Of course this pitch has been made to the BIG10, it has to have been. Either it’s being discussed and maybe we get a good surprise or the league has already said no
I wonder the same because it would make way more sense geographically to have Cal and Stanford join a western division of the Big Ten than to be the lone western teams in the ACC. It just feels like the BigTen’s position of “we want to keep it at 18 teams and not 20” is a BS negotiating ploy. What is the difference between having 18 or 20? All they really care about are the splits of media revenue
Logistically, 20 would certainly be better than 18. It really is about Fox having a fixed media payout and no one wanting to make their own shares smaller.
But if Stanford and Cal really are offering a highly reduced payout package for the initial years (which they will fund through their own donors) then that might change the calculation.
That’s why there’s so little noise about the Bay Area’s to the B12. From what I’ve been told, Furd thinks they’re better than a Texas-centric conference, and the Cal academic community may share this belief.
Stanford has one of the better athletic departments in the country and a 30 billion dollar endowment, they have a right to think they have some options.
If Stanford cuts us lose and goes their own way we are truly f’ed.
Our ONLY leverage is the bay area is one of the largest markets in the country. Stanford can bring that along with their private school money alone if they choose too.
I still don’t get this. Makes zero sense to me that Stanford/Cal would just close this door for no good reason. There are only three doors! (BigTen, Big12, ACC) Why shut out one of the only three possibilities that keeps us from relegation????
Thought about it all day. All the gloom and doom. And I've decided to come to this decision:
This is the best thing that could have happened to CAL and STANFORD.
Hear me (and my sunshine) out.
PAC12 Football was dying. It's been 20 years since USC won a BCS tittle. Only Oregon and Washington have made the playoff, and neither won a title. All the best west coast recruits (especially QBs) are heading to the SEC, ACC, and B1G. The SouthEast is the epicenter of college football and it's not even close.
The West Coast needed a reboot.
There have been a million words written about all the failures of PAC12 leadership... Larry Scott, GK, The AD's, The Presidents... and this incompetence has adversely affected Cal and Stanford the most.
Apathy in the fan bases, lack of revenue, lose of the national spotlight, programs struggling to find their footing.
We needed a reboot most of all.
Cal and Stanford to the ACC isn't just the best case scenario... it might be the rebirth both programs needed.
With Cal and Furd (and possible SMU) in the ACC, it instantly becomes the premier Academic Conference in the nation.
No one come close.
It's the best cultural fit.
We'd be proud to hang with Duke, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Georgia Tech... and they will be proud to call us their peers.
The ACC is at least tied for 2nd best pedigree in College Football.
Clemson won 2 titles in the playoff era.
Ohio St's one title came right after Florida St won it.
The Noles and The U are legendary programs in the epicenter of College Football.
And this doesn't even take into account the looming presence of Notre Dame.
We could learn a thing or two from these programs. We'd be proud to call them peers.
And when it comes to basketball, the Big12 is now the best conference, but Duke and North Carolina are still the most storied programs.
We'd be in good company.
Of course there will be a lot of work to take the travel burden off the non-revenue sports... but at least they'll exist! We'll sort it out.
Now... let's accept the DOOM SCENARIO that we get ZERO dollars in the media deal. Nothing.
Good.
Stanford has the biggest endowment in the nation and CAL has the biggest and richest alumni base in the nation.
Time to bring those alumni into the fold.
The NIL era has been eye opening. CAL ALUMNI have stepped up and we have a solid NIL program. Stanford too.
So.... let's get them to finance the entire athletic department too.
No big cheesy donors needed (cough... Phil Knight.. cough)... crowd funded like nothing we've ever seen before.
We've been embarrassed and abandoned in realignment. We're on the verge of losing MOST of our intercollegiate sports programs.
Its stings.
So let's rise from the ashes without the burden of the Pac12 and all its failures and back stabbing insecure members.
Let's be free to become the paradigms of West Coast Athletics.
This could be the moment when The University of California Alumni galvanizes and comes together and takes our national sports profile back to the 1950's when it matched our academics.
In the ACC, we'd be free of the U$C's and Oregons. Free of the baggage of the Pac12.
Who cares if we never play Washington and UC Los Angeles again. We're better than them.
We could reboot and rebrand on the national stage with schools we actually respect and align with and 10 years from we could/should be unrecognizable.
Rebrand. Reboot. Rebirth.
Go Bears.
P.S. Please excuse any typos. Bling Pig is a delicious IPA
SuperEQ: You make some interesting points and I've certainly had the same thought about both schools joining the ACC for a fresh start. Cal has managed to beat U$C exactly FOUR times in TWENTY-TWO years!!!! It took us a good twenty plus years to break the losing streak in basketball to FUCLA! I think that we have won ONE football game at Autzen and TWO at the Rose Bowl in this century! Also, let's not forget about our nine game losing streak to the 'Furd that didn't end until 2019. Let's be honest. Even if Cal is able to find the money to keep most of its athletics afloat, we have pretty much been a punching bag in football and basketball for these schools for most of this century (and much of the last one). While having a Big-10 west coast "pod" would make sense from a geographic standpoint, are we doing ourselves any favors by becoming a west coast version of Rutgers, aka, "Big-10 doormat"? I know that the Big-10 makes the most sense for many reasons, but I think that we are guaranteed at least 6-7 losses per year (maybe more) in football should we eventually be asked to join. If that happens, then no more half-measures. Cal will have to go all-in with athletics, which, by the way, doesn't mean that we have to lower academic standards. It's been said many times before but it is nevertheless true: If Michigan, Notre Dame, FUCLA, the 'Furd, etc., can win with high academic standards, then so can we.
