It's a legitimate football conference and, with the right media deal and good logistics, a true merger could be interesting. Being bi-coastal also effectively expands TV viewing hours. But I don't see how some loose arrangement has much upside since the real benefits come with actual integration.
If George is smart he'll try to negotiate a two-tier revenue system consisting of cable rights and streaming rights. If these two delivery systems are unbundled he can maximize revenues. ESPN would probably try to restrict streaming rights but if they were clever they would stream on the parent company's Disney + which already has lots of subscribers in addition to ESPN on cable. Otherwise the Pac 12 could offer a generous piece of the third-party streaming revenue to ESPN as the content creator/owner, achieving wider distribution and younger eyeballs. Apple TV, Netflix, Youtube TV, Prime, etc. could be this second-tier provider. Of course, by 2024 the streaming market will have evolved to another level.
Seems reasonable. Just getting onto a accessible platform like ESPN+ instead of the nearly inaccessible Pac-12 Network would be a huge win over our terrible status quo.
It's "legit" only as long as Clemson, FSU and Miami remain. But why would they if they can get 2x the revenue in the SEC?
Same as teh West coast: we remain legit as long as Oregon and U-Dub have no better options. But once such a bi-coastal league looks like it might be forming, the BiG could kills it in seconds by offering Oregon and U-Dub a seat at their table.
At least they're locked in for a little while (without a buyout). But, yeah, they're still stealable. And, indeed, conferences need to still compete by either offering a bigger pie or a bigger slice at the expense of teams that don't have other options. Just a really bad negotiating position to be in.
The fact that Knowlton even cares about the non revenue Olympic sports and is worried about their travel is the crux of why Cal is in this position. Those sports are a drag on the football team’s budget and really should have zero input in Cal’s conference plans.
Cal could very well be at an inflection point with regard to sports sponsorship and its impact on Title IX compliance.
Cal has historically been on Prong 2 in compliance with Title IX (expansion of opportunities). If Cal moves to Prong 1 (opportunities proportional to enrollment), it's almost certain that it will require a contraction in the number of sponsored varsity sports.
The financial side of the picture has never been very good. It's much tighter since 2010 now that debt service for the stadium renovation is a big chunk of the financial pie.
There needs to be a model where these sports have a road to self sustainability, whether its through alumni donations,/support or some other avenue. Or you trim the fat, especially under performing sports, again whether its outright cuts or demotion to club sport
The PSL model that was pursued for football in the wake of the West Side Improvements project (aka Stadium renovation) was intended to be a fundraising mechanism for non-revenue sports at Cal.
Recall also that endowments were pursued after the attempt to cut sports in September 2010. Baseball was just one beneficiary of fundraising to endow a specific varsity sport.
g.oso's link below offers much better background than I can give briefly, but here's a brief synopsis -
There are three prongs for Title IX compliance -
Prong 1 - athletic opportunities are substantially proportional to undergrad enrollment for the underrepresented sex (generally taken to be women).
Prong 2 - historic expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex.
Prong 3 - athletic opportunities are generally satisfactory to the underrepresented sex.
Prong 1's test should be obvious - the number of roster spots across all sports and the proportion available to the underrepresented sex is substantially the same as the proportion of enrollment for the underrepresented sex (+ or - 5%). For Cal to be in compliance under Prong 1, the proportion of athletic opportunities for women must fall between 47% and 57% given that enrollment (in 2021-22 academic year) was approximately 52% for women.
Prong 2's test is that the number of athletic opportunities for women has continued to expand over time. This is the prong that Cal has historically met to demonstrate Title IX compliance. The number of sponsored varsity sports at Cal for women has expanded over time. Eventually, an institution that chooses this approach may fall into compliance under Prong 1.
Prong 3's test is largely the absence of litigation about athletic opportunities. If an institution wishes to demonstrate that they are functionally meeting the athletic interests of its student body, it does so by showing that the underrepresented sex has sufficient athletic opportunities. Litigation complaining of insufficient athletic opportunities can end compliance under Prong 3.
