2026. SDSU and UNLV would probably be the most reasonable targets that I could think of.
I am very happy that Stanford stuck by us, and Notre Dame went to the bat for us moving to the ACC.
It seems to me that Notre Dame is very upset as to how this all unfolded with teams bolting from the Pac 12. It would please me forever if Notre Dame halted its annual meeting with USC and start one up with Cal.
At first that seems very unlikely as we all know that Notre Dame uses that trip to SoCal every other year for recruiting purposes. But, what if either Cal or Stanford agreed to play the game at a neutral site in Los Angeles (e.g. SoFi Stadium) similar to Texas and Oklahoma meeting in Dallas, Texas every year? Notre Dame could still play the game in South Bend every other year. For example, Cal and Notre Dame could play at SoFi Stadium in LA in even years and at South Bend in odd years. And Notre Dame and Stanford would continue to play in Palo Alto in odd years and South Bend in even years.
Or, they could flip it so Stanford and Notre Dame meet in LA.
I know it is a crazy thought, and Notre Dame is unlikely to mess with tradition, but if Notre Dame really wanted to send a message to the college football world about all of these conference changes, this would definitely send that message.
Doubt ND will start up an annual meeting with an ACC school it will play in regular rotation anyway.
Notre Dame is pretty upset about everything happening in this sport, but they are not giving up the USC matchup until college football implodes.
I'm glad Notre Dame AD was a Stanford alum
UCLA's 7 year itch should bring us 7 years of Calimony. The B1G media deal ends in 2030, 1 year before we hit our accelerator. Curious how the Regents are going to handle things. Maybe it will be a yearly decision since UCLA's finances were a dumpster fire and Regents need to care about them, I dunno.
Glad to have some clarity that the other revenue streams aren't partial shares so the cut isn't as painful. Crazy times. A lot to digest. Thanks, Avi!