The fact that Kliavkoff and the Conference leaders/CEO group basically accomplished nothing in the year since SC and UCLA dropped the bomb is baffling. The P12 is run by idiots.
I don’t see how the Pac12 survives this. We are in a self fulfilling, death spiral now.
The Pac12 needs a media deal that pays out each program in the $25-32 million range. It seems like they weren’t getting that number so they were holding out but then Colorado left and as more schools look to leave the less money networks will be willing to pay.
Yeah with each departure the numbers get worse. Hard to blame CO or AZ too much though - the death blow was UCLA/USC taking off with the largest media market in the PAC.
Can you imagine trying to negotiate this TV deal for the PAC? It’s impossible. You lost LA so none of your historical figures mean anything, and there are constant rumors that your league won’t even exist anymore. I don’t know how they get anything meaningful inked. The longer this drags out, the less likely a deal is, the sooner the whole league collapses
And until something gets done, we will not be able to recruit good payers. We will occasionally find some hidden gems but they would transfer as soon as they become good.
Previously I thought Big 10 or bust, but now I'm willing to accept Big 12.
Man...this year is so important. Like a try out/audition. Half the articles only evaluate our recent records. All the success we have had with guys in the NFL (including two starting QBS) counts for nothing.
Cal has been 3-star U for decades now, with the occasional Jared Goff or Keenan Allen darkening our doorstep as the exception not the rule. Assuming the PAC stays together (my bet), the guys who we now have & have come in through the portal are right in line with our usual talent level. Doesn't mean we won't beat Auburn.
Honestly I think the posturing is to wait and see if the B1G is willing to accelerate their expansion plans, especially with rumors of FSU breaking the ACC GoR. At this point, the PAC is not getting a competitive offer.
All USC had to do was tell us they were leaving so we could expand. I really don't understand why they chose to kill the conference on their way out.
UT/OU were the reason the Big-12 couldn't expand all those years. I am a life-long Big-8/12'er. I was THRILLED to hear UT/OU were leaving. It was NOT a coincidence, that BYU, Cincy, UCF, and Houston all came in right after that. People think Yormark is the sole reason the Big-12 is alive and kicking. He's Not. Make no mistake, he is Incredible. I Love what he is going, But, Bowlsby was a great commish. He was just handcuffed, completely, by UT & OU.
Appreciate the insight, but you are nothing but a parasite conference. Your bloggers have campaigned and attributed to the demise of our conference. I put a hex on you, all Big 12 fans, and especially that tape worm Yormack.
The latest I have seen said that numbers will be presented tomorrow with somewhere around 22-25 per school for 12 members(SDSU,Tulane, SMU). If that’s the case, they could get creative and give the original 9 ~26 million a year and give the expansion candidates a 50 % cut for now. Similar to what folks say about Cal in the Big 10. Would still be an increase for the newcomers. Idk.
$26 million would be a good deal for Cal. Someone last week suggested that we will be worth more than $30 million when Colorado bolted, but there's no way we would get that much in the current situation.
That could hold the line and the conference together in the short term. I don’t see anyone signing up for a long term contract without an easy out for the Big10.
The best hope is leadership and we don’t have that.
We need our AD to get Stanford, UDub, and Oregon on the phone and negotiate a deal to join the B1G. Partial membership for an initial period followed by full membership. Even a 50% B1G share will be better than what the pac will get.
Unfortunately there is no evidence that our AD can cut a deal like that. Would require some impressive negotiating skills, which there is no track record of other than the Madsen hiring.
Honestly, I give Monty and Jay John more of the credit on Madsen. Knowlton brings in Tom Crean or Tim Miles if not for those two… I’ve never been more certain of anything in my life.
It's entirely rational. Our problem is that the B1G is content to wait it out a few years to expand further. Problem with that is that our athletics brand and on field fortunes could continue to erode in a declawed PAC whatever. We need to start winning games.