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
Football is the elephant in the room. The sheer number of football roster spots, all for men, means that for an institution to comply under Prong 1 typically starts behind the 8 ball because up to 106 roster spots are available only to men. For FBS programs it means that they must also sponsor the following varsity sports - Men's Basketball, Women's basketball, Women's Volleyball plus enough other varsity sports to number 16 total. Title IX compliance quickly becomes a balancing act for each institution. It also requires compliance in terms of facilities (competition venues, practice facilities, etc.) which all add up to millions of dollars annually.
Three are 130 FBS programs. 90% of them require subsidies to balance their books. Only 10% run a profit. Those institutions that run a profit are known as football bluebloods - Alabama, Ohio State, Texas, Penn State, Michigan, Oklahoma, and others that escape me at the moment. I'm sure you get the picture, though.
You can quickly see why building endowments are critical to the financial health of FBS athletic programs. You can also understand why some institutions decide to drop football altogether. Doing so relieves the institution of a great financial burden.
As we learned from the 2010 fiasco, if an institution moves off either Prong 2 or Prong 3, the institution must comply with Prong 1; there is no going back. When Cal tried to eliminate sponsored sports, they found out that doing so would put the institution on Prong 1 compliance. This was part of the reason why Cal decided to back off of trying to eliminate some varsity sports; they weren't ready to move from Prong 2 compliance to Prong 1 compliance.
Regarding Prong 3 compliance - the institution must show that they are satisfying the athletic interests of the underrepresented sex. If litigation comes along to deny that, then it opens up the question of whether or not the institution is, in fact, complying with Prong 3.
I'm only familiar with Prong 3 in theory. I haven't read about an institution being sued because they failed to comply under Prong 3.
There will always be litigation in California, especially at a public university. Prong 3 seems like unsafe ground for a UC (based solely on your description here).
Part of UCLA's rationale for the move was to save it's non-revenue programs, which have been threatened by massive debt. So they'll be keeping theirs, though it remains to be seen if they can remain competitive given the travel rigors and the competition. Unlike football and basketball, they are likely to lose out on talent in the non-revenue sports who may be more inclined to be in the "Conference of Champions".
And the flip-side to schools like Cal is that they maybe stuck with mid-major money on a Power 5 expense budget. No way will Cal be able to maintain 30 sports on a significantly smaller TV revenue stream.
Last summer in the wake of the Texas/Oklahoma defection to the SEC, The Pac12, B1G, and ACC agreed in principle to form an alliance to counteract the SEC. It called for greater cooperation and would eventually include crossover scheduling between the 3 conferences. With the B1G poaching USC and Ucla, that alliance is now dead
not so sure it's a meaningful stopgap. Avi even notes that OR and UW are waiting on the Big10; I don't think this alliance would have any sway on inducing them to stay. It seems like the only real solution is some sort of ACC and/or Big 12 marriage, or else the vultures just keep swooping in to pick off whatever valuable carcass makes sense.
If that Tweet is accurate, then I predict that the middle will not hold: at some point (maybe in the not-too-distant future) a bunch of dominoes will fall in one direction or another. If the B1G is simply playing a waiting game with Notre Dame, and Notre Dame declines to join in 2 years, then I suspect that the Pac-12 will disintegrate at that time or merge with the Big XII. A loose confederation (merger?) with the ACC seems even less likely than a merger with the Big XII because of geography. On the other hand, the ACC and Pac-12 could be their respective designated OOC opponents.
Problem: the B1G and the SEC will simply dominate the TV airwaves as long as Fox and ESPN have the lion's share of the TV inventory. That is, unless the ACC, Big XII and the remainder of the Pac-12 were to leave Fox and ESPN for contracts with other networks or streaming services that would give them favorable time slots. As long as the ACC, Big XII and Pac-12 have contracts with Fox and ESPN, they give away leverage at the negotiating table. Those conferences will be nothing more than leftovers or filler to SEC and B1G games, especially the Pac-12.
I believe the scuttlebutt here is that ESPN is actually trying to broker the Pac-ACC alliance behind the scenes, partially as a retaliation against Fox for poaching USC/UCLA for the Big Ten, and also partially because they don't want to lose that nice late-night inventory the Pac-12 gives them.