Your projected losses are only if Cal remains status quo of our cultural attitude towards football.
At present, I am quite sure most Cal Admins would not even know how to imagine, let alone realize, Cal making a bid for playoffs, much less a national championship. The thing is, a national championship takes a concerted, sustained effort by the whole campus and alumni network. It never just happens by coincidence and never with a support network that is satisfied with middling. If we are not trying to be national champions, what is the point in even trying?
2. Everything on an ESPN network, so far better exposure than P12 Network.
The NIL collective has been making great progress and through it’s not the ideal (keeping the old Pac or playing in the B1G would be better), the ACC should provide a good showcase if we can improve the revenue sports. History has shown that Cal fans will show up if they expect a good team.
Bravo. Well said, even though I feel B!G is a better eventuality, apart from your phoenix bird rebirth scenario, with which I wholeheartedly agree, there are two things that I would like to affirm or add:
1. B!G west coast pod would be PAC 2.0 with the likelihood that nothing culturally would change for us.
2. Playing east coast schools would provide some relief from PAC-12 After Dark darkness, where we are unknown to large segments of folks in Eastern and Central times.
We need to do more than compete, we need to win or die tryin.’
A little bit off topic but was thinking today about what makes alumni write checks to their alma maters? I think most would agree it’s due to their affinity for the school and, after graduating 10,20,30+ years ago, what causes that affinity to continue? I would say continued engagement with the school and the #1 way to stay engaged is (by far ) through athletics. If you watched the Johnny Manziel documentary on Netflix you would know that his freshman year when he came out of nowhere to win the Heisman, Texas A&M received $300 million more in donations that year than their next highest year ever (and that was to the university not the athletic department). If athletics prospers, alumni are engaged and happy and willing to write checks. There are many other valid reasons to write that check (Nobel prizes, Olympian athletes, being recognized as global leader in so many areas) but I doubt any of those come close to success in football and basketball. I’m only posting this diatribe to say the our administration has historically always looked down on athletics as not being worthy of their support (maybe you could argue until just recently) and that’s a shame as we’ve likely discovered this too late.
The football culture in Texas is much different than in the Bay Area and especially among Cal alums. I don't feel aTm and Cal are comparable on multiple levels.
Of course the cultures are very different. But are you saying that the Bears being PAC champions in football (and basketball) would not have helped with raising money? Of course it would have as well as with recruiting which is where it all starts.
Absolutely it would help but not to the magnitude of historical proportions as experienced by aTm. But sure a championship would surely help (not holding my breath on said championship, however).
Agree fully! Cal and Stanford are, it seems to me, natural fits for the B1G (academically, Director Cup, non-revenue and revenue sports, fan base, sociological, and so much more). I have lived in B1G country for several decades and know the respect B1G holds for both Cal and Stanford. It was widely reported that several B1G Presidents and Chandlers voted to bring in Stanford and Cal along with Oregon and Washington but couldn't muster enough votes right now to achieve entrance. The issue, as reported at that time by scribes, was TV value revenue wasn't sufficient and several B1G membership wanted a 'cooling off period ' to settle into the recently approved schools. Honestly, I believe the B1G is the most logical and best choice for all IF the revenue issues can be reasonably resolved. I don't know exactly what the estimated TV market is for the Bay area schools but some scribes reported revenue at $30-35M (long way from the approximate $80M full membership payouts of B1G). Still, keeping fingers crossed.
Madison “Mar City” is a colder version of Berkeley, but the folks consume brats, beer and cheese curds. Great place on a football weekend. Ann Arbor is also a great college town.
Been in Madison for about 10 years now, I'll just chock up "mar" to one too many beers LOL. But agreed, Madison is a great place in the fall. It would be amazing to watch the Bears in Camp Randall
Except that the B1G and Big 12 are comfy and don't really have an incentive to add more. The ACC, on the other hand, has unhappy campers and they need to make changes to prevent blowing up like the Pac did.
Fox also had no desire to add Oregon and Washington until they did. These things can change if circumstances change (for example: if Cal and Stanford get a solid offer to join the ACC/ESPN).
Sure, agreed. But in todays realignment game, Oregon and Washington bring much more to the table right now than Cal and Stanford. It’s a different game with the networks calling the shots. With the exception of USC, the B1G ADs/Prez are all on board with CalFord, but Fox is a FIRM no…they apparently want UNC and UVA.
