It has nothing to do with football. It has to do with the other sports - MBB, WBB, volleyball, baseball, softball, men's and women's soccer, and on and on.
It says a lot about how they feel about the religious schools, that they would rather take the chance of shutting down more than half the athletic programs than be affiliated with them.
Easy for you to say "the kids can always transfer later." Any "kid" with a brain in his head is going to look at Cal AFTER they've been rejected everywhere else.
I doubt that will happen. It seems like most of the Pac-12 schools, not including UCLA and USC will be under the same cloud for the short term. Plus, we will still be playing those two teams in 2022 and 2023.
Hardly, $c, ucla has their futures assured with membership in the Big-10 whatever. The sun is shining brightly, no clouds, for these schools. Cal's AD and Chancellor missed that bus.
One thing no one has considered and that is a scuttling of the whole deal with USC and fUCLA and the B!G. It's something I am working on and I'll post it if it has any legs.
I think in the long run that the move to the Big Ten will hurt their recruiting. UCLA is going to be in the bottom third and no one wants to play for a team that doesn't win and has their travel schedule. IMHO USC will be in the top third, but I don't think they will consistently be #1 or #2 and I think they could have recruited much better being top dog in the PAC12.
I agree with this. fucla is not going to do well. $C may fare a bit better. A lot depends on how rigorous their travel schedule is. West coast NFL teams do not do well (W/L) when traveling to the East coast, I don't think a bunch of teenage boys will do any better. As it is currently, West coast recruits have been fleeing to the B1G and SEC. Now recruits can say, "cool, I'll go to Minnesota play in the B1G and have several games in LA for family and friends." Only way this makes sense for $C and fucla is to have a Pacific pod of at least 4 or perhaps 6 teams. But that would dilute the B1G's objective of having more access to JUST the LA market.
Yeah I agree this could backfire. They should’ve insisted on bringing us and ‘furd so they could look better by comparison (not to mention keep the rivalries together)
I know the people and schools of the "old" ACC well. I'm a Maryland graduate with 4 varsity letters from basketball & tennis and remain close to the programs.
I'd be shocked if Duke or Carolina left. First, unlike the backstabbing UCLA scumbags, there is no possible way Carolina could leave State (that's NCSU for the rest of you) to wither and die. Absolutely completely impossible. Second, the Big Four; Carolina, Duke, Wake and State RULE the ACC. The power of Carolina and Duke in the Big Ten would be tiny. NO ONE at Duke gives a damn about football. NO ONE. Carolina has been up and down, but football is an afterthought. Survey the entire Carolina fan base and they just don't care.
Appreciate the insight. Would be interesting come basketball season to have Arizona play the Carolinas more.
One thing I'm hoping you can shed some light on: how much more power do the basketball schools you mention have than the football schools (Miami, Clemson, FSU)? And does that suggest the football schools will bolt if given the opportunity?
You clearly know a lot more about the ACC than I do (which is only what I read). There one thing I do know is that money talks much louder than who “rules” or conference loyalty or anything else. Given the prospect of losing or gaining enough money, Duke, N & S Carolina, Wake, et al, would sell each other out faster than $c/ucla jumping to the big-10. If you want to be the boss, you got to pay the cost.
It matters as long as the dollars allow Duke, N/S Carolina to be competitive. Once these schools are forced to deal with uncompetitive monies from FOX, ESPN, then what matters will be unmasked.
Well, that's a bit embarrassing. But I bet South Carolina joined the SEC because of the lure of the SEC Big Paydays. Also, the good folks at South Carolina probably don't know very much about Cal or the Pac-10, or whatever is left of the Pac-10. Not that it would matter to them in any case.
Unless the media value of a team creates better revenues for teams in the the conference they want to join, I don't see it happening. No conference is going to accept a team that is going to dilute their earnings shares for all their existing teams.
I lived in ACC country for several years and would have agreed with you back then. But, then I was shocked that a founding ACC member, Maryland, jumped for the cash. You may be right. Unlike our weak Regents, the Carolina Trustees might veto any move without its little sister.
OTOH, the BiG payout would fund all the other sports, adn leave a profit to toss back to teh academic side of the house. That will be really hard to turn down.
It has nothing to do with football. It has to do with the other sports - MBB, WBB, volleyball, baseball, softball, men's and women's soccer, and on and on.
