calumnus said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

LegoBear said:

---

I wonder if this is going to end up long term killing college football as well. If this end up leading to a super league with a few teams will they eventually be able to compete with the NFL?

For instance I only care about watching SEC or B1G games because I started watching Cal football. If Cal is no longer playing with those big boys or never did I don't think I'll care anymore and will go back to just watching NFL games instead of some super league.

Maybe that's just me and the new super leagues will be able to continue to pull in big and ever growing numbers. Looks like we'll see.

---

Agree. I said much the same in my post way back when.

By eliminating the relevance of more and more colleges, TV is eating away at the national viewership that has made college football so popular on TV. That's not a good (viable) long term strategy.
Most successful businesses seek to increase their customer base not decrease that base.

But the same is true about many other recent fan-unfriendly changes brought about by TV: moving games away from Saturday, Late night or early morning games, (worst of all) non-disclosure of the starting times of games until a few days before the scheduled game day.

When we die hard fans move on to the "great stadium in the sky", there will be no more fans to take our place here on earth.

---

I think what many Cal fans forget is they are not the intended audience. The focus of the college athletics industry is the Midwest and South. They are the people who live and die every Saturday. They are the intended audience. For every Cal fan who says, "no thanks", there are a thousands in other parts of the country who say, "more, please".

A guiding principle: never base anything regarding the US as a whole on the observations of people who live in Coastal California. We are an outlier. And, quite frankly, that is why I like living here.

---

I generally agree with you, but the question becomes is the gain of south and midwest audience enough to offset the loss of coastal CA audience, particularly once you factor in typical spending of each population? I have no idea, and I don't know if anyone does. It's an interesting thing to consider though.

---

It is not just California, the SEC excludes the major centers of population and wealth in the US, most of both coasts and the Midwest. There is a reason the Confederacy lost the Civil War and that was before the massive growth of the West and Midwest.

State and % of US GPD:
Texas 8.4%
Florida 5.2%
Georgia 3.0%'
Tennessee 1.7%
Missouri 1.5%
Louisiana 1.2%
South Carolina 1.1%
Alabama 1.1%
Kentucky 1.0%
Oklahoma 0.9%
Arkansas 0.6%
Mississippi 0.5%

Together that is about 25% of US GDP

How does it make sense for ESPN to focus on the 25% to the extent it would crowd out and exclude 75%? Why would ESPN pay big bucks for the CFP if it is only going to be a rehash of the SEC season? Why watch the SEC regular season if it only determines seeding in the CFP?

---

You maybe leaving out good entertaining Football watching by none Southern fans, and transplants from the South to watch their home team play. A lot our kids here in Orange County are going to Alabama, Florida and LSU due to their sports notoriety.

calumnus said:

---

BearinOC said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearinOC said:

---

Bozodeluxe, you have been blocked so I can't read what you said but give it a rest, Boomer

---

Forum tip: If you have someone blocked, you can still read an individual post from them without unblocking them by clicking on the icon in the upper left corner of the post. In Bobodeluxe's case, it would be the diamond. I have one poster blocked but I still occasionally check posts from him when I feel it might be on topic and not trolling. I've even replied once or twice.

---

lol, thanks for that but I do not need any idiot spewing hate and nonsensical name calling due to different political views.

---

The irony and projection of many would be amusing if it wasn't so sad and dangerous for our country and our planet.

---

I'm not the one who started the name calling. All I did was expressed my opinion that Fox has changed since Murdock's children took over.

HearstMining said:

---

This link shows that TV viewers for nearly all sports are aging: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-sports-with-the-oldest-and-youngest-tv-audiences-2017-06-30

and those states in the SEC and B1G, their populations have life expectancies 3-5 years shorter than the west coast, so their older viewers will die off sooner. I just got back from a week in NE Ohio and I can testify that this is the case - the number of overweight people of all ages is shocking. They are ticking time bombs.

In short, they can realign conferences all they want, but they're fighting demographic trends - basically rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

---

Or...

They are creating their Super-SEC now precisely because of those demographic trends. They know they are in a race against the clock. They understand that their goose will stop laying golden eggs, probably before today's 20-somethings become 40-somethings.

This is their attempt to make as much money as they possibly can before the lucrative years of "big time" college football are gone forever.