1. Why would Fox give a shit about how schools are dividing money among themselves? Presumably the only thing they care about are the total amount they are paying and what they are getting in return (ie, what schools are covered by the deal with the conference)
2. Why are the divisions of revenue among the schools so simplistic? Think of any other business that is a kind of partnership or joint venture like this - eg a law firm or a group of doctors. Usually the revenue split in those situations is based on a formula that measures what each member of the JV brings to the table. For instance, in a law firm, partners’ shares of net operating income are determined by a formula that looks at each partner’s originations and collections. It doesn’t seem like any conference divides TV revenue this way. Why is that? Don’t conferences want to incentive their member schools to have good years through their comp system? It’s so fundamentally American to set up a system like that, seems weird that no conference does that.
Fox doesn't give a shit about how the schools divide the money. The issue is that they have offered a fixed amount of media revenue to the conference and haven't budged on paying any more for Cal/Stanford. That would mean the other schools would have to take lower shares and they don't want to do that just to get Calford in.
BUT if Calford really are offering to effectively play for free for a certain period of time, that might change things.
except with Oregon and Washington, Fox picks up two more states. They believe that the Bay Area schools are not accretive to the bottom line. The only reason espn/acc is interested in us is a defensive position as espn are afraid of getting locked out of the west coast.
Wilner did speculate in his latest mailbag that the only thing that might move Fox to reconsider adding Cal/Stanford is if ESPN is about to get them. Locking ESPN out of all the big west coast markets could be worth something to them.
I don’t get that though. Adding Bay Area schools can only be a net positive- they wouldn’t pay less OVERALL because of these schools being added. They may pay less PER SCHOOL but that is just an allocation issue for the conference members to figure out
Fox has stated they figure to get enough of the Bay Area from USC/UCLA/B1G alums/fans, so Cal/Stanford don’t really add much.
Sadly, it’s probably true.
Figure the conversation is entirely different though if Cal wasn’t virtually irrelevant in the revenue sports the past 5 years. It’s really easy to crap on Cal right now, as we’re seeing. Just a really bad time for Cal to hit the skids, though completely predictable given the heightened academic requirements and piss poor leadership.
If we're gonna bend over like this, we should be making this offer to the BIG (Fox). At least our athletes wouldn't have to travel cross country every other week, which would cost millions and wreak havoc on our athletes'mental health. Condition the offer on getting certain payouts if we attain certain viewership levels.
I negotiate contracts for a living. Such a condition is not a big ask. If we bring Fox/ESPN value in the form of increased/better than expected revenue, why wouldn't we ask them to share some of that revenue with us? -- especially since Fox's position all along is that they don't think Cal and Furd add value. This is not like countering ESPN's $30M offer with a $50M demand. Commissioner K should be fired for that blunder alone.
Pledge Clueless Carol's, Empty Suit Jim's, and Daffy's retirement packages and buy our way into the ACC. Why should the donor's have to pay for their Right Royal Fuckups?
Exactly. Knowlton was NEVER prepared for a job as complex as the AD position at Cal. He was a horrible hire - this was his second career…you don’t hire a guy with a few years at D-III RPI Upstate in the 518 and at the service academies to head THIS Department…you hire an Assistant AD from a major university that knows how a healthy D-1 athletic program ostensibly should run.
The PAC 12 Conference made the same mistakes - hiring unqualified candidates for major jobs.
It's hard to believe that this entire mess could get much worse when, all of a sudden, it does. So the only way to partially save Cal Athletics is to join a Power Five League, play for nothing, and hope that we can be made whole when the next media contract comes up for negotiation in 7-10 years? Christ and Knowlton are going to go down in history as two of the WORST college administrators to ever set foot on a campus. I hope that the trustees and the Board of Regents hire their replacements from someplace like Michigan, Notre Dame or even FUCLA. Those places have administrators who understand the role and importance of athletics and know how to build winning programs WITH academic excellence. Those are not mutually exclusive issues, as our rivals across the bay have proven time and time again. Hell, they managed to win two Rose Bowls AND have three Heisman Trophy finalists in this century! Someday we will know why Christ and Knowlton were so clueless and absolutely incapable of guiding Cal to a better future. It is going to cost Cal MILLIONS of dollars and perhaps YEARS to dig out of this mess. During this time, donations will drop along with the level of recruits we are able to get. Parents and their kids aren't stupid. Who wants to represent a university athletic department that seems to be constantly in disarray and that probably vetoed (along with others) and ESPN lifeline TWICE! I agree with Wilcox when he said that this whole mess was so unnecessary and could have been avoided.
Hard to believe the Big Ten wouldn't take that deal. Cal and Stanford are a better fit there and the creation of the new six-pac within the Big ten makes too much sense
Dropped the daughter off Saturday for her sophomore year, going to take an A’s game in today. Figure not paying attention will result in something positive happening, and making an effort to keep busy to help from checking media sites every 15 minutes. (and hoping some rando sees the Cal shirt I’m wearing, and tells me “Did you hear the news?”) Go Bears, dammit!
Really interesting update! Hope his optimism is justified. It is possible that the "no media dollar" thing refers to some particular subset of cash (ACC made some changes in distribution recently). Or maybe it was just pure BS.
If there's a vote, it would almost certainly be "yes" because a "no" would take the form of not voting. If it is yes, then I wonder if the B1G will come sniffing. He says B1G isn't involved but that could always change when someone slaps on a price tag.
If anyone has trouble with the above link, try this one. Doesn't seem paywalled.