They would, although it's more likely they would pull in the four together. Taking just UW and OU is the pin that blows any PAC configuration apart, which would mean Cal and Stanford would need an immediate life raft. If they indeed would want to build a west coast cluster to anchor the USC/UCLA/UW/OU schools, it wouldn't seem to make a lot of sense to wait it out at that point IMO.
The B1G isn't in the business of handing out life rafts. It's all about the benjamins, and in spite of the bay area being #6 tv market, only a tiny percentage of that market watches Cal & Stanford football. No economic upside for Fox, I mean the B1G to add them.
Think out of the box. The Big Ten’s 100,000+ alumni in the Bay Area will watch and attend the games even if Cal and Stanford students and alumni won’t. They are the viewer market just as they are for NYC and DC. Maryland and Rutgers had semi empty stadiums until they joined the Big Ten. Fox knows this as does the Big Ten. Supporters of the Big 12 are the ones spreading the rumors and hoping for the PAC 10’ demise. The Big Ten wanted to wait until the next round of media negotiations before adding more teams.
There is definitely upside depending on the size (or lack thereof) of the payout. If the Pac-12 blows up, the B1G have all the negotiating power they need to pull in the four schools at well below market, which seems where this is headed if the current nine teams can't hold.
There are hot rumors of B1G expanding, by taking Oregon, Washington, FSU, & Clemson. Rumor is, this week.
Rumor. So, right now, just smoke. But... a Lot of smoke...
And, what that tells me, is that ACC MAY have a HUGE issue. Because, that would mean they found a way around the GoR. And, if that's true, then it gets REAL interesting, because if I remember correctly, the ACC modeled their GoR off the Big-12's GoR's.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. This COULD get really wild, really quickly.
Overall... This is Not good for the long toothless NCAA. The only ones that benefit are the "Have's".
I'm encouraged that Wilcox finally made some bold changes to his staff and is openly acknowledging that this team needs to start winning games this season. Whether that will work largely rests on what we can get out of the QB position. It's a little disheartening to hear that Mendoza may get the first stab at the job or maybe (more likely) a time share. I was hoping Sam would take the job and run with it (no pun intended). We also have a pretty difficult schedule, so even a good showing may only get us 7-6.
I agree with you about our current QBs, but maybe your reference to Kline and Goff is instructive. I think had Tedford stayed, Kline may have indeed been the better choice (and with more playing time, he would have improved). But clearly Goff was the best option for Dykes/Franklin’s Bear Raid. In other words, I think a new coach knows best what personnel is best suited to his system, so you have to defer to them. (I also wonder if Sam may look to the coaches a bit like McIlwain 2.0 in terms of maybe being turnover prone? But that is pure speculation by me, based on nothing)
Mendoza getting the nod is a disaster. A time share is a disaster.
This schedule is a bear…we will be fortunate to win 5…not saying fire Wilcox, but NEXT year is the season we bust out. But the P12 is just too solid, especially at the QB position.
Mendoza a disaster? You've never seen him play. He has a geat arm and accurate. Jackson looks like he might be turnover prone. But both are good QB's. I am a retired college coach and know a little about how to judge talent.
I'm a bit contrary on this. First, I don't believe that Cal and Stanford (who've not said a single word about any of this since UCLA/USC left the conference, if I'm correct) are stupid. They know the stakes. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Cal admin and Stanford admin haven't come to an agreement to stick together, and back channel talks with the Big 10 haven't occurred. Again, it's too easy to just say that they're stupid and they're watching and waiting.
What's crazy? I approach these situation from the perspective of a writer, and that means I wouldn't be surprised at something happening that we NEVER expected, like the SEC deciding to bring in Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford. Everyone would say that it's not a culture fit, blah blah blah, but I could see the SEC saying that they're interested in being a national conference since regions don't matter anymore. So why not take these four schools? And then eat up the ACC schools they want. In a script, that would be the unexpected move. Real life sometimes follows a script, but I wouldn't bet on it.
