California should strategically position itself as a frontrunner in collegiate athletics by allocating the $10 million fund towards the prompt establishment of player salaries. This proactive step not only transcends the prevailing Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) landscape but also propels Cal's athletic program into prominence. Acknowledging the significant contributions of athletes in generating substantial revenue for the university, the implementation of player salaries is long overdue.
Can the funds be used for anything from funding NIL to paying professors? Is this a first-ever time a university had to pay another direct annual compensation for a sports decision? Sort of amazing when I step back and think about it.
If they can’t get 6 years now, I doubt they’ll be able to get it to escalate. But I’ve said before that Drake should throw out a high number to make UCLA as uncomfortable as possible to force the B1G’s hand.
The reality that our campus and alumni need to come to grips with is that the only way we can save the non-revenue sports is by dumping a bunch of investment into the revenue sports (I’m including WBB potential here) to elevate our brand long term. We also need to take advantage of the lack of East Bay professional sports teams. The opportunity is there. We just need to seize it.
It's truly disheartening to witness yet another tradition fade away in college sports, and the manner in which it unfolded only adds to the sadness. The exclusion of Oregon State and Washington State by a couple of schools in Southern California from the recent deal, despite the $10 million payout, underscores the stark reality of shifting dynamics within collegiate athletics.
The narrative surrounding the UC Regents' approval of the $10 million annual transfer from UCLA to Cal, aptly termed as "Calimony," paints a picture of the challenges faced by universities in navigating the ever-changing landscape of collegiate sports. The secretive negotiations and subsequent departure of UCLA and USC to the Big Ten in 2024 have undoubtedly reshaped the collegiate sports scene, leaving behind a void that may not easily be filled.
While the financial boost provided by Calimony offers some respite for Cal Athletics, the uncertainty surrounding the future of collegiate athletics looms large. The subsequent revisit of the subject in three years speaks volumes about the unpredictable nature of the college football world and the challenges that lie ahead for universities like Cal.
In these trying times, it's important to acknowledge the solidarity extended by our UCLA counterparts. However, it's also imperative for institutions to strategize and adapt to the evolving landscape, whether through bolstering endowments, enhancing fundraising efforts, or elevating athletic programs to increase their value in the competitive arena of collegiate sports.
As we navigate through these uncertain times, let's remain hopeful for a future where collegiate athletics thrive, traditions endure, and institutions emerge stronger than ever before.
"Or Cal could take itself seriously and really start getting its act together in terms of endowments, fundraising and getting really good at football and men’s basketball to increase their value".......that was a strong hint. Lets go Wilcox.
I saw someone tweet that this will motivate UCLA to push the BIG10 to invite Cal so they don't have to pay the Calimony... but it would seem that there is little motivation for the BIG10 to invite us. 1) They already recruit the Bay Area heavily and poach their fair share of local talent 2) We (plus stanfurd) don't drive a lot of Bay Area media viewership and traffic 3) The fact that we're "the sleeping giant" is a detriment b/c joining the BIG10 could unlock our potential to be on the level of Michigan/UNC etc, or in the very least be a great alternative and competitor to those legacy schools. Wouldn't it be better for them to keep us down and out and not a viable option than giving us a lifeline and then potentially being their biggest threat?
I hate to say it but what is the upside for the BIG10 inviting us? I'd love for us to be in the BIG10 moving forward but where's the motivation for them to make this happen?
There’s been some recent smoke about Calford being extended a B1G invite at some point, but at like a 1/4 share figure for all of eternity. It’s just theorizing, but after some of the dust settles in the ACC, I think there’s likely a number and terms that they accept us at. But it won’t be at all attractive.
Again, it’s all conjecture. But you do have to have other alternatives to create leverage and it’s unclear what would be left if the ACC implodes short of joining OSU and Wazzu in the Pac-2.
UCLA has little say and no leverage against the Big10.
Plus, I'm sure USC, Oregon and Washington would love to have us and Stanford in the Big10 if they didn't have to take a pay cut to make it happen. It's not a matter of a few schools wanting us, it's what TV execs will pay.
California should strategically position itself as a frontrunner in collegiate athletics by allocating the $10 million fund towards the prompt establishment of player salaries. This proactive step not only transcends the prevailing Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) landscape but also propels Cal's athletic program into prominence. Acknowledging the significant contributions of athletes in generating substantial revenue for the university, the implementation of player salaries is long overdue.
They might need that $10M so that they can fly to Pitt instead of taking Greyhound.
Can the funds be used for anything from funding NIL to paying professors? Is this a first-ever time a university had to pay another direct annual compensation for a sports decision? Sort of amazing when I step back and think about it.
If they use the funds to pay professors everyone should be fired. That would be signing the death warrant to revenue sports.
