Thanks. good stuff!BearGreg said:
To lighten things up
Breaking news in College Football
The Latest Rumors
262,334 Views |
1901 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Bobodeluxe
I like the part about the Jets and Giants joining and wearing the conference.
I suppose if we are looking at this from media markets - then both are nonstarters. If we are however looking in terms of the only D1 football school South of the Grapevine that is not joining the B1G - then I think its a no brainer, if not no choice at all.BearGoggles said:Agree re rivalries. The question is do SDSU and UNLV bring media and other revenues? I think SDSU does/can. Not sure about Vegas though that has been an attractive market for NHL and NFL. Is Vegas a valuable media market?philly1121 said:calumnus said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
Under that scenario Cal should be the Bay Area rep paired with UCLA as California"rivals" with the UCLA-USC game and Big Game traditions continuing as last game of the year OOC games.
I'd vote for staying as the PAC-10. 2 schools from each state. Better path to the CFP.
However, if we expand and add San Diego State, add UNLV or here is a wild idea: maybe an expansion franchise: UC San Diego. Largest UC campus, great academics, wants to move to D1, can share Snapdragon with San Diego St. and would be natural rivals. The Chargers left so no NFL. San Diego would be firmly PAC-12 territory. It would give the PAC-12 another warm weather location for night games, which is a selling point for the TV contract(s) and fits with tge San Diego lifestyle (plenty to do doing the day).
UCSD creating a football team, let alone a D1 football team is a fairytale. Some sports are in the Big West.
The best additions for the Pac are SDSU and UNLV. You bring SDSU in for Southern Cali and UNLV in for Nevada recruiting. They aren't natural rivals but - SO WHAT? Rivalries no longer matter in college football.
As far as UNLV - again not a big media market but - it is the entertainment capital of the world. They can sell anything there. I'm sure they can sell the Pac12.
Bear8 said:
I like the part about the Jets and Giants joining the Pac12 and weakening the conference.
if you asking me, it seems like SC has to have a pod (or at least was given assurances one would be created), and they would clearly favor the other 3 Cali teams join them if it doesn't cost them money - but to accomplish that may mean these schools have to be induced into the B1G at some discount. That may not be possible if the Pac TV media deal is too rich, so the B!G may have to offer the other Cali schools a 100% share.socaltownie said:That was my point - the scenario where UCLA is brought back in. Lots of speculation that Furd then takes their spot but I don't see that without the minimum 4 team (and I think you actually then get 6 with Oregon and Washington) West coast "pod/division" so that non revenues like baseball and softball might make a fun 2 weeks of it traveling to the midwest but otherwise home and aways against the 5 other west coast teams.wifeisafurd said:yes, and I concur with your analysis.BearGoggles said:Aren't we talking about two different scenarios?wifeisafurd said:Without giving away inside information, I think Cal and Stanford administrators think that the travel issues with a west B1G pod can be worked out without jeopardizing the student experience. It will just cost more money.socaltownie said:You are closer to it but I just think that absent something really radical/left field Stanfurd faces a huge challenge of how to support the non-football atheletes when travel would be 2 time zones away. Even creating a 4 team "pod" feels like it creates a problem.wifeisafurd said:I would like to give you an intelligence response, but I have no idea. I think that they want to stay in the Pac, but if they have a lot of coin thrown at them?BearGoggles said:Is there any chance Furd goes to B1G with just USC? Seems inconceivable to me but I could be wrong.wifeisafurd said:That is a great question. I suspect that the B1G would go after Stanford instead to avoid facing a fight with the Pac before the CS Board of Trustees. No offense to SDSU, but Stanford also has a superior athletics and academics profile.Bobodeluxe said:What if the P1G replaces ucla with San Diego State?wifeisafurd said:It should be obvious by now that SDSU is replacing USC.philbert said:
In other related news:An important hurdle has been cleared for SDSU on the academic front (awarding of doctorates) https://t.co/42CrVIcip0
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) November 2, 2022
For example - near as I can tell the B1G mens baseball teams played about 23 games last year. Furd played more than TWICE as many cause....well....west coast versus frozen Tundra. Swim and Dive are on compressed schedules (or barely fielded) by B1G teams while Furd has a robust home and away set of meets.