What are the prospects that the UC Regents would suggest/insist/require that Cal and UCLA are a package deal for any possible poaching or realignment? I would think that last thing they want is to be obligated to pay down the stadium debt, and realistically the only viable path to repayment is if Cal remains in the top tier of teams. I can't see why they would allow Cal to slip, and tying their fate to UCLA's seems like it would the best way to prevent that.

sketchy9 said:

---

What are the prospects that the UC Regents would suggest/insist/require that Cal and UCLA are a package deal for any possible poaching or realignment? I would think that last thing they want is to be obligated to pay down the stadium debt, and realistically the only viable path to repayment is if Cal remains in the top tier of teams. I can't see why they would allow Cal to slip, and tying their fate to UCLA's seems like it would the best way to prevent that.

---

Maybe? Probably depends on the situation. If the choice is have one school get paid, or none, maybe the Regents just let it happen. If there is a larger group bailing from the p12 as block, and it's Cal vs Furd or Cal vs CU for a slot, I'd sure hope the UC administration exerts whatever it takes to get Cal included including using UCLA as a bargaining chip.

Worst case - if there is room for 4 teams to bail which would be USC, Oregon, UW, and then UCLA without any chance at 6. Then if UCLA balks, CU or ASU get consideration. Only two teams leaving would IMO still leave a viable conference, just less $$$. 6+ leaving and I can't see Cal being left behind. But 4 leaving would take all the juice out of the Pac and it would be almost impossible to get Cal included.

So many scenarios though.

If tOSU and Mich somehow go to the SEC, I think one could have a viable more academic league with the BT leftovers, and the p12 without say USC and Oregon. It's entirely possible the new SEC model will require commitment to football and paying players that just don't sit right with a lot of universities.

ColoradoBear said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

What are the prospects that the UC Regents would suggest/insist/require that Cal and UCLA are a package deal for any possible poaching or realignment? I would think that last thing they want is to be obligated to pay down the stadium debt, and realistically the only viable path to repayment is if Cal remains in the top tier of teams. I can't see why they would allow Cal to slip, and tying their fate to UCLA's seems like it would the best way to prevent that.

---

Maybe? Probably depends on the situation. If the choice is have one school get paid, or none, maybe the Regents just let it happen. If there is a larger group bailing from the p12 as block, and it's Cal vs Furd or Cal vs CU for a slot, I'd sure hope the UC administration exerts whatever it takes to get Cal included including using UCLA as a bargaining chip.

Worst case - if there is room for 4 teams to bail which would be USC, Oregon, UW, and then UCLA without any chance at 6. Then if UCLA balks, CU or ASU get consideration. Only two teams leaving would IMO still leave a viable conference, just less $$$. 6+ leaving and I can't see Cal being left behind. But 4 leaving would take all the juice out of the Pac and it would be almost impossible to get Cal included.

So many scenarios though.

If tOSU and Mich somehow go to the SEC, I think one could have a viable more academic league with the BT leftovers, and the p12 without say USC and Oregon. It's entirely possible the new SEC model will require commitment to football and paying players that just don't sit right with a lot of universities.

---

The news that Christ extended Knowlton through 2029 has me greatly depressed. I don't think our administration is effectively looking after our interests.

Now I heard today FSU and Clemson reached out to the SEC. If they end up going, I think it will be BIG10/PAC12 VS SEC. 2 super conferences. Either we take OSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwester and the likes or they take Cal, Stanford, SC, UCLA Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma State, Baylor (for texas and oklahoma market) I say we dump Colorado and Utah (lack of population density). I do not believe the Regent will split UCLA and CAL up.

I honestly do not see how BIG10 and PAC12 doesn't consolidate if FSU and Clemson goes. West market is too big to ignore by either by FOX or ESPN.

Texass lost to Cal their last 2 OOC games.
Good luck to them playing Tennessee/Florida/Georgia and finishing 5th or 6th in the conference every year.
/sarc

BearinOC said:

---

Now I heard today FSU and Clemson reached out to the SEC. If they end up going, I think it will be BIG10/PAC12 VS SEC. 2 super conferences. Either we take OSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwester and the likes or they take Cal, Stanford, SC, UCLA Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma State, Baylor (for texas and oklahoma market) I say we dump Colorado and Utah (lack of population density). I do not believe the Regent will split UCLA and CAL up.

