IMHO, right, now, making our team ever more robust and well-supported in the Cal Legends NIL would be the most meaningful contributions we could make, right now.
Newsflash: We’re in danger of losing some talent, not to mention being unable to offer new transfers much of anything. The crisis is real.
Your statue is inspired and accents one the great moments in Cal sports history. Yet, Cal football is, as you know, in the middle of an existential crisis, as Avi has said. If football stops and our historic and protected stadium becomes a for-rent venue, over time, the statue would lose its meaning and relevance. Few talk about USF football, though they used to have it. Few talk about the University of Pacific’s football program, although the stadium is still there, last time I checked.
Cal football is at a crossroads. We either step up and put our money where our heart is. Or watch our program, The Play or not, fade away like the soldiers the stadium memorializes.
We’re in a two-minute drill kind of moment.
Do or die, Bears! 🐻
PS- I have not been to a twist party, “the swim” and more freestyle modes were my contemporaries.
PPS- May I expect a bill from you, as well, Esquire?
Thank you, Twist. Good analysis. Doesn't change my view of every day being a gift and mystery. Trying to comprehend the whole is a fools errand unless you are a rare, rare individual. Trying to predict the future is the same. Yet this analysis is very well done and helpful. Go Bears today and forever, as far as I know.
The bylaws allow for an exit fee. So FSU can exit.
Yes, ESPN holds FSU's GOR, (ACC assigned all those rights to them), but FSU could still leave and still play home games and give ESPN that revenue. Of course, they would still have to get "consideraton" paid to have a valid contract. What that number is, who knows. But FSU is the 6th or 7th most watched program in cfb this year. I don't think anyone else in the ACC was top 20.
The ONLY REASON CAL, Stanford and SMU were brought in, was to save the ACC from losing its tv contract under the ESPN composition clause once FSU, CU and NC leaves. If they didn't know that, they are just West coast suckers. who bought about a years worth of peace by dancing with the devil.
Just wait until ESPN loses FSU, NC and CU and that contract becomes a burden to ESPN. We will start seeing market clauses coming out of the woodwork.
The big issue is where FSU can go. They can try to go to the B1G, but Fox isn't taking a team whose games have to be shown on ESPN.
They could go to the SEC and still be on ESPN, but why would ESPN want to start paying them SEC money when they can just keep paying the ACC rate? How does doing that actually help FSU competitively, especially in next year's expanded playoff system?
Seems to me they're stuck.
And yes, I'm sure Cal and Stanford are well aware of why they were invited. It was still the least bad option for them.
Because ESPN would make more money putting FSU against SEC opponents than ACC opponents. Even teams like South Carolina and Arkansas draw heavier than Georgia Tech and Boston College.
Yes, but why start paying FSU more money to do that when they already have them locked in at the cheaper rate? And if FSU isn't getting more money, what's the point of a conference switch?
Because if they can get the main powers to leave the ACC, they can stop paying the other ten (now thirteen) schools as much and relegate everyone else to a g-whatever.
I don't think anything happens within the next few years. 2030 is when shit hits the fan. The remaining buyout will be smaller, SEC/B1G/B12 will all be in media negotiations at around the same time.
I think this is when the B12 dies / gets relegated completely. I think ESPN gives the B12 a P12-like take it or leave it offer that's a complete lowball and FOX has no interest in saving any of those teams.
In that situation, we can hopefully poach back the west coast teams like ASU/UA/UU into the ACC and create more of a western pod if we don't make it into the B1G during this round. Cal/Furd/UA/ASU/UU/SMU as 5 western teams doesn't seem so bad in comparison to what we have now. And we already know ASU/UU desperately want to go back to the PAC academic affiliation they benefitted from so heavily.
The whole point of a buyout is you buy back your rights, correct? i.e., the grant of rights becomes NULL when you leave, and you now owe them $120M. (please correct me if that's the wrong assumption). Otherwise, what is the point of a buyout and what does it even mean?