At this point the B1G/tOSU have essentially waved their hands at this problem. I am not sure USC cares and UCLA with its deficit was desperate for any sort of life line to put off cutting teams. But absent some sort of interconference peace treaty (which essentially has to be a B1G payment to the Pac12 that would allow entry without football) I don't see anyone else leaving (including Cal) unless it is a group for 6 so you could actually have a west coast division for non-revenue sports.
PS. I think given Christ's quotes in the Athletic this week _SHE_ would be loath to allow Cal to make that jump absent a solution. It is clear that she places a high value on non-revenues.
Also, I have talked with several school administrators from different Pac schools and they are all over the place on what they think the Regents will do. FWIW, the effort Carol Christ is making to protect Cal's interests on this is gratifying.
1. UCLA backs out of B1G, Furd replaces it. No west coast pod.
2. USC/UCLA/Furd/Cal part of west coast pod with 2-4 other teams.
I think travel is much less of an issue in scenario 2 (which is what your post refers to). But we had been discussing option 1. Absent a west coast pod, it sure seems like #1 would be a lot of travel, particularly for non-revenue sports. Imagine baseball and softball which have longer seasons.
Oregon and Washington have advantages and disadvantages (as strange as this sounds, Oregon's success may work against it, where Stanford's and Cal' s mediocre success help these programs), and it is not out of the bounds to speculate SDSU could be induced to join the west pod, even at a discounted initial share. Just me spitballing, but I can actually see this scenario. The great thing is that among the sources I have talked to, there are a lot of conflicting opinions, and no one really knows how this will play out. Like I said before, buckle-up!
MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
This is the first time I've read that Furd would leave if UCLA returns. What's the logic there?
juarezbear said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
This is the first time I've read that Furd would leave if UCLA returns. What's the logic there?
No logic.
Fraud wont go anywhere. Admin worse than Cal
Go Bears!
It seems very weird to me that Furd would suddenly jump at the B1G chance if UCLA is booted, as it appears they've been tepid about making the move so far.
Somehow I have a feeling the Regents number to UCLA is going to be big, say 20m annually. In which case I think that gives them cover to make their fans/alumni happy by staying.
Pac add SDSU to replace SC. UCLA stays and Pac retains some of the LA market. The Pac tv deal gets better.
SC gets screwed and goes B1G alone.
Somehow I have a feeling the Regents number to UCLA is going to be big, say 20m annually. In which case I think that gives them cover to make their fans/alumni happy by staying.
Pac add SDSU to replace SC. UCLA stays and Pac retains some of the LA market. The Pac tv deal gets better.
SC gets screwed and goes B1G alone.
The logic is just people making stuff up.juarezbear said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
This is the first time I've read that Furd would leave if UCLA returns. What's the logic there?
"What cannot be known hollows the mind. Fill it not with guesswork."
Galadriel, October, 2022
Galadriel, October, 2022
They could always just fight on after losing to Ohio State everybyeartequila4kapp said:
It seems very weird to me that Furd would suddenly jump at the B1G chance if UCLA is booted, as it appears they've been tepid about making the move so far.
Somehow I have a feeling the Regents number to UCLA is going to be big, say 20m annually. In which case I think that gives them cover to make their fans/alumni happy by staying.
Pac add SDSU to replace SC. UCLA stays and Pac retains some of the LA market. The Pac tv deal gets better.
SC gets screwed and goes B1G alone.
Go Bears!
philly1121 said:calumnus said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
Under that scenario Cal should be the Bay Area rep paired with UCLA as California"rivals" with the UCLA-USC game and Big Game traditions continuing as last game of the year OOC games.
