Ahemoski003 said:dimitrig said:fat_slice said:calumnus said:fat_slice said:dimitrig said:fat_slice said:calumnus said:MrGPAC said:BigDaddy said:Brings up another question. While UCLA's upper management was proactive in finding a solution (B1G) to their AD financial woes, one that also secures their AD's future, what have Crist and Knowlton been doing solve Cal's debt issues? Anything?fat_slice said:
They barely could even say our school's name in their intros (lol couldn't resist)....and when they did there was no uniformity in what they said.
Branding aside, do you think the admin was competent enough to maintain and grow their NFL alumni network/relationships? heck no! so the alums don't give a rat's you-know-what about our uni.
How active exactly do you think they were? I was under the impression that they were approached by the B1G. In my head it seems even more likely that USC was approached and said, "Not without UCLA", to which UCLA said, "100 million dollars? SURE!"
UCLA's AD worked for MSU and Ohio State and is good friends with the B1G commissioner. He is a very active, young and visionary AD:
https://uclabruins.com/staff-directory/martin-jarmond/6865
Thank goodness we went out and hired someone with relevant experience at Air Force to lead our program.
His Mountain West Conference background is about to get very relevant.
Lol - good one. I think you are right...the more and more I read about all the various options, the more certain I am that we are going to be literally the odd man out.
The article below is a good summary of various options and it is very telling how little real estate Cal gets in it. We should be preparing our expectations for mountain west. No team (including Stanford) has any incentive to partner with us and there is no strong voice behind Cal. We are going to be left behind.
https://www.deseret.com/sports/2022/7/12/23203918/pac-12-realignment-utah-football-espn-george-kliavkoff-salt-lake-city
I think there is a strong chance we get left behind but then we should operate from the Pac-6 shell.
The PAC will dissolve it loses any more teams so there will never be a 6 PAC or 2 PAC. It's big 12 or busy unfortunately but we know the both sides don't want cal to be part of the big 12.
So we will be relegated to the Midwest conference with Oregon st and Washington St.
Where we will continue to lose to OSU at home every other year
Whether it is Pac 10 or 12, we need to do a better job pounding the beavers.
USC/UCLA supposedly moving to Big Ten
101,569 Views |
746 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Big Dog
dimitrig said:sycasey said:That's the thing, Stanford definitely does NOT deliver the Bay Area market by themselves. Cal has way more fans and alumni in the local market. If you truly want to "control" the TV market you probably have to take Cal.calumnus said:sycasey said:Yeah . . . I know there's some consternation about how Cal isn't being mentioned in all these realignment articles, but a lot of that is probably because we just haven't had a lot of recent football success. People look at the shiny thing in front of them. If you look under the hood there are some pretty good reasons for the B1G to want Cal. I'm not saying we're at the top of the list but there's reason to think we'd be on it.wifeisafurd said:I find this to be the most plausible explanation. The B1G seems savvy at moving into large TV markets. I would expect this to be an advantage for Cal and Furd as a package deal. I'm sure the B1G Presidents say it ail about fit, but they undoubtedly say that while looking at financial projections.sycasey said:It's also quite possible that the B1G said to USC: "We want UCLA too so we can have the whole L.A. market. Get them to come along."MrGPAC said:BigDaddy said:Brings up another question. While UCLA's upper management was proactive in finding a solution (B1G) to their AD financial woes, one that also secures their AD's future, what have Crist and Knowlton been doing solve Cal's debt issues? Anything?fat_slice said:
They barely could even say our school's name in their intros (lol couldn't resist)....and when they did there was no uniformity in what they said.
Branding aside, do you think the admin was competent enough to maintain and grow their NFL alumni network/relationships? heck no! so the alums don't give a rat's you-know-what about our uni.
How active exactly do you think they were? I was under the impression that they were approached by the B1G. In my head it seems even more likely that USC was approached and said, "Not without UCLA", to which UCLA said, "100 million dollars? SURE!"
I'll also admit that a lot of these are reasons that have nothing to do with the current administration's performance, but still they exist: location, market size, major AAU research school. Any plan that involves taking Stanford (for similar reasons) may not make sense without also taking Cal. Not taking Cal leaves the door open for another conference to compete for a big TV market.
If Stanford played in the B1G without Cal I think most people would kind of see them as a Midwest school, especially if they are sold as a Notre Dame rival. I really don't think they deliver the Bay Area market by themselves. And as we move into the NIL era, IF Stanford chooses not to compete, they will suffer massive beat downs on a weekly basis. Cal fans might enjoy watching that for awhile but that will not attract Bay Area bandwagon fans.
Does Stanford have a large Bay Area alumni base?
I am not so sure. Their student body is recruited from all over the nation.
As for Cal, aren't half of our students from LA? I imagine Cal games broadcast in LA will still draw a lot of viewers.
I am not sure that Cal/Stanford give advertisers the entire Bay Area market nor am I sure that their appeal is as limited as a school like WSU or OSU, which we seem to get lumped in with.
That is also ignoring demographics advertisers might be interested in such as income levels.
How valuable is one Cal fan versus one from Mississippi or Indiana?
The problem is their undergraduate size is 5,000 which is about the same size per class as my LAUSD junior high in the 1970s. Their grad programs are much larger but grad students are usually more fans of their undergrad alma mater if football fans at all. With the rise of Silicon Valley, more Stanford alums have stayed in the area after graduation and have made a lot of money, but even in the South Bay are out numbered by Cal grads and San Jose State grads.
just thought I'd throw this in here...
𝙏𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙩 𝙗𝙖𝙘𝙠… to Coach Wilcox’s debut win on the road against North Carolina in the 2017 season opener 🔄#TBT | #GoBears🐻 pic.twitter.com/kVuXJqoqSa
— Cal Football (@CalFootball) July 14, 2022
It's all pretty much gone down hill from that game.HoopDreams said:
just thought I'd throw this in here...𝙏𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙩 𝙗𝙖𝙘𝙠… to Coach Wilcox’s debut win on the road against North Carolina in the 2017 season opener 🔄#TBT | #GoBears🐻 pic.twitter.com/kVuXJqoqSa
— Cal Football (@CalFootball) July 14, 2022
Golden One said:It's all pretty much gone down hill from that game.HoopDreams said:
just thought I'd throw this in here...𝙏𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙩 𝙗𝙖𝙘𝙠… to Coach Wilcox’s debut win on the road against North Carolina in the 2017 season opener 🔄#TBT | #GoBears🐻 pic.twitter.com/kVuXJqoqSa
— Cal Football (@CalFootball) July 14, 2022
Not only is this not true (there were certainly points much higher than that game, as I'll show below that game was very nearly lost and wasn't pretty even with the win), but it ignores that the game was basically a microcosm of his tenure.
Cal never trailed. Cal was up 24-3 entering the 4th. Cal intercepted 4 passes, and had zero turnovers. The game almost always felt like a safe win.
And yet...
Cal threw for just 119 yards on 32 attempts. Cal was outgained 301-279. Cal punted 8 times. Cal gave up 2 late scores to let UNC get within a touchdown. Cal lost an onside kick that would have given UNC the ball with a chance to tie/win, but it was overturned by an illegal block penalty.