If it happens, the burden would likely fall on donors, UCLA handout, and hopefully some money from ESPN, who wants us there (but is also broke, so doubdtful). Relegation would just add to the debt and the regents would still pull from UCLA’s pockets to pay down the debt even if we stopped playing entirely. It sounds strange, but Cal Athletics is too big to fail. And the albatross that is the Memorial retrofit is strangely why we can’t ever close the lid on football.
And all the faculty and alumni that don't want/care about sports are going to say, see why should campus money go to athletics when it can be donor supported.
This seems like a really bad idea with the ACC on uneven footing. That conference is FSU and Clemson deciding they’ll fork over enough to get out of their grant of rights away from going the direction of the Pac 12. Cal could forfeit tv money and end up in the exact same position in a few years
But if that happens, the other conferences will also be open again and Cal can potentially negotiate with a stronger hand (if we've improved our revenue sports by then). This is about keeping a foothold in the power leagues.
And you make a salient point, sy…no matter what league or conference Cal is ticketed for in 2024, they somehow HAVE to win more games on the football field and basketball courts.
In this era of college sports, where academics are clearly secondary, being nationally relevant is absolutely essential if Cal is to change the narrative. Branding yourself as “Berkeley” instead of Cal, as they plan to do, is definitely not the answer.
Absolutely. The ACC would be a stay of execution. Cal still needs to get its shit together in the meantime.
I actually have some hope that that might happen, as this whole situation has to be lighting a fire under the asses of the major donors. If they are ponying up to cover the loss of media revenue for a few years they will want some assurances for their money, about how the department is run.
Nothing will occur regarding team departures in the ACC until at least 2025/26 school years as the August 16th deadline for notice has come and gone. It was reported by FSU to depart now under the current ACC 'rights' contract which expires in 2036 would cost FSU approximately $120M. If/when teams leave ACC it would still be very expensive in 2025/26 school year. However, there are powerful boosters at FSU, Miami, Clemson, North Carolina, Virginia, and/or Georgia Tech that might be willing to cover the withdrawal costs in 2025. Depending upon an offer from SEC or B1G, reasonable recovery might be expected in 2 to 5 years at full share rate (longer if partial). The B1G is interested in being a national conference whereas the SEC desires a more regional approach. If some ACC schools decide to leave, it will be interesting to see which school decides on which conference as the aforementioned schools have shown interest in one or both conferences and, it has been reportedly, vetted by both conferences.
This one is perplexing to me. Isn't money the reason it's important to get into one of the power conferences? What's the point of getting in without the money?
Because falling out of the power conferences means you are screwed for a much longer period of time. Taking a hit for a few years would be worth it if you can stay in the game.
$0 for five years and then $30m for five more is a $15m average. We go to the MWC and we get $4-8m per year. We merge with the AAC and get maybe $8-10m.
Stanford’s Athletics budget is around $134 million annually you could probably tack on another $10 million a year moving to the ACC when factoring in travel.
I just don’t see how either Stanford or Cal can be competitive with the travel they’d have undergo. The basketball teams would have to go out on two 14 day east coast trip to mitigate the costs, kinda like Hawaii does. Then you’re operating in a completely different time zone. Then you’re stuck in that conference until at least 2036. I get it, there’s only bad options but there’s had to be a better bad option than that.
It is surprising to me that the B1G seems unwilling to meet whatever the ACC can pay. But I guess these are different media contracts and companies we're dealing with here.
Cal & Stanford should be making this pitch to the Big 10, not the ACC.
Of course this pitch has been made to the BIG10, it has to have been. Either it’s being discussed and maybe we get a good surprise or the league has already said no
they should be making it to everyone, and continuing to try to move the P18 forward. The worst thing to do is put all effort and hope into one option.
I kind of wonder if they are, and the ACC thing is a bit of a feint.
I wonder the same because it would make way more sense geographically to have Cal and Stanford join a western division of the Big Ten than to be the lone western teams in the ACC. It just feels like the BigTen’s position of “we want to keep it at 18 teams and not 20” is a BS negotiating ploy. What is the difference between having 18 or 20? All they really care about are the splits of media revenue
Logistically, 20 would certainly be better than 18. It really is about Fox having a fixed media payout and no one wanting to make their own shares smaller.
But if Stanford and Cal really are offering a highly reduced payout package for the initial years (which they will fund through their own donors) then that might change the calculation.
Or the Big 12
We’ll see, but Stanford is pulling their elitist card and is reportedly a hard NO to join the Big 12, so that’s unlikely to happen.
Good ol Ford, thinking they're better than any one else. I know, Il have a grandson on their track team.
That’s why there’s so little noise about the Bay Area’s to the B12. From what I’ve been told, Furd thinks they’re better than a Texas-centric conference, and the Cal academic community may share this belief.
Stanford has one of the better athletic departments in the country and a 30 billion dollar endowment, they have a right to think they have some options.
Cal on the other hand…
They don't have THE AXE!!
’Furd may think they have options, though with what we know of this latest bit of realignment, they may not.
...may?
That’s fair.
Seems that it's more like Furd is a hard no on the B12, and Cal's best chance is to keep themselves tied to Furd.