As a resident in the mid-Atlantic who gets the ACC Network I was encouraged when I saw the headline. Thought maybe I could see a game or two. But based on the schedule shown it would still be only late-night games starts, so not much help. If it helps the athletic dept OK, but no help to me.
Might be able to see all games online under the new deal (and maybe buy in a-la-carte via ESPN+). Not being tied to specific cable companies is a major difference.
I finally ditched DirecTV. The satellite shaded my solar panels and I was using my Fire stick much more than my receiver (should be a good deal this week for Prime Day). I can go into more detail if you'd like. I completely understand and share your frustration.
"The religious school issue has come up constantly with Baylor and would definitely come up with TCU". How has the issue come up constantly? Baylor has consistently proven to be quite successful in football, men's basketball, and women's basketball -- more than Texas in many respects. TCU has also been very competitive.
The issue is whether or not teams will play on Sundays. BYU has historically had a no play on Sunday rule. Not sure if that's the same for Baylor and TCU, however.
I don't recall Cal football games ever being played on Sundays. Who cares if BB games against BYU aren't played on Sundays? THAT is the line the Pac-10 wants to draw in the sand? So stupid it's indescribable.
Couldn’t agree more. It is such a small concession. You don’t even have to say the whole conference won’t schedule on Sundays, just that said school won’t do it.
Yeah; playing on Sundays is a thing for such. I'd guess, however, that BU has played MBB on Sundays, probably even in Waco: it's a competitive team and, as such, makes tons of money for the university. Wouldn't know for BYU or TCU. Still: Big 12 overall: Not a good fit for Cal.
Because academic freedom is a very important issue for real academic universities - like UC Berkeley, and other academic powerhouses. It is a key definition of what is important for the university.
BYU will fire professors if they say something that is critical of the history of the Mormon past, they have zero academic freedom to speak the truth.
That's an issue for universities who claim academic freedom as important.
Berkeley only has "academic freedom" for those who tow the liberal line - not conservatives, or anyone who disagrees with the liberal agenda of Berkeley profs. Actual academic freedom is an illusion at Berkeley. That's just the fact of the matter. Berkeley is no better than BYU, no worse either. Just a different set of prejustices.
LOL @ Berkeley's academic freedom; Berkeley will throw faculty under the bus for a variety of issues; they are not woke enough, they voice objection to the university violating informed consent when it comes to vaccines, they voice political views that are to the right, etc etc. There is academic freedom to say things that align; not real academic freedom.
Well, since Cal is not invited to join the Big10 or any other conference, and the Pac-10 is collapsing as we "speak," we are on the way to D-1 College Football oblivion. Just a matter of time, which is coming at the longest 2 years from now.
Gotta admit, that seems a bit short-sighted and also bigoted. Not that I’m religious in any form (I will be hit by lightning if I try to go inside a church).
The Sunday thing makes sense though—there’s a lot of teams and the schedule needs flexibility.
As a fan, having a way to see Cal sports without needing a specific cable company would be huge, even if only streaming. I only use streaming to watch things so I'm personally happy with that as solution as long as there are no dumb blackout issues. I await the day where we can dump the corpse of the Pac-12 Network in Larry Scott's yard so he can think about what he did.
Now, looking at the business case, audience is everything. Streaming doesn't "push" your product in front of non-Cal fans in the same way as a broadcast channel. This deal is reasonable as a tourniquet, but you still need to go to the ER.
A nice little flotation device while circling the drain, before being sucked in and spit out into a new mid-major reality along with 20-or-so other former "Power 5" programs who weren't able to hitch that sweet ride.
I believe that 45M number is what we are attributed to within the context of the current Pac-12's media arrangements, but it doesn't necessarily mean we could bring in that amount of revenue by ourselves as an independent or even that we could add that same value to a new conference, Pac-10 or otherwise.. So that media valuation is dependent on a few variables--which are subject to major change as the big business of college football unfolds. I know, not intuitive.
Also, with the Super 2 conference distributions starting at 60M, and growing to 70, 80, hell 100M, that 45 number doesnt make us enticing for expansion, unless the super conferences adopt a new revenue distribution model (this is almost imperative).
Never say never I guess, but I think it's unlikely that Cal, given the size of the school and its place in a major media market, is entirely left out of the major conference structure, whatever form it takes. That's assuming the Cal administration actively wants to remain a major program (though again, the stadium debt would seem to demand that we do).