I'd vote for staying as the PAC-10. 2 schools from each state. Better path to the CFP.
However, if we expand and add San Diego State, add UNLV or here is a wild idea: maybe an expansion franchise: UC San Diego. Largest UC campus, great academics, wants to move to D1, can share Snapdragon with San Diego St. and would be natural rivals. The Chargers left so no NFL. San Diego would be firmly PAC-12 territory. It would give the PAC-12 another warm weather location for night games, which is a selling point for the TV contract(s) and fits with tge San Diego lifestyle (plenty to do doing the day).
UCSD creating a football team, let alone a D1 football team is a fairytale. Some sports are in the Big West.
The best additions for the Pac are SDSU and UNLV. You bring SDSU in for Southern Cali and UNLV in for Nevada recruiting. They aren't natural rivals but - SO WHAT? Rivalries no longer matter in college
football.
The Aggies - UC Davis - fields over 22 sports, has a new football stadium (13,000) which was built to be expanded, and just finished a $35 Million high performance facility. Greater Boise has 750,000 people; greater Sacramento has 2.4 Million? #38 national university with over 40,000 students.
Exactly. Wishful thinking.sycasey said:The logic is just people making stuff up.juarezbear said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
This is the first time I've read that Furd would leave if UCLA returns. What's the logic there?
As far as the exit fee, this is largly dependent on what the new media rights deal will be and for how many years. UCLA will argue that an estimate of revenue lost will not be as much as what USC's exiting will be. Estimates for UCLA are between $3 and 9 million per year. Its not going to be more than $65 million over the course of whatever the term of the new P12 media rights deal will be. Not $65 mil per year. No way. Anything more - UCLA will argue is punitive and likely sue the Regents.
I suspect the Regents cannot force UCLA to pay money to Cal but instead will reduce their payments to UCLA and instead give it to Cal. Good luck with a law suit over the Regents discretionary spending.philly1121 said:Exactly. Wishful thinking.sycasey said:The logic is just people making stuff up.juarezbear said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
This is the first time I've read that Furd would leave if UCLA returns. What's the logic there?
As far as the exit fee, this is largly dependent on what the new media rights deal will be and for how many years. UCLA will argue that an estimate of revenue lost will not be as much as what USC's exiting will be. Estimates for UCLA are between $3 and 9 million per year. Its not going to be more than $65 million over the course of whatever the term of the new P12 media rights deal will be. Not $65 mil per year. No way. Anything more - UCLA will argue is punitive and likely sue the Regents.
juarezbear said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
This is the first time I've read that Furd would leave if UCLA returns. What's the logic there?
I've read it from a few sources. The idea would be they want to pair a school with USC, but don't want to add more than 2 teams from the west coast at this time. Stanford is an historical rival of USC (OJ Simpson brought them up specifically when news broke of UCLA/USC leaving the pac12). Its a private school that would have no board of regents / state governments potentially looking to veto the move. It also adds the Bay Area market.
I'm extremely skeptical it would happen too, but its been floated a lot and the B1G would be foolish to not at least explore the possibility if UCLA were to be removed (and they were dead set against expanding further).
My best guess would be if the regents did anything punitive against UCLA to the point of UCLA seriously looking to back down (or have the agreement nullified by the regents), that the B1G commissioner would use it as leverage to get Cal (and probably Stanford) invited, at reduced payouts, rather than lose UCLA. I have no clue what it would look like if UCLA backed down, the B1G refused to give USC a partner, and USC tried to back out of the deal too.
philly1121 said:Exactly. Wishful thinking.sycasey said:The logic is just people making stuff up.juarezbear said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
This is the first time I've read that Furd would leave if UCLA returns. What's the logic there?