I honestly do not see how BIG10 and PAC12 doesn't consolidate if FSU and Clemson goes. West market is too big to ignore by either by FOX or ESPN.

---

just an aside, Clemson is saying this report isn't true..so who knows. It seems like the SEC likes to do business in the dark. If the NCAA had any power they would be laying the hammer down on the SEC, but they seem completely neutered.

calumnus said:

---

It is not just California, the SEC excludes the major centers of population and wealth in the US, most of both coasts and the Midwest. There is a reason the Confederacy lost the Civil War and that was before the massive growth of the West and Midwest.

State and % of US GPD:
Texas 8.4%
Florida 5.2%
Georgia 3.0%'
Tennessee 1.7%
Missouri 1.5%
Louisiana 1.2%
South Carolina 1.1%
Alabama 1.1%
Kentucky 1.0%
Oklahoma 0.9%
Arkansas 0.6%
Mississippi 0.5%

Together that is about 25% of US GDP

How does it make sense for ESPN to focus on the 25% to the extent it would crowd out and exclude 75%? Why would ESPN pay big bucks for the CFP if it is only going to be a rehash of the SEC season? Why watch the SEC regular season if it only determines seeding in the CFP?
That 25% segment spends an awful lot more of their life, viewing and spending on the product than other regions though. Much less competition (relatively little NFL compared to the NE/rust belt, less football interest in general on the west coast, etc)

---

Plus the SEC has built something of a cartel system where historically their teams start out ranked, play each other 8 times and a weak schedule otherwise... ensuring either the SEC teams who start high, or the SEC teams who beat them (often both) are ranked very high at the end. And for a casual viewer that little ranking # certainly helps.

ESPN is certainly trying to corner the market by having controlling interests in the conferences that draw eyeballs, as well as control of the playoff. My gut feeling is that they know that if current trends continue, the growth of media rights deals will plateau and eventually begin to fall. Eventually you will probably have a semi-pro league, where only the most competitive institutions will be able to draw talent to in turn draw sufficient eyeballs to justify giant media payouts, which in turn will be needed to pay players, etc. It'll turn into a pro model with teams existing to create profit, with teams being owned in part by the original institution, ESPN, and any body that sanctions it.

I like the Big 10 / Pac 12 proposal as a way to get some consistently good OOC games, but it is nothing more than a bandaid and nothing the Big 10 wouldn't/couldn't shred the moment something better comes along.

The only real scenario where Cal looks okay is if the Big 12 just implodes and the remaining 4 leagues basically go to 16. The Pac12 is old and geography is favorable, so I have hope. Other scenarios are pretty grim for Cal. If the Pac 12 gets raided, Cal is screwed. We might have hope that SC, Stanford and UCLA would drag us along but I wouldn't bank on it. And if a mega league is formed, Cal is probably ranked somewhere in the 40s or 50s in terms of attractiveness. The current bottom line (driven by stadium debt), lukewarm attendance/TV interest, general 7-8 win mediocrity are all issues.

I really want to know what SC, UCLA and Oregon really think about all this. If there is serious interest in a west wing in the Big 10... Cal needs to find a way onto that wagon

In any case, Cal better get back to winning and maybe paying off the stadium fast) or it'll be sitting on the sidelines with a mountain of worthless stadium debt in 10 years. The current bottom line would probably doom Cal if anyone genuinely decided to raid the Pac12 today. Winning cures everything, as they say. If this was happening back in 2006, I think we'd be at least a bit more secure in what the future held

Big 12's Bob Bowlsby meeting with Pac 12's George Kliavkoff
https://theathletic.com/2749212/2021/08/03/big-12-commissioner-bob-bowlsby-to-meet-with-pac-12s-george-kliavkoff-on-tuesday-sources/

I don't have a subscription to the athletic so I can't tell you whats in it, but I'm pretty sure Bowlsby brought knee pads.

Quote:

---

The Pac12 is old and geography is favorable...

---

Sure, the footprint is large, but its all about eyeballs (aka ratings). And on a % basis, fan passion is just not the same (as in the south or midwest) so smaller ratings for P12 games. (And the P12 network sure didn't help with more eyeballs.)