I think these terms we use today ("Power 5"==major, "Group of 5"==mid-major) will be obsolete in short order and there will be new categories or terms. And it seems unlikely that Cal will end up a part of whatever is considered the new "major". But that's not to say we wont be economically viable in whatever the new second tier is, in fact we could be better off financially than we are today . The value of college football inventory continues to rise like inflation, and our debts have fixed interest rates, I hope!? But.. it's also a real possibility that we will be worse off and Cal Athletics is in major trouble.
Considering how the consolidation and concentration of wealth and power has been trending over the last couple decades, and with the B1G vs SEC arms race thrown into overdrive now with the Texas and USC salvos, and the fact that those conferences' members are all on the cusp of earning double or even triple the media revenue of members from the ACC/Pac10/BigXII, there's a seismic change on the brink, which will redefine Cal's (and many other schools') college football existence and identity.
Everything might well be trending towards a smaller population of what we call "major" college football. We're talking like 40 schools, and that's even more a certainty if the conferences continue to insist on more or less equally sharing revenue share across their members. That's a failed model, from the bigger picture of "major" college football as we know it as a whole, and is what led to this mess.. And that model could even be destined to fail again within 2 super conferences.
If it's actually only 40 teams that get to be in the "top tier" then Cal is probably not in it, but also that top tier is probably not sustainable at the current levels of spending. At some point people realize it's just a minor league and not special as "college" football anymore.
I want to agree, but I also wouldnt underestimate the popularity of the sport. I have 0 reasons to be interested in Ohio State or Alabama, in fact I hate them. Yet I will watch the shit out of them in big games.
I can imagine the new Power 2, 3, 4, or even still 5 conferences continuing for a few more years.. But inevitably, even if there is a Super 2 of 40 some odd teams.. The top 10, 12, 14, 16 or whatever most valuable programs of the Super 2 are still adding an insanely disproportionate amount of media value compare to what they get back from their conference. Some more than others obviously. So the inevitable really feels like those programs will break off from the NCAA and form their own league, and people will watch, and networks will hype it up keep pushing the guise of "college football" and not "minor league". Other programs will strive to be in their league.
College football is a very real force in American sports, well above the professional leagues of other major sports. Americans simply have that much appetite for football, and the college tradition is firmly in the bank, even if that tradition really died years ago.
I think that's the devastating end game for the vast majority of programs if these conferences keep trying to fool their selves and everyone else with the arrangement of equal revenue share. Gotta find a way to keep the big dogs happy and let the rest of us get a piece.
Not with $c and ucla gone. Without the Southern California market preference these two schools brought to the Big-10, the remaining Pac-10 schools, including us, are now strictly minor league regarding revenue from TV. There isn't enough revenue to pay off the debt and remain competitive in D1.
Thanks for the interesting piece. I enjoyed the read and it gives the Pac (10?) "breathing room" until something better can be hammered out. Pac after dark seems likely to continue. My only concern is whether or not less appetizing non-conference games will be broadcast. If streaming is addressed, likely because it will become increasingly prevalent by 2024, it seems like ESPN should widen distribution rather than rely solely on ESPN+, with parent co. Disney's Disney+ a candidate. After all, it has 87,000,000 subscribers worldwide.
I see the Super 2 as problematic. Just like the pros, the fan base of teams is local, or regional at best. If CAL were not to make it into one of the two Super conferences I will probably watch very few games (maybe Bama/GA or Ohio State/Michigan) but I'll have no appetite for college football if my team is not included. I think many other fans will say the same thing. Creating a smaller pool of teams competing for dollars just doesn't seem smart to me. For the few teams that have a national fanbase, it works, but for all the rest it does not.
To add to the above (or below), when I was in middle school in the early 90's in Connecticut.. just about everyone was wearing Miami Hurricanes, NC Tar Heels, FSU Seminoles, etc. and other gear. Major college sports are in no way regional, and are going nowhere but up...
I commented similarly above, but I wouldnt underestimate the product of college football and where it's been headed. I think the top x (30?) value programs could form their own league and would easily be in the company of the major professional sports like, say, the NHL, in terms of media value. The appetite for football is that great, and a lot of these college brands, nationally, are already worth more than many pro teams across all major sports. The University of Texas made $93 million in PROFIT from their football team last year.