Not terribly surprising. But my observation stands. Fox and ESPN have made it crystal clear that the Pac-12 is nothing more than a schedule filler. The value of the last set of contracts, including the heavy presence of Pac-12 After Dark games (which includes Thursday and Friday night games) makes it clear that the value of a team to Fox and ESPN is the number of eyeballs it brings to TV sets.
While ESPN and Fox will always argue that the Pac-12 has followings of lesser value, the Pac-12 will never find its true value filling out the schedule for ESPN and Fox. The conference is nothing more than a pawn in the competition between ESPN and Fox.
NBC Sports and CBS Sports are networks that could compete with Fox and ESPN by the sheer number of homes they can penetrate. Further, it wouldn't be necessary to force games to a 7:15 PM kickoff. You could have every Pac-12 game kickoff at 12:00, 3:30, or 5:00 PM with the occasional Friday night game.
The problem has been and always will be that the number of eyeballs in the Midwest, East, and South will always outnumber the eyeballs in the Plains, the Rockies, and the West Coast combined. The Pac-12, Big XII and the ACC gives away leverage when they share the same network as the SEC and the B1G.
I think trying to get NBC or CBS Sports to bid up the Pac-12's TV rights was a valid approach with the L.A. schools on board. Now we just have to take what we can get (including Pac-12 After Dark).
Funny, but I don't think this really applies to a temporary Pac-ACC alliance. It would be a temporary way for everyone to make more money while knowing that more changes are probably coming.
One thing for certain, November 25 will be a very difficult day for fUCLA in Berkeley. We all know where the buses load postgame, too. Don't throw anything except words!
Just had a thought about a ACC/PAC merger. To alleviate the travel issues, how about keeping football and BB as separate divisions (ACC/PAC), but then hold joint playoffs and championship games. That should up the money for TV to broadcast these extra games, right? And olympic sports would stay separate until the championship games/matches, etc. This would be a sort of in-between to have incrementally more revenue to both leagues. They could also sprinkle in some stand-alone, in-season games and/or mini-tournaments to add more oomph. Other than money, I would really be concerned about distance, travel, and local/regional rivalries for students and fans.
The ACC sunk the playoff expansion and is part of the reason we're in this mess now. I doubt inter-conference game rights can make enough revenue to keep schools from jumping ship.
Anyone else find it odd that there have been zero media reports about Cal or Stanford talking to any other conference? I know Cal's viewed as an afterthought in all of this by some in the national media, but my gut tells me something is happening. Even WSU and OSU were reported to have reached out to the Big 12. So why no reports whatsoever about Stanford or Cal reaching out to anyone? Is something afoot or am I giving our leaders too much credit?
They are just keeping it on the QT. At least I hope they are. Otherwise they may be sitting back in their chairs waiting for other parties to act first, or the way of the Cal bureaucracy.
No one finds it odd. Cal is not a national brand and has a shit record with revenue sports dating back to the the Eisenhower years save for a few good years. Stanford seems content to take whatever is handed to them instead of pursuing opportunities.
Meh.
It's a legitimate football conference and, with the right media deal and good logistics, a true merger could be interesting. Being bi-coastal also effectively expands TV viewing hours. But I don't see how some loose arrangement has much upside since the real benefits come with actual integration.
If George is smart he'll try to negotiate a two-tier revenue system consisting of cable rights and streaming rights. If these two delivery systems are unbundled he can maximize revenues. ESPN would probably try to restrict streaming rights but if they were clever they would stream on the parent company's Disney + which already has lots of subscribers in addition to ESPN on cable. Otherwise the Pac 12 could offer a generous piece of the third-party streaming revenue to ESPN as the content creator/owner, achieving wider distribution and younger eyeballs. Apple TV, Netflix, Youtube TV, Prime, etc. could be this second-tier provider. Of course, by 2024 the streaming market will have evolved to another level.
Seems reasonable. Just getting onto a accessible platform like ESPN+ instead of the nearly inaccessible Pac-12 Network would be a huge win over our terrible status quo.
It's "legit" only as long as Clemson, FSU and Miami remain. But why would they if they can get 2x the revenue in the SEC?