My first inclination is that Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, end up in the Big 10. Everyone else, the Big 12 or MW.
I just don't see any scenario with the SEC happening. In the past, winning the SEC was predicated on having an easier schedule-year padded by at least three cupcake games. They already made winning more difficult by adding Texas and Oklahoma (but added $$$). I have lived in Dixie for almost 15 years now and I just don't see any West Coast schools fitting into their world; they barely know we exist (except for Oregon)...because they are 12 Natty Lights and a half a handle of bourbon deep by the time we play.
So, the Pac-12 and the ACC blow up only to fall into the surviving Power 5 conferences? Interesting scenario.
If the SEC did grab the Bay Area and Pacific NW schools, it would truly go against type and against expectations. But, as you posit, it would also be a bold move with a lengthy reach from coast to coast, matching the B1G's reach. We'd enter an era of super-conferences, defined less by regionalism and more by media power and reach.
Why on Earth did the PAC 12 not invite San Diego State, Fresno State, San Jose State, or Bloise State to take the place of USC and UCLA when they departed?
They don't add serious TV revenue and they aren't close to being compatible academically. It would be better for CAL/STANFORD to go Independent for a few seasons. The USC/UCLA departure was a disaster. Staying in the Pac12 if it becomes some sort of 2nd rate conference would be a terminal mistake from which we would never recover and never survive.
There's the math: do these programs lift the value of the media rights share to the ten legacy members? The other factor is the university presidents. I think there's some hubris from some of the other schools that these schools do not rise to reputational level of their own campuses.
And, sadly, I don't even know if the PAC 12 could convince the top half of the Mountain West to join at this point when they know the remaining PAC 12 teams will leave as soon as the right deal is offered to them. Would the MWC teams jump ship knowing the newly reconstituted PAC 12 has a half life of a couple years? There really appears to be no path forward in which the conference remains intact.
There is no auto-playoff spot for the Pac—it's the top 6 conference champs from any conference. So—in theory—MW teams have at least as good a shot at the playoff in their current conference. Obviously the (soon-to-be) current setup biases power conferences, but who knows what the Pac will look like (or be perceived as) in a couple years.
I can understand the agony amongst Cal fans but I’m confident that should the PAC-12 collapse—as expected this week—the Big Ten will invite Cal and Stanford. It probably won’t be full revenue share but a lot more than anything the Big XII or ACC gets. Washington might also be in the mix. Oregon just doesn’t fit the Big Ten profile. It’s a small market, small student body, lowest academic research funding among P5 schools (they have a larger athletic budget than research lol). If the Big Ten can convince Notre Dame to join then I think Washington and Notre Dame would be added as a package. That would bring the conference to 20 schools.
"Calling Jim Knowlton, calling Jim Knowlton, please proceed to a white courtesy telephone immediately" - Where is the empty suit? Who is managing this issue for Cal, Heckle, Jeckle, or the university clown?
Ugh. Apple is as good as company there is to be involved with. But still...I'm skeptical at our subscriber draw with the LA schools gone. I'll speculate that the $20M figure that's being thrown about is the base, which would suggest that Apple would either charge a fortune for the package or we'd need a huge subscriber base to generate elevators to match the $32M Big 12 number.
Could have been a good deal a decade ago when Pac-12 Network was launched. But we're likely short on market share, money, leverage, and time now.
I don't know how Apple tv deal works, but I don't have Apple tv and I would be mad if I am forced to pay extra money to watch games. I pay for sports bundle on Cox to include the Pac12 network.
No one knows the details yet but I'd guess it's like their MLS package. People can order that a la carte without subscribing to Apple TV. I got MLS pass free through TMobile and don't subscribe to Apple TV's core lineup nor do I own any Apple TV equipment.
You would presumably be able to cancel the cable sports package unless you subscribe to watch another team.