As far as the exit fee, this is largly dependent on what the new media rights deal will be and for how many years. UCLA will argue that an estimate of revenue lost will not be as much as what USC's exiting will be. Estimates for UCLA are between $3 and 9 million per year. Its not going to be more than $65 million over the course of whatever the term of the new P12 media rights deal will be. Not $65 mil per year. No way. Anything more - UCLA will argue is punitive and likely sue the Regents.
UC's are given a certain amount of discretion here...but it is against the rules to do anything that harms another UC. Breaking rules can come with punitive damages. Cal would be in trouble if they tried to sabotage a research contract with UCLA too, and I would expect punitive damages in that case.
That said, the Pac12 commissioner is said to explicitly getting "With UCLA" and "Without UCLA" bids for the pac12. We should have exact numbers of damages for the current losses.
The future losses could be extremely hard to predict, and I doubt the regents would want to re-visit this at a later date. For months we were obsessed over a world where Stanford/Oregon/Washington + Notre Dame joined the B1G leaving Cal behind. That was all put in motion by this move, with UCLA actively devaluing the pac12 at the expense of Cal. At that point Cal could be looking at Mountain West conference levels of payout (or even worse, folding sports). What number do the Regents put on that if it happens? The dollar difference is more than just the contract difference between with and without UCLA.
sycasey said:Vegas is not a big media market. 40th largest in the United States.BearGoggles said:Agree re rivalries. The question is do SDSU and UNLV bring media and other revenues? I think SDSU does/can. Not sure about Vegas though that has been an attractive market for NHL and NFL. Is Vegas a valuable media market?philly1121 said:calumnus said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
Under that scenario Cal should be the Bay Area rep paired with UCLA as California"rivals" with the UCLA-USC game and Big Game traditions continuing as last game of the year OOC games.
I'd vote for staying as the PAC-10. 2 schools from each state. Better path to the CFP.
However, if we expand and add San Diego State, add UNLV or here is a wild idea: maybe an expansion franchise: UC San Diego. Largest UC campus, great academics, wants to move to D1, can share Snapdragon with San Diego St. and would be natural rivals. The Chargers left so no NFL. San Diego would be firmly PAC-12 territory. It would give the PAC-12 another warm weather location for night games, which is a selling point for the TV contract(s) and fits with tge San Diego lifestyle (plenty to do doing the day).
UCSD creating a football team, let alone a D1 football team is a fairytale. Some sports are in the Big West.
The best additions for the Pac are SDSU and UNLV. You bring SDSU in for Southern Cali and UNLV in for Nevada recruiting. They aren't natural rivals but - SO WHAT? Rivalries no longer matter in college football.
I don't think UNLV brings much at all.
Birmingham is the 45th largest media market and Alabama is probably a pretty attractive addition.
It is not ONLY about media market size.
I would say UNLV is a decent market. I mean, when Tarkanian was running the show in basketball they became a household name.
That said, isn't the Nevada school with the better football program in Reno?
I'm not sure why people keep saying this. UCLA is not some independent entIty. UCLA is controlled and governed by the Regents. UCLA can no more sue the regents than a division of a company can sue its own board of directors or your foot can sue your brain. The Regents could fire the UCLA Chancellor tomorrow and replace them with whoever they wanted. And I guarantee new guy wouldn't be bringing any lawsuits against his boss. Moreover whatever powers the Regents have delegated to the individual universities they can take back, including retroactively.Quote:
Anything more - UCLA will argue is punitive and likely sue the Regents.
The Regents decide. If they decide UCLA is staying in the PAC 12 or that UCLA owes Cal a trillion dollars or UCLA has to change its name to "Song Stealer U" then that's exactly what will happen. Big 10 could sue over UCLA backing out of the deal. UCLA cannot.