The Grant of Right that you linked is clear, but to really opine if Clemson et al have an out, we'd need to see teh ESPN Agreement. I'm sure all the lawyers -- Clenson's and ESPN's -- are going thru it looking to see what happens to the Grant of Right if the ESPN Agreement gets amended to consolidate Pac12 Network into ACC Network. If the Pac is added, if I'm Clemson/FSU/Miami, I look to file suit to break the Grant of Right. Perhaps a low odds suit, but the payoff is huge if one/all could move to the SEC early.
Of course, there is no guarantee that Oregon and U-Dub would sign on as long as they have a chance at joining the BiG.
So yes, Avi, this is only a stop-gap and the remaining Pac10 cannot become complacent.
Big Ten won't take Oregon or UW unless it means the revenue the provide is a net positive for all rest of the teams in the conference. From what I understand the Ducks and Dawgs dilute the earnings of the conference on a per team basis.
But they have an airtight GOR until 2036. They aren''t going anywhere. It's why the ACC is trying to figure out how a loose cooperating agreement with the PAC teams can bring in more $$.
The GOR for the remaining Pac-12, sorry, the Pac-10, sorry, the Pac-06 is a nit. Insignificant. Nothing. Less than lint. Actually, lint is a real thing, maybe more valuable than Cal's fate.
Lawsuit isn't necessary. Per GOR agreement that is online, if 8 or more schools opt to leave, then the ACC is done as a conference. I don't know if the BIG will want to expand anymore aside from Notre Dame but ND can't join any conference except the ACC, per the agreement they made. No other school will maximize the TV revenues.
However, if the BIG and SEC collude, with the backing of Fox and ESPN, it wouldn't be hard to find 8 schools that vote to leave - SEC grabs FSU, Miami, Clemson; BIG grabs UNC, Duke, UVA; I don't care about what the 4th school will be for each conference and they won't either.
In that situation, the Pac-12 is done too - the Big-12 could just grab Arizona, ASU, Utah, and Colorado and grab 4 of whoever is left from the ACC, and you'll have 3 super-conferences with 20 teams each. Everyone else will be outside looking in.
Only thing that will prevent this will likely be a new media partner looking to create a third front in the Fox-ESPN cold war. Apple? NBC? Netflix if they can get their shit together?
Cal is never mentioned as a surviving school in the New World Order. Indeed, not even mentioned as a possible surviving program. I understand the denial stage many of Cal supporters on this thread are in; but the sooner posters get past that, the sooner Cal can start looking at our fate realistically.
We'll be in that group of everyone else on the outside looking in. Not sure how we avoid that unless we get lucky in latching onto whoever the 3rd super-conference will be, assuming there is a 3rd super-conference. Otherwise, it's the BIG-SEC world, and we're not in it.
The Big 12 doesn't want Cal, Washington State or Oregon State. The Pac-12 is a raging dumpster fire right now.
It has nothing to do with football. It has to do with the other sports - MBB, WBB, volleyball, baseball, softball, men's and women's soccer, and on and on.
It says a lot about how they feel about the religious schools, that they would rather take the chance of shutting down more than half the athletic programs than be affiliated with them.
Can anyone speak to how this is all affecting Cal recruiting? I can't imagine the uncertainty is helping at all.
I have to imagine the talk of the Program potentially getting shut down hasn't helped
The good thing is the transfer portal. So the kids can always transfer later. Without it, I'm sure more kids will be avoiding Pac12 schools for now.
Easy for you to say "the kids can always transfer later." Any "kid" with a brain in his head is going to look at Cal AFTER they've been rejected everywhere else.
I doubt that will happen. It seems like most of the Pac-12 schools, not including UCLA and USC will be under the same cloud for the short term. Plus, we will still be playing those two teams in 2022 and 2023.
Hardly, $c, ucla has their futures assured with membership in the Big-10 whatever. The sun is shining brightly, no clouds, for these schools. Cal's AD and Chancellor missed that bus.
I agree, but the talk is there. And it may stir doubt in some of their minds
One thing no one has considered and that is a scuttling of the whole deal with USC and fUCLA and the B!G. It's something I am working on and I'll post it if it has any legs.
I think in the long run that the move to the Big Ten will hurt their recruiting. UCLA is going to be in the bottom third and no one wants to play for a team that doesn't win and has their travel schedule. IMHO USC will be in the top third, but I don't think they will consistently be #1 or #2 and I think they could have recruited much better being top dog in the PAC12.