Same as teh West coast: we remain legit as long as Oregon and U-Dub have no better options. But once such a bi-coastal league looks like it might be forming, the BiG could kills it in seconds by offering Oregon and U-Dub a seat at their table.
At least they're locked in for a little while (without a buyout). But, yeah, they're still stealable. And, indeed, conferences need to still compete by either offering a bigger pie or a bigger slice at the expense of teams that don't have other options. Just a really bad negotiating position to be in.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I got half a mind (maybe 1/4) to disconnect from the flotsam and jetsam right up until the UCD kickoff, then catchup.
Smart
The fact that Knowlton even cares about the non revenue Olympic sports and is worried about their travel is the crux of why Cal is in this position. Those sports are a drag on the football team’s budget and really should have zero input in Cal’s conference plans.
This is an important point.
Cal could very well be at an inflection point with regard to sports sponsorship and its impact on Title IX compliance.
Cal has historically been on Prong 2 in compliance with Title IX (expansion of opportunities). If Cal moves to Prong 1 (opportunities proportional to enrollment), it's almost certain that it will require a contraction in the number of sponsored varsity sports.
The financial side of the picture has never been very good. It's much tighter since 2010 now that debt service for the stadium renovation is a big chunk of the financial pie.
There needs to be a model where these sports have a road to self sustainability, whether its through alumni donations,/support or some other avenue. Or you trim the fat, especially under performing sports, again whether its outright cuts or demotion to club sport
Impossible. That would be a serious Title IX violation. Absurd idea.
Agreed.
The PSL model that was pursued for football in the wake of the West Side Improvements project (aka Stadium renovation) was intended to be a fundraising mechanism for non-revenue sports at Cal.
Recall also that endowments were pursued after the attempt to cut sports in September 2010. Baseball was just one beneficiary of fundraising to endow a specific varsity sport.
g.oso's link below offers much better background than I can give briefly, but here's a brief synopsis -
There are three prongs for Title IX compliance -
Prong 1 - athletic opportunities are substantially proportional to undergrad enrollment for the underrepresented sex (generally taken to be women).
Prong 2 - historic expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex.
Prong 3 - athletic opportunities are generally satisfactory to the underrepresented sex.
Prong 1's test should be obvious - the number of roster spots across all sports and the proportion available to the underrepresented sex is substantially the same as the proportion of enrollment for the underrepresented sex (+ or - 5%). For Cal to be in compliance under Prong 1, the proportion of athletic opportunities for women must fall between 47% and 57% given that enrollment (in 2021-22 academic year) was approximately 52% for women.
Prong 2's test is that the number of athletic opportunities for women has continued to expand over time. This is the prong that Cal has historically met to demonstrate Title IX compliance. The number of sponsored varsity sports at Cal for women has expanded over time. Eventually, an institution that chooses this approach may fall into compliance under Prong 1.
Prong 3's test is largely the absence of litigation about athletic opportunities. If an institution wishes to demonstrate that they are functionally meeting the athletic interests of its student body, it does so by showing that the underrepresented sex has sufficient athletic opportunities. Litigation complaining of insufficient athletic opportunities can end compliance under Prong 3.
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
Football is the elephant in the room. The sheer number of football roster spots, all for men, means that for an institution to comply under Prong 1 typically starts behind the 8 ball because up to 106 roster spots are available only to men. For FBS programs it means that they must also sponsor the following varsity sports - Men's Basketball, Women's basketball, Women's Volleyball plus enough other varsity sports to number 16 total. Title IX compliance quickly becomes a balancing act for each institution. It also requires compliance in terms of facilities (competition venues, practice facilities, etc.) which all add up to millions of dollars annually.
Three are 130 FBS programs. 90% of them require subsidies to balance their books. Only 10% run a profit. Those institutions that run a profit are known as football bluebloods - Alabama, Ohio State, Texas, Penn State, Michigan, Oklahoma, and others that escape me at the moment. I'm sure you get the picture, though.
You can quickly see why building endowments are critical to the financial health of FBS athletic programs. You can also understand why some institutions decide to drop football altogether. Doing so relieves the institution of a great financial burden.