If Stanford cuts us lose and goes their own way we are truly f’ed.
Our ONLY leverage is the bay area is one of the largest markets in the country. Stanford can bring that along with their private school money alone if they choose too.
And whether that pays dividends remains to be seen.
Good ol "furd". Thinking they are better than any one else .
I still don’t get this. Makes zero sense to me that Stanford/Cal would just close this door for no good reason. There are only three doors! (BigTen, Big12, ACC) Why shut out one of the only three possibilities that keeps us from relegation????
That's because we're thinking practically, while Cal pays top leaders to think abstractly. 🤓
Read this article this morning.
Thought about it all day. All the gloom and doom. And I've decided to come to this decision:
This is the best thing that could have happened to CAL and STANFORD.
Hear me (and my sunshine) out.
PAC12 Football was dying. It's been 20 years since USC won a BCS tittle. Only Oregon and Washington have made the playoff, and neither won a title. All the best west coast recruits (especially QBs) are heading to the SEC, ACC, and B1G. The SouthEast is the epicenter of college football and it's not even close.
The West Coast needed a reboot.
There have been a million words written about all the failures of PAC12 leadership... Larry Scott, GK, The AD's, The Presidents... and this incompetence has adversely affected Cal and Stanford the most.
Apathy in the fan bases, lack of revenue, lose of the national spotlight, programs struggling to find their footing.
We needed a reboot most of all.
Cal and Stanford to the ACC isn't just the best case scenario... it might be the rebirth both programs needed.
With Cal and Furd (and possible SMU) in the ACC, it instantly becomes the premier Academic Conference in the nation.
No one come close.
It's the best cultural fit.
We'd be proud to hang with Duke, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Georgia Tech... and they will be proud to call us their peers.
The ACC is at least tied for 2nd best pedigree in College Football.
Clemson won 2 titles in the playoff era.
Ohio St's one title came right after Florida St won it.
The Noles and The U are legendary programs in the epicenter of College Football.
And this doesn't even take into account the looming presence of Notre Dame.
We could learn a thing or two from these programs. We'd be proud to call them peers.
And when it comes to basketball, the Big12 is now the best conference, but Duke and North Carolina are still the most storied programs.
We'd be in good company.
Of course there will be a lot of work to take the travel burden off the non-revenue sports... but at least they'll exist! We'll sort it out.
Now... let's accept the DOOM SCENARIO that we get ZERO dollars in the media deal. Nothing.
Good.
Stanford has the biggest endowment in the nation and CAL has the biggest and richest alumni base in the nation.
Time to bring those alumni into the fold.
The NIL era has been eye opening. CAL ALUMNI have stepped up and we have a solid NIL program. Stanford too.
So.... let's get them to finance the entire athletic department too.
No big cheesy donors needed (cough... Phil Knight.. cough)... crowd funded like nothing we've ever seen before.
We've been embarrassed and abandoned in realignment. We're on the verge of losing MOST of our intercollegiate sports programs.
Its stings.
So let's rise from the ashes without the burden of the Pac12 and all its failures and back stabbing insecure members.
Let's be free to become the paradigms of West Coast Athletics.
This could be the moment when The University of California Alumni galvanizes and comes together and takes our national sports profile back to the 1950's when it matched our academics.
In the ACC, we'd be free of the U$C's and Oregons. Free of the baggage of the Pac12.
Who cares if we never play Washington and UC Los Angeles again. We're better than them.
We could reboot and rebrand on the national stage with schools we actually respect and align with and 10 years from we could/should be unrecognizable.
Rebrand. Reboot. Rebirth.
Go Bears.
P.S. Please excuse any typos. Bling Pig is a delicious IPA
SuperEQ: You make some interesting points and I've certainly had the same thought about both schools joining the ACC for a fresh start. Cal has managed to beat U$C exactly FOUR times in TWENTY-TWO years!!!! It took us a good twenty plus years to break the losing streak in basketball to FUCLA! I think that we have won ONE football game at Autzen and TWO at the Rose Bowl in this century! Also, let's not forget about our nine game losing streak to the 'Furd that didn't end until 2019. Let's be honest. Even if Cal is able to find the money to keep most of its athletics afloat, we have pretty much been a punching bag in football and basketball for these schools for most of this century (and much of the last one). While having a Big-10 west coast "pod" would make sense from a geographic standpoint, are we doing ourselves any favors by becoming a west coast version of Rutgers, aka, "Big-10 doormat"? I know that the Big-10 makes the most sense for many reasons, but I think that we are guaranteed at least 6-7 losses per year (maybe more) in football should we eventually be asked to join. If that happens, then no more half-measures. Cal will have to go all-in with athletics, which, by the way, doesn't mean that we have to lower academic standards. It's been said many times before but it is nevertheless true: If Michigan, Notre Dame, FUCLA, the 'Furd, etc., can win with high academic standards, then so can we.
Awesome points, GoldenBear88.
Your projected losses are only if Cal remains status quo of our cultural attitude towards football.
At present, I am quite sure most Cal Admins would not even know how to imagine, let alone realize, Cal making a bid for playoffs, much less a national championship. The thing is, a national championship takes a concerted, sustained effort by the whole campus and alumni network. It never just happens by coincidence and never with a support network that is satisfied with middling. If we are not trying to be national champions, what is the point in even trying?
