21 Comments

Well, I never thought this would happen, so color me surprised.

(I think there’s a typo though as payment is coming *from* fucla and not *to*..)

Expand full comment
author

Fixed, thanks for pointing out!

Expand full comment

Also, isn't FUCLA, already a part of the Big 14 or 15 or whatever.

Expand full comment
author

At the start of July. The pac-12 is dying but not dead!

Expand full comment

It is dead, as we knew it.

Expand full comment

While we could all have hoped for 6 years, let's hope that in three years Cal and Stanford will be competitive in the ACC, and that the ACC will remain intact.

Expand full comment

so how do we keep the payments coming after '27? Should we keep losing football games? Would that help?

Expand full comment
author

The original payments were based on a difference in media rights deals. If Cal is still in the ACC and UCLA is still in the B1G, those differences would remain quite substantial and could trigger future Calimony payments.

Expand full comment

Seems like we’re heading towards just 2 super conferences: the North and South. Big10 vs SEC.

Expand full comment

Whether the ACC lasts for three years is an open question. Cal better be prepared to bail out dangling from their powder blue and gold parachute, landing in more fertile grounds for harvesting TV money.

Expand full comment

Even if cal does well and big ten invites us, cal will still be stuck in the acc’s iron grip like fsu and Clemson

Expand full comment

This was my first thought as well.. Aren't we locked into the ACC Grant of Rights now?

Expand full comment

Yes, but if Cal and Stanford are among other schools that have offers in hand from other conferences there might be enough votes to disband the ACC entirely.

Expand full comment

A 3/4 majority is needed. That's a tall order to have that many teams with greener pastures to seek.

Expand full comment

Sure, I'm not predicting it will happen. Just saying that it could.

(Though a few other ACC teams could potentially get Big 12 invites and decide to make the leap if the existing conference looks like a sinking ship. Again, not predicting, just envisioning a scenario.)

Expand full comment

Unless the Big10 and SEC really extends tons of invites to become the only two major conferences, I don't see this happening. Looking up and down the ACC membership, it looks just as bad (national viewership interest) as the Pac12.

How many schools are needed to disband the ACC?

Expand full comment

Well said, Avi.

The weeping and gnashing of teeth is being heard all over the Southland.

*restrains schadenfreude

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment
May 22·edited May 22

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.

Expand full comment

“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.

Expand full comment
May 22·edited May 22

“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.

Expand full comment