The Latest Rumors

262,169 Views | 1901 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Bobodeluxe
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:26p, 9/22/22

I just googled "full share". (This used to be called "looking it up in the dictionary".) Here's what it said:

"Depends. Can mean different things."

The example they gave: Two people start up a company. They split ownership of the company in two. Each has an equal (or "full") share. Dut to his/her contributions, Employee One is awarded an annual salary of one million dollars, while Employee Two is awarded an annual salary of $250,000.

They gave several other examples, including ones in which a "full share" was not equal to the shares that other owners or members received. "Full" can mean whatever they want it to mean.

If you doubt any of this, google it yourself.
Reply Quote
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to maxer • 10:02p, 9/22/22
maxer said:
sosheezy said:
wifeisafurd said:

I did. UCLA is not getting the same revenue as USC. Full share means different things than equal revenue.
Also, for those not following, the B1G also is likely to provide a revenue share to athletes.
Not trying to be a pill here, legitimately trying to understand the difference. All of the reporting is saying all the Big Ten teams are splitting media money equally, with Maryland/Rutgers of the world are now being elevated to equal with all the other teams, and USC/USC getting equal dollars as all the other teams. I can get that the reporting is wrong, or technically inaccurate, but can you explain how?

Does the Big Ten split media money unequally? Which teams make more or less? How is full share different that equal revenue as you are hearing it?


There are essentially 3 pots of revenue for conferences:
1. Media rights
2. College football playoff appearance money
3. NCAA basketball tournament appearance money

(Individual athletic depts can also make money other ways, most notably by selling tickets and sponsorships).

I BELIEVE the point that WIAF is making, very obliquely as he likes to do, is that although the media rights revenue is split evenly, perhaps the playoff and NCAA tournament money will not be (aka the teams that actually appear will keep much more of it, which was not the case in the PAC. Not sure how the Big 10 does it).


There is no way UCLA gets a full share of the football media rights but a partial share of the NCAA basketball tournament rights. They were a 4 seed, ranked #2 at one point and finished ranked #11 with Purdue the only B1G team ranked higher at #10. Moreover, upon entry UCLA basketball is instantly the premier basketball brand in the B1G. Not giving them a full share in basketball would be slap in the face that would not actually save the other schools much money.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
maxer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calumnus • 10:24p, 9/22/22
calumnus said:
maxer said:
sosheezy said:
wifeisafurd said:

I did. UCLA is not getting the same revenue as USC. Full share means different things than equal revenue.
Also, for those not following, the B1G also is likely to provide a revenue share to athletes.
Not trying to be a pill here, legitimately trying to understand the difference. All of the reporting is saying all the Big Ten teams are splitting media money equally, with Maryland/Rutgers of the world are now being elevated to equal with all the other teams, and USC/USC getting equal dollars as all the other teams. I can get that the reporting is wrong, or technically inaccurate, but can you explain how?

Does the Big Ten split media money unequally? Which teams make more or less? How is full share different that equal revenue as you are hearing it?


There are essentially 3 pots of revenue for conferences:
1. Media rights
2. College football playoff appearance money
3. NCAA basketball tournament appearance money

(Individual athletic depts can also make money other ways, most notably by selling tickets and sponsorships).

I BELIEVE the point that WIAF is making, very obliquely as he likes to do, is that although the media rights revenue is split evenly, perhaps the playoff and NCAA tournament money will not be (aka the teams that actually appear will keep much more of it, which was not the case in the PAC. Not sure how the Big 10 does it).


There is no way UCLA gets a full share of the football media rights but a partial share of the NCAA basketball tournament rights. They were a 4 seed, ranked #2 at one point and finished ranked #11 with Purdue the only B1G team ranked higher at #10. Moreover, upon entry UCLA basketball is instantly the premier basketball brand in the B1G. Not giving them a full share in basketball would be slap in the face that would not actually save the other schools much money.
I meant that the buckets of money for the football playoff and NCAA tournament would be appearance-based instead of split evenly (as the PAC does it now).
Reply Quote
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to WalterSobchak • 10:38p, 9/22/22
WalterSobchak said:
I'm all in on this and hope Christ, Knowlton, etc. are too (apologies as I assume everyone's seen it already):

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/voq5mn/b1g_endgame_speculation/
The B1G east is scary, but would have great TV ratings.
Reply Quote
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to berserkeley • 10:51p, 9/22/22
berserkeley said:
Unit2Sucks said:
berserkeley said:
philbert said:

So what Kliavkof is saying is that UCLA's move to the Big Ten doesn't make sense unless the Big Ten also invites a handful of other Pac-12 teams to help reduce travel costs.
What he's saying is that moving to the Big Ten results in a bigger department with higher salaries for coaches and administrators. The Athletic Industrial Complex prefers that world. Business isn't always about profitability, sometimes it's just about empire-building. What he's saying is music to the ears of the administrators/bureaucrats.
Well, both times he mentioned it, he mentioned the travel expenses first and the coaches salaries second.