So, yes, indeed. we need a reboot.
"This town (university) needs an enema."
- Joker
Agree. 100%. We need a do over.
Let’s leave the Pac12 mediocrity behind and go national into the number one academic conference, and play real football in the southeast
Some more positives to this:
1. Better bowl tie-ins.
2. Everything on an ESPN network, so far better exposure than P12 Network.
The NIL collective has been making great progress and through it’s not the ideal (keeping the old Pac or playing in the B1G would be better), the ACC should provide a good showcase if we can improve the revenue sports. History has shown that Cal fans will show up if they expect a good team.
All true
Bravo. Well said, even though I feel B!G is a better eventuality, apart from your phoenix bird rebirth scenario, with which I wholeheartedly agree, there are two things that I would like to affirm or add:
1. B!G west coast pod would be PAC 2.0 with the likelihood that nothing culturally would change for us.
2. Playing east coast schools would provide some relief from PAC-12 After Dark darkness, where we are unknown to large segments of folks in Eastern and Central times.
We need to do more than compete, we need to win or die tryin.’
Go Bears!
Agree. But let's let all the cowards and disloyal Pac12 members go their separate ways for awhile.
Let's focus on us for 5 years.
And our 7pm kickoffs will be of interest on the east coast and get national coverage.
(Like this years Auburn Game)
A little bit off topic but was thinking today about what makes alumni write checks to their alma maters? I think most would agree it’s due to their affinity for the school and, after graduating 10,20,30+ years ago, what causes that affinity to continue? I would say continued engagement with the school and the #1 way to stay engaged is (by far ) through athletics. If you watched the Johnny Manziel documentary on Netflix you would know that his freshman year when he came out of nowhere to win the Heisman, Texas A&M received $300 million more in donations that year than their next highest year ever (and that was to the university not the athletic department). If athletics prospers, alumni are engaged and happy and willing to write checks. There are many other valid reasons to write that check (Nobel prizes, Olympian athletes, being recognized as global leader in so many areas) but I doubt any of those come close to success in football and basketball. I’m only posting this diatribe to say the our administration has historically always looked down on athletics as not being worthy of their support (maybe you could argue until just recently) and that’s a shame as we’ve likely discovered this too late.
The football culture in Texas is much different than in the Bay Area and especially among Cal alums. I don't feel aTm and Cal are comparable on multiple levels.
Of course the cultures are very different. But are you saying that the Bears being PAC champions in football (and basketball) would not have helped with raising money? Of course it would have as well as with recruiting which is where it all starts.
Absolutely it would help but not to the magnitude of historical proportions as experienced by aTm. But sure a championship would surely help (not holding my breath on said championship, however).
Amen
BINGO!
Exactly - a much better fit.
You could have the Big Ten Western division with 6 teams Vs joining the ACC and having only 2 teams on the opposite coast.
Agree fully! Cal and Stanford are, it seems to me, natural fits for the B1G (academically, Director Cup, non-revenue and revenue sports, fan base, sociological, and so much more). I have lived in B1G country for several decades and know the respect B1G holds for both Cal and Stanford. It was widely reported that several B1G Presidents and Chandlers voted to bring in Stanford and Cal along with Oregon and Washington but couldn't muster enough votes right now to achieve entrance. The issue, as reported at that time by scribes, was TV value revenue wasn't sufficient and several B1G membership wanted a 'cooling off period ' to settle into the recently approved schools. Honestly, I believe the B1G is the most logical and best choice for all IF the revenue issues can be reasonably resolved. I don't know exactly what the estimated TV market is for the Bay area schools but some scribes reported revenue at $30-35M (long way from the approximate $80M full membership payouts of B1G). Still, keeping fingers crossed.
I just want the B1G to happen so I can go to the games in Madison
I'm looking forward to Madison and the Big House.
I’m pretty sure The Big House is Michigan Stadium.
Yes it is.
Oops, my fault. I needed to read your sentence more carefully. Yes, I love those two schools. They are what Cal could be.
Madison “Mar City” is a colder version of Berkeley, but the folks consume brats, beer and cheese curds. Great place on a football weekend. Ann Arbor is also a great college town.
Sorry meant to type Mad City.
Been in Madison for about 10 years now, I'll just chock up "mar" to one too many beers LOL. But agreed, Madison is a great place in the fall. It would be amazing to watch the Bears in Camp Randall
Except that the B1G and Big 12 are comfy and don't really have an incentive to add more. The ACC, on the other hand, has unhappy campers and they need to make changes to prevent blowing up like the Pac did.
Agreed. Fox has NO desire to add Cal. And when the B1G is ready to add more, Cal and Stanford are not even #’s 1 and 2 on their list…
It’s ACC or bust.
Fox also had no desire to add Oregon and Washington until they did. These things can change if circumstances change (for example: if Cal and Stanford get a solid offer to join the ACC/ESPN).
Sure, agreed. But in todays realignment game, Oregon and Washington bring much more to the table right now than Cal and Stanford. It’s a different game with the networks calling the shots. With the exception of USC, the B1G ADs/Prez are all on board with CalFord, but Fox is a FIRM no…they apparently want UNC and UVA.