So, while the contract is ironclad, the buyout isn't nearly as cost prohibitive as it was 10 years ago. FSU could recoup that without breaking a sweat, provided they have a deal lined up with Super Duper X Conference.
So its really just a question of when will they get the opportunity, i.e. when will the B1G or SEC decide to fire the next shot in their arms race?
If someone is willing to pay Jimbo Fisher $80 million to go fish, then there is a price. But in this case the $120 million or whatever 3x a school’s annual revenue is, is the easy part. It just gets you out of the conference, but doesn’t get you out of your grant of rights until 2036 no matter which conference you find a home in. And what good are you to a conference that can’t broadcast your games? Failing that, you then owe the ACC all of your annual revenue to the the ACC till the end of the contract. FSU, UNC and Clamson are FUBARed.
Ahh.. disregard what I said above. I just re-read part of the doc where it says "regardless of whether such member institution remains a member during the entirety of the term.." They're screwed!
Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but Twist’s analysis indicates to me at least that you would be on the hook for not only a 9-digit exit fee (and possibly more) plus the value of your remaining media rights through the duration of the agreement.
Someone has said, that FSU would make the B10 enough money to pay a full share on just their away games. Makes sense since FSU brought about 35-40 of the value of the ACC contract this year. The numbers were gigantic.
FSU had more viewers this year than Notre Dame. Trying to remember but only OSU/MI/Colo (crazy)/Alabama were significantly more. I think it was TX and GA that were in the same ball park.
That's it.
FSU/ND are the last viewered up brands not inside the P2.
I think everything depends on the enforceability of the liquidated damages clause, which is extraordinarily punitive. I don’t know what law would govern it, but in CA it would be dicey.
I am not particularly worried about FSU or Clemson leaving. Even if they managed to pull it off, there are enough teams left in the ACC that will have no obvious home that the ACC will likely survive. And besides, both the Big10 and Big12 have filled their expansion slots so any new teams would dilute revenue share, and as we saw in this past round of realignment there is not a ton of appetite for revenue dilution.
What I am worried about is that fact that we are locked into a long term contract with the ACC on a measly media revenue share where we don't hit a full share until year 10. There is a very real risk that out travel schedule, ACC's emerging reputation as a 2nd tier power conference, our partial media share, and our lack of AD commitment result in a decline into irrelevancy. We may have struggled in the Pac-12, but the equal revenue share, relatively equal travel, and P5 status allowed us to at least keep things competitive. There is a very real risk that we decline into Rutgers level of irrelevancy in the ACC and we will not have an escape hatch.
And lets look at the best case scenario. Lets stay Cal and Stanford turn things around and end up dominating the ACC. Then what? Do we stick around in the ACC forever as the west coast black sheep of the conference? Do the other 14 east coast teams give us an easy way to sneak out of the conference in the next round of media negotiations, or do they try and lock us up, keeping exclusive control of the bay area market, knowing full well that the past decade of financial inequality has tied our hands?
My fear is not that FSU leaves, or that the ACC dissolves. My primary fear is that realignment is essentially over (minus maybe one or two more teams) and we are permanently stuck in the ACC. We are going to watch the "establishment" start elevating the BIG10 and SEC as the P2, and reclassifying/treating the ACC and B12 as G5's (or rather G7's). This is why what is happening to FSU is so important. Of all the ACC schools, FSU should be the one with enough cachet (a.k.a TV ratings) to survive this sort of chicanery.
And that is also why I was a supporter of sticking it out in the Pac-12 with OSU and WSU. If the ACC and B12 were destined to be relegated to G5 status (or G7, or whatever) regardless, than why not just stick it out with teams over on the west coast. And as a bonus, we have more control of the conference, and make sure we have an escape hatch in case the Big10, however unlikely, comes calling.
Anyways, hope I am wrong. And at the very least, whatever happens from here on out, I am looking forward to a few years of not having to think about this realignment stuff and just watch some football.
Realignment isn't over. The College Football Playoff contract is up after the 2025 season, expect a lot of turmoil as the conferences jockey for positioning before a new contract is signed.
Nothing is permanent in leaguing. And certainly not our position in the ACC.