But part of the reason USC and UCLA want more money is so they can afford to pay coaches salaries that are competitive with the Big Ten and the SEC. They're not making extra money because they're spending it on the things they wanted the extra money for in the first place? What a strange and silly point to make.
I really didn't fully understand his arguments other than he said the math wouldn't work for UCLA - they make more in the Pac after you look at that mysterious envelope he mentions. If you start look at the B1G fine print there are a lot of caps, minimums, and stuff before they allocate certain types off revenues, and some will be specific to UCLA. UCLA will benefit probably in regard to gate splits in basketball, but will lose much more with football gate splits, as an example. Everyone seems to think you divide the money by number of teams is not looking closely at how the B1G really works. It is way more complicated. In that regard, I'm surprised the Pac 12 commissioner had the numbers to make good estimates on revenue splits.
Reply Quote
Fire Starkey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:58p, 9/28/22
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/pac-12-in-danger-of-eventual-collapse-as-big-ten-considers-further-expansion-big-12-interest-looms/

Dennis Dodd with a fresh round of "Big 10 swiping 4 teams from the Pac 12" rumors. Now, Big 10 is investigating Amazon for streaming and the value that Cal, Furd, Oregon and Washington would add to that potential package...

Reply Quote
philly1121
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fire Starkey • 3:21p, 9/28/22
Fire Starkey said:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/pac-12-in-danger-of-eventual-collapse-as-big-ten-considers-further-expansion-big-12-interest-looms/

Dennis Dodd with a fresh round of "Big 10 swiping 4 teams from the Pac 12" rumors. Now, Big 10 is investigating Amazon for streaming and the value that Cal, Furd, Oregon and Washington would add to that potential package...


The Big 10 will never let us be Prime members.
Reply Quote
2
OdontoBear66
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to philly1121 • 3:28p, 9/28/22
philly1121 said:
Fire Starkey said:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/pac-12-in-danger-of-eventual-collapse-as-big-ten-considers-further-expansion-big-12-interest-looms/

Dennis Dodd with a fresh round of "Big 10 swiping 4 teams from the Pac 12" rumors. Now, Big 10 is investigating Amazon for streaming and the value that Cal, Furd, Oregon and Washington would add to that potential package...


The Big 10 will never let us be Prime members.
Yup. Remember how Utah and Colorado came into the Pac 10? They wanted U$C and UCLA games or no go for their recruiting. Made the argument they were needed for them to be competitive.

Same reason we need MSU, UM, PSU and OSU
Reply Quote
Klindergoff
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:58p, 9/28/22
The latest from CBS Sports. It looks like George "Kicking Ass" Kliavkoff isn't the only one trying to get an Amazon deal.



Reply Quote
Strykur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Klindergoff • 6:05p, 9/28/22
Klindergoff said:
The latest from CBS Sports. It looks like George "Kicking Ass" Kliavkoff isn't the only one trying to get an Amazon deal.



Basically we end up in whatever conference clinches the Amazon deal, but the key is does the PAC-12 have more incentive with a smaller deal, or does Amazon want to go Big with a larger deal on its end.
Reply Quote
Oski87
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Strykur • 9:28p, 9/28/22
Strykur said:
Klindergoff said:
The latest from CBS Sports. It looks like George "Kicking Ass" Kliavkoff isn't the only one trying to get an Amazon deal.



Basically we end up in whatever conference clinches the Amazon deal, but the key is does the PAC-12 have more incentive with a smaller deal, or does Amazon want to go Big with a larger deal on its end.
Not sure with 10 members the PAC 12 can even have enough inventory for an Amazon deal - unless all games are on Amazon for something like $600 million. What happens then - no coverage on ESPN, Fox Sports or CBS...