I could easily see USC, Oregon and Washington bolt for 'greener' pastures, leaving UCLA behind if the Regents make taking Cal a requirement. Stanford's an interesting case: they want to be a west coast HYS equivalent with D1 athletics. Sure, they'd love more money -- who wouldn't -- but they certainly don't need it and they might not want to be associated with money grubbing. (Bad for the brand?) But hooking up with the academic BiG might be acceptable.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Big 12's Bob Bowlsby meeting with Pac 12's George Kliavkoff
https://theathletic.com/2749212/2021/08/03/big-12-commissioner-bob-bowlsby-to-meet-with-pac-12s-george-kliavkoff-on-tuesday-sources/

I don't have a subscription to the athletic so I can't tell you whats in it, but I'm pretty sure Bowlsby brought knee pads.

---

Basically, a fact-finding discussion. Both conferences have something to offer along with some drawbacks. I suspect it will be more of a "how can we partner" than a conversation about a "takeover" by either conference.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Big 12's Bob Bowlsby meeting with Pac 12's George Kliavkoff
https://theathletic.com/2749212/2021/08/03/big-12-commissioner-bob-bowlsby-to-meet-with-pac-12s-george-kliavkoff-on-tuesday-sources/

I don't have a subscription to the athletic so I can't tell you whats in it, but I'm pretty sure Bowlsby brought knee pads.

---

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/31950751/sources-commissioners-big-12-pac-12-meet-discuss-potential-strategic-partnership

Most exciting from PAC12 Commish: "We're, on purpose, not reaching out and trying to poach any schools, but my phone has blown up -- absolutely blown up over the last five days," Kliavkoff said. "And I've got lots and lots of calls from probably every school you would imagine and probably a few you'd be surprised by..."

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

What are the prospects that the UC Regents would suggest/insist/require that Cal and UCLA are a package deal for any possible poaching or realignment? I would think that last thing they want is to be obligated to pay down the stadium debt, and realistically the only viable path to repayment is if Cal remains in the top tier of teams. I can't see why they would allow Cal to slip, and tying their fate to UCLA's seems like it would the best way to prevent that.

---

Maybe? Probably depends on the situation. If the choice is have one school get paid, or none, maybe the Regents just let it happen. If there is a larger group bailing from the p12 as block, and it's Cal vs Furd or Cal vs CU for a slot, I'd sure hope the UC administration exerts whatever it takes to get Cal included including using UCLA as a bargaining chip.

Worst case - if there is room for 4 teams to bail which would be USC, Oregon, UW, and then UCLA without any chance at 6. Then if UCLA balks, CU or ASU get consideration. Only two teams leaving would IMO still leave a viable conference, just less $$$. 6+ leaving and I can't see Cal being left behind. But 4 leaving would take all the juice out of the Pac and it would be almost impossible to get Cal included.

So many scenarios though.

If tOSU and Mich somehow go to the SEC, I think one could have a viable more academic league with the BT leftovers, and the p12 without say USC and Oregon. It's entirely possible the new SEC model will require commitment to football and paying players that just don't sit right with a lot of universities.

---

The news that Christ extended Knowlton through 2029 has me greatly depressed. I don't think our administration is effectively looking after our interests.

---

In the context of this thread, Knowlton is the most aggressive (other than maybe USC AD Bohn) in trying to move the Pac towards improving its position relative to the other P5 conferences. In terms of the direction of the Pac, expect some news about Knowlton and Bohn soon. You probably need to revisit your views on Knowlton after the football season. He is all in on football currently, and you can see if that works out both from an on the field performance side and a money side. It is interesting to see such a different takes on this board versus the Insider board re: Knowlton.

---

All I ever read from the "insiders" is how terrific things are going to be, that all will be revealed soon, that if things work out regarding on field performance, etc. etc., etc., etc.

With all due respect, it is a load of **** that you are being fed. I know because I was there once upon a time. The fact of the matter is that the program stalled out years ago and the current administration has done nothing to improve the situation.

Cal's athletic leadership is all about hot air and puffery. The fan base has been given nothing but promises. It deserves better.

---

You get what you:
1. Deserve?
2. Expect?
3. Work for?
4. Tolerate?