We should be calling Stanford and trying to work together for a deal to the Big 12. We do not add enough value to the Big 10. I hope I am wrong, but we are going to be waiting a long time for that invite. Big 12 has guaranteed dollars and a viable path to being a conference contender. Big 10 does not need us for anything other than someone for USC/UCLA to play and they can add Oregon/UDUB for that who add much better value.
I’m not sure Oregon adds more value than Cal. I’ve heard them described as the Tennessee of the west coast. Once they stop winning, what value do they bring?
True, I think it really hinges on what happens when Phil Knight eventually dies and whether or not that Nike money goes away. In the NIL landscape they will get players and be more competitive. They also have a better brand than Cal. Right now the best thing Cal offers is a large tv market and place for opposing teams fans to watch games for the Big 10. But the attendance revenue would be a drop in the bucket with the TV deal the Big 10 has and those games are going to be nationally televised whether Cal is playing in them or not, the Big 10 is still getting those Bay Area viewers without Cal or Stanford.
I am reminded of the ending of the movie “The Truman Show“ (spoiler alert). Truman has escaped. The worldwide viewing audience is devastated by the drama of it all. There is a universal moment of unbelievable connection, commiseration, and grief. It is profound. Then, the movie cuts to a random group of barflies, who had been riveted along with everyone else and, as the credits roll, someone says, “HMM. What else is on?“
After all of this handwringing and gnashing of teeth has concluded, I suspect that each of us, in our own way, will ask “HMM. What else is on?“
P.S. And I do not mean to make light of the emotional and monetary and time investment we have in our Bears and the Pac. I’m just trying to console myself with a “we will carry on” ethic.
Scheer at Wildcat Authority said it could be as low as $20M/school. Swaim (who isn't necessarily reliable) suggested as much before yet blocked Scheer recently on Twitter/X/Muskland. And this is a mostly non-linear deal (per https://twitter.com/jasonscheer/status/1686099245714354177?s=19)
Whatever escalators and sweeteners get added, I don't think they'll be close enough to $32 million/school to prevent the death spiral. Kliavkoff's last stand is tomorrow. I thought Big 12 had a deadline for new 2024 teams but I can't find it now.
Rumors tonight are saying the proposed media deal is $200 million from Apple with full streaming rights. The proposal has milestones that could increase the payout if viewership reaches certain targets. If true, the PAC 8-12 future doesn’t look bright.
With respect to Calimony: I wouldn't expect too much. Remember, southern California is also represented on the BOR, and those folks may tilt a little toward UCLA.
The pac 12 commissioner and top exec’s. Continue to do nothing. Are they brain dead? We are watching the pac 12 die and we get a response on paper saying we are trying… seriously
This slow death is agonizing to watch. 😞
The fact that Kliavkoff and the Conference leaders/CEO group basically accomplished nothing in the year since SC and UCLA dropped the bomb is baffling. The P12 is run by idiots.
I don’t see how the Pac12 survives this. We are in a self fulfilling, death spiral now.
The Pac12 needs a media deal that pays out each program in the $25-32 million range. It seems like they weren’t getting that number so they were holding out but then Colorado left and as more schools look to leave the less money networks will be willing to pay.
Yeah with each departure the numbers get worse. Hard to blame CO or AZ too much though - the death blow was UCLA/USC taking off with the largest media market in the PAC.
Can you imagine trying to negotiate this TV deal for the PAC? It’s impossible. You lost LA so none of your historical figures mean anything, and there are constant rumors that your league won’t even exist anymore. I don’t know how they get anything meaningful inked. The longer this drags out, the less likely a deal is, the sooner the whole league collapses
And until something gets done, we will not be able to recruit good payers. We will occasionally find some hidden gems but they would transfer as soon as they become good.
Previously I thought Big 10 or bust, but now I'm willing to accept Big 12.
I'd take any arrangement that allows us to keep power 5 status and enough $ to fund the nonrevenue sports.