Meeting any prong is sufficient for compliance.
As we learned from the 2010 fiasco, if an institution moves off either Prong 2 or Prong 3, the institution must comply with Prong 1; there is no going back. When Cal tried to eliminate sponsored sports, they found out that doing so would put the institution on Prong 1 compliance. This was part of the reason why Cal decided to back off of trying to eliminate some varsity sports; they weren't ready to move from Prong 2 compliance to Prong 1 compliance.
Regarding Prong 3 compliance - the institution must show that they are satisfying the athletic interests of the underrepresented sex. If litigation comes along to deny that, then it opens up the question of whether or not the institution is, in fact, complying with Prong 3.
I'm only familiar with Prong 3 in theory. I haven't read about an institution being sued because they failed to comply under Prong 3.
There will always be litigation in California, especially at a public university. Prong 3 seems like unsafe ground for a UC (based solely on your description here).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX
Part of UCLA's rationale for the move was to save it's non-revenue programs, which have been threatened by massive debt. So they'll be keeping theirs, though it remains to be seen if they can remain competitive given the travel rigors and the competition. Unlike football and basketball, they are likely to lose out on talent in the non-revenue sports who may be more inclined to be in the "Conference of Champions".
And the flip-side to schools like Cal is that they maybe stuck with mid-major money on a Power 5 expense budget. No way will Cal be able to maintain 30 sports on a significantly smaller TV revenue stream.
Call it the PAC-20 (or whatever the # is) but the PAC now stands for Pacific Atlantic Conference.
PACC is THICC
Useless in my opinion. What the B1G isn't far enough East we need to go further East? And we already know how "alliances" worked out.
Not great, Bob. Not great at all Bob.
That made me laugh out loud for real
I’ve been waiting to use that one for a year now.
Last summer in the wake of the Texas/Oklahoma defection to the SEC, The Pac12, B1G, and ACC agreed in principle to form an alliance to counteract the SEC. It called for greater cooperation and would eventually include crossover scheduling between the 3 conferences. With the B1G poaching USC and Ucla, that alliance is now dead
this has "Operation Barbarossa" energy
where were you last summer? This was huge news for all of college football. I bet most if not almost everyone here knew this already
It was a huge issue back then. It affected us, that's why Pac12 formed an alliance with other conferences.
How did it work out? No one cared for it and UCLA and USC went to Big 10.
That the Pac-12 and the B1G wouldn't poach each other's teams. Though I guess that article doesn't necessarily mention the poaching portion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-12_Conference#NCAA_conference_realignment_(2021-present)
Avi, thank you for covering this. The implications for Cal of any changes are largely getting ignored by other media outlets
and rightfully so. No one outside of actual alums/fans give a shit about Cal athletics
If you aren’t interested, then go someplace else.
This would just be a way to survive while the other superconferences figure it out, but might be a decent stopgap solution for now.
not so sure it's a meaningful stopgap. Avi even notes that OR and UW are waiting on the Big10; I don't think this alliance would have any sway on inducing them to stay. It seems like the only real solution is some sort of ACC and/or Big 12 marriage, or else the vultures just keep swooping in to pick off whatever valuable carcass makes sense.
The thing is that everyone might be waiting on the Big 10 for a while.
https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1544708131447574529
If that Tweet is accurate, then I predict that the middle will not hold: at some point (maybe in the not-too-distant future) a bunch of dominoes will fall in one direction or another. If the B1G is simply playing a waiting game with Notre Dame, and Notre Dame declines to join in 2 years, then I suspect that the Pac-12 will disintegrate at that time or merge with the Big XII. A loose confederation (merger?) with the ACC seems even less likely than a merger with the Big XII because of geography. On the other hand, the ACC and Pac-12 could be their respective designated OOC opponents.
Problem: the B1G and the SEC will simply dominate the TV airwaves as long as Fox and ESPN have the lion's share of the TV inventory. That is, unless the ACC, Big XII and the remainder of the Pac-12 were to leave Fox and ESPN for contracts with other networks or streaming services that would give them favorable time slots. As long as the ACC, Big XII and Pac-12 have contracts with Fox and ESPN, they give away leverage at the negotiating table. Those conferences will be nothing more than leftovers or filler to SEC and B1G games, especially the Pac-12.