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

What are the prospects that the UC Regents would suggest/insist/require that Cal and UCLA are a package deal for any possible poaching or realignment? I would think that last thing they want is to be obligated to pay down the stadium debt, and realistically the only viable path to repayment is if Cal remains in the top tier of teams. I can't see why they would allow Cal to slip, and tying their fate to UCLA's seems like it would the best way to prevent that.

---

Maybe? Probably depends on the situation. If the choice is have one school get paid, or none, maybe the Regents just let it happen. If there is a larger group bailing from the p12 as block, and it's Cal vs Furd or Cal vs CU for a slot, I'd sure hope the UC administration exerts whatever it takes to get Cal included including using UCLA as a bargaining chip.

Worst case - if there is room for 4 teams to bail which would be USC, Oregon, UW, and then UCLA without any chance at 6. Then if UCLA balks, CU or ASU get consideration. Only two teams leaving would IMO still leave a viable conference, just less $$$. 6+ leaving and I can't see Cal being left behind. But 4 leaving would take all the juice out of the Pac and it would be almost impossible to get Cal included.

So many scenarios though.

If tOSU and Mich somehow go to the SEC, I think one could have a viable more academic league with the BT leftovers, and the p12 without say USC and Oregon. It's entirely possible the new SEC model will require commitment to football and paying players that just don't sit right with a lot of universities.

---

The news that Christ extended Knowlton through 2029 has me greatly depressed. I don't think our administration is effectively looking after our interests.

---

In the context of this thread, Knowlton is the most aggressive (other than maybe USC AD Bohn) in trying to move the Pac towards improving its position relative to the other P5 conferences. In terms of the direction of the Pac, expect some news about Knowlton and Bohn soon. You probably need to revisit your views on Knowlton after the football season. He is all in on football currently, and you can see if that works out both from an on the field performance side and a money side. It is interesting to see such a different takes on this board versus the Insider board re: Knowlton.

---

All I ever read from the "insiders" is how terrific things are going to be, that all will be revealed soon, that if things work out regarding on field performance, etc. etc., etc., etc.

With all due respect, it is a load of **** that you are being fed. I know because I was there once upon a time. The fact of the matter is that the program stalled out years ago and the current administration has done nothing to improve the situation.

Cal's athletic leadership is all about hot air and puffery. The fan base has been given nothing but promises. It deserves better.

---

You get what you:
1. Deserve?
2. Expect?
3. Work for?
4. Tolerate?

---

Pay for

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

What are the prospects that the UC Regents would suggest/insist/require that Cal and UCLA are a package deal for any possible poaching or realignment? I would think that last thing they want is to be obligated to pay down the stadium debt, and realistically the only viable path to repayment is if Cal remains in the top tier of teams. I can't see why they would allow Cal to slip, and tying their fate to UCLA's seems like it would the best way to prevent that.

---

Maybe? Probably depends on the situation. If the choice is have one school get paid, or none, maybe the Regents just let it happen. If there is a larger group bailing from the p12 as block, and it's Cal vs Furd or Cal vs CU for a slot, I'd sure hope the UC administration exerts whatever it takes to get Cal included including using UCLA as a bargaining chip.

Worst case - if there is room for 4 teams to bail which would be USC, Oregon, UW, and then UCLA without any chance at 6. Then if UCLA balks, CU or ASU get consideration. Only two teams leaving would IMO still leave a viable conference, just less $$$. 6+ leaving and I can't see Cal being left behind. But 4 leaving would take all the juice out of the Pac and it would be almost impossible to get Cal included.

So many scenarios though.

If tOSU and Mich somehow go to the SEC, I think one could have a viable more academic league with the BT leftovers, and the p12 without say USC and Oregon. It's entirely possible the new SEC model will require commitment to football and paying players that just don't sit right with a lot of universities.

---

The news that Christ extended Knowlton through 2029 has me greatly depressed. I don't think our administration is effectively looking after our interests.

---

In the context of this thread, Knowlton is the most aggressive (other than maybe USC AD Bohn) in trying to move the Pac towards improving its position relative to the other P5 conferences. In terms of the direction of the Pac, expect some news about Knowlton and Bohn soon. You probably need to revisit your views on Knowlton after the football season. He is all in on football currently, and you can see if that works out both from an on the field performance side and a money side. It is interesting to see such a different takes on this board versus the Insider board re: Knowlton.