Sebastabear said:I'm not sure why people keep saying this. UCLA is not some independent entIty. UCLA is controlled and governed by the Regents. UCLA can no more sue the regents than a division of a company can sue its own board of directors or your foot can sue your brain. The Regents could fire the UCLA Chancellor tomorrow and replace them with whoever they wanted. And I guarantee new guy wouldn't be bringing any lawsuits against his boss. Moreover whatever powers the Regents have delegated to the individual universities they can take back, including retroactively.Quote:
Anything more - UCLA will argue is punitive and likely sue the Regents.
The Regents decide. If they decide UCLA is staying in the PAC 12 or that UCLA owes Cal a trillion dollars or UCLA has to change its name to "Song Stealer U" then that's exactly what will happen. Big 10 could sue over UCLA backing out of the deal. UCLA cannot.
I hope ucla is hammered by the regents and they're simply told "sorry you thought you could do this."
You can't.
And SC can just suck it out west on their island.
MrGPAC said:philly1121 said:Exactly. Wishful thinking.sycasey said:The logic is just people making stuff up.juarezbear said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
This is the first time I've read that Furd would leave if UCLA returns. What's the logic there?
As far as the exit fee, this is largly dependent on what the new media rights deal will be and for how many years. UCLA will argue that an estimate of revenue lost will not be as much as what USC's exiting will be. Estimates for UCLA are between $3 and 9 million per year. Its not going to be more than $65 million over the course of whatever the term of the new P12 media rights deal will be. Not $65 mil per year. No way. Anything more - UCLA will argue is punitive and likely sue the Regents.
UC's are given a certain amount of discretion here...but it is against the rules to do anything that harms another UC. Breaking rules can come with punitive damages. Cal would be in trouble if they tried to sabotage a research contract with UCLA too, and I would expect punitive damages in that case.
That said, the Pac12 commissioner is said to explicitly getting "With UCLA" and "Without UCLA" bids for the pac12. We should have exact numbers of damages for the current losses.
The future losses could be extremely hard to predict, and I doubt the regents would want to re-visit this at a later date. For months we were obsessed over a world where Stanford/Oregon/Washington + Notre Dame joined the B1G leaving Cal behind. That was all put in motion by this move, with UCLA actively devaluing the pac12 at the expense of Cal. At that point Cal could be looking at Mountain West conference levels of payout (or even worse, folding sports). What number do the Regents put on that if it happens? The dollar difference is more than just the contract difference between with and without UCLA.
The "damage" to Cal under that scenario is the ("with UCLA" divided by 11) minus ("without UCLA" divided by 10).
However UCLA could argue they have been subsidizing Cal (and other Pac 10 schools) for decades and all they are doing is taking their value elsewhere and removing the subsidy.
It is like you cutting off your freeloading brother and he sues you for damages claiming he's grown accustomed to your charity.
Or you are in a firm where you bring in most of the revenue but everyone has equal shares. So when you leave for a bigger firm with a better payout, uour old firm sues you because they are are "worse off" without the money you bring in.
dimitrig said:sycasey said:Vegas is not a big media market. 40th largest in the United States.BearGoggles said:Agree re rivalries. The question is do SDSU and UNLV bring media and other revenues? I think SDSU does/can. Not sure about Vegas though that has been an attractive market for NHL and NFL. Is Vegas a valuable media market?philly1121 said:calumnus said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
Under that scenario Cal should be the Bay Area rep paired with UCLA as California"rivals" with the UCLA-USC game and Big Game traditions continuing as last game of the year OOC games.
I'd vote for staying as the PAC-10. 2 schools from each state. Better path to the CFP.
However, if we expand and add San Diego State, add UNLV or here is a wild idea: maybe an expansion franchise: UC San Diego. Largest UC campus, great academics, wants to move to D1, can share Snapdragon with San Diego St. and would be natural rivals. The Chargers left so no NFL. San Diego would be firmly PAC-12 territory. It would give the PAC-12 another warm weather location for night games, which is a selling point for the TV contract(s) and fits with tge San Diego lifestyle (plenty to do doing the day).
UCSD creating a football team, let alone a D1 football team is a fairytale. Some sports are in the Big West.