My crystal ball says the most likely scenario is that the Power 4 blows up in 7-8 years. (The SEC and BiG GORs go out ten, but watch them vote to dissolve themselves.). 30-35 real football schools will join the Trophy League for $1 bill, and everyone else will be relegated. 'Bama and Georgia will start to wonder why they are sharing their lucre with Vandy. Ditto Michigan, tOSU and OSU looking at Rutgers. FSU & Clemson and Miami finally get their wish. (To get votes to dissolve, the Trophy schools will just payoff the relegated schools.) Cal returns to the West Coast.
The NCAA just released a proposal for a new division. Someone smarter than me will need to spell out the implications. But from what I can tell, this will either result in the aforementioned super conference (it is opt-in), or it may be intended to absorb the P5/4 in its entirety.
The main implications is that University's will now be able to pay athletes directly. And it will require a University to pay minimum of $30k to at least half of the athletes. Back of the napkin means it is going to be about $5M-$10M just to qualify for the new division. Chump change for BIG10 and SEC schools, and manageable for most P4 schools, but on our meager revenue share, this could actually sink us.
This is how I've been thinking about it too. There is a lot of bloviating and hot air about such-and-such schools wanting to leave the ACC, but no one has actually provided an explanation for how any school will do it without paying a prohibitively expensive exit fee (one that would far dwarf the money they could make in another conference).
I think the reason for that is that there isn't any other way.
I commented the same in a different thread above but $120M is not nearly as prohibitive as it was 10 years ago, for a school like FSU. (see SMU who just raised $200M to fund their selves for the next decade). Unless I'm missing something, FSU is gone as soon as they get the opportunity, which is dependent on how content each of the B1G and SEC are in their little game of duopoly.
Not at all. We were already screwed, but with this we have time. If we can't make the moves we need to get into the B1G by 2030, we at least have full media payments from then until 2036 in order to figure out what to do with our program.
It actually provides some relative security for a school like Cal, despite the part where we earn a mere pittance of our peers. But it makes any speculation that the Pac-whatever will be able to reassemble in 5 years if the schools have regrets or the conference breaks apart kind of a pipe dream.
From what I understand, there was a special meeting with the UC Regents when the Pac-12 became the Pac-4 and the Regents told Cal to get the best deal possible. I'm guessing the Chancellor signed the actually contract based on how it was all organized.
I've been collecting the conference agreements for the exiting members. Cal has not turned theirs over yet, but UCLA and Oregon have exit clauses if their is a material change in conference membership. I posted those agreements on my substack. I will post Cal's when they respond.
In terms of Cal being allowed to leave the ACC, I would imagine that the negotiated terms might be less than those that would apply to an FSU or a UNC.
The precedent would be the most important factor. If FSU had already been properly extorted, and there were no other schools trying leave (having already left, say), then I can imagine the remaining ACC schools saying "God Bless" and allowing Cal and Stanford out for less. You didn't create the problem. You helped us in our time of need as we helped you. I think other than numbers for ESPN, the main goal was to pre-create a "Magnolia League" of academically oriented schools in case the big boys left. If we're going to be Tier 2 permanently, we want some benefit (like, branding value and sanity in conference regulations affecting academic qualifications and burdens).
For how many hours will you be billing us, Twist?
Pro bono. Or “Friends and family discount.”
Nice. Like most visits with an attorney, I am still wondering “What happened?”
Bob,
IMHO, right, now, making our team ever more robust and well-supported in the Cal Legends NIL would be the most meaningful contributions we could make, right now.
Newsflash: We’re in danger of losing some talent, not to mention being unable to offer new transfers much of anything. The crisis is real.
Your statue is inspired and accents one the great moments in Cal sports history. Yet, Cal football is, as you know, in the middle of an existential crisis, as Avi has said. If football stops and our historic and protected stadium becomes a for-rent venue, over time, the statue would lose its meaning and relevance. Few talk about USF football, though they used to have it. Few talk about the University of Pacific’s football program, although the stadium is still there, last time I checked.