---

All I ever read from the "insiders" is how terrific things are going to be, that all will be revealed soon, that if things work out regarding on field performance, etc. etc., etc., etc.

With all due respect, it is a load of **** that you are being fed. I know because I was there once upon a time. The fact of the matter is that the program stalled out years ago and the current administration has done nothing to improve the situation.

Cal's athletic leadership is all about hot air and puffery. The fan base has been given nothing but promises. It deserves better.

---

You get what you:
1. Deserve?
2. Expect?
3. Work for?
4. Tolerate?

---

Pay for

---

Except you can overpay. Spending money doesn't always get you there. We spent $500 million on a stadium renovation and have yet to have a winning conference record ever since. Mark Fox makes $1.7 million per year. We went 3-15 in conference last year. I don't know how much Knowlton paid the search firm that served him up, but whatever it was it was too much. You have to be smart with your money too.

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

What are the prospects that the UC Regents would suggest/insist/require that Cal and UCLA are a package deal for any possible poaching or realignment? I would think that last thing they want is to be obligated to pay down the stadium debt, and realistically the only viable path to repayment is if Cal remains in the top tier of teams. I can't see why they would allow Cal to slip, and tying their fate to UCLA's seems like it would the best way to prevent that.

---

Maybe? Probably depends on the situation. If the choice is have one school get paid, or none, maybe the Regents just let it happen. If there is a larger group bailing from the p12 as block, and it's Cal vs Furd or Cal vs CU for a slot, I'd sure hope the UC administration exerts whatever it takes to get Cal included including using UCLA as a bargaining chip.

Worst case - if there is room for 4 teams to bail which would be USC, Oregon, UW, and then UCLA without any chance at 6. Then if UCLA balks, CU or ASU get consideration. Only two teams leaving would IMO still leave a viable conference, just less $$$. 6+ leaving and I can't see Cal being left behind. But 4 leaving would take all the juice out of the Pac and it would be almost impossible to get Cal included.

So many scenarios though.

If tOSU and Mich somehow go to the SEC, I think one could have a viable more academic league with the BT leftovers, and the p12 without say USC and Oregon. It's entirely possible the new SEC model will require commitment to football and paying players that just don't sit right with a lot of universities.

---

The news that Christ extended Knowlton through 2029 has me greatly depressed. I don't think our administration is effectively looking after our interests.

---

In the context of this thread, Knowlton is the most aggressive (other than maybe USC AD Bohn) in trying to move the Pac towards improving its position relative to the other P5 conferences. In terms of the direction of the Pac, expect some news about Knowlton and Bohn soon. You probably need to revisit your views on Knowlton after the football season. He is all in on football currently, and you can see if that works out both from an on the field performance side and a money side. It is interesting to see such a different takes on this board versus the Insider board re: Knowlton.

---

All I ever read from the "insiders" is how terrific things are going to be, that all will be revealed soon, that if things work out regarding on field performance, etc. etc., etc., etc.

With all due respect, it is a load of **** that you are being fed. I know because I was there once upon a time. The fact of the matter is that the program stalled out years ago and the current administration has done nothing to improve the situation.

Cal's athletic leadership is all about hot air and puffery. The fan base has been given nothing but promises. It deserves better.

---

You get what you:
1. Deserve?
2. Expect?
3. Work for?
4. Tolerate?

---

Pay for

---

Except you can overpay. Spending money doesn't always get you there. We spent $500 million on a stadium renovation and have yet to have a winning conference record ever since. Mark Fox makes $1.7 million per year. We went 3-15 in conference last year. I don't know how much Knowlton paid the search firm that served him up, but whatever it was it was too much. You have to be smart with your money too.

---

Every 90-100 years you have to renovate your stadium so that it doesn't crumble to the ground. Cal's case was especially costly because we had the wisdom to place the stadium directly on top of an active earthquake fault. If you thought a renovated stadium would score touchdowns or make tackles, you're delusional. As for the basketball team, I don't know how football stadium renovation was supposed to affect them.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

What are the prospects that the UC Regents would suggest/insist/require that Cal and UCLA are a package deal for any possible poaching or realignment? I would think that last thing they want is to be obligated to pay down the stadium debt, and realistically the only viable path to repayment is if Cal remains in the top tier of teams. I can't see why they would allow Cal to slip, and tying their fate to UCLA's seems like it would the best way to prevent that.