The best additions for the Pac are SDSU and UNLV. You bring SDSU in for Southern Cali and UNLV in for Nevada recruiting. They aren't natural rivals but - SO WHAT? Rivalries no longer matter in college football.
I don't think UNLV brings much at all.
Birmingham is the 45th largest media market and Alabama is probably a pretty attractive addition.
It is not ONLY about media market size.
I would say UNLV is a decent market. I mean, when Tarkanian was running the show in basketball they became a household name.
That said, isn't the Nevada school with the better football program in Reno?
Alabama has a s***-ton of fans who will watch their games. UNLV does not. If they can't also bring a big TV market (they can't), then what are they bringing?
Just love all this California-dreaming. But that is exactly what it is. UCLA has multi-million dollar debt, for which the Southern Branch is effectively on the hook. Cal has a debt 4x of that, for which the Regents are on teh hook.
Common sense says, no way the Regents stop the Bruins from a much larger payday. (although they certainly have legal authority to do so) And no way they withhold academic funds from Southern Branch to funnel that cash to Cal. (yeah, that's a brilliant idea...hold up academic funding for the poor UCLA students to prop up Cal athletics? Ridiculous on its face. No Regent is that stupid.)
At best, the Regents save (political) face by requiring UCLA to make small buyout, say ~$1m/yr for several years.
Common sense says, no way the Regents stop the Bruins from a much larger payday. (although they certainly have legal authority to do so) And no way they withhold academic funds from Southern Branch to funnel that cash to Cal. (yeah, that's a brilliant idea...hold up academic funding for the poor UCLA students to prop up Cal athletics? Ridiculous on its face. No Regent is that stupid.)
At best, the Regents save (political) face by requiring UCLA to make small buyout, say ~$1m/yr for several years.
MrGPAC said:juarezbear said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
This is the first time I've read that Furd would leave if UCLA returns. What's the logic there?
I've read it from a few sources. The idea would be they want to pair a school with USC, but don't want to add more than 2 teams from the west coast at this time. Stanford is an historical rival of USC (OJ Simpson brought them up specifically when news broke of UCLA/USC leaving the pac12). Its a private school that would have no board of regents / state governments potentially looking to veto the move. It also adds the Bay Area market.
I'm extremely skeptical it would happen too, but its been floated a lot and the B1G would be foolish to not at least explore the possibility if UCLA were to be removed (and they were dead set against expanding further).
My best guess would be if the regents did anything punitive against UCLA to the point of UCLA seriously looking to back down (or have the agreement nullified by the regents), that the B1G commissioner would use it as leverage to get Cal (and probably Stanford) invited, at reduced payouts, rather than lose UCLA. I have no clue what it would look like if UCLA backed down, the B1G refused to give USC a partner, and USC tried to back out of the deal too.
I know this is heresy, but I'd rather see UCLA get the B1G money than Furd. If Furd goes without us, it further separates the haves from the have-nots.
Since 1991, that's over 30 years, the Regents have given broad discretion to UC Chancellors to enter into agreements, contracts and athletic participation. They would be breaking 30 years of precedent on the theory that UCLA leaving the Pac 12, an athletic conference, would damage Berkeley.MrGPAC said:philly1121 said:Exactly. Wishful thinking.sycasey said:The logic is just people making stuff up.juarezbear said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
This is the first time I've read that Furd would leave if UCLA returns. What's the logic there?
As far as the exit fee, this is largly dependent on what the new media rights deal will be and for how many years. UCLA will argue that an estimate of revenue lost will not be as much as what USC's exiting will be. Estimates for UCLA are between $3 and 9 million per year. Its not going to be more than $65 million over the course of whatever the term of the new P12 media rights deal will be. Not $65 mil per year. No way. Anything more - UCLA will argue is punitive and likely sue the Regents.