I believe the scuttlebutt here is that ESPN is actually trying to broker the Pac-ACC alliance behind the scenes, partially as a retaliation against Fox for poaching USC/UCLA for the Big Ten, and also partially because they don't want to lose that nice late-night inventory the Pac-12 gives them.
Multi-dimensional oligarch fights. Fox vs. ESPN, B1G vs. SEC. Absolute joy to be trapped inside the game.
Not terribly surprising. But my observation stands. Fox and ESPN have made it crystal clear that the Pac-12 is nothing more than a schedule filler. The value of the last set of contracts, including the heavy presence of Pac-12 After Dark games (which includes Thursday and Friday night games) makes it clear that the value of a team to Fox and ESPN is the number of eyeballs it brings to TV sets.
While ESPN and Fox will always argue that the Pac-12 has followings of lesser value, the Pac-12 will never find its true value filling out the schedule for ESPN and Fox. The conference is nothing more than a pawn in the competition between ESPN and Fox.
NBC Sports and CBS Sports are networks that could compete with Fox and ESPN by the sheer number of homes they can penetrate. Further, it wouldn't be necessary to force games to a 7:15 PM kickoff. You could have every Pac-12 game kickoff at 12:00, 3:30, or 5:00 PM with the occasional Friday night game.
The problem has been and always will be that the number of eyeballs in the Midwest, East, and South will always outnumber the eyeballs in the Plains, the Rockies, and the West Coast combined. The Pac-12, Big XII and the ACC gives away leverage when they share the same network as the SEC and the B1G.
I think trying to get NBC or CBS Sports to bid up the Pac-12's TV rights was a valid approach with the L.A. schools on board. Now we just have to take what we can get (including Pac-12 After Dark).
Hitler has given us assurances that if we give him Austria he will not invade the rest of Europe.
Funny, but I don't think this really applies to a temporary Pac-ACC alliance. It would be a temporary way for everyone to make more money while knowing that more changes are probably coming.
One thing for certain, November 25 will be a very difficult day for fUCLA in Berkeley. We all know where the buses load postgame, too. Don't throw anything except words!
Just had a thought about a ACC/PAC merger. To alleviate the travel issues, how about keeping football and BB as separate divisions (ACC/PAC), but then hold joint playoffs and championship games. That should up the money for TV to broadcast these extra games, right? And olympic sports would stay separate until the championship games/matches, etc. This would be a sort of in-between to have incrementally more revenue to both leagues. They could also sprinkle in some stand-alone, in-season games and/or mini-tournaments to add more oomph. Other than money, I would really be concerned about distance, travel, and local/regional rivalries for students and fans.
The ACC sunk the playoff expansion and is part of the reason we're in this mess now. I doubt inter-conference game rights can make enough revenue to keep schools from jumping ship.
Anyone else find it odd that there have been zero media reports about Cal or Stanford talking to any other conference? I know Cal's viewed as an afterthought in all of this by some in the national media, but my gut tells me something is happening. Even WSU and OSU were reported to have reached out to the Big 12. So why no reports whatsoever about Stanford or Cal reaching out to anyone? Is something afoot or am I giving our leaders too much credit?
They are just keeping it on the QT. At least I hope they are. Otherwise they may be sitting back in their chairs waiting for other parties to act first, or the way of the Cal bureaucracy.
No one finds it odd. Cal is not a national brand and has a shit record with revenue sports dating back to the the Eisenhower years save for a few good years. Stanford seems content to take whatever is handed to them instead of pursuing opportunities.
We can agree that the Athletic Department made questionable decisions in the past but in this situation they have 300 million reasons to be proactive.
But do you actually have any faith in our current leadership to do so?
According to Wilner Oregon and Washington aren't going to the Big10, maybe the Big 12, otherwise they will have to stick it out in the Pac-12.
I'm sure Phil Knight will be sticking around for this.
Hitting two birds with one stone
First
^FAKE NEWS
First