We only have an average of 6 games per week. With only 5 games per week regular season, tier 1,2 and 3 are gone. Is Amazon the new PAC 12 network?
Reply Quote
MilleniaBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oski87 • 11:23p, 9/28/22
So I saw something about TNT joining the fray for college football. Could they be working with Amazon? Seems like a huge $ pie and that one of the media players will want a power five west coast conference.
Reply Quote
berserkeley
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fire Starkey • 7:22a, 9/29/22
Fire Starkey said:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/pac-12-in-danger-of-eventual-collapse-as-big-ten-considers-further-expansion-big-12-interest-looms/

Dennis Dodd with a fresh round of "Big 10 swiping 4 teams from the Pac 12" rumors. Now, Big 10 is investigating Amazon for streaming and the value that Cal, Furd, Oregon and Washington would add to that potential package...

That article certainly makes it feel like the Big Ten isn't going to find a deal good enough to justify expansion and that the new Pac-10 isn't going to find a deal that makes them want to stick together other than they'll have no other choice.
Reply Quote
Bobodeluxe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:53a, 9/29/22
The PAC-10! The Conference of NO Other Choice!
Reply Quote
5
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wifeisafurd • 9:09a, 9/29/22
wifeisafurd said:
berserkeley said:
Unit2Sucks said:
berserkeley said:
philbert said:

So what Kliavkof is saying is that UCLA's move to the Big Ten doesn't make sense unless the Big Ten also invites a handful of other Pac-12 teams to help reduce travel costs.
What he's saying is that moving to the Big Ten results in a bigger department with higher salaries for coaches and administrators. The Athletic Industrial Complex prefers that world. Business isn't always about profitability, sometimes it's just about empire-building. What he's saying is music to the ears of the administrators/bureaucrats.
Well, both times he mentioned it, he mentioned the travel expenses first and the coaches salaries second.

But part of the reason USC and UCLA want more money is so they can afford to pay coaches salaries that are competitive with the Big Ten and the SEC. They're not making extra money because they're spending it on the things they wanted the extra money for in the first place? What a strange and silly point to make.
I really didn't fully understand his arguments other than he said the math wouldn't work for UCLA - they make more in the Pac after you look at that mysterious envelope he mentions. If you start look at the B1G fine print there are a lot of caps, minimums, and stuff before they allocate certain types off revenues, and some will be specific to UCLA. UCLA will benefit probably in regard to gate splits in basketball, but will lose much more with football gate splits, as an example. Everyone seems to think you divide the money by number of teams is not looking closely at how the B1G really works. It is way more complicated. In that regard, I'm surprised the Pac 12 commissioner had the numbers to make good estimates on revenue splits.
I know the is vague (oblique?) because (1) I'm not at liberty to discuss certain conversations in specific, and (2) to quote our Chancellor, everthing about conference realignment is extremely complicated.
Reply Quote
ColoradoBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oski87 • 9:42a, 9/29/22
Oski87 said:
Strykur said:
Klindergoff said:
The latest from CBS Sports. It looks like George "Kicking Ass" Kliavkoff isn't the only one trying to get an Amazon deal.



Basically we end up in whatever conference clinches the Amazon deal, but the key is does the PAC-12 have more incentive with a smaller deal, or does Amazon want to go Big with a larger deal on its end.
Not sure with 10 members the PAC 12 can even have enough inventory for an Amazon deal - unless all games are on Amazon for something like $600 million. What happens then - no coverage on ESPN, Fox Sports or CBS...

We only have an average of 6 games per week. With only 5 games per week regular season, tier 1,2 and 3 are gone. Is Amazon the new PAC 12 network?


Right now, the p12 contracts 44 games with Fox/ESPN put of a total of around 80 games (depends on howany teams buy home games OOC). 10 teams would mean around 67 games.

So if the p12 signs for a weekly ESPN Saturday night game (so 13-14 weeks) and 6-7 ABC day games, there would still be some extra content left for streaming that is more desirable than what the p12 gets now (and could include Friday night). If those $$$ Saturday night games are rotated (mostly) evenly so all schools have some (hopefully announced in preseason), but capped so the more desireable schools don't get hit with a huge additional burden there, I'd think there would be some decent games left for the larger streaming package.

