calumnus said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey 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?

---

The logic is just people making stuff up.

---

The logic is that SC need a companion (and probably was promised one) and Stanford leaving for the B!G would not require government approval, unlike with the State schools. For those that think Washington or Oregon can just leave behind the other state school, that sentiment is wrong.

Money talks, even at Furd. Whether a 100% share in the B1G does that depends on the PAC media contract.

---

The original statement was that if the Regents block UCLA, the B1G will come after Stanford. I think that is almost certain. Maybe Cal and Stanford (with UCLA) if the Regents haven't completely pissed off the B1G. That is my concern with this action. We need to push for what we want, more than just being obstructionist.

You then raise the secondary but very interesting question, if UCLA is blocked and the B1G comes after only Stanford, would Stanford go? My sense is no, they don't need the money, they don't like the NIL era and their other sports and Directors' Cups are even more important to them than at Cal, but you never know. If they go, I think it would be more for the prestige than than the money.

---

Some take aways from the Stanford Daily article posted this thread regarding the faculty senate meeting:

1) Furd is in discussions with the B1G (this is subtly stated: "Confidential conversations are underway about whether Stanford should pursue conference realignment").

2) Furd and 9 other Pac teams are negotiating for a new media contract as the Pac
3) The difference in revenue between the B1G and Pac may be as much as $50 million annually
4) Furd athletics is running a significant operating deficit that despite all the love from faculty and administrators (something you don't hear at the Cal faculty senate meeting), some faculty expressed concern that the size of the deficit may start taking away from other priorities.
5) Furd has 817 athletes which is around 10% of the student body. [my add is there are around 7,500 undergrads, and if you add non-scholarship players, around 1,000 athletes].
6) Any solution would look at what is best for the athletes given the large number of athletes, The focus seems t be trying to make the Pac work.

---

It still seems that there could be a deal where the PAC-12 negotiates a merger with the B1G to form the Super Conference. It is the perfect time, the PAC-12 TV rights have not been negotiated, the PAC-12 is leaving the SF offices. Consolidate most admin costs in the Midwest.

Football could be split up into 4 team regional pods, retaining traditional rivalry games, but creating interesting intersectional games. Whether there would be a separate "PAC-12" champion would depend on the CFP rules, if the PAC-12 would have an auto bid, then "yes." If not, maybe work with the Rose Bowl Committee to have the CCG be the new date of the Official Rose Bowl game?

The B1G and Kliavkoff would negotiate the "PAC-10" TV rights for the remaining schools based on the above, nationally attractive intersectional games in exclusive time slots. People on the East Coast watching the late night game on the West Coast because their team is playing in it. There would be an agreement to merge the two money pools and equalize payments to schools over time.

For all other sports the PAC-12 could essentially continue as before, as a "separate" league, but with lots of OOC games against other B1G teams, or maybe, the same 4 team pods but with greater emphasis on playing the nearby pods to reduce travel costs. Then, league playoffs (good TV content) would determine the conference champion in each sport.

---

I sincerely doubt the Big Ten would support a merger with a conference that includes OSU and WSU. I don't think they would take those two schools even if that was the only way to land USC.

---

Iowa? Indiana? Nebraska? Pitt? They are comparable. OSU is ranked higher in US News.

We are talking about taking San Diego State and UNLV.

OSU comes with Oregon, WSU comes with UW. It avoids a lot of trouble, including antitrust.

---

Iowa and Indiana have been in the Big Ten since 1899. There's a big difference between not inviting teams that add no value to your conference versus expelling teams that have been part of your conference for 123 years because they don't carry their weight.

But, unlike OSU and WSU, Iowa and Indiana do carry their weight. Iowa and Indiana have better academics, football attendance, athletic history, and TV draws than OSU and WSU plus they're their state's flagship public university.

As for Nebraska, you're right, they're equal to OSU and WSU in academics, but that's where the similarities end. Nebraska is a college football blueblood. OSU and WSU are the opposite of that.

As for Pitt, not really sure the relevance. They're not in the Big Ten and I don't see them getting invited to the Big Ten because Big Ten has already captured the Pennsylvania market. That said, Pitt's academics, football attendance, media market, and athletic history are all significantly better than OSU's and WSU's.

And if UCLA can go to the Big Ten without Cal (we'll see what the Regents say), Oklahoma to the SEC without Oklahoma State, Texas to the SEC without Texas Tech, then Oregon and Washington can go to the Big Ten without OSU and WSU. And if their states decide they cannot separate their schools, then Oregon and Washington will get left behind.

And the Pac-12 is considering SDSU and UNLV because we're desperate. The Big Ten is not. There's just no way Ohio State shares revenue with Oregon State. I mean, the reason USC is leaving is because they don't want to share revenue with the likes of Oregon State any more.

HoopDreams said:

---

About once a year I ask this question but never get a good answer: what does euro colleges do with sports?

My understanding is they only have club level sports???

---

Euro colleges typically are different and are not comparable. Typically there are no dorms, frats, and "on campus" living for undergrads, It's like being a grad student. There is limited organized social life . US tuitions are much higher, but the schools also provide social and sports amenities, and other things the EU colleges don't. Undergrad education in Europe also is much structured and limited toward a specific major. U.S. universities require general education courses and exposing students to a variety of fields above a major, while most European universities focusing on a specific area of study. It also takes longer to get a degree from a US college. For example, if you are Swiss have the grades and test scores and you want to be a business major, you go to the public school is St. Gallon or one of the privates. They teach you equivalent of a MBA curriculum, essentially focused on business. There is no let's take a lot of classes and decide my major in a couple of years. Obviously, the European approach doesn't really provide for a robust college sports program or much in the way of any extracurricular activities. Students are there to solely learn their subject.

The primary exception to the rule is certain English schools, primarily the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge. The English colleges are much more in the tradition of US schools, and do have team sports, though in my experience which is a bit dated (an Oxford college at the end of the 70s), there is not the same focus on sports as in the US. That said, the Oxford-Cambridge rugby match is attended as well as most US college football games.

The bottom line is you can't make a comparison with European schools since they serve different purposes.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

gardenstatebear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey 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?

---

The logic is just people making stuff up.

---

The logic is that SC need a companion (and probably was promised one) and Stanford leaving for the B!G would not require government approval, unlike with the State schools. For those that think Washington or Oregon can just leave behind the other state school, that sentiment is wrong.

Money talks, even at Furd. Whether a 100% share in the B1G does that depends on the PAC media contract.

---

The original statement was that if the Regents block UCLA, the B1