Man...this year is so important. Like a try out/audition. Half the articles only evaluate our recent records. All the success we have had with guys in the NFL (including two starting QBS) counts for nothing.
Cal has been 3-star U for decades now, with the occasional Jared Goff or Keenan Allen darkening our doorstep as the exception not the rule. Assuming the PAC stays together (my bet), the guys who we now have & have come in through the portal are right in line with our usual talent level. Doesn't mean we won't beat Auburn.
Honestly I think the posturing is to wait and see if the B1G is willing to accelerate their expansion plans, especially with rumors of FSU breaking the ACC GoR. At this point, the PAC is not getting a competitive offer.
All USC had to do was tell us they were leaving so we could expand. I really don't understand why they chose to kill the conference on their way out.
UT/OU were the reason the Big-12 couldn't expand all those years. I am a life-long Big-8/12'er. I was THRILLED to hear UT/OU were leaving. It was NOT a coincidence, that BYU, Cincy, UCF, and Houston all came in right after that. People think Yormark is the sole reason the Big-12 is alive and kicking. He's Not. Make no mistake, he is Incredible. I Love what he is going, But, Bowlsby was a great commish. He was just handcuffed, completely, by UT & OU.
Appreciate the insight, but you are nothing but a parasite conference. Your bloggers have campaigned and attributed to the demise of our conference. I put a hex on you, all Big 12 fans, and especially that tape worm Yormack.
The latest I have seen said that numbers will be presented tomorrow with somewhere around 22-25 per school for 12 members(SDSU,Tulane, SMU). If that’s the case, they could get creative and give the original 9 ~26 million a year and give the expansion candidates a 50 % cut for now. Similar to what folks say about Cal in the Big 10. Would still be an increase for the newcomers. Idk.
$26 million would be a good deal for Cal. Someone last week suggested that we will be worth more than $30 million when Colorado bolted, but there's no way we would get that much in the current situation.
That could hold the line and the conference together in the short term. I don’t see anyone signing up for a long term contract without an easy out for the Big10.
I am still hoping for a B1G invite. No, its not rational at all. But its better than thinking about the alternatives.
The best hope is leadership and we don’t have that.
We need our AD to get Stanford, UDub, and Oregon on the phone and negotiate a deal to join the B1G. Partial membership for an initial period followed by full membership. Even a 50% B1G share will be better than what the pac will get.
Unfortunately there is no evidence that our AD can cut a deal like that. Would require some impressive negotiating skills, which there is no track record of other than the Madsen hiring.
Honestly, I give Monty and Jay John more of the credit on Madsen. Knowlton brings in Tom Crean or Tim Miles if not for those two… I’ve never been more certain of anything in my life.
Knowlton is a disaster.
It's entirely rational. Our problem is that the B1G is content to wait it out a few years to expand further. Problem with that is that our athletics brand and on field fortunes could continue to erode in a declawed PAC whatever. We need to start winning games.
The B1G would probably take UW and Oregon first yeah? I dunno.
They would, although it's more likely they would pull in the four together. Taking just UW and OU is the pin that blows any PAC configuration apart, which would mean Cal and Stanford would need an immediate life raft. If they indeed would want to build a west coast cluster to anchor the USC/UCLA/UW/OU schools, it wouldn't seem to make a lot of sense to wait it out at that point IMO.
The B1G isn't in the business of handing out life rafts. It's all about the benjamins, and in spite of the bay area being #6 tv market, only a tiny percentage of that market watches Cal & Stanford football. No economic upside for Fox, I mean the B1G to add them.
The market for Cal is California, not just The Bay Area. Stanford is National (good brand but not necessarily eyes or butts in seats).