UC's are given a certain amount of discretion here...but it is against the rules to do anything that harms another UC. Breaking rules can come with punitive damages. Cal would be in trouble if they tried to sabotage a research contract with UCLA too, and I would expect punitive damages in that case.
That said, the Pac12 commissioner is said to explicitly getting "With UCLA" and "Without UCLA" bids for the pac12. We should have exact numbers of damages for the current losses.
The future losses could be extremely hard to predict, and I doubt the regents would want to re-visit this at a later date. For months we were obsessed over a world where Stanford/Oregon/Washington + Notre Dame joined the B1G leaving Cal behind. That was all put in motion by this move, with UCLA actively devaluing the pac12 at the expense of Cal. At that point Cal could be looking at Mountain West conference levels of payout (or even worse, folding sports). What number do the Regents put on that if it happens? The dollar difference is more than just the contract difference between with and without UCLA.
If you want to look at this in terms of devaluing Cal, then any other school is going to want to look at this from devaluing the conference. Additions or defections from the Pac12 do not affect one school singularly - if we are looking at this from a media rights/revenue perspective. The argument that UCLA would singularly affect Cal may be true (given they are both UC schools), but isn't that also true of increased revenue to UC with UCLA's joining the Big 10?
If you (everyone) are looking at this in terms of damages (not the word I would use), and as you wrote, the Regents need to protect a UC school from damaging another, then what would the argument be with Cal saddling ourselves and the Regents with $400+ million worth of debt from the upgrade of an athletic facility? Could UCLA argue that this debt has damaged Cal to the extent that we will be in debt service for the next 30 years? See what I'm saying? Then nearly every contract or stadium deal or athletic apparel deal would be subject to any other UC school's scrutiny.
Cal: we want to go with Nike/Jumpman gear.
UCLA: uh sorry. No. That dilutes our brand. We have that gear. You can't have it.
Finally, if I were UCLA I would absolutely argue that their exit from the Pac 12 is not nearly as substantive as USC's. Estimates are that USC's defection likely reduces any new media rights deal by 30%. For UCLA it is probably 10% or less. UCLA is likely arguing that there isn't any other metric than media rights. I see anywhere in the neighborhood of a $50-65 million exit fee.
SDSU is a no brained. If Boise is still good i might go with them, rather than one of Nevada or UNLV. Or take all 4, as the Nevada schools pair well
Actually, Nevada might pair with Boise while UNLV pairs with SDSU. Since we can't have the dumb California split with LA gone, we can recreate it in Nevada (granted divisions don't really matter anymore)!
I also wouldn't be opposed to Hawaii.
Actually, Nevada might pair with Boise while UNLV pairs with SDSU. Since we can't have the dumb California split with LA gone, we can recreate it in Nevada (granted divisions don't really matter anymore)!
I also wouldn't be opposed to Hawaii.
SDSU is a no brained. If Boise is still good i might go with them, rather than one of Nevada or UNLV. Or take all 4, as the Nevada schools pair well
Actually, Nevada might pair with Boise while UNLV pairs with SDSU. Since we can't have the dumb California split with LA gone, we can recreate it in Nevada (granted divisions don't really matter anymore)!
I also wouldn't be opposed to Hawaii.
Actually, Nevada might pair with Boise while UNLV pairs with SDSU. Since we can't have the dumb California split with LA gone, we can recreate it in Nevada (granted divisions don't really matter anymore)!
I also wouldn't be opposed to Hawaii.
It is an internal debt representing charges from the ad to other entities on the campus. This is not an issue.
Take care of your Chicken
This is only quasi right. Yes. This power was delegated but largely intended to deal with movement at the d2 and d3 levels. The better analogy is the creation of entire schools and academic units which is very much overseen by the regents to ensure that one school does not harm another and that there is adequate incremental demand and support. Happy to cite numerous examples should you wish to get deep into the weeds of inter campus fights
Take care of your Chicken
First, I just don't think Furd would do it.juarezbear said:MrGPAC said:juarezbear said:MrGPAC said:southseasbear said:
I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.