Playing OOC games throughout the season (maybe an alliance with the acc) would also help balance things out to add concent later in the year so there aren't so many overlapping games early (ie games where Cal plays on P12 Bay Area because there is a game on P12 National already).
Reply Quote
BigDaddy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:21p, 10/7/22
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
Big Dog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:56p, 10/7/22
the chance of a deal happening early were slim and none.

No network with half a brain would sign a contract for rights to a league that might not exist in two months, less two years from now.
Reply Quote
JB was a Chieftain
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:15p, 10/7/22
I'm leaning more now to keeping the PAC and not jumping to B1G. Take our chances with expanded playoffs.
Get a reasonable deal from ESPN & Amazon. Amazon with Friday night & Saturday afternoon window and ESPN Saturday night window. Remaining games to ESPN2 & PAC-12 network (more widely available)

Add SDSU & UNLV to Western Pod (OG PAC-6)
Add Houston, Kansas, OK state, Texas Tech to Southern Pod (4 corner Schools)
Adding markets in SoCal, Vegas & 2 in Texas would be enticing.

2 eight team divisions. Play everyone in division plus 2 in other division. 3 OCC games with 1 being ACC/1 being new MWC&Big12/1 being in state cupcake or rival. Winner plays in Las Vegas for conference Championship.
Reply Quote
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big Dog • 4:26p, 10/7/22
Big Dog said:
the chance of a deal happening early were slim and none.

No network with half a brain would sign a contract for rights to a league that might not exist in two months, less two years from now.
Three letter response: NBC

Follow-up response to coming question: high exit fee payable to NBC, Amazon, and other partners. No guaranty Fox and/or ESPN will or will not want to be a partner

Follow-up response to second coming question: yes, there always will be a risk that a donor (and we know which one - swoosh) can write a check for the large exit fee, but the media partners will assume that risk.

Probably by the end of the year, the B1G is going to need to make a play on the teams that it wants in a west coast pod with USC (its not a 100% given UCLA goes to the B1G) or lose all the Pac teams - whatever teams that means - to a lock-down media contract, assuming the media partners see sufficient value to offer a sufficiently competitive payout to what probably will be at least 12 Pac teams.

Next question: No, the above scenario is not guaranteed. Especially timing. This can all change real fast, especially if Notre Dame wants into the B1G, which they probably do not, but you never know.

Next question: Yes, I have more information than Jon Wilner, and the Oregon dude. So do others on this board.

Sebasterbear or Greg: edit this as you see appropriate.

Bombs away!

Edit: Let's keep this here.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
LTbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wifeisafurd • 6:33p, 10/7/22
wifeisafurd said:
(its not a 100% given UCLA goes to the B1G)

Yes it is.
Reply Quote
4
BigDaddy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JB was a Chieftain • 8:22p, 10/7/22
JB was a Chieftain said:
I'm leaning more now to keeping the PAC and not jumping to B1G. Take our chances with expanded playoffs.
Get a reasonable deal from ESPN & Amazon. Amazon with Friday night & Saturday afternoon window and ESPN Saturday night window. Remaining games to ESPN2 & PAC-12 network (more widely available)

Add SDSU & UNLV to Western Pod (OG PAC-6)
Add Houston, Kansas, OK state, Texas Tech to Southern Pod (4 corner Schools)
Adding markets in SoCal, Vegas & 2 in Texas would be enticing.

2 eight team divisions. Play everyone in division plus 2 in other division. 3 OCC games with 1 being ACC/1 being new MWC&Big12/1 being in state cupcake or rival. Winner plays in Las Vegas for conference Championship.

The Pac-12 does not have the juice to add teams from the Big XII. OK State, Texas Tech and Kansas are not leaving to join a Pac-12 conference with no stability and at least 8 teams with a foot out the door.

“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
5
Bobodeluxe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BigDaddy • 9:31p, 10/7/22
BigDaddy said:
JB was a Chieftain said:
I'm leaning more now to keeping the PAC and not jumping to B1G. Take our chances with expanded playoffs.
Get a reasonable deal from ESPN & Amazon. Amazon with Friday night & Saturday afternoon window and ESPN Saturday night window. Remaining games to ESPN2 & PAC-12 network (more widely available)

Add SDSU & UNLV to Western Pod (OG PAC-6)
Add Houston, Kansas, OK state, Texas Tech to Southern Pod (4 corner Schools)
Adding markets in SoCal, Vegas & 2 in Texas would be enticing.