Think out of the box. The Big Ten’s 100,000+ alumni in the Bay Area will watch and attend the games even if Cal and Stanford students and alumni won’t. They are the viewer market just as they are for NYC and DC. Maryland and Rutgers had semi empty stadiums until they joined the Big Ten. Fox knows this as does the Big Ten. Supporters of the Big 12 are the ones spreading the rumors and hoping for the PAC 10’ demise. The Big Ten wanted to wait until the next round of media negotiations before adding more teams.
There is definitely upside depending on the size (or lack thereof) of the payout. If the Pac-12 blows up, the B1G have all the negotiating power they need to pull in the four schools at well below market, which seems where this is headed if the current nine teams can't hold.
There are hot rumors of B1G expanding, by taking Oregon, Washington, FSU, & Clemson. Rumor is, this week.
Rumor. So, right now, just smoke. But... a Lot of smoke...
And, what that tells me, is that ACC MAY have a HUGE issue. Because, that would mean they found a way around the GoR. And, if that's true, then it gets REAL interesting, because if I remember correctly, the ACC modeled their GoR off the Big-12's GoR's.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. This COULD get really wild, really quickly.
Overall... This is Not good for the long toothless NCAA. The only ones that benefit are the "Have's".
I have hope for basketball but I really don’t have any hope of Wilcox turning it around anytime soon.
We'll see about Wilcox after this season.
I'm encouraged that Wilcox finally made some bold changes to his staff and is openly acknowledging that this team needs to start winning games this season. Whether that will work largely rests on what we can get out of the QB position. It's a little disheartening to hear that Mendoza may get the first stab at the job or maybe (more likely) a time share. I was hoping Sam would take the job and run with it (no pun intended). We also have a pretty difficult schedule, so even a good showing may only get us 7-6.
I agree with you about our current QBs, but maybe your reference to Kline and Goff is instructive. I think had Tedford stayed, Kline may have indeed been the better choice (and with more playing time, he would have improved). But clearly Goff was the best option for Dykes/Franklin’s Bear Raid. In other words, I think a new coach knows best what personnel is best suited to his system, so you have to defer to them. (I also wonder if Sam may look to the coaches a bit like McIlwain 2.0 in terms of maybe being turnover prone? But that is pure speculation by me, based on nothing)
Watching his spring game play, it's a bit more than speculation.
Also, for context: I was disheartened when Goff got the QB job over Kline, so I'm clearly no QB sage.
Mendoza getting the nod is a disaster. A time share is a disaster.
This schedule is a bear…we will be fortunate to win 5…not saying fire Wilcox, but NEXT year is the season we bust out. But the P12 is just too solid, especially at the QB position.
Mendoza a disaster? You've never seen him play. He has a geat arm and accurate. Jackson looks like he might be turnover prone. But both are good QB's. I am a retired college coach and know a little about how to judge talent.
All of this, was triggered by, and is still in the hands of, B1G.
If B1G stands pat, PAC survives.
I'm a bit contrary on this. First, I don't believe that Cal and Stanford (who've not said a single word about any of this since UCLA/USC left the conference, if I'm correct) are stupid. They know the stakes. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Cal admin and Stanford admin haven't come to an agreement to stick together, and back channel talks with the Big 10 haven't occurred. Again, it's too easy to just say that they're stupid and they're watching and waiting.
What's crazy? I approach these situation from the perspective of a writer, and that means I wouldn't be surprised at something happening that we NEVER expected, like the SEC deciding to bring in Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford. Everyone would say that it's not a culture fit, blah blah blah, but I could see the SEC saying that they're interested in being a national conference since regions don't matter anymore. So why not take these four schools? And then eat up the ACC schools they want. In a script, that would be the unexpected move. Real life sometimes follows a script, but I wouldn't bet on it.
My first inclination is that Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, end up in the Big 10. Everyone else, the Big 12 or MW.