I agree with this. fucla is not going to do well. $C may fare a bit better. A lot depends on how rigorous their travel schedule is. West coast NFL teams do not do well (W/L) when traveling to the East coast, I don't think a bunch of teenage boys will do any better. As it is currently, West coast recruits have been fleeing to the B1G and SEC. Now recruits can say, "cool, I'll go to Minnesota play in the B1G and have several games in LA for family and friends." Only way this makes sense for $C and fucla is to have a Pacific pod of at least 4 or perhaps 6 teams. But that would dilute the B1G's objective of having more access to JUST the LA market.
Football is one thing, but I think the biggest recruiting drag will be on the non-revenue programs.
Yeah I agree this could backfire. They should’ve insisted on bringing us and ‘furd so they could look better by comparison (not to mention keep the rivalries together)
I know the people and schools of the "old" ACC well. I'm a Maryland graduate with 4 varsity letters from basketball & tennis and remain close to the programs.
I'd be shocked if Duke or Carolina left. First, unlike the backstabbing UCLA scumbags, there is no possible way Carolina could leave State (that's NCSU for the rest of you) to wither and die. Absolutely completely impossible. Second, the Big Four; Carolina, Duke, Wake and State RULE the ACC. The power of Carolina and Duke in the Big Ten would be tiny. NO ONE at Duke gives a damn about football. NO ONE. Carolina has been up and down, but football is an afterthought. Survey the entire Carolina fan base and they just don't care.
No way they give ip their power within the ACC.
Appreciate the insight. Would be interesting come basketball season to have Arizona play the Carolinas more.
One thing I'm hoping you can shed some light on: how much more power do the basketball schools you mention have than the football schools (Miami, Clemson, FSU)? And does that suggest the football schools will bolt if given the opportunity?
You clearly know a lot more about the ACC than I do (which is only what I read). There one thing I do know is that money talks much louder than who “rules” or conference loyalty or anything else. Given the prospect of losing or gaining enough money, Duke, N & S Carolina, Wake, et al, would sell each other out faster than $c/ucla jumping to the big-10. If you want to be the boss, you got to pay the cost.
I'm telling you categorically Carolina CANNOT throw State under the bus and you clearly don't know how Duke & Carolina rule the ACC. It matters.
It matters as long as the dollars allow Duke, N/S Carolina to be competitive. Once these schools are forced to deal with uncompetitive monies from FOX, ESPN, then what matters will be unmasked.
South Carolina is already in the SEC
Well, that's a bit embarrassing. But I bet South Carolina joined the SEC because of the lure of the SEC Big Paydays. Also, the good folks at South Carolina probably don't know very much about Cal or the Pac-10, or whatever is left of the Pac-10. Not that it would matter to them in any case.
The regions are so separate that they have different USCs.
They'll know about us when we kick their ass one day!
Unless the media value of a team creates better revenues for teams in the the conference they want to join, I don't see it happening. No conference is going to accept a team that is going to dilute their earnings shares for all their existing teams.
I lived in ACC country for several years and would have agreed with you back then. But, then I was shocked that a founding ACC member, Maryland, jumped for the cash. You may be right. Unlike our weak Regents, the Carolina Trustees might veto any move without its little sister.
OTOH, the BiG payout would fund all the other sports, adn leave a profit to toss back to teh academic side of the house. That will be really hard to turn down.
Yep, the cause of all evil is money.
It has nothing to do with football. It has to do with the other sports - MBB, WBB, volleyball, baseball, softball, men's and women's soccer, and on and on.
As a resident in the mid-Atlantic who gets the ACC Network I was encouraged when I saw the headline. Thought maybe I could see a game or two. But based on the schedule shown it would still be only late-night games starts, so not much help. If it helps the athletic dept OK, but no help to me.
Might be able to see all games online under the new deal (and maybe buy in a-la-carte via ESPN+). Not being tied to specific cable companies is a major difference.
I finally ditched DirecTV. The satellite shaded my solar panels and I was using my Fire stick much more than my receiver (should be a good deal this week for Prime Day). I can go into more detail if you'd like. I completely understand and share your frustration.
I regularly watch the ACC Network, but of course can't watch the PAC12 Network because I've had DirecTV since 1997.