That game felt really good for a bit and then suddenly felt doomed, but we ultimately pulled it out for a positive, just not as positive as it could have been,
GMP said:Golden One said:It's all pretty much gone down hill from that game.HoopDreams said:
just thought I'd throw this in here...𝙏𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙩 𝙗𝙖𝙘𝙠… to Coach Wilcox’s debut win on the road against North Carolina in the 2017 season opener 🔄#TBT | #GoBears🐻 pic.twitter.com/kVuXJqoqSa
— Cal Football (@CalFootball) July 14, 2022
Not only is this not true (there were certainly points much higher than that game, as I'll show below that game was very nearly lost and wasn't pretty even with the win), but it ignores that the game was basically a microcosm of his tenure.
Cal never trailed. Cal was up 24-3 entering the 4th. Cal intercepted 4 passes, and had zero turnovers. The game almost always felt like a safe win.
And yet...
Cal threw for just 119 yards on 32 attempts. Cal was outgained 301-279. Cal punted 8 times. Cal gave up 2 late scores to let UNC get within a touchdown. Cal lost an onside kick that would have given UNC the ball with a chance to tie/win, but it was overturned by an illegal block penalty.
That game felt really good for a bit and then suddenly felt doomed, but we ultimately pulled it out for a positive, just not as positive as it could have been,
Demetris Robertson, a freshman All-American the year before, had 3 receptions on telegraphed screen passers for 12 yards. I think that is when he decided he needed to be closer to home at Georgia.
GMP said:Golden One said:It's all pretty much gone down hill from that game.HoopDreams said:
just thought I'd throw this in here...𝙏𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙩 𝙗𝙖𝙘𝙠… to Coach Wilcox’s debut win on the road against North Carolina in the 2017 season opener 🔄#TBT | #GoBears🐻 pic.twitter.com/kVuXJqoqSa
— Cal Football (@CalFootball) July 14, 2022
Not only is this not true (there were certainly points much higher than that game, as I'll show below that game was very nearly lost and wasn't pretty even with the win),
The big upset of WSU in the smoky air (with Bowers front flip into the end zone), both Washington wins, and the first road win at USC in two decades all happened after this game. Not to mention getting the Axe back.
Winning at UNC was nice, but not even close to the peak of the Wilcox era.
fat_slice said:DiabloWags said:fat_slice said:eastcoastcal said:After seeing so many posts from USC, UCLA, and Stanford fans it begins to feel like we're the least valued California school to everybodyokaydo said:
O.J. doesn't want to lose the Stanford rivalry.I can read!!! @USC_FB @bigten pic.twitter.com/reZDxfvO8R
— O.J. Simpson (@TheRealOJ32) July 8, 2022
Exactly this! Like I've said in other posts, we have no one with material clout in this situation. We are in no better shape than Oregon st. And Washington St. And because the general public has no idea that Cal is Berkeley (thanks cal marketing and admin), everything just boils down to "cal?!? They suck and add nothing". Perception is reality.
Where are all of these Cal Football alums that are playing (or played) in the NFL?
Why arent they speaking up?
Is Rodgers too busy playing golf in Tahoe?
Beastmode to busy in Vegas playing in the annual Battle 4 Vegas?
Not a peep.
They barely could even say our school's name in their intros (lol couldn't resist)....and when they did there was no uniformity in what they said.
Branding aside, do you think the admin was competent enough to maintain and grow their NFL alumni network/relationships? heck no! so the alums don't give a rat's you-know-what about our uni.
Exactly!! Why is it so F ing hard for football players to have pride and stand up for Cal? Is it because many have not actually graduated with a degree? I applaud all the Doctors, Engineers, and other graduating students who have pride in their school.
Just a thought here:
Everyone talks about having the "L.A. Market" by having $C and UC(la). But, what about having the entire California statewide market by having $C, UC(la), Cal and stanford? Wouldn't that be a bigger more significant opportunity?
Everyone talks about having the "L.A. Market" by having $C and UC(la). But, what about having the entire California statewide market by having $C, UC(la), Cal and stanford? Wouldn't that be a bigger more significant opportunity?
If Cal played Stanford in a forest, would anybody watch?TomBear said:
Just a thought here:
Everyone talks about having the "L.A. Market" by having $C and UC(la). But, what about having the entire California statewide market by having $C, UC(la), Cal and stanford? Wouldn't that be a bigger more significant opportunity?
Bobodeluxe said:If Cal played Stanford in a forest, would anybody watch?TomBear said:
Just a thought here:
Everyone talks about having the "L.A. Market" by having $C and UC(la). But, what about having the entire California statewide market by having $C, UC(la), Cal and stanford? Wouldn't that be a bigger more significant opportunity?
Would fans be required to clap with one hand? God, I knew my philosophy degree would come in handy someday.
Will the Regents REQUIRE UCLA to subsidize Cal Athletics? Awkward.
Bald Faced Truth by John Canzano
https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuam9obmNhbnphbm8uY29tL3AvY2FuemFuby11Y2xhcy1sZWFkZXJzaGlwLXdpbGwtYmU_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpvME5EVTRPRFk1T0N3aWNHOXpkRjlwWkNJNk5qUTJNekl6TkRFc0ltbGhkQ0k2TVRZMU9ERTJNRGMzTXl3aWFYTnpJam9pY0hWaUxUYzVOVEExT1NJc0luTjFZaUk2SW5CdmMzUXRjbVZoWTNScGIyNGlmUS5MLTJ3Ql9MZDdnakE0TmhfUV94bWE4amN6M3B5TFFxVFctZkpvYlVURUpnIiwicCI6NjQ2MzIzNDEsInMiOjc5NTA1OSwiZiI6dHJ1ZSwidSI6NDQ1ODg2OTgsImlhdCI6MTY1ODE2MDc3MywiaXNzIjoicHViLTAiLCJzdWIiOiJsaW5rLXJlZGlyZWN0In0.6ZJb-wWuOxjoTHxt_iaXjhd2piQeIXutNBbOZxHNaYQ?
Bald Faced Truth by John Canzano
https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuam9obmNhbnphbm8uY29tL3AvY2FuemFuby11Y2xhcy1sZWFkZXJzaGlwLXdpbGwtYmU_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpvME5EVTRPRFk1T0N3aWNHOXpkRjlwWkNJNk5qUTJNekl6TkRFc0ltbGhkQ0k2TVRZMU9ERTJNRGMzTXl3aWFYTnpJam9pY0hWaUxUYzVOVEExT1NJc0luTjFZaUk2SW5CdmMzUXRjbVZoWTNScGIyNGlmUS5MLTJ3Ql9MZDdnakE0TmhfUV94bWE4amN6M3B5TFFxVFctZkpvYlVURUpnIiwicCI6NjQ2MzIzNDEsInMiOjc5NTA1OSwiZiI6dHJ1ZSwidSI6NDQ1ODg2OTgsImlhdCI6MTY1ODE2MDc3MywiaXNzIjoicHViLTAiLCJzdWIiOiJsaW5rLXJlZGlyZWN0In0.6ZJb-wWuOxjoTHxt_iaXjhd2piQeIXutNBbOZxHNaYQ?