I just don't see any scenario with the SEC happening. In the past, winning the SEC was predicated on having an easier schedule-year padded by at least three cupcake games. They already made winning more difficult by adding Texas and Oklahoma (but added $$$). I have lived in Dixie for almost 15 years now and I just don't see any West Coast schools fitting into their world; they barely know we exist (except for Oregon)...because they are 12 Natty Lights and a half a handle of bourbon deep by the time we play.
So, the Pac-12 and the ACC blow up only to fall into the surviving Power 5 conferences? Interesting scenario.
If the SEC did grab the Bay Area and Pacific NW schools, it would truly go against type and against expectations. But, as you posit, it would also be a bold move with a lengthy reach from coast to coast, matching the B1G's reach. We'd enter an era of super-conferences, defined less by regionalism and more by media power and reach.
Why on Earth did the PAC 12 not invite San Diego State, Fresno State, San Jose State, or Bloise State to take the place of USC and UCLA when they departed?
Check out this twitter account that has these awesome graphs that show why we are (possibly were) on a totally different league than the MWC.
https://twitter.com/TJAltimore/status/1643015454355537920
The remaining PAC schools need to find a way to stay intact or somehow get a deal with the B1G or ACC.
The Clock now stands at 90 seconds to midnight—the closest to conference realignment catastrophe it has ever been!
Truly awesome graphs. Illustrates a lot of the complexity and perception distortions of the matters at hand.
They don't add serious TV revenue and they aren't close to being compatible academically. It would be better for CAL/STANFORD to go Independent for a few seasons. The USC/UCLA departure was a disaster. Staying in the Pac12 if it becomes some sort of 2nd rate conference would be a terminal mistake from which we would never recover and never survive.
We don't want to go down with that ship.
There's the math: do these programs lift the value of the media rights share to the ten legacy members? The other factor is the university presidents. I think there's some hubris from some of the other schools that these schools do not rise to reputational level of their own campuses.
And, sadly, I don't even know if the PAC 12 could convince the top half of the Mountain West to join at this point when they know the remaining PAC 12 teams will leave as soon as the right deal is offered to them. Would the MWC teams jump ship knowing the newly reconstituted PAC 12 has a half life of a couple years? There really appears to be no path forward in which the conference remains intact.
The MWC would come, even it was only on temporary basis so long as it meant the Px kept its auto playoff spot for at least the next 5 or so years.
There is no auto-playoff spot for the Pac—it's the top 6 conference champs from any conference. So—in theory—MW teams have at least as good a shot at the playoff in their current conference. Obviously the (soon-to-be) current setup biases power conferences, but who knows what the Pac will look like (or be perceived as) in a couple years.
Agreed. The Pac-12 is a slow motion train wreck.
Arrogance.
Who knows? Maybe a deal will be announced this week - for the sum of 1 million dollars.
Is this the spot where we weary Cal fans can sit around and commiserate together while some of us wait for a miracle (that's me by the way)?
I can understand the agony amongst Cal fans but I’m confident that should the PAC-12 collapse—as expected this week—the Big Ten will invite Cal and Stanford. It probably won’t be full revenue share but a lot more than anything the Big XII or ACC gets. Washington might also be in the mix. Oregon just doesn’t fit the Big Ten profile. It’s a small market, small student body, lowest academic research funding among P5 schools (they have a larger athletic budget than research lol). If the Big Ten can convince Notre Dame to join then I think Washington and Notre Dame would be added as a package. That would bring the conference to 20 schools.
"Calling Jim Knowlton, calling Jim Knowlton, please proceed to a white courtesy telephone immediately" - Where is the empty suit? Who is managing this issue for Cal, Heckle, Jeckle, or the university clown?
Ugh. Apple is as good as company there is to be involved with. But still...I'm skeptical at our subscriber draw with the LA schools gone. I'll speculate that the $20M figure that's being thrown about is the base, which would suggest that Apple would either charge a fortune for the package or we'd need a huge subscriber base to generate elevators to match the $32M Big 12 number.