Moving from Oregon to South Carolina next year - about an hour away from Clemson. Maybe this will work well for me to watch games
"The religious school issue has come up constantly with Baylor and would definitely come up with TCU". How has the issue come up constantly? Baylor has consistently proven to be quite successful in football, men's basketball, and women's basketball -- more than Texas in many respects. TCU has also been very competitive.
The issue is whether or not teams will play on Sundays. BYU has historically had a no play on Sunday rule. Not sure if that's the same for Baylor and TCU, however.
I don't recall Cal football games ever being played on Sundays. Who cares if BB games against BYU aren't played on Sundays? THAT is the line the Pac-10 wants to draw in the sand? So stupid it's indescribable.
Couldn’t agree more. It is such a small concession. You don’t even have to say the whole conference won’t schedule on Sundays, just that said school won’t do it.
If you give a mouse a cookie...
Rumors have long been that the Pac Presidents have a bias towards secular schools, and this eliminated BYU from membership years ago.
Yeah; playing on Sundays is a thing for such. I'd guess, however, that BU has played MBB on Sundays, probably even in Waco: it's a competitive team and, as such, makes tons of money for the university. Wouldn't know for BYU or TCU. Still: Big 12 overall: Not a good fit for Cal.
Shows how stupid they are.
On the eve of the Russian revolution, the priests in the Russian Orthodox church were debating what colors their robes should be.
The brain trust behind the Pac-10 have nothing on them.
You are clueless
How so? If you're going to insult folks (me) posting here, at least tell us all what you think is clueless about what I've posted.
Because academic freedom is a very important issue for real academic universities - like UC Berkeley, and other academic powerhouses. It is a key definition of what is important for the university.
BYU will fire professors if they say something that is critical of the history of the Mormon past, they have zero academic freedom to speak the truth.
That's an issue for universities who claim academic freedom as important.
Berkeley only has "academic freedom" for those who tow the liberal line - not conservatives, or anyone who disagrees with the liberal agenda of Berkeley profs. Actual academic freedom is an illusion at Berkeley. That's just the fact of the matter. Berkeley is no better than BYU, no worse either. Just a different set of prejustices.
LOL @ Berkeley's academic freedom; Berkeley will throw faculty under the bus for a variety of issues; they are not woke enough, they voice objection to the university violating informed consent when it comes to vaccines, they voice political views that are to the right, etc etc. There is academic freedom to say things that align; not real academic freedom.
What a sad statement if true.
Eh, "bias" is the wrong word, there are real academic issues with BYU that would not allow them into PAC-12 (which they really wanted).
Well, since Cal is not invited to join the Big10 or any other conference, and the Pac-10 is collapsing as we "speak," we are on the way to D-1 College Football oblivion. Just a matter of time, which is coming at the longest 2 years from now.
Gotta admit, that seems a bit short-sighted and also bigoted. Not that I’m religious in any form (I will be hit by lightning if I try to go inside a church).
The Sunday thing makes sense though—there’s a lot of teams and the schedule needs flexibility.
To be clear I’m referring to the Pac Presidents, not you OC Bear!
understand pauline, no offense taken.
So college sports turned into Game of Thrones. And Cal is looking most like Ned Stark riding into King's Landing.
Ned Stark gives us a lot more credit than we deserve. At best we're Jory Cassel (Ned's captain who gets killed early by Jaime).
Ouch. As long as we aren't Theon Greyjoy, I suppose.
We are actually Rickon Stark.
Or Dickon Tarly.
As a fan, having a way to see Cal sports without needing a specific cable company would be huge, even if only streaming. I only use streaming to watch things so I'm personally happy with that as solution as long as there are no dumb blackout issues. I await the day where we can dump the corpse of the Pac-12 Network in Larry Scott's yard so he can think about what he did.
Now, looking at the business case, audience is everything. Streaming doesn't "push" your product in front of non-Cal fans in the same way as a broadcast channel. This deal is reasonable as a tourniquet, but you still need to go to the ER.
Fake news
A nice little flotation device while circling the drain, before being sucked in and spit out into a new mid-major reality along with 20-or-so other former "Power 5" programs who weren't able to hitch that sweet ride.
Cal will not settle for being in a mid-major conference. Not enough TV revenue, huge loss in stature, etc.
What Cal thinks or wants might not have any bearing whatsoever on what Cal gets.