To be clear Canzano's source makes clear that this is just speculation on his part (he's a former Washington state politician).movielover said:
Will the Regents REQUIRE UCLA to subsidize Cal Athletics? Awkward.
Bald Faced Truth by John Canzano
https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuam9obmNhbnphbm8uY29tL3AvY2FuemFuby11Y2xhcy1sZWFkZXJzaGlwLXdpbGwtYmU_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpvME5EVTRPRFk1T0N3aWNHOXpkRjlwWkNJNk5qUTJNekl6TkRFc0ltbGhkQ0k2TVRZMU9ERTJNRGMzTXl3aWFYTnpJam9pY0hWaUxUYzVOVEExT1NJc0luTjFZaUk2SW5CdmMzUXRjbVZoWTNScGIyNGlmUS5MLTJ3Ql9MZDdnakE0TmhfUV94bWE4amN6M3B5TFFxVFctZkpvYlVURUpnIiwicCI6NjQ2MzIzNDEsInMiOjc5NTA1OSwiZiI6dHJ1ZSwidSI6NDQ1ODg2OTgsImlhdCI6MTY1ODE2MDc3MywiaXNzIjoicHViLTAiLCJzdWIiOiJsaW5rLXJlZGlyZWN0In0.6ZJb-wWuOxjoTHxt_iaXjhd2piQeIXutNBbOZxHNaYQ?
This. It really is an issue at the OOP who either didn't understand or didn't care that the issue would raised in import. That said, the dynamic at this month's Regents meeting will be interesting to say the least.maxer said:To be clear Canzano's source makes clear that this is just speculation on his part (he's a former Washington state politician).movielover said:
Will the Regents REQUIRE UCLA to subsidize Cal Athletics? Awkward.
Bald Faced Truth by John Canzano
https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuam9obmNhbnphbm8uY29tL3AvY2FuemFuby11Y2xhcy1sZWFkZXJzaGlwLXdpbGwtYmU_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpvME5EVTRPRFk1T0N3aWNHOXpkRjlwWkNJNk5qUTJNekl6TkRFc0ltbGhkQ0k2TVRZMU9ERTJNRGMzTXl3aWFYTnpJam9pY0hWaUxUYzVOVEExT1NJc0luTjFZaUk2SW5CdmMzUXRjbVZoWTNScGIyNGlmUS5MLTJ3Ql9MZDdnakE0TmhfUV94bWE4amN6M3B5TFFxVFctZkpvYlVURUpnIiwicCI6NjQ2MzIzNDEsInMiOjc5NTA1OSwiZiI6dHJ1ZSwidSI6NDQ1ODg2OTgsImlhdCI6MTY1ODE2MDc3MywiaXNzIjoicHViLTAiLCJzdWIiOiJsaW5rLXJlZGlyZWN0In0.6ZJb-wWuOxjoTHxt_iaXjhd2piQeIXutNBbOZxHNaYQ?
Take care of your Chicken
movielover said:
Will the Regents REQUIRE UCLA to subsidize Cal Athletics? Awkward.
Bald Faced Truth by John Canzano
https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuam9obmNhbnphbm8uY29tL3AvY2FuemFuby11Y2xhcy1sZWFkZXJzaGlwLXdpbGwtYmU_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpvME5EVTRPRFk1T0N3aWNHOXpkRjlwWkNJNk5qUTJNekl6TkRFc0ltbGhkQ0k2TVRZMU9ERTJNRGMzTXl3aWFYTnpJam9pY0hWaUxUYzVOVEExT1NJc0luTjFZaUk2SW5CdmMzUXRjbVZoWTNScGIyNGlmUS5MLTJ3Ql9MZDdnakE0TmhfUV94bWE4amN6M3B5TFFxVFctZkpvYlVURUpnIiwicCI6NjQ2MzIzNDEsInMiOjc5NTA1OSwiZiI6dHJ1ZSwidSI6NDQ1ODg2OTgsImlhdCI6MTY1ODE2MDc3MywiaXNzIjoicHViLTAiLCJzdWIiOiJsaW5rLXJlZGlyZWN0In0.6ZJb-wWuOxjoTHxt_iaXjhd2piQeIXutNBbOZxHNaYQ?
Interesting speculation in the comments section...
If UCLA WERE forced to back out of the B1G deal here as a result of the regents, they speculate that The B1G would "Just take Stanford to replace them".
I wonder how realistic that would be. Would Stanford even buy into that? What happens to USC if UCLA is forced to back out and the B1G can't find a team to partner with USC? The only teams that "make sense" to group with USC are UCLA, Stanford, and Notre Dame. UCLA would be removed from the equation, Stanford may not want to leave Cal behind / join the "big leagues" of paying for players, and Notre Dame is likely to say no thank you at this point.
I also wonder that would do for a television deal if USC/Stanford were in the B1G and UCLA/Cal in the Pac12. Would the fact the B1G are also in the LA/Bay Are market diminish the value of having UCLA/Cal in the Pac12? Or would another provider want to get into those markets? We were valued at what, 500-600 million as the pac12, and the only number I've heard without the LA schools is 225 million.
What does pac12 without USC/Stanford get if it still has UCLA? What about if only USC leaves and we replace it with, say, San Diego State?
Oddly enough, I don't think I would care about losing Stanford/USC as much as UCLA/USC. It would be easy to keep the Cal/Stanford rivalry (and USC/UCLA rivalry) going out of conference. Sure, we'd likely lose the USC rivalry, but we are likely to lose that anyways, and I don't see the socal schools committing 2 out of conference games to maintain rivalries with the norcal schools.
I don't think Furd is going to the Big10.MrGPAC said:movielover said:
Will the Regents REQUIRE UCLA to subsidize Cal Athletics? Awkward.
Bald Faced Truth by John Canzano
https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuam9obmNhbnphbm8uY29tL3AvY2FuemFuby11Y2xhcy1sZWFkZXJzaGlwLXdpbGwtYmU_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpvME5EVTRPRFk1T0N3aWNHOXpkRjlwWkNJNk5qUTJNekl6TkRFc0ltbGhkQ0k2TVRZMU9ERTJNRGMzTXl3aWFYTnpJam9pY0hWaUxUYzVOVEExT1NJc0luTjFZaUk2SW5CdmMzUXRjbVZoWTNScGIyNGlmUS5MLTJ3Ql9MZDdnakE0TmhfUV94bWE4amN6M3B5TFFxVFctZkpvYlVURUpnIiwicCI6NjQ2MzIzNDEsInMiOjc5NTA1OSwiZiI6dHJ1ZSwidSI6NDQ1ODg2OTgsImlhdCI6MTY1ODE2MDc3MywiaXNzIjoicHViLTAiLCJzdWIiOiJsaW5rLXJlZGlyZWN0In0.6ZJb-wWuOxjoTHxt_iaXjhd2piQeIXutNBbOZxHNaYQ?
Interesting speculation in the comments section...
If UCLA WERE forced to back out of the B1G deal here as a result of the regents, they speculate that The B1G would "Just take Stanford to replace them".
I wonder how realistic that would be. Would Stanford even buy into that? What happens to USC if UCLA is forced to back out and the B1G can't find a team to partner with USC? The only teams that "make sense" to group with USC are UCLA, Stanford, and Notre Dame. UCLA would be removed from the equation, Stanford may not want to leave Cal behind / join the "big leagues" of paying for players, and Notre Dame is likely to say no thank you at this point.