Cal football is at a crossroads. We either step up and put our money where our heart is. Or watch our program, The Play or not, fade away like the soldiers the stadium memorializes.
We’re in a two-minute drill kind of moment.
Do or die, Bears! 🐻
PS- I have not been to a twist party, “the swim” and more freestyle modes were my contemporaries.
PPS- May I expect a bill from you, as well, Esquire?
No, I, knowing that you, too, are an attorney, thought you, too, might bill all or any of us. LOL.
Good luck with the Starkey.
This insightful article is the reason I subscribe.
Nice article!
I feel I’m ready for finals now.
Thank you Prof. Kingsfield and Mr. Hart.
Thank you, Twist. Good analysis. Doesn't change my view of every day being a gift and mystery. Trying to comprehend the whole is a fools errand unless you are a rare, rare individual. Trying to predict the future is the same. Yet this analysis is very well done and helpful. Go Bears today and forever, as far as I know.
Go bears today or... until the GOR termination in 2036, or 2037 :D
The bylaws allow for an exit fee. So FSU can exit.
Yes, ESPN holds FSU's GOR, (ACC assigned all those rights to them), but FSU could still leave and still play home games and give ESPN that revenue. Of course, they would still have to get "consideraton" paid to have a valid contract. What that number is, who knows. But FSU is the 6th or 7th most watched program in cfb this year. I don't think anyone else in the ACC was top 20.
The ONLY REASON CAL, Stanford and SMU were brought in, was to save the ACC from losing its tv contract under the ESPN composition clause once FSU, CU and NC leaves. If they didn't know that, they are just West coast suckers. who bought about a years worth of peace by dancing with the devil.
Just wait until ESPN loses FSU, NC and CU and that contract becomes a burden to ESPN. We will start seeing market clauses coming out of the woodwork.
The big issue is where FSU can go. They can try to go to the B1G, but Fox isn't taking a team whose games have to be shown on ESPN.
They could go to the SEC and still be on ESPN, but why would ESPN want to start paying them SEC money when they can just keep paying the ACC rate? How does doing that actually help FSU competitively, especially in next year's expanded playoff system?
Seems to me they're stuck.
And yes, I'm sure Cal and Stanford are well aware of why they were invited. It was still the least bad option for them.
Because ESPN would make more money putting FSU against SEC opponents than ACC opponents. Even teams like South Carolina and Arkansas draw heavier than Georgia Tech and Boston College.
In the end, it all comes down to money. Always.
Yes, but why start paying FSU more money to do that when they already have them locked in at the cheaper rate? And if FSU isn't getting more money, what's the point of a conference switch?
Because if they can get the main powers to leave the ACC, they can stop paying the other ten (now thirteen) schools as much and relegate everyone else to a g-whatever.
Now that there are fourteen schools in the conference, that's a lot of schools they need to convince to leave. Probably more than they can pay for.
Again, just not seeing the mechanism for how this happens in the near term (like the next five years or so). On a longer horizon, sure.
I don't think anything happens within the next few years. 2030 is when shit hits the fan. The remaining buyout will be smaller, SEC/B1G/B12 will all be in media negotiations at around the same time.
I think this is when the B12 dies / gets relegated completely. I think ESPN gives the B12 a P12-like take it or leave it offer that's a complete lowball and FOX has no interest in saving any of those teams.
In that situation, we can hopefully poach back the west coast teams like ASU/UA/UU into the ACC and create more of a western pod if we don't make it into the B1G during this round. Cal/Furd/UA/ASU/UU/SMU as 5 western teams doesn't seem so bad in comparison to what we have now. And we already know ASU/UU desperately want to go back to the PAC academic affiliation they benefitted from so heavily.
The whole point of a buyout is you buy back your rights, correct? i.e., the grant of rights becomes NULL when you leave, and you now owe them $120M. (please correct me if that's the wrong assumption). Otherwise, what is the point of a buyout and what does it even mean?
So, while the contract is ironclad, the buyout isn't nearly as cost prohibitive as it was 10 years ago. FSU could recoup that without breaking a sweat, provided they have a deal lined up with Super Duper X Conference.
