I still don’t see this as a win for Cal. Sure, Cal can have as much as $30m (including Calimony) - but what happens in 3 years? What are ACC travel costs going to be? Cal was struggling financially with similar money from the Pac12 - the new situation isn’t better. A win would have been $10-15m for a minimum of 6 years
I still don’t see this as a win for Cal. Sure, Cal can have as much as $30m (including Calimony) - but what happens in 3 years? What are ACC travel costs going to be? Cal was struggling financially with similar money from the Pac12 - the new situation isn’t better. A win would have been $10-15m for a minimum of 6 years
Welp, they left it open with a three year review and reopening of discussing continued payments. That's encouraging. It also tells that the Regents (minus 1) were not pleased by FUCLA's surprise ghosting out of the PAC12.
Funny how FUCLA supporters seem to think that FUCLA's exit is sign of their great success. The real truth is that, had FUCLA, stayed in the PAC12, the PAC 12 likely still would be winnowing down. That, even with "mighty" FUCLA, the P12 would be seriously wounded and facing relegation, as, the hurtful truth we all must face, is that USC was the keystone that held our P12 in the P5. That $C cynically held out for FUCLA just to tie up a dual oligarchy on the Southern California recruiting and media market.
“Just a tag along” from a school that is literally relying on forced handouts is cognitive dissonance.
I don’t see USC & UCLA’s exit as success, but rather the failure of all the schools in keeping the conference leadership in place at the time. Had conference leadership recognized the landscape, they would have closed on a deal that would have kept the band together instead of trying to swing for the fences.
I honestly don’t think that anything other than object debasement to the networks would have saved the Pac12. The two schools with the most revenue sport success (Oregon & USC) were in a slump. UCLA hasn’t been relevant in football in 25 years. Cal hasn’t been relevant in almost 20 years (and even that was like for 2 years). There was not much bargaining power there.
Perhaps, but we’re not prone to swaggering much these days. Rather, feeling redeemed that the betrayal, by their far-reaching ambitions or “swinging for the fences” at the expense of an historic conference, was called out by the same body that governs both campuses.
And I believe the argument stands that UCLA was not the fatal actor for the PAC 12, but rather tagging along and invited for the media market, what little UCLA captures.
I completely agree with what you say about the P12 needing to debase itself for a “deal” and it almost makes me sympathetic to $C’s bailing from the P12 and bringing along UCLA. Almost.
I still don’t see this as a win for Cal. Sure, Cal can have as much as $30m (including Calimony) - but what happens in 3 years? What are ACC travel costs going to be? Cal was struggling financially with similar money from the Pac12 - the new situation isn’t better. A win would have been $10-15m for a minimum of 6 years
Welp, they left it open with a three year review and reopening of discussing continued payments. That's encouraging. It also tells that the Regents (minus 1) were not pleased by FUCLA's surprise ghosting out of the PAC12.
Funny how FUCLA supporters seem to think that FUCLA's exit is sign of their great success. The real truth is that, had FUCLA, stayed in the PAC12, the PAC 12 likely still would be winnowing down. That, even with "mighty" FUCLA, the P12 would be seriously wounded and facing relegation, as, the hurtful truth we all must face, is that USC was the keystone that held our P12 in the P5. That $C cynically held out for FUCLA just to tie up a dual oligarchy on the Southern California recruiting and media market.
That you're just a tag along little sister, UCLA.
“Just a tag along” from a school that is literally relying on forced handouts is cognitive dissonance.
I don’t see USC & UCLA’s exit as success, but rather the failure of all the schools in keeping the conference leadership in place at the time. Had conference leadership recognized the landscape, they would have closed on a deal that would have kept the band together instead of trying to swing for the fences.
I honestly don’t think that anything other than object debasement to the networks would have saved the Pac12. The two schools with the most revenue sport success (Oregon & USC) were in a slump. UCLA hasn’t been relevant in football in 25 years. Cal hasn’t been relevant in almost 20 years (and even that was like for 2 years). There was not much bargaining power there.
“Cognitive dissonance”?
Perhaps, but we’re not prone to swaggering much these days. Rather, feeling redeemed that the betrayal, by their far-reaching ambitions or “swinging for the fences” at the expense of an historic conference, was called out by the same body that governs both campuses.
And I believe the argument stands that UCLA was not the fatal actor for the PAC 12, but rather tagging along and invited for the media market, what little UCLA captures.
I completely agree with what you say about the P12 needing to debase itself for a “deal” and it almost makes me sympathetic to $C’s bailing from the P12 and bringing along UCLA. Almost.