Could have been a good deal a decade ago when Pac-12 Network was launched. But we're likely short on market share, money, leverage, and time now.
https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1686453666415263746?s=19
I don't know how Apple tv deal works, but I don't have Apple tv and I would be mad if I am forced to pay extra money to watch games. I pay for sports bundle on Cox to include the Pac12 network.
No one knows the details yet but I'd guess it's like their MLS package. People can order that a la carte without subscribing to Apple TV. I got MLS pass free through TMobile and don't subscribe to Apple TV's core lineup nor do I own any Apple TV equipment.
You would presumably be able to cancel the cable sports package unless you subscribe to watch another team.
So then Apple TV is not necessarily a show stopper. But a bit of a pain for folks who only know linear channel changing.
We should be calling Stanford and trying to work together for a deal to the Big 12. We do not add enough value to the Big 10. I hope I am wrong, but we are going to be waiting a long time for that invite. Big 12 has guaranteed dollars and a viable path to being a conference contender. Big 10 does not need us for anything other than someone for USC/UCLA to play and they can add Oregon/UDUB for that who add much better value.
I’m not sure Oregon adds more value than Cal. I’ve heard them described as the Tennessee of the west coast. Once they stop winning, what value do they bring?
True, I think it really hinges on what happens when Phil Knight eventually dies and whether or not that Nike money goes away. In the NIL landscape they will get players and be more competitive. They also have a better brand than Cal. Right now the best thing Cal offers is a large tv market and place for opposing teams fans to watch games for the Big 10. But the attendance revenue would be a drop in the bucket with the TV deal the Big 10 has and those games are going to be nationally televised whether Cal is playing in them or not, the Big 10 is still getting those Bay Area viewers without Cal or Stanford.
I am reminded of the ending of the movie “The Truman Show“ (spoiler alert). Truman has escaped. The worldwide viewing audience is devastated by the drama of it all. There is a universal moment of unbelievable connection, commiseration, and grief. It is profound. Then, the movie cuts to a random group of barflies, who had been riveted along with everyone else and, as the credits roll, someone says, “HMM. What else is on?“
After all of this handwringing and gnashing of teeth has concluded, I suspect that each of us, in our own way, will ask “HMM. What else is on?“
P.S. And I do not mean to make light of the emotional and monetary and time investment we have in our Bears and the Pac. I’m just trying to console myself with a “we will carry on” ethic.
The Big 12 24 expansion window cutoff is today, no?
It’s so damn frustrating how devoid of leadership cal is. Christ and Knowlton are completely absent and it’s destroying 150 years of history.
You know, I thought so too, but then Washington and Oregon haven't done anything either. Are their leaders just as bad as Cal?
There have been plenty of rumors that they’ve both applied for B1G admission.
Has Knowlton applied?
No clue. But to be honest, I have no idea if Knowlton is even aware conference realignment is taking place.
Scheer at Wildcat Authority said it could be as low as $20M/school. Swaim (who isn't necessarily reliable) suggested as much before yet blocked Scheer recently on Twitter/X/Muskland. And this is a mostly non-linear deal (per https://twitter.com/jasonscheer/status/1686099245714354177?s=19)
Whatever escalators and sweeteners get added, I don't think they'll be close enough to $32 million/school to prevent the death spiral. Kliavkoff's last stand is tomorrow. I thought Big 12 had a deadline for new 2024 teams but I can't find it now.
Rumors tonight are saying the proposed media deal is $200 million from Apple with full streaming rights. The proposal has milestones that could increase the payout if viewership reaches certain targets. If true, the PAC 8-12 future doesn’t look bright.
With respect to Calimony: I wouldn't expect too much. Remember, southern California is also represented on the BOR, and those folks may tilt a little toward UCLA.
It was a UCLA alumn that suggested it IIRC.
The pac 12 commissioner and top exec’s. Continue to do nothing. Are they brain dead? We are watching the pac 12 die and we get a response on paper saying we are trying… seriously