Yep, absolutely right.
Apparently CAL's current media value is $45m/year...supposedly more than any other PAC school left in the conference.
I believe that 45M number is what we are attributed to within the context of the current Pac-12's media arrangements, but it doesn't necessarily mean we could bring in that amount of revenue by ourselves as an independent or even that we could add that same value to a new conference, Pac-10 or otherwise.. So that media valuation is dependent on a few variables--which are subject to major change as the big business of college football unfolds. I know, not intuitive.
Also, with the Super 2 conference distributions starting at 60M, and growing to 70, 80, hell 100M, that 45 number doesnt make us enticing for expansion, unless the super conferences adopt a new revenue distribution model (this is almost imperative).
Never say never I guess, but I think it's unlikely that Cal, given the size of the school and its place in a major media market, is entirely left out of the major conference structure, whatever form it takes. That's assuming the Cal administration actively wants to remain a major program (though again, the stadium debt would seem to demand that we do).
I think these terms we use today ("Power 5"==major, "Group of 5"==mid-major) will be obsolete in short order and there will be new categories or terms. And it seems unlikely that Cal will end up a part of whatever is considered the new "major". But that's not to say we wont be economically viable in whatever the new second tier is, in fact we could be better off financially than we are today . The value of college football inventory continues to rise like inflation, and our debts have fixed interest rates, I hope!? But.. it's also a real possibility that we will be worse off and Cal Athletics is in major trouble.
Considering how the consolidation and concentration of wealth and power has been trending over the last couple decades, and with the B1G vs SEC arms race thrown into overdrive now with the Texas and USC salvos, and the fact that those conferences' members are all on the cusp of earning double or even triple the media revenue of members from the ACC/Pac10/BigXII, there's a seismic change on the brink, which will redefine Cal's (and many other schools') college football existence and identity.
Everything might well be trending towards a smaller population of what we call "major" college football. We're talking like 40 schools, and that's even more a certainty if the conferences continue to insist on more or less equally sharing revenue share across their members. That's a failed model, from the bigger picture of "major" college football as we know it as a whole, and is what led to this mess.. And that model could even be destined to fail again within 2 super conferences.
If it's actually only 40 teams that get to be in the "top tier" then Cal is probably not in it, but also that top tier is probably not sustainable at the current levels of spending. At some point people realize it's just a minor league and not special as "college" football anymore.
No "probably" about it. We're now not in the top tier, and this can't be any more obvious than it is now.
I want to agree, but I also wouldnt underestimate the popularity of the sport. I have 0 reasons to be interested in Ohio State or Alabama, in fact I hate them. Yet I will watch the shit out of them in big games.
I can imagine the new Power 2, 3, 4, or even still 5 conferences continuing for a few more years.. But inevitably, even if there is a Super 2 of 40 some odd teams.. The top 10, 12, 14, 16 or whatever most valuable programs of the Super 2 are still adding an insanely disproportionate amount of media value compare to what they get back from their conference. Some more than others obviously. So the inevitable really feels like those programs will break off from the NCAA and form their own league, and people will watch, and networks will hype it up keep pushing the guise of "college football" and not "minor league". Other programs will strive to be in their league.
College football is a very real force in American sports, well above the professional leagues of other major sports. Americans simply have that much appetite for football, and the college tradition is firmly in the bank, even if that tradition really died years ago.
I think that's the devastating end game for the vast majority of programs if these conferences keep trying to fool their selves and everyone else with the arrangement of equal revenue share. Gotta find a way to keep the big dogs happy and let the rest of us get a piece.
Not with $c and ucla gone. Without the Southern California market preference these two schools brought to the Big-10, the remaining Pac-10 schools, including us, are now strictly minor league regarding revenue from TV. There isn't enough revenue to pay off the debt and remain competitive in D1.
Thanks for the interesting piece. I enjoyed the read and it gives the Pac (10?) "breathing room" until something better can be hammered out. Pac after dark seems likely to continue. My only concern is whether or not less appetizing non-conference games will be broadcast. If streaming is addressed, likely because it will become increasingly prevalent by 2024, it seems like ESPN should widen distribution rather than rely solely on ESPN+, with parent co. Disney's Disney+ a candidate. After all, it has 87,000,000 subscribers worldwide.
It does begin to seem the only future for us and the rest of the non-"Power 2" is going to be streaming. Which is a logical progression either way.