2 eight team divisions. Play everyone in division plus 2 in other division. 3 OCC games with 1 being ACC/1 being new MWC&Big12/1 being in state cupcake or rival. Winner plays in Las Vegas for conference Championship.

The Pac-12 does not have the juice to add teams from the Big XII. OK State, Texas Tech and Kansas are not leaving to join a Pac-12 conference with no stability and at least 8 teams with a foot out the door.

You just need a few pounds of edibles. Then you will feel it.
Reply Quote
1
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LTbear • 11:34p, 10/7/22
LTbear said:
wifeisafurd said:
(its not a 100% given UCLA goes to the B1G)

Yes it is.
source?
Reply Quote
2
Big Dog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wifeisafurd • 2:14p, 10/8/22
wifeisafurd said:
Big Dog said:
the chance of a deal happening early were slim and none.

No network with half a brain would sign a contract for rights to a league that might not exist in two months, less two years from now.
Three letter response: NBC

Follow-up response to coming question: high exit fee payable to NBC, Amazon, and other partners. No guaranty Fox and/or ESPN will or will not want to be a partner

Follow-up response to second coming question: yes, there always will be a risk that a donor (and we know which one - swoosh) can write a check for the large exit fee, but the media partners will assume that risk.

Probably by the end of the year, the B1G is going to need to make a play on the teams that it wants in a west coast pod with USC (its not a 100% given UCLA goes to the B1G) or lose all the Pac teams - whatever teams that means - to a lock-down media contract, assuming the media partners see sufficient value to offer a sufficiently competitive payout to what probably will be at least 12 Pac teams.

Next question: No, the above scenario is not guaranteed. Especially timing. This can all change real fast, especially if Notre Dame wants into the B1G, which they probably do not, but you never know.

Next question: Yes, I have more information than Jon Wilner, and the Oregon dude. So do others on this board.

Sebasterbear or Greg: edit this as you see appropriate.

Bombs away!

Edit: Let's keep this here.
wife, I take your word for it that you are in the know.

But I disagree that Oregon or Washington would agree to a long-term pac deal today which requires them to pay a huge exit fee if/when the BiG comes calling. That would be dumb on their part; they can sit and wait. And if UO and U-Dub won't sign today, there is no deal to be had.
Reply Quote
2 edits
philbert
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:10p, 10/8/22
Well, it has been stated that with the CFP expansion, it's a lot easier to make the CFP as a member of the Pac-xx than it would be as a B1G member. If the Pac allows CFP qualifiers to keep more of that money instead of splitting it evenly then it may be worthwhile to sign onto a new deal. Especially if Wife's info results in a bigger deal than what folks are predicting.
Reply Quote
philly1121
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wifeisafurd • 5:25p, 10/8/22
wifeisafurd said:
LTbear said:
wifeisafurd said:
(its not a 100% given UCLA goes to the B1G)

Yes it is.
source?

The Regents will not stop UCLA from leaving. They have no legal authority to do so. To try and do so amounts to a regulatory "taking". A source I know at USC and another in the CA legislature are telling me that the Regents will levy and "exit fee" to UCLA for leaving. What that amount is is not known but - there's no stopping them.
Reply Quote
4
Strykur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to philly1121 • 5:30p, 10/8/22
philly1121 said:
wifeisafurd said:
LTbear said:
wifeisafurd said:
(its not a 100% given UCLA goes to the B1G)
Yes it is.
source?
The Regents will not stop UCLA from leaving. They have no legal authority to do so. To try and do so amounts to a regulatory "taking". A source I know at USC and another in the CA legislature are telling me that the Regents will levy and "exit fee" to UCLA for leaving. What that amount is is not known but - there's no stopping them.
Regents have total purview in regard to UC governance, so if they want to try to hang up the deal, they could create complications, there will be something but flukela is gone.
Reply Quote
2
Big Dog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:29p, 10/8/22
Bruins go to 6-0, while Cal hopes to get to 6 wins. One values what sports brings to the community. The other, not so much.

Do folks really believe that the BiG wants Cal & Stanford?
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Econ141
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big Dog • 7:40p, 10/8/22
Big Dog said:
Bruins go to 6-0, while Cal hopes to get to 6 wins. One values what sports brings to the community. The other, not so much.

Do folks really believe that the BiG wants Cal & Stanford?