So its really just a question of when will they get the opportunity, i.e. when will the B1G or SEC decide to fire the next shot in their arms race?
If someone is willing to pay Jimbo Fisher $80 million to go fish, then there is a price. But in this case the $120 million or whatever 3x a school’s annual revenue is, is the easy part. It just gets you out of the conference, but doesn’t get you out of your grant of rights until 2036 no matter which conference you find a home in. And what good are you to a conference that can’t broadcast your games? Failing that, you then owe the ACC all of your annual revenue to the the ACC till the end of the contract. FSU, UNC and Clamson are FUBARed.
Ahh.. disregard what I said above. I just re-read part of the doc where it says "regardless of whether such member institution remains a member during the entirety of the term.." They're screwed!
It’s pretty wild!
Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but Twist’s analysis indicates to me at least that you would be on the hook for not only a 9-digit exit fee (and possibly more) plus the value of your remaining media rights through the duration of the agreement.
Someone has said, that FSU would make the B10 enough money to pay a full share on just their away games. Makes sense since FSU brought about 35-40 of the value of the ACC contract this year. The numbers were gigantic.
FSU had more viewers this year than Notre Dame. Trying to remember but only OSU/MI/Colo (crazy)/Alabama were significantly more. I think it was TX and GA that were in the same ball park.
That's it.
FSU/ND are the last viewered up brands not inside the P2.
Fox would pay them a full share just for the four road games they'd play within the B1G schedule? No, that does not make sense.
I think everything depends on the enforceability of the liquidated damages clause, which is extraordinarily punitive. I don’t know what law would govern it, but in CA it would be dicey.
I am not particularly worried about FSU or Clemson leaving. Even if they managed to pull it off, there are enough teams left in the ACC that will have no obvious home that the ACC will likely survive. And besides, both the Big10 and Big12 have filled their expansion slots so any new teams would dilute revenue share, and as we saw in this past round of realignment there is not a ton of appetite for revenue dilution.
What I am worried about is that fact that we are locked into a long term contract with the ACC on a measly media revenue share where we don't hit a full share until year 10. There is a very real risk that out travel schedule, ACC's emerging reputation as a 2nd tier power conference, our partial media share, and our lack of AD commitment result in a decline into irrelevancy. We may have struggled in the Pac-12, but the equal revenue share, relatively equal travel, and P5 status allowed us to at least keep things competitive. There is a very real risk that we decline into Rutgers level of irrelevancy in the ACC and we will not have an escape hatch.
And lets look at the best case scenario. Lets stay Cal and Stanford turn things around and end up dominating the ACC. Then what? Do we stick around in the ACC forever as the west coast black sheep of the conference? Do the other 14 east coast teams give us an easy way to sneak out of the conference in the next round of media negotiations, or do they try and lock us up, keeping exclusive control of the bay area market, knowing full well that the past decade of financial inequality has tied our hands?
My fear is not that FSU leaves, or that the ACC dissolves. My primary fear is that realignment is essentially over (minus maybe one or two more teams) and we are permanently stuck in the ACC. We are going to watch the "establishment" start elevating the BIG10 and SEC as the P2, and reclassifying/treating the ACC and B12 as G5's (or rather G7's). This is why what is happening to FSU is so important. Of all the ACC schools, FSU should be the one with enough cachet (a.k.a TV ratings) to survive this sort of chicanery.
And that is also why I was a supporter of sticking it out in the Pac-12 with OSU and WSU. If the ACC and B12 were destined to be relegated to G5 status (or G7, or whatever) regardless, than why not just stick it out with teams over on the west coast. And as a bonus, we have more control of the conference, and make sure we have an escape hatch in case the Big10, however unlikely, comes calling.
Anyways, hope I am wrong. And at the very least, whatever happens from here on out, I am looking forward to a few years of not having to think about this realignment stuff and just watch some football.
Realignment isn't over. The College Football Playoff contract is up after the 2025 season, expect a lot of turmoil as the conferences jockey for positioning before a new contract is signed.