Two things I don’t get about all this:
1. Why would Fox give a shit about how schools are dividing money among themselves? Presumably the only thing they care about are the total amount they are paying and what they are getting in return (ie, what schools are covered by the deal with the conference)
2. Why are the divisions of revenue among the schools so simplistic? Think of any other business that is a kind of partnership or joint venture like this - eg a law firm or a group of doctors. Usually the revenue split in those situations is based on a formula that measures what each member of the JV brings to the table. For instance, in a law firm, partners’ shares of net operating income are determined by a formula that looks at each partner’s originations and collections. It doesn’t seem like any conference divides TV revenue this way. Why is that? Don’t conferences want to incentive their member schools to have good years through their comp system? It’s so fundamentally American to set up a system like that, seems weird that no conference does that.
I wish life was like this, I would be the wealthiest person in my group!
Fox doesn't give a shit about how the schools divide the money. The issue is that they have offered a fixed amount of media revenue to the conference and haven't budged on paying any more for Cal/Stanford. That would mean the other schools would have to take lower shares and they don't want to do that just to get Calford in.
BUT if Calford really are offering to effectively play for free for a certain period of time, that might change things.
except with Oregon and Washington, Fox picks up two more states. They believe that the Bay Area schools are not accretive to the bottom line. The only reason espn/acc is interested in us is a defensive position as espn are afraid of getting locked out of the west coast.
Wilner did speculate in his latest mailbag that the only thing that might move Fox to reconsider adding Cal/Stanford is if ESPN is about to get them. Locking ESPN out of all the big west coast markets could be worth something to them.
I don’t get that though. Adding Bay Area schools can only be a net positive- they wouldn’t pay less OVERALL because of these schools being added. They may pay less PER SCHOOL but that is just an allocation issue for the conference members to figure out
The other schools will never take less to add two more schools.
Fox has stated they figure to get enough of the Bay Area from USC/UCLA/B1G alums/fans, so Cal/Stanford don’t really add much.
Sadly, it’s probably true.
Figure the conversation is entirely different though if Cal wasn’t virtually irrelevant in the revenue sports the past 5 years. It’s really easy to crap on Cal right now, as we’re seeing. Just a really bad time for Cal to hit the skids, though completely predictable given the heightened academic requirements and piss poor leadership.
If we're gonna bend over like this, we should be making this offer to the BIG (Fox). At least our athletes wouldn't have to travel cross country every other week, which would cost millions and wreak havoc on our athletes'mental health. Condition the offer on getting certain payouts if we attain certain viewership levels.
No time for conditions. The time for negotiating was before the Pac-9 disintegrated. This is “save our ass” time.
I negotiate contracts for a living. Such a condition is not a big ask. If we bring Fox/ESPN value in the form of increased/better than expected revenue, why wouldn't we ask them to share some of that revenue with us? -- especially since Fox's position all along is that they don't think Cal and Furd add value. This is not like countering ESPN's $30M offer with a $50M demand. Commissioner K should be fired for that blunder alone.
Pledge Clueless Carol's, Empty Suit Jim's, and Daffy's retirement packages and buy our way into the ACC. Why should the donor's have to pay for their Right Royal Fuckups?
IMO, Carol gets it.......NOW.
JK has been over-his-head since before he was hired.
Exactly. Knowlton was NEVER prepared for a job as complex as the AD position at Cal. He was a horrible hire - this was his second career…you don’t hire a guy with a few years at D-III RPI Upstate in the 518 and at the service academies to head THIS Department…you hire an Assistant AD from a major university that knows how a healthy D-1 athletic program ostensibly should run.
The PAC 12 Conference made the same mistakes - hiring unqualified candidates for major jobs.
What about the large porch? She finally going to prioritize the two big rockers?
It's hard to believe that this entire mess could get much worse when, all of a sudden, it does. So the only way to partially save Cal Athletics is to join a Power Five League, play for nothing, and hope that we can be made whole when the next media contract comes up for negotiation in 7-10 years? Christ and Knowlton are going to go down in history as two of the WORST college administrators to ever set foot on a campus. I hope that the trustees and the Board of Regents hire their replacements from someplace like Michigan, Notre Dame or even FUCLA. Those places have administrators who understand the role and importance of athletics and know how to build winning programs WITH academic excellence. Those are not mutually exclusive issues, as our rivals across the bay have proven time and time again. Hell, they managed to win two Rose Bowls AND have three Heisman Trophy finalists in this century! Someday we will know why Christ and Knowlton were so clueless and absolutely incapable of guiding Cal to a better future. It is going to cost Cal MILLIONS of dollars and perhaps YEARS to dig out of this mess. During this time, donations will drop along with the level of recruits we are able to get. Parents and their kids aren't stupid. Who wants to represent a university athletic department that seems to be constantly in disarray and that probably vetoed (along with others) and ESPN lifeline TWICE! I agree with Wilcox when he said that this whole mess was so unnecessary and could have been avoided.
Amen.