Not sure how 2027 will look any different unless the ACC gets blown up early.
The 3 year term seems like a simple short-term split-the-difference concession to pushing this through rather than a strategic milestone.
I think it is also recognizes the reality that the may not exist in 3 years and Cal might need even more money.
If they can’t get 6 years now, I doubt they’ll be able to get it to escalate. But I’ve said before that Drake should throw out a high number to make UCLA as uncomfortable as possible to force the B1G’s hand.
The reality that our campus and alumni need to come to grips with is that the only way we can save the non-revenue sports is by dumping a bunch of investment into the revenue sports (I’m including WBB potential here) to elevate our brand long term. We also need to take advantage of the lack of East Bay professional sports teams. The opportunity is there. We just need to seize it.
I've been pitching acquaintances on Cal games too. We can all be evangelists for the cause.
It's truly disheartening to witness yet another tradition fade away in college sports, and the manner in which it unfolded only adds to the sadness. The exclusion of Oregon State and Washington State by a couple of schools in Southern California from the recent deal, despite the $10 million payout, underscores the stark reality of shifting dynamics within collegiate athletics.
The narrative surrounding the UC Regents' approval of the $10 million annual transfer from UCLA to Cal, aptly termed as "Calimony," paints a picture of the challenges faced by universities in navigating the ever-changing landscape of collegiate sports. The secretive negotiations and subsequent departure of UCLA and USC to the Big Ten in 2024 have undoubtedly reshaped the collegiate sports scene, leaving behind a void that may not easily be filled.
While the financial boost provided by Calimony offers some respite for Cal Athletics, the uncertainty surrounding the future of collegiate athletics looms large. The subsequent revisit of the subject in three years speaks volumes about the unpredictable nature of the college football world and the challenges that lie ahead for universities like Cal.
In these trying times, it's important to acknowledge the solidarity extended by our UCLA counterparts. However, it's also imperative for institutions to strategize and adapt to the evolving landscape, whether through bolstering endowments, enhancing fundraising efforts, or elevating athletic programs to increase their value in the competitive arena of collegiate sports.
As we navigate through these uncertain times, let's remain hopeful for a future where collegiate athletics thrive, traditions endure, and institutions emerge stronger than ever before.
Warm regards,
James
wait, what solidarity is being extended?
"Or Cal could take itself seriously and really start getting its act together in terms of endowments, fundraising and getting really good at football and men’s basketball to increase their value".......that was a strong hint. Lets go Wilcox.
I saw someone tweet that this will motivate UCLA to push the BIG10 to invite Cal so they don't have to pay the Calimony... but it would seem that there is little motivation for the BIG10 to invite us. 1) They already recruit the Bay Area heavily and poach their fair share of local talent 2) We (plus stanfurd) don't drive a lot of Bay Area media viewership and traffic 3) The fact that we're "the sleeping giant" is a detriment b/c joining the BIG10 could unlock our potential to be on the level of Michigan/UNC etc, or in the very least be a great alternative and competitor to those legacy schools. Wouldn't it be better for them to keep us down and out and not a viable option than giving us a lifeline and then potentially being their biggest threat?
I hate to say it but what is the upside for the BIG10 inviting us? I'd love for us to be in the BIG10 moving forward but where's the motivation for them to make this happen?
There’s been some recent smoke about Calford being extended a B1G invite at some point, but at like a 1/4 share figure for all of eternity. It’s just theorizing, but after some of the dust settles in the ACC, I think there’s likely a number and terms that they accept us at. But it won’t be at all attractive.
I wouldn’t accept a quarter revenue share for eternity. I would accept reduced revenue for a period of time.
Again, it’s all conjecture. But you do have to have other alternatives to create leverage and it’s unclear what would be left if the ACC implodes short of joining OSU and Wazzu in the Pac-2.
I guess that would make sense. I would want at least some sort of metric we could reach to increase our share, though.
A quarter share of Big 10 is more than a full share of whatever’s left after the ACC dissolves in the near future.
UCLA has little say and no leverage against the Big10.
Plus, I'm sure USC, Oregon and Washington would love to have us and Stanford in the Big10 if they didn't have to take a pay cut to make it happen. It's not a matter of a few schools wanting us, it's what TV execs will pay.
I've written about this before, there are plenty of value props that align with a Cal/Big Ten invite: https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/cal-usc-ucla-big-ten-pac-12-realignment
But yes, acting like we're serious in the revenue sports would be the last major lift.
If the ACC doesn't crumble, what kind of exit fee would Cal have to pay to join the B1G?
If the ACC doesn't crumble Cal will be in the ACC until 2036. The Grant of Rights is pretty iron-clad.
(in full Borat voice...)VERY NICE!
Probably will be more and for longer once the ACC collapses.