Nothing is permanent in leaguing. And certainly not our position in the ACC.
My crystal ball says the most likely scenario is that the Power 4 blows up in 7-8 years. (The SEC and BiG GORs go out ten, but watch them vote to dissolve themselves.). 30-35 real football schools will join the Trophy League for $1 bill, and everyone else will be relegated. 'Bama and Georgia will start to wonder why they are sharing their lucre with Vandy. Ditto Michigan, tOSU and OSU looking at Rutgers. FSU & Clemson and Miami finally get their wish. (To get votes to dissolve, the Trophy schools will just payoff the relegated schools.) Cal returns to the West Coast.
The NCAA just released a proposal for a new division. Someone smarter than me will need to spell out the implications. But from what I can tell, this will either result in the aforementioned super conference (it is opt-in), or it may be intended to absorb the P5/4 in its entirety.
The main implications is that University's will now be able to pay athletes directly. And it will require a University to pay minimum of $30k to at least half of the athletes. Back of the napkin means it is going to be about $5M-$10M just to qualify for the new division. Chump change for BIG10 and SEC schools, and manageable for most P4 schools, but on our meager revenue share, this could actually sink us.
This is how I've been thinking about it too. There is a lot of bloviating and hot air about such-and-such schools wanting to leave the ACC, but no one has actually provided an explanation for how any school will do it without paying a prohibitively expensive exit fee (one that would far dwarf the money they could make in another conference).
I think the reason for that is that there isn't any other way.
I commented the same in a different thread above but $120M is not nearly as prohibitive as it was 10 years ago, for a school like FSU. (see SMU who just raised $200M to fund their selves for the next decade). Unless I'm missing something, FSU is gone as soon as they get the opportunity, which is dependent on how content each of the B1G and SEC are in their little game of duopoly.
Scratch that. I just read the part that says ""regardless of whether such member institution remains a member during the entirety of the term.."
That's a bitch of an unsatisfactory situation for them.
Cal is even more screwed by joining the ACC than I thought, given this quicksand of a contract.
Not at all. We were already screwed, but with this we have time. If we can't make the moves we need to get into the B1G by 2030, we at least have full media payments from then until 2036 in order to figure out what to do with our program.
As opposed to giving it all up this year.
It actually provides some relative security for a school like Cal, despite the part where we earn a mere pittance of our peers. But it makes any speculation that the Pac-whatever will be able to reassemble in 5 years if the schools have regrets or the conference breaks apart kind of a pipe dream.
Nick who agrees and signs the contract for CAL? AD, Chancellor or UC Regents?
From what I understand, there was a special meeting with the UC Regents when the Pac-12 became the Pac-4 and the Regents told Cal to get the best deal possible. I'm guessing the Chancellor signed the actually contract based on how it was all organized.
Whew!
Twist, you have tenacity. The Bear did not quit!
Well done!
I've been collecting the conference agreements for the exiting members. Cal has not turned theirs over yet, but UCLA and Oregon have exit clauses if their is a material change in conference membership. I posted those agreements on my substack. I will post Cal's when they respond.
Wake grad here.
In terms of Cal being allowed to leave the ACC, I would imagine that the negotiated terms might be less than those that would apply to an FSU or a UNC.
The precedent would be the most important factor. If FSU had already been properly extorted, and there were no other schools trying leave (having already left, say), then I can imagine the remaining ACC schools saying "God Bless" and allowing Cal and Stanford out for less. You didn't create the problem. You helped us in our time of need as we helped you. I think other than numbers for ESPN, the main goal was to pre-create a "Magnolia League" of academically oriented schools in case the big boys left. If we're going to be Tier 2 permanently, we want some benefit (like, branding value and sanity in conference regulations affecting academic qualifications and burdens).
That's my take.
To paraphrase words of Joseph Stalin, “Contacts [promises] are like pie crust, made to be broken.” That's why God invented so many attorneys.
great analysis. thank you!
this explains a lot of what I heard, but you know tweets ... just the sound bites