---

Maybe? Probably depends on the situation. If the choice is have one school get paid, or none, maybe the Regents just let it happen. If there is a larger group bailing from the p12 as block, and it's Cal vs Furd or Cal vs CU for a slot, I'd sure hope the UC administration exerts whatever it takes to get Cal included including using UCLA as a bargaining chip.

Worst case - if there is room for 4 teams to bail which would be USC, Oregon, UW, and then UCLA without any chance at 6. Then if UCLA balks, CU or ASU get consideration. Only two teams leaving would IMO still leave a viable conference, just less $$$. 6+ leaving and I can't see Cal being left behind. But 4 leaving would take all the juice out of the Pac and it would be almost impossible to get Cal included.

So many scenarios though.

If tOSU and Mich somehow go to the SEC, I think one could have a viable more academic league with the BT leftovers, and the p12 without say USC and Oregon. It's entirely possible the new SEC model will require commitment to football and paying players that just don't sit right with a lot of universities.

---

The news that Christ extended Knowlton through 2029 has me greatly depressed. I don't think our administration is effectively looking after our interests.

---

In the context of this thread, Knowlton is the most aggressive (other than maybe USC AD Bohn) in trying to move the Pac towards improving its position relative to the other P5 conferences. In terms of the direction of the Pac, expect some news about Knowlton and Bohn soon. You probably need to revisit your views on Knowlton after the football season. He is all in on football currently, and you can see if that works out both from an on the field performance side and a money side. It is interesting to see such a different takes on this board versus the Insider board re: Knowlton.

---

All I ever read from the "insiders" is how terrific things are going to be, that all will be revealed soon, that if things work out regarding on field performance, etc. etc., etc., etc.

With all due respect, it is a load of **** that you are being fed. I know because I was there once upon a time. The fact of the matter is that the program stalled out years ago and the current administration has done nothing to improve the situation.

Cal's athletic leadership is all about hot air and puffery. The fan base has been given nothing but promises. It deserves better.

---

You get what you:
1. Deserve?
2. Expect?
3. Work for?
4. Tolerate?

---

Pay for

---

Except you can overpay. Spending money doesn't always get you there. We spent $500 million on a stadium renovation and have yet to have a winning conference record ever since. Mark Fox makes $1.7 million per year. We went 3-15 in conference last year. I don't know how much Knowlton paid the search firm that served him up, but whatever it was it was too much. You have to be smart with your money too.

---

Every 90-100 years you have to renovate your stadium so that it doesn't crumble to the ground. Cal's case was especially costly because we had the wisdom to place the stadium directly on top of an active earthquake fault. If you thought a renovated stadium would score touchdowns or make tackles, you're delusional. As for the basketball team, I don't know how football stadium renovation was supposed to affect them.

---

I didn't think we needed a renovated football stadium to win, but Tedford seemed to think so (based on his experience at Oregon) and convinced the administration that we did, that it needed to be Nike level high end, and that he would leave if we didn't.

Seismic safety could have been achieved at MUCH lower cost, especially if we moved concessions, restrooms and locker rooms outside of the interior spaces. We only needed a press box, not an amazing club level skybox built on top of the old seismically unsound stadium. The SAHPC did not have to be built underground, next to the seismically unsound stadium. Don't get me wrong, the result is amazing, a tremendous example of engineering and architecture, but the financial burden has also been and remains tremendous.

People who make $50,000 a year should not take out loans to live in $10 million homes, even if the home is amazing (as it should be at that price). It is simply more than they can afford given their income.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

What are the prospects that the UC Regents would suggest/insist/require that Cal and UCLA are a package deal for any possible poaching or realignment? I would think that last thing they want is to be obligated to pay down the stadium debt, and realistically the only viable path to repayment is if Cal remains in the top tier of teams. I can't see why they would allow Cal to slip, and tying their fate to UCLA's seems like it would the best way to prevent that.

---

Maybe? Probably depends on the situation. If the choice is have one school get paid, or none, maybe the Regents just let it happen. If there is a larger group bailing from the p12 as block, and it's Cal vs Furd or Cal vs CU for a slot, I'd sure hope the UC administration exerts whatever it takes to get Cal included including using UCLA as a bargaining chip.