Hard to believe the Big Ten wouldn't take that deal. Cal and Stanford are a better fit there and the creation of the new six-pac within the Big ten makes too much sense
Logic and pragmatism are not things FOX values it seems.
Dropped the daughter off Saturday for her sophomore year, going to take an A’s game in today. Figure not paying attention will result in something positive happening, and making an effort to keep busy to help from checking media sites every 15 minutes. (and hoping some rando sees the Cal shirt I’m wearing, and tells me “Did you hear the news?”) Go Bears, dammit!
Go rando, bring us some news!
And, yes!
GO BEARS 🐻!!!
BG at BI has posted that Stanford's "no media rights" offer is "patently false". He asserts Tuesday "may" be the vote by the ACC.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/116011/next
Really interesting update! Hope his optimism is justified. It is possible that the "no media dollar" thing refers to some particular subset of cash (ACC made some changes in distribution recently). Or maybe it was just pure BS.
If there's a vote, it would almost certainly be "yes" because a "no" would take the form of not voting. If it is yes, then I wonder if the B1G will come sniffing. He says B1G isn't involved but that could always change when someone slaps on a price tag.
If anyone has trouble with the above link, try this one. Doesn't seem paywalled.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/116011
Lived in both Berkeley and Madison and enjoyed them both, although Madison was more fun on a football Saturday
Call cannot afford to do this. We’re already a welfare school saddled with debt while relying on kickbacks from UCLA’s departure.
If it happens, the burden would likely fall on donors, UCLA handout, and hopefully some money from ESPN, who wants us there (but is also broke, so doubdtful). Relegation would just add to the debt and the regents would still pull from UCLA’s pockets to pay down the debt even if we stopped playing entirely. It sounds strange, but Cal Athletics is too big to fail. And the albatross that is the Memorial retrofit is strangely why we can’t ever close the lid on football.
And all the faculty and alumni that don't want/care about sports are going to say, see why should campus money go to athletics when it can be donor supported.
This seems like a really bad idea with the ACC on uneven footing. That conference is FSU and Clemson deciding they’ll fork over enough to get out of their grant of rights away from going the direction of the Pac 12. Cal could forfeit tv money and end up in the exact same position in a few years
But if that happens, the other conferences will also be open again and Cal can potentially negotiate with a stronger hand (if we've improved our revenue sports by then). This is about keeping a foothold in the power leagues.
And you make a salient point, sy…no matter what league or conference Cal is ticketed for in 2024, they somehow HAVE to win more games on the football field and basketball courts.
In this era of college sports, where academics are clearly secondary, being nationally relevant is absolutely essential if Cal is to change the narrative. Branding yourself as “Berkeley” instead of Cal, as they plan to do, is definitely not the answer.
Absolutely. The ACC would be a stay of execution. Cal still needs to get its shit together in the meantime.
I actually have some hope that that might happen, as this whole situation has to be lighting a fire under the asses of the major donors. If they are ponying up to cover the loss of media revenue for a few years they will want some assurances for their money, about how the department is run.
Nothing will occur regarding team departures in the ACC until at least 2025/26 school years as the August 16th deadline for notice has come and gone. It was reported by FSU to depart now under the current ACC 'rights' contract which expires in 2036 would cost FSU approximately $120M. If/when teams leave ACC it would still be very expensive in 2025/26 school year. However, there are powerful boosters at FSU, Miami, Clemson, North Carolina, Virginia, and/or Georgia Tech that might be willing to cover the withdrawal costs in 2025. Depending upon an offer from SEC or B1G, reasonable recovery might be expected in 2 to 5 years at full share rate (longer if partial). The B1G is interested in being a national conference whereas the SEC desires a more regional approach. If some ACC schools decide to leave, it will be interesting to see which school decides on which conference as the aforementioned schools have shown interest in one or both conferences and, it has been reportedly, vetted by both conferences.
Yeah, I don’t care for the long term, lowball contract.
This one is perplexing to me. Isn't money the reason it's important to get into one of the power conferences? What's the point of getting in without the money?
Because falling out of the power conferences means you are screwed for a much longer period of time. Taking a hit for a few years would be worth it if you can stay in the game.
Recruiting and donations.
Because once you lose your position in the league with the big boys, it's hard to get it back and will take an even bigger financial hit.
$0 for five years and then $30m for five more is a $15m average. We go to the MWC and we get $4-8m per year. We merge with the AAC and get maybe $8-10m.
Because the no money won’t last forever.
Good point. It's ironic that Cal and Stanford might even be in a pay to play situation as the negotiating position gets weaker and weaker.
Stanford’s Athletics budget is around $134 million annually you could probably tack on another $10 million a year moving to the ACC when factoring in travel.
I just don’t see how either Stanford or Cal can be competitive with the travel they’d have undergo. The basketball teams would have to go out on two 14 day east coast trip to mitigate the costs, kinda like Hawaii does. Then you’re operating in a completely different time zone. Then you’re stuck in that conference until at least 2036. I get it, there’s only bad options but there’s had to be a better bad option than that.
Additional BI input, seems B!G is off of the table. Too great a chasm on the $$$'s.
It is surprising to me that the B1G seems unwilling to meet whatever the ACC can pay. But I guess these are different media contracts and companies we're dealing with here.