We need to start getting creative here. Like how does the music industry make money?
I see the Super 2 as problematic. Just like the pros, the fan base of teams is local, or regional at best. If CAL were not to make it into one of the two Super conferences I will probably watch very few games (maybe Bama/GA or Ohio State/Michigan) but I'll have no appetite for college football if my team is not included. I think many other fans will say the same thing. Creating a smaller pool of teams competing for dollars just doesn't seem smart to me. For the few teams that have a national fanbase, it works, but for all the rest it does not.
To add to the above (or below), when I was in middle school in the early 90's in Connecticut.. just about everyone was wearing Miami Hurricanes, NC Tar Heels, FSU Seminoles, etc. and other gear. Major college sports are in no way regional, and are going nowhere but up...
I commented similarly above, but I wouldnt underestimate the product of college football and where it's been headed. I think the top x (30?) value programs could form their own league and would easily be in the company of the major professional sports like, say, the NHL, in terms of media value. The appetite for football is that great, and a lot of these college brands, nationally, are already worth more than many pro teams across all major sports. The University of Texas made $93 million in PROFIT from their football team last year.
The Grant of Right that you linked is clear, but to really opine if Clemson et al have an out, we'd need to see teh ESPN Agreement. I'm sure all the lawyers -- Clenson's and ESPN's -- are going thru it looking to see what happens to the Grant of Right if the ESPN Agreement gets amended to consolidate Pac12 Network into ACC Network. If the Pac is added, if I'm Clemson/FSU/Miami, I look to file suit to break the Grant of Right. Perhaps a low odds suit, but the payoff is huge if one/all could move to the SEC early.
Of course, there is no guarantee that Oregon and U-Dub would sign on as long as they have a chance at joining the BiG.
So yes, Avi, this is only a stop-gap and the remaining Pac10 cannot become complacent.
Big Ten won't take Oregon or UW unless it means the revenue the provide is a net positive for all rest of the teams in the conference. From what I understand the Ducks and Dawgs dilute the earnings of the conference on a per team basis.
Clemson and Florida State would be very attractive to the SEC, but no one else.
But they have an airtight GOR until 2036. They aren''t going anywhere. It's why the ACC is trying to figure out how a loose cooperating agreement with the PAC teams can bring in more $$.
Unless something like half the teams leave the conference. If that happens then I think the GOR is nullified.
The GOR for the remaining Pac-12, sorry, the Pac-10, sorry, the Pac-06 is a nit. Insignificant. Nothing. Less than lint. Actually, lint is a real thing, maybe more valuable than Cal's fate.
Rugbear is talking about the ACC GOR
Why not for Big 12?
Lawsuit isn't necessary. Per GOR agreement that is online, if 8 or more schools opt to leave, then the ACC is done as a conference. I don't know if the BIG will want to expand anymore aside from Notre Dame but ND can't join any conference except the ACC, per the agreement they made. No other school will maximize the TV revenues.
However, if the BIG and SEC collude, with the backing of Fox and ESPN, it wouldn't be hard to find 8 schools that vote to leave - SEC grabs FSU, Miami, Clemson; BIG grabs UNC, Duke, UVA; I don't care about what the 4th school will be for each conference and they won't either.
In that situation, the Pac-12 is done too - the Big-12 could just grab Arizona, ASU, Utah, and Colorado and grab 4 of whoever is left from the ACC, and you'll have 3 super-conferences with 20 teams each. Everyone else will be outside looking in.
Only thing that will prevent this will likely be a new media partner looking to create a third front in the Fox-ESPN cold war. Apple? NBC? Netflix if they can get their shit together?
Cal is never mentioned as a surviving school in the New World Order. Indeed, not even mentioned as a possible surviving program. I understand the denial stage many of Cal supporters on this thread are in; but the sooner posters get past that, the sooner Cal can start looking at our fate realistically.
We'll be in that group of everyone else on the outside looking in. Not sure how we avoid that unless we get lucky in latching onto whoever the 3rd super-conference will be, assuming there is a 3rd super-conference. Otherwise, it's the BIG-SEC world, and we're not in it.
the ACC contract got posted on Reddit a few days ago. Anyone who is really interested can go find it... just an FYI for those who are not aware
The ACC contract is posted above in this very article (as well as the previous article Avi posted) :)