Worst case - if there is room for 4 teams to bail which would be USC, Oregon, UW, and then UCLA without any chance at 6. Then if UCLA balks, CU or ASU get consideration. Only two teams leaving would IMO still leave a viable conference, just less $$$. 6+ leaving and I can't see Cal being left behind. But 4 leaving would take all the juice out of the Pac and it would be almost impossible to get Cal included.

So many scenarios though.

If tOSU and Mich somehow go to the SEC, I think one could have a viable more academic league with the BT leftovers, and the p12 without say USC and Oregon. It's entirely possible the new SEC model will require commitment to football and paying players that just don't sit right with a lot of universities.

---

The news that Christ extended Knowlton through 2029 has me greatly depressed. I don't think our administration is effectively looking after our interests.

---

In the context of this thread, Knowlton is the most aggressive (other than maybe USC AD Bohn) in trying to move the Pac towards improving its position relative to the other P5 conferences. In terms of the direction of the Pac, expect some news about Knowlton and Bohn soon. You probably need to revisit your views on Knowlton after the football season. He is all in on football currently, and you can see if that works out both from an on the field performance side and a money side. It is interesting to see such a different takes on this board versus the Insider board re: Knowlton.

---

All I ever read from the "insiders" is how terrific things are going to be, that all will be revealed soon, that if things work out regarding on field performance, etc. etc., etc., etc.

With all due respect, it is a load of **** that you are being fed. I know because I was there once upon a time. The fact of the matter is that the program stalled out years ago and the current administration has done nothing to improve the situation.

Cal's athletic leadership is all about hot air and puffery. The fan base has been given nothing but promises. It deserves better.

---

You get what you:
1. Deserve?
2. Expect?
3. Work for?
4. Tolerate?

---

Pay for

---

Except you can overpay. Spending money doesn't always get you there. We spent $500 million on a stadium renovation and have yet to have a winning conference record ever since. Mark Fox makes $1.7 million per year. We went 3-15 in conference last year. I don't know how much Knowlton paid the search firm that served him up, but whatever it was it was too much. You have to be smart with your money too.

---

Every 90-100 years you have to renovate your stadium so that it doesn't crumble to the ground. Cal's case was especially costly because we had the wisdom to place the stadium directly on top of an active earthquake fault. If you thought a renovated stadium would score touchdowns or make tackles, you're delusional. As for the basketball team, I don't know how football stadium renovation was supposed to affect them.

---

I didn't think we needed a renovated football stadium to win, but Tedford seemed to think so (based on his experience at Oregon) and convinced the administration that we did, that it needed to be Nike level high end, and that he would leave if we didn't.

Seismic safety could have been achieved at MUCH lower cost, especially if we moved concessions, restrooms and locker rooms outside of the interior spaces. We only needed a press box, not an amazing club level skybox built on top of the old seismically unsound stadium. The SAHPC did not have to be built underground, next to the seismically unsound stadium. Don't get me wrong, the result is amazing, a tremendous example of engineering and architecture, but the financial burden has also been and remains tremendous.

People who make $50,000 a year should not take out loans to live in $10 million homes, even if the home is amazing (as it should be at that price). It is simply more than they can afford given their income.

---

I believe we had this argument before the CMS reconstruction. First, it was going to cost a heck of a lot of money just to keep CMS safe for the projected future.
Second, the powers that be decided that if we had to spend that much money anyway, then why not an upgrade that we could all be proud of.
Third, like almost all construction projects the ultimate price tag eventually turned out higher than expected (due in part to construction delays caused by lawsuits and tree-sitters).
It is a little late now to repeat prior arguments. There were different positions back then. Those who wanted a bigger renovation won the argument.

Tedford was on the side that wanted a bigger renovation. He understood that it would help in recruiting. Based upon comments from recent recruits, CMS is a big positive factor in the positive impression recruits get about the Cal program. Of course not the biggest factor or even one of the biggest factors. But it is an important factor.

Would Cal have made it he decision then if we knew it hen what we "know" now about the possible fate of
the PAC-12? Maybe, Maybe not.
But since we had no crystal ball the decision was made. Why the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" now?

---

Because it's so obvious we could have spent the 500 million dollars on the best coaches and be winning championships every year. Also, they seem to think it's a convenient club to bash Knowlton with even though he wasn't here until after the renovation was done.