100% agree - we have no aspirations to be a legit program and interest and fans are waning. UCLA on the other hand actually cares and understands the importance of athletics to community and alumni. They were right in leaving and no one in their right mind should try and prevent this. Kudos to them for righting their football program - all their other sports are pretty much top notch.
Reply Quote
3
WalterSobchak
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to philly1121 • 7:56p, 10/8/22
philly1121 said:
wifeisafurd said:
LTbear said:
wifeisafurd said:
(its not a 100% given UCLA goes to the B1G)

Yes it is.
source?

The Regents will not stop UCLA from leaving. They have no legal authority to do so. To try and do so amounts to a regulatory "taking". A source I know at USC and another in the CA legislature are telling me that the Regents will levy and "exit fee" to UCLA for leaving. What that amount is is not known but - there's no stopping them.
I've read a lot of really stupid takes on this site over the years, but this may take the cake.
Reply Quote
12
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to philly1121 • 12:28a, 10/9/22
philly1121 said:
wifeisafurd said:
LTbear said:
wifeisafurd said:
(its not a 100% given UCLA goes to the B1G)

Yes it is.
source?

The Regents will not stop UCLA from leaving. They have no legal authority to do so. To try and do so amounts to a regulatory "taking". A source I know at USC and another in the CA legislature are telling me that the Regents will levy and "exit fee" to UCLA for leaving. What that amount is is not known but - there's no stopping them.
Well the Associate AD at UCLA is telling UCLA alums something very different, not to mention what I have heard directly and personally from one Pac President, one Pac Chancellor, 3 athletics directors, the CEO of the USC Board of Trustees (your "USC.source" may want to look at the organization chart before he shoots him mouth off), and one person on this board that has talked with an important politician who actually is ex officio member of the Board of Regents The Board of Regents has made no decision yet and at this moment is fact finding and yet to even debate a final resolution of UCLA's fate.

The comment about UC doing a regulatory taking and the Board's lack. of authority may have been one of the dumbest set of remarks I ever heard on this board on so many levels. A taking is when a regulatory decisions take private property. This may come as an absolute shock to you. but UCLA is a state entity, which negates the entire concept of regulatory taking. In fact, UCLA is a subdivision of the University of California and if the Regents so desired, it has the legal authority to simply revoke UCLA's charter and make it have no separate authority from the University of California. Nice attempt to BS us all with a load of BS..
Reply Quote
15
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big Dog • 12:30a, 10/9/22
Big Dog said:
Bruins go to 6-0, while Cal hopes to get to 6 wins. One values what sports brings to the community. The other, not so much.

Do folks really believe that the BiG wants Cal & Stanford?
yes it means two automatic wins each year for existing B1G teams who oppose them judging by the last 13 seconds of Furd's game tonight
Reply Quote
1
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to philbert • 12:59a, 10/9/22
philbert said:
Well, it has been stated that with the CFP expansion, it's a lot easier to make the CFP as a member of the Pac-xx than it would be as a B1G member. If the Pac allows CFP qualifiers to keep more of that money instead of splitting it evenly then it may be worthwhile to sign onto a new deal. Especially if Wife's info results in a bigger deal than what folks are predicting.


Klivakoff may pull off a good deal, especially if he has 2 deals, one with UCLA and USC and one without.

The question then is, could USC and UCLA back out of the B1G deal? Pretty sure they already signed.
Reply Quote
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calumnus • 9:51a, 10/9/22
calumnus said:
philbert said:
Well, it has been stated that with the CFP expansion, it's a lot easier to make the CFP as a member of the Pac-xx than it would be as a B1G member. If the Pac allows CFP qualifiers to keep more of that money instead of splitting it evenly then it may be worthwhile to sign onto a new deal. Especially if Wife's info results in a bigger deal than what folks are predicting.


Klivakoff may pull off a good deal, especially if he has 2 deals, one with UCLA and USC and one without.

The question then is, could USC and UCLA back out of the B1G deal? Pretty sure they already signed.
SC is gone. UCLA signed a deal, but the Regents has the final say. While the Regents can squash their deal with the B1G, it is not clear that will happen. If the BiG invites Cal, then no way the Regents stops UCLA.

If Klivakoff pulls off a sufficient media deal, the Pac could stay around. That may be a big if,. Trying to read the tea leaves, the real issue then become timing if the B1G still is interested in a West Coast pod. S/b an inerestign .time coming.




Reply Quote
1 edit
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.