I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.
In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.
If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?
This is the first time I've read that Furd would leave if UCLA returns. What's the logic there?
I've read it from a few sources. The idea would be they want to pair a school with USC, but don't want to add more than 2 teams from the west coast at this time. Stanford is an historical rival of USC (OJ Simpson brought them up specifically when news broke of UCLA/USC leaving the pac12). Its a private school that would have no board of regents / state governments potentially looking to veto the move. It also adds the Bay Area market.
I'm extremely skeptical it would happen too, but its been floated a lot and the B1G would be foolish to not at least explore the possibility if UCLA were to be removed (and they were dead set against expanding further).
My best guess would be if the regents did anything punitive against UCLA to the point of UCLA seriously looking to back down (or have the agreement nullified by the regents), that the B1G commissioner would use it as leverage to get Cal (and probably Stanford) invited, at reduced payouts, rather than lose UCLA. I have no clue what it would look like if UCLA backed down, the B1G refused to give USC a partner, and USC tried to back out of the deal too.
I know this is heresy, but I'd rather see UCLA get the B1G money than Furd. If Furd goes without us, it further separates the haves from the have-nots.
Second, keeping UCLA and losing furd would be a massive massive win from the TV contract perspective because it lets us keep a piece of the LA market and UCLA is way more valuable than Furd from a sports perspective.
It's only a non-issue if UCLA Athletics has a strong plan and the wherewithal to pay it back. Otherwise, it comes out of the academic side of the ledger, and I can guarantee you that would be an "issue" for the Academic Senate (less money for salaries), for the low income kids (as it means fewer services), and for all those that hate sports. And for the Regents.socaltownie said:
It is an internal debt representing charges from the ad to other entities on the campus. This is not an issue.
socaltownie said:
This is only quasi right. Yes. This power was delegated but largely intended to deal with movement at the d2 and d3 levels. The better analogy is the creation of entire schools and academic units which is very much overseen by the regents to ensure that one school does not harm another and that there is adequate incremental demand and support. Happy to cite numerous examples should you wish to get deep into the weeds of inter campus fights
Then if I were UCLA I would want an absolute quantifiable number as to how Cal will specifically be hurt financially. Ticket sales for all revenue and non-revenue athletic events, apparel, media rights, recruiting. I think this should also be done for any UC that tries to schedule UCLA for any sport.
As far as reputational harm, this one seems a bit dubious. How would Cal or any other UC school OR any other Pac12 school have their reputation diminished by UCLA leaving? Recruiting seems to be the obvious one, no? It seems, though I know most of this board engages in innocent sh*t talking about our rivals. But it also seems like we don't really have any regard for other UC schools or their academic quality. So I'm really not quite sure why we are crying about this.
The other factor is - UCLA's other sports. So, we are basically asking the Regents to stop a move that could potentially solve all the financial problems of UCLA's non revenue sports - to save OUR sports. That's a tough one. If the media rights deal that's coming would show that we would be getting nearly as much as the Big 10 WITH UCLA and SC in the conference, I could see an argument for staying. But it does not appear to be that way. Who knows though.
Here's the item pic.twitter.com/YeRgpoE040
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) November 5, 2022
love the typo...
"membershipo"
"membershipo"
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
BigDaddy said:
love the typo...
"membershipo"
Right? I mean righto? It's amateur hour at the most incompetent levels. My guess is that Cal ends up having to pay UCLA for some reason.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Dealt First Loss Of Season
by Cal Athletics
Ultimate Insider Podcast E98: Wake Forest Wrap-up, Syracuse Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
Cal Signs Pair Of Prep Standouts
by Cal Athletics
Cal Women's Hoops Signs 4 To 2025 Class
by Cal Athletics
Cal Football Tuesday Weekly Presser
by Jim McGill