I also wonder that would do for a television deal if USC/Stanford were in the B1G and UCLA/Cal in the Pac12. Would the fact the B1G are also in the LA/Bay Are market diminish the value of having UCLA/Cal in the Pac12? Or would another provider want to get into those markets? We were valued at what, 500-600 million as the pac12, and the only number I've heard without the LA schools is 225 million.
What does pac12 without USC/Stanford get if it still has UCLA? What about if only USC leaves and we replace it with, say, San Diego State?
Oddly enough, I don't think I would care about losing Stanford/USC as much as UCLA/USC. It would be easy to keep the Cal/Stanford rivalry (and USC/UCLA rivalry) going out of conference. Sure, we'd likely lose the USC rivalry, but we are likely to lose that anyways, and I don't see the socal schools committing 2 out of conference games to maintain rivalries with the norcal schools.
1) Maybe even more than Cal they elevate non-revenue sports and until the B1G shows that it has a solution to travel for the West Coast teams this makes no sense.
2) Their endownment AND the dramatically less importance of winning means that Furd just doesn't need to play in the NIL world nor "care" about the $$$ from the contract as much as others. Not that they don't care at ALL but it is just a unique financial situation in the college landscape.
3) Like Cal, the institution just doesn't get that much from big time football. Sure they LIKE it but it isn't a core part of the business strategy.
I also don't think UCLA is getting pulled back. I think far more likely is a "tax" (though not in name) from UCLA AD to the OOP and then MAYBE to cal to cover stadium debt. The interesting regents politicsl is that this $$$ will be also sought after by other UC D1 programs - I am just not up to speed on how their facilities have been paid for and whether, for example, UCSD's RIMAC is currently on the regents books.
Take care of your Chicken
It's pretty amazing to me that it seems like UCLA just made this decision and announced it publicly without telling anyone they were supposed to tell. What were they doing?
sycasey said:
It's pretty amazing to me that it seems like UCLA just made this decision and announced it publicly without telling anyone they were supposed to tell. What were they doing?
It's better to ask forgiveness than permission.
Shoot first, shoot again later.dimitrig said:It's better to ask forgiveness than permission.sycasey said:
It's pretty amazing to me that it seems like UCLA just made this decision and announced it publicly without telling anyone they were supposed to tell. What were they doing?
socaltownie said:I don't think Furd is going to the Big10.MrGPAC said:movielover said:
Will the Regents REQUIRE UCLA to subsidize Cal Athletics? Awkward.
Bald Faced Truth by John Canzano
https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuam9obmNhbnphbm8uY29tL3AvY2FuemFuby11Y2xhcy1sZWFkZXJzaGlwLXdpbGwtYmU_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpvME5EVTRPRFk1T0N3aWNHOXpkRjlwWkNJNk5qUTJNekl6TkRFc0ltbGhkQ0k2TVRZMU9ERTJNRGMzTXl3aWFYTnpJam9pY0hWaUxUYzVOVEExT1NJc0luTjFZaUk2SW5CdmMzUXRjbVZoWTNScGIyNGlmUS5MLTJ3Ql9MZDdnakE0TmhfUV94bWE4amN6M3B5TFFxVFctZkpvYlVURUpnIiwicCI6NjQ2MzIzNDEsInMiOjc5NTA1OSwiZiI6dHJ1ZSwidSI6NDQ1ODg2OTgsImlhdCI6MTY1ODE2MDc3MywiaXNzIjoicHViLTAiLCJzdWIiOiJsaW5rLXJlZGlyZWN0In0.6ZJb-wWuOxjoTHxt_iaXjhd2piQeIXutNBbOZxHNaYQ?
Interesting speculation in the comments section...
If UCLA WERE forced to back out of the B1G deal here as a result of the regents, they speculate that The B1G would "Just take Stanford to replace them".
I wonder how realistic that would be. Would Stanford even buy into that? What happens to USC if UCLA is forced to back out and the B1G can't find a team to partner with USC? The only teams that "make sense" to group with USC are UCLA, Stanford, and Notre Dame. UCLA would be removed from the equation, Stanford may not want to leave Cal behind / join the "big leagues" of paying for players, and Notre Dame is likely to say no thank you at this point.
I also wonder that would do for a television deal if USC/Stanford were in the B1G and UCLA/Cal in the Pac12. Would the fact the B1G are also in the LA/Bay Are market diminish the value of having UCLA/Cal in the Pac12? Or would another provider want to get into those markets? We were valued at what, 500-600 million as the pac12, and the only number I've heard without the LA schools is 225 million.
What does pac12 without USC/Stanford get if it still has UCLA? What about if only USC leaves and we replace it with, say, San Diego State?
Oddly enough, I don't think I would care about losing Stanford/USC as much as UCLA/USC. It would be easy to keep the Cal/Stanford rivalry (and USC/UCLA rivalry) going out of conference. Sure, we'd likely lose the USC rivalry, but we are likely to lose that anyways, and I don't see the socal schools committing 2 out of conference games to maintain rivalries with the norcal schools.
1) Maybe even more than Cal they elevate non-revenue sports and until the B1G shows that it has a solution to travel for the West Coast teams this makes no sense.
2) Their endownment AND the dramatically less importance of winning means that Furd just doesn't need to play in the NIL world nor "care" about the $$$ from the contract as much as others. Not that they don't care at ALL but it is just a unique financial situation in the college landscape.
3) Like Cal, the institution just doesn't get that much from big time football. Sure they LIKE it but it isn't a core part of the business strategy.
I also don't think UCLA is getting pulled back. I think far more likely is a "tax" (though not in name) from UCLA AD to the OOP and then MAYBE to cal to cover stadium debt. The interesting regents politicsl is that this $$$ will be also sought after by other UC D1 programs - I am just not up to speed on how their facilities have been paid for and whether, for example, UCSD's RIMAC is currently on the regents books.
Great points. I could picture Furd going either way on this, but you might be right.
Regarding your first point, it seems like creating a B1G Western pod out of U$C, (F(UCLA, Cal, Stanfurd, UW and the Ducks would minimize a lot of the travel, which is one of the lesser reasons I think it may end up that way.
sycasey said:
It's pretty amazing to me that it seems like UCLA just made this decision and announced it publicly without telling anyone they were supposed to tell. What were they doing?
Excuse me for the extremely poor analogy but I've been binging the wire, so I just picture stringer bell being forced to go to clay davis cause he can't get his permits.
The big10 probably wanted a fairly quick answer (because of fox) so ucla had to decide whether to tell the regents and go thru months (years?) of bureaucracy or just tell them later and bet that the regents don't have the balls to do anything about it.
Big C said:socaltownie said:I don't think Furd is going to the Big10.MrGPAC said:movielover said:
Will the Regents REQUIRE UCLA to subsidize Cal Athletics? Awkward.
Bald Faced Truth by John Canzano
https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuam9obmNhbnphbm8uY29tL3AvY2FuemFuby11Y2xhcy1sZWFkZXJzaGlwLXdpbGwtYmU_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpvME5EVTRPRFk1T0N3aWNHOXpkRjlwWkNJNk5qUTJNekl6TkRFc0ltbGhkQ0k2TVRZMU9ERTJNRGMzTXl3aWFYTnpJam9pY0hWaUxUYzVOVEExT1NJc0luTjFZaUk2SW5CdmMzUXRjbVZoWTNScGIyNGlmUS5MLTJ3Ql9MZDdnakE0TmhfUV94bWE4amN6M3B5TFFxVFctZkpvYlVURUpnIiwicCI6NjQ2MzIzNDEsInMiOjc5NTA1OSwiZiI6dHJ1ZSwidSI6NDQ1ODg2OTgsImlhdCI6MTY1ODE2MDc3MywiaXNzIjoicHViLTAiLCJzdWIiOiJsaW5rLXJlZGlyZWN0In0.6ZJb-wWuOxjoTHxt_iaXjhd2piQeIXutNBbOZxHNaYQ?
Interesting speculation in the comments section...
If UCLA WERE forced to back out of the B1G deal here as a result of the regents, they speculate that The B1G would "Just take Stanford to replace them".
I wonder how realistic that would be. Would Stanford even buy into that? What happens to USC if UCLA is forced to back out and the B1G can't find a team to partner with USC? The only teams that "make sense" to group with USC are UCLA, Stanford, and Notre Dame. UCLA would be removed from the equation, Stanford may not want to leave Cal behind / join the "big leagues" of paying for players, and Notre Dame is likely to say no thank you at this point.
I also wonder that would do for a television deal if USC/Stanford were in the B1G and UCLA/Cal in the Pac12. Would the fact the B1G are also in the LA/Bay Are market diminish the value of having UCLA/Cal in the Pac12? Or would another provider want to get into those markets? We were valued at what, 500-600 million as the pac12, and the only number I've heard without the LA schools is 225 million.
What does pac12 without USC/Stanford get if it still has UCLA? What about if only USC leaves and we replace it with, say, San Diego State?
Oddly enough, I don't think I would care about losing Stanford/USC as much as UCLA/USC. It would be easy to keep the Cal/Stanford rivalry (and USC/UCLA rivalry) going out of conference. Sure, we'd likely lose the USC rivalry, but we are likely to lose that anyways, and I don't see the socal schools committing 2 out of conference games to maintain rivalries with the norcal schools.
1) Maybe even more than Cal they elevate non-revenue sports and until the B1G shows that it has a solution to travel for the West Coast teams this makes no sense.
2) Their endownment AND the dramatically less importance of winning means that Furd just doesn't need to play in the NIL world nor "care" about the $$$ from the contract as much as others. Not that they don't care at ALL but it is just a unique financial situation in the college landscape.
3) Like Cal, the institution just doesn't get that much from big time football. Sure they LIKE it but it isn't a core part of the business strategy.
I also don't think UCLA is getting pulled back. I think far more likely is a "tax" (though not in name) from UCLA AD to the OOP and then MAYBE to cal to cover stadium debt. The interesting regents politicsl is that this $$$ will be also sought after by other UC D1 programs - I am just not up to speed on how their facilities have been paid for and whether, for example, UCSD's RIMAC is currently on the regents books.
Great points. I could picture Furd going either way on this, but you might be right.
Regarding your first point, it seems like creating a B1G Western pod out of U$C, (F(UCLA, Cal, Stanfurd, UW and the Ducks would minimize a lot of the travel, which is one of the lesser reasons I think it may end up that way.
That's one big reason why I can see it going this way. I don't think the B1G is dead set AGAINST adding any of these schools. All have something to offer in terms of market, funding, academics, etc. If adding them makes it easier to keep the LA schools, why not?
So far, that seems like a pretty safe bet.ducky23 said:sycasey said:
It's pretty amazing to me that it seems like UCLA just made this decision and announced it publicly without telling anyone they were supposed to tell. What were they doing?
Excuse me for the extremely poor analogy but I've been binging the wire, so I just picture stringer bell being forced to go to clay davis cause he can't get his permits.
The big10 probably wanted a fairly quick answer (because of fox) so ucla had to decide whether to tell the regents and go thru months (years?) of bureaucracy or just tell them later and bet that the regents don't have the balls to do anything about it.
Not to mention we also completed our series against Ole Miss by winning at Ole Miss which brought us 2-0 in a series against the SEC. Another nice moment after winning at UNC.sycasey said:GMP said:Golden One said:It's all pretty much gone down hill from that game.HoopDreams said:
just thought I'd throw this in here...𝙏𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙩 𝙗𝙖𝙘𝙠… to Coach Wilcox’s debut win on the road against North Carolina in the 2017 season opener 🔄#TBT | #GoBears🐻 pic.twitter.com/kVuXJqoqSa
— Cal Football (@CalFootball) July 14, 2022
Not only is this not true (there were certainly points much higher than that game, as I'll show below that game was very nearly lost and wasn't pretty even with the win),
The big upset of WSU in the smoky air (with Bowers front flip into the end zone), both Washington wins, and the first road win at USC in two decades all happened after this game. Not to mention getting the Axe back.
Winning at UNC was nice, but not even close to the peak of the Wilcox era.
ducky23 said:sycasey said:
It's pretty amazing to me that it seems like UCLA just made this decision and announced it publicly without telling anyone they were supposed to tell. What were they doing?
Excuse me for the extremely poor analogy but I've been binging the wire, so I just picture stringer bell being forced to go to clay davis cause he can't get his permits.
The big10 probably wanted a fairly quick answer (because of fox) so ucla had to decide whether to tell the regents and go thru months (years?) of bureaucracy or just tell them later and bet that the regents don't have the balls to do anything about it.
Rumor is that B1G and USC/UCLA had been talking for the past ~4 months.
The issue with timing was actually on USC/UCLA's part. With television contract negotiations looming for the Pac12 (they expire in 2024) USC and UCLA had until June 30th to announce they were leaving the Pac12 after the 2024 season. If they waited until after June 30th, then they would have been subject to either early exit fee's, or to stay through the end of the contract currently being negotiated.
The following is all conjecture:
If I had to guess, The B1G approached ND and USC about 4 months ago, looking at tv contracts and knowing that getting those two schools would greatly enhance the B1G brand and increase its value / payout per school. ND appears to be passing on the idea (maybe the B1G was holding out hope that once they got USC it would convince ND?). USC likely said something along the lines of if you want us you have to take UCLA too, sparking a conversation between both schools and the B1G.
In the meantime, I think USC/UCLA would have preferred to stay in the Pac12. We had a new commissioner and were negotiating TV deals. They likely wanted to see what kind of magic he could work, and if the offer was competitive they would stay in the Pac12. They waited until the last second to see if the new commissioner could pull off any miracles, but ultimately it looked like staying in the Pac12 would be worth half of going to the B1G.
Having stalled as long as they could, they pulled the trigger at the last possible second.
And now that its done they can worry about crossing the t's and dotting the i's on the details. Even if they had brought it up on day 1 (~4 months prior) to the UC Regents, its unlikely they would have gotten a firm answer by the June 30th deadline. There was very little advantage to asking for permission before hand on a relatively short time table, and there was non zero risk in tipping their hand at the possibility of the move. For instance, the B1G may have waited to formally extend an offer until the Regents had given a formal decision...which would have likely been after the deadline.
MrGPAC said:ducky23 said:sycasey said:
It's pretty amazing to me that it seems like UCLA just made this decision and announced it publicly without telling anyone they were supposed to tell. What were they doing?
Excuse me for the extremely poor analogy but I've been binging the wire, so I just picture stringer bell being forced to go to clay davis cause he can't get his permits.
The big10 probably wanted a fairly quick answer (because of fox) so ucla had to decide whether to tell the regents and go thru months (years?) of bureaucracy or just tell them later and bet that the regents don't have the balls to do anything about it.
Rumor is that B1G and USC/UCLA had been talking for the past ~4 months.
The issue with timing was actually on USC/UCLA's part. With television contract negotiations looming for the Pac12 (they expire in 2024) USC and UCLA had until June 30th to announce they were leaving the Pac12 after the 2024 season. If they waited until after June 30th, then they would have been subject to either early exit fee's, or to stay through the end of the contract currently being negotiated.
The following is all conjecture:
If I had to guess, The B1G approached ND and USC about 4 months ago, looking at tv contracts and knowing that getting those two schools would greatly enhance the B1G brand and increase its value / payout per school. ND appears to be passing on the idea (maybe the B1G was holding out hope that once they got USC it would convince ND?). USC likely said something along the lines of if you want us you have to take UCLA too, sparking a conversation between both schools and the B1G.
In the meantime, I think USC/UCLA would have preferred to stay in the Pac12. We had a new commissioner and were negotiating TV deals. They likely wanted to see what kind of magic he could work, and if the offer was competitive they would stay in the Pac12. They waited until the last second to see if the new commissioner could pull off any miracles, but ultimately it looked like staying in the Pac12 would be worth half of going to the B1G.
Having stalled as long as they could, they pulled the trigger at the last possible second.
And now that its done they can worry about crossing the t's and dotting the i's on the details. Even if they had brought it up on day 1 (~4 months prior) to the UC Regents, its unlikely they would have gotten a firm answer by the June 30th deadline. There was very little advantage to asking for permission before hand on a relatively short time table, and there was non zero risk in tipping their hand at the possibility of the move. For instance, the B1G may have waited to formally extend an offer until the Regents had given a formal decision...which would have likely been after the deadline.
This sounds about right. Worse case for them is it doesn't work out and they are back in the PAC-12. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
calumnus said:MrGPAC said:ducky23 said:sycasey said:
It's pretty amazing to me that it seems like UCLA just made this decision and announced it publicly without telling anyone they were supposed to tell. What were they doing?
Excuse me for the extremely poor analogy but I've been binging the wire, so I just picture stringer bell being forced to go to clay davis cause he can't get his permits.
The big10 probably wanted a fairly quick answer (because of fox) so ucla had to decide whether to tell the regents and go thru months (years?) of bureaucracy or just tell them later and bet that the regents don't have the balls to do anything about it.
Rumor is that B1G and USC/UCLA had been talking for the past ~4 months.
The issue with timing was actually on USC/UCLA's part. With television contract negotiations looming for the Pac12 (they expire in 2024) USC and UCLA had until June 30th to announce they were leaving the Pac12 after the 2024 season. If they waited until after June 30th, then they would have been subject to either early exit fee's, or to stay through the end of the contract currently being negotiated.
The following is all conjecture:
If I had to guess, The B1G approached ND and USC about 4 months ago, looking at tv contracts and knowing that getting those two schools would greatly enhance the B1G brand and increase its value / payout per school. ND appears to be passing on the idea (maybe the B1G was holding out hope that once they got USC it would convince ND?). USC likely said something along the lines of if you want us you have to take UCLA too, sparking a conversation between both schools and the B1G.
In the meantime, I think USC/UCLA would have preferred to stay in the Pac12. We had a new commissioner and were negotiating TV deals. They likely wanted to see what kind of magic he could work, and if the offer was competitive they would stay in the Pac12. They waited until the last second to see if the new commissioner could pull off any miracles, but ultimately it looked like staying in the Pac12 would be worth half of going to the B1G.
Having stalled as long as they could, they pulled the trigger at the last possible second.
And now that its done they can worry about crossing the t's and dotting the i's on the details. Even if they had brought it up on day 1 (~4 months prior) to the UC Regents, its unlikely they would have gotten a firm answer by the June 30th deadline. There was very little advantage to asking for permission before hand on a relatively short time table, and there was non zero risk in tipping their hand at the possibility of the move. For instance, the B1G may have waited to formally extend an offer until the Regents had given a formal decision...which would have likely been after the deadline.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Keith, once a fool, always a fool. Right?
If you know anything about UCLA AD Jarmond, you know that he is a Big 10 guy. Odds are he was speaking with his old conference even before SC. UCLA was not an afterthought in this deal.MrGPAC said:ducky23 said:sycasey said:
It's pretty amazing to me that it seems like UCLA just made this decision and announced it publicly without telling anyone they were supposed to tell. What were they doing?
Excuse me for the extremely poor analogy but I've been binging the wire, so I just picture stringer bell being forced to go to clay davis cause he can't get his permits.
The big10 probably wanted a fairly quick answer (because of fox) so ucla had to decide whether to tell the regents and go thru months (years?) of bureaucracy or just tell them later and bet that the regents don't have the balls to do anything about it.
Rumor is that B1G and USC/UCLA had been talking for the past ~4 months.
The issue with timing was actually on USC/UCLA's part. With television contract negotiations looming for the Pac12 (they expire in 2024) USC and UCLA had until June 30th to announce they were leaving the Pac12 after the 2024 season. If they waited until after June 30th, then they would have been subject to either early exit fee's, or to stay through the end of the contract currently being negotiated.
The following is all conjecture:
If I had to guess, The B1G approached ND and USC about 4 months ago, looking at tv contracts and knowing that getting those two schools would greatly enhance the B1G brand and increase its value / payout per school. ND appears to be passing on the idea (maybe the B1G was holding out hope that once they got USC it would convince ND?). USC likely said something along the lines of if you want us you have to take UCLA too, sparking a conversation between both schools and the B1G.
In the meantime, I think USC/UCLA would have preferred to stay in the Pac12. We had a new commissioner and were negotiating TV deals. They likely wanted to see what kind of magic he could work, and if the offer was competitive they would stay in the Pac12. They waited until the last second to see if the new commissioner could pull off any miracles, but ultimately it looked like staying in the Pac12 would be worth half of going to the B1G.
Having stalled as long as they could, they pulled the trigger at the last possible second.
And now that its done they can worry about crossing the t's and dotting the i's on the details. Even if they had brought it up on day 1 (~4 months prior) to the UC Regents, its unlikely they would have gotten a firm answer by the June 30th deadline. There was very little advantage to asking for permission before hand on a relatively short time table, and there was non zero risk in tipping their hand at the possibility of the move. For instance, the B1G may have waited to formally extend an offer until the Regents had given a formal decision...which would have likely been after the deadline.
Fyght4Cal said:If you know anything about UCLA AD Jarmond, you know that he is a Big 10 guy. Odds are he was speaking with his old conference even before SC. UCLA was not an afterthought in this deal.MrGPAC said:ducky23 said:sycasey said:
It's pretty amazing to me that it seems like UCLA just made this decision and announced it publicly without telling anyone they were supposed to tell. What were they doing?
Excuse me for the extremely poor analogy but I've been binging the wire, so I just picture stringer bell being forced to go to clay davis cause he can't get his permits.
The big10 probably wanted a fairly quick answer (because of fox) so ucla had to decide whether to tell the regents and go thru months (years?) of bureaucracy or just tell them later and bet that the regents don't have the balls to do anything about it.
Rumor is that B1G and USC/UCLA had been talking for the past ~4 months.
The issue with timing was actually on USC/UCLA's part. With television contract negotiations looming for the Pac12 (they expire in 2024) USC and UCLA had until June 30th to announce they were leaving the Pac12 after the 2024 season. If they waited until after June 30th, then they would have been subject to either early exit fee's, or to stay through the end of the contract currently being negotiated.
The following is all conjecture:
If I had to guess, The B1G approached ND and USC about 4 months ago, looking at tv contracts and knowing that getting those two schools would greatly enhance the B1G brand and increase its value / payout per school. ND appears to be passing on the idea (maybe the B1G was holding out hope that once they got USC it would convince ND?). USC likely said something along the lines of if you want us you have to take UCLA too, sparking a conversation between both schools and the B1G.
In the meantime, I think USC/UCLA would have preferred to stay in the Pac12. We had a new commissioner and were negotiating TV deals. They likely wanted to see what kind of magic he could work, and if the offer was competitive they would stay in the Pac12. They waited until the last second to see if the new commissioner could pull off any miracles, but ultimately it looked like staying in the Pac12 would be worth half of going to the B1G.
Having stalled as long as they could, they pulled the trigger at the last possible second.
And now that its done they can worry about crossing the t's and dotting the i's on the details. Even if they had brought it up on day 1 (~4 months prior) to the UC Regents, its unlikely they would have gotten a firm answer by the June 30th deadline. There was very little advantage to asking for permission before hand on a relatively short time table, and there was non zero risk in tipping their hand at the possibility of the move. For instance, the B1G may have waited to formally extend an offer until the Regents had given a formal decision...which would have likely been after the deadline.
Luckily Knowlton has connections into the MWC via air force. Hope he can work some magic!
lolfat_slice said:Fyght4Cal said:If you know anything about UCLA AD Jarmond, you know that he is a Big 10 guy. Odds are he was speaking with his old conference even before SC. UCLA was not an afterthought in this deal.MrGPAC said:ducky23 said:sycasey said:
It's pretty amazing to me that it seems like UCLA just made this decision and announced it publicly without telling anyone they were supposed to tell. What were they doing?
Excuse me for the extremely poor analogy but I've been binging the wire, so I just picture stringer bell being forced to go to clay davis cause he can't get his permits.
The big10 probably wanted a fairly quick answer (because of fox) so ucla had to decide whether to tell the regents and go thru months (years?) of bureaucracy or just tell them later and bet that the regents don't have the balls to do anything about it.
Rumor is that B1G and USC/UCLA had been talking for the past ~4 months.
The issue with timing was actually on USC/UCLA's part. With television contract negotiations looming for the Pac12 (they expire in 2024) USC and UCLA had until June 30th to announce they were leaving the Pac12 after the 2024 season. If they waited until after June 30th, then they would have been subject to either early exit fee's, or to stay through the end of the contract currently being negotiated.
The following is all conjecture:
If I had to guess, The B1G approached ND and USC about 4 months ago, looking at tv contracts and knowing that getting those two schools would greatly enhance the B1G brand and increase its value / payout per school. ND appears to be passing on the idea (maybe the B1G was holding out hope that once they got USC it would convince ND?). USC likely said something along the lines of if you want us you have to take UCLA too, sparking a conversation between both schools and the B1G.
In the meantime, I think USC/UCLA would have preferred to stay in the Pac12. We had a new commissioner and were negotiating TV deals. They likely wanted to see what kind of magic he could work, and if the offer was competitive they would stay in the Pac12. They waited until the last second to see if the new commissioner could pull off any miracles, but ultimately it looked like staying in the Pac12 would be worth half of going to the B1G.
Having stalled as long as they could, they pulled the trigger at the last possible second.
And now that its done they can worry about crossing the t's and dotting the i's on the details. Even if they had brought it up on day 1 (~4 months prior) to the UC Regents, its unlikely they would have gotten a firm answer by the June 30th deadline. There was very little advantage to asking for permission before hand on a relatively short time table, and there was non zero risk in tipping their hand at the possibility of the move. For instance, the B1G may have waited to formally extend an offer until the Regents had given a formal decision...which would have likely been after the deadline.
Luckily Knowlton has connections into the MWC via air force. Hope he can work some magic!
Fyght4Cal said:If you know anything about UCLA AD Jarmond, you know that he is a Big 10 guy. Odds are he was speaking with his old conference even before SC. UCLA was not an afterthought in this deal.MrGPAC said:ducky23 said:sycasey said:
It's pretty amazing to me that it seems like UCLA just made this decision and announced it publicly without telling anyone they were supposed to tell. What were they doing?
Excuse me for the extremely poor analogy but I've been binging the wire, so I just picture stringer bell being forced to go to clay davis cause he can't get his permits.
The big10 probably wanted a fairly quick answer (because of fox) so ucla had to decide whether to tell the regents and go thru months (years?) of bureaucracy or just tell them later and bet that the regents don't have the balls to do anything about it.
Rumor is that B1G and USC/UCLA had been talking for the past ~4 months.
The issue with timing was actually on USC/UCLA's part. With television contract negotiations looming for the Pac12 (they expire in 2024) USC and UCLA had until June 30th to announce they were leaving the Pac12 after the 2024 season. If they waited until after June 30th, then they would have been subject to either early exit fee's, or to stay through the end of the contract currently being negotiated.
The following is all conjecture:
If I had to guess, The B1G approached ND and USC about 4 months ago, looking at tv contracts and knowing that getting those two schools would greatly enhance the B1G brand and increase its value / payout per school. ND appears to be passing on the idea (maybe the B1G was holding out hope that once they got USC it would convince ND?). USC likely said something along the lines of if you want us you have to take UCLA too, sparking a conversation between both schools and the B1G.
In the meantime, I think USC/UCLA would have preferred to stay in the Pac12. We had a new commissioner and were negotiating TV deals. They likely wanted to see what kind of magic he could work, and if the offer was competitive they would stay in the Pac12. They waited until the last second to see if the new commissioner could pull off any miracles, but ultimately it looked like staying in the Pac12 would be worth half of going to the B1G.
Having stalled as long as they could, they pulled the trigger at the last possible second.
And now that its done they can worry about crossing the t's and dotting the i's on the details. Even if they had brought it up on day 1 (~4 months prior) to the UC Regents, its unlikely they would have gotten a firm answer by the June 30th deadline. There was very little advantage to asking for permission before hand on a relatively short time table, and there was non zero risk in tipping their hand at the possibility of the move. For instance, the B1G may have waited to formally extend an offer until the Regents had given a formal decision...which would have likely been after the deadline.
He can be a B1G guy all he wants... He could have even been the guy selling USC on the idea and pushing it. He could have been the one to bring up the idea to the B1G in the first place. It could have been him that closed the deal in the end while USC was really trying to make it work in the Pac12. It doesn't matter, B1G doesn't take UCLA without USC, but they would take USC without UCLA.
Stanford would absolutely take a B1G invite. They've already explored rolling their Olympic sports into another Western league to save on travel.MrGPAC said:If UCLA WERE forced to back out of the B1G deal here as a result of the regents, they speculate that The B1G would "Just take Stanford to replace them".movielover said:
Will the Regents REQUIRE UCLA to subsidize Cal Athletics? Awkward.
Bald Faced Truth by John Canzano
https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuam9obmNhbnphbm8uY29tL3AvY2FuemFuby11Y2xhcy1sZWFkZXJzaGlwLXdpbGwtYmU_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpvME5EVTRPRFk1T0N3aWNHOXpkRjlwWkNJNk5qUTJNekl6TkRFc0ltbGhkQ0k2TVRZMU9ERTJNRGMzTXl3aWFYTnpJam9pY0hWaUxUYzVOVEExT1NJc0luTjFZaUk2SW5CdmMzUXRjbVZoWTNScGIyNGlmUS5MLTJ3Ql9MZDdnakE0TmhfUV94bWE4amN6M3B5TFFxVFctZkpvYlVURUpnIiwicCI6NjQ2MzIzNDEsInMiOjc5NTA1OSwiZiI6dHJ1ZSwidSI6NDQ1ODg2OTgsImlhdCI6MTY1ODE2MDc3MywiaXNzIjoicHViLTAiLCJzdWIiOiJsaW5rLXJlZGlyZWN0In0.6ZJb-wWuOxjoTHxt_iaXjhd2piQeIXutNBbOZxHNaYQ?
I wonder how realistic that would be. Would Stanford even buy into that? What happens to USC if UCLA is forced to back out and the B1G can't find a team to partner with USC? The only teams that "make sense" to group with USC are UCLA, Stanford, and Notre Dame. UCLA would be removed from the equation, Stanford may not want to leave Cal behind / join the "big leagues" of paying for players, and Notre Dame is likely to say no thank you at this point.
They definitely would leave Cal behind. They care so much about Cal they ditched us for Notre Dame and have been talking to the Irish throughout the last few weeks as they consider realignment. They are even considering the possibility of going independent, biding their time until B1G expands again.
At the end of the day, it's all moot. I don't think UCLA will be blocked from B1G membership.
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
FOX doesn't see it that way. Adding USC and UCLA, along with the huge number of B1G alums in California, they already feel like they will own the California market.TomBear said:
Just a thought here:
Everyone talks about having the "L.A. Market" by having $C and UC(la). But, what about having the entire California statewide market by having $C, UC(la), Cal and stanford? Wouldn't that be a bigger more significant opportunity?
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
If Furd ends up independent, so do we, and if they roll all their Olympic sports into another league, that is a bit of a downgrade (Tara Vanderveer will be miffed about playing WCC teams) and our sports would follow suit anyway. It would be an odd arrangement however if Furd is playing Big Ten football and that's it, while the SoCal schools are all Big Ten, so what would be the point of that?BigDaddy said:Stanford would absolutely take a B1G invite. They've already explored rolling their Olympic sports into another Western league to save on travel.MrGPAC said:If UCLA WERE forced to back out of the B1G deal here as a result of the regents, they speculate that The B1G would "Just take Stanford to replace them".movielover said:
Will the Regents REQUIRE UCLA to subsidize Cal Athletics? Awkward.
Bald Faced Truth by John Canzano
https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuam9obmNhbnphbm8uY29tL3AvY2FuemFuby11Y2xhcy1sZWFkZXJzaGlwLXdpbGwtYmU_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpvME5EVTRPRFk1T0N3aWNHOXpkRjlwWkNJNk5qUTJNekl6TkRFc0ltbGhkQ0k2TVRZMU9ERTJNRGMzTXl3aWFYTnpJam9pY0hWaUxUYzVOVEExT1NJc0luTjFZaUk2SW5CdmMzUXRjbVZoWTNScGIyNGlmUS5MLTJ3Ql9MZDdnakE0TmhfUV94bWE4amN6M3B5TFFxVFctZkpvYlVURUpnIiwicCI6NjQ2MzIzNDEsInMiOjc5NTA1OSwiZiI6dHJ1ZSwidSI6NDQ1ODg2OTgsImlhdCI6MTY1ODE2MDc3MywiaXNzIjoicHViLTAiLCJzdWIiOiJsaW5rLXJlZGlyZWN0In0.6ZJb-wWuOxjoTHxt_iaXjhd2piQeIXutNBbOZxHNaYQ?
I wonder how realistic that would be. Would Stanford even buy into that? What happens to USC if UCLA is forced to back out and the B1G can't find a team to partner with USC? The only teams that "make sense" to group with USC are UCLA, Stanford, and Notre Dame. UCLA would be removed from the equation, Stanford may not want to leave Cal behind / join the "big leagues" of paying for players, and Notre Dame is likely to say no thank you at this point.
They definitely would leave Cal behind. They care so much about Cal they ditched us for Notre Dame and have been talking to the Irish throughout the last few weeks as they consider realignment. They are even considering the possibility of going independent, biding their time until B1G expands again.
At the end of the day, it's all moot. I don't think UCLA will be blocked from B1G membership.
Just want to set people's expectations. Like so many years of Cal football results, we always have high hopes that get burned.
Let me just end all the anxiety for everyone ... We will not have a viable football team after this year. Things are moving at lightening speeding and Cal has No, nada, whatever language you cab say no in, seat at the table in all the realignment talk. People are overestimating the value of the northern California media market where interest in college football (let alone NFL) is subpar. What's more, we don't even have a mediocre history of success and our AD and Chancellor have no clout. Anyone disagree?
Given the above - where do you think we belong? The chickens have finally come to roost and we are getting what our admin deserves ... The end of football and any future success of all other sports on campus.
You think it can't get worse? Of course it will - the best students ...those with both the brain and athletic skills will not choose Cal and longer term this will hit our academic reputation. We are already #2 public uni in the US.
Let me just end all the anxiety for everyone ... We will not have a viable football team after this year. Things are moving at lightening speeding and Cal has No, nada, whatever language you cab say no in, seat at the table in all the realignment talk. People are overestimating the value of the northern California media market where interest in college football (let alone NFL) is subpar. What's more, we don't even have a mediocre history of success and our AD and Chancellor have no clout. Anyone disagree?
Given the above - where do you think we belong? The chickens have finally come to roost and we are getting what our admin deserves ... The end of football and any future success of all other sports on campus.
You think it can't get worse? Of course it will - the best students ...those with both the brain and athletic skills will not choose Cal and longer term this will hit our academic reputation. We are already #2 public uni in the US.
Featured Stories
See All
2025 ACC Kickoff Day 1 Roundup
by Jim McGill
Cal Contingent Set For ACC Kickoff
by Cal Athletics
The Rodcast: Cal Crossover With Geoff McArthur
by Rod Benson
Cal To Play UCLA In Empire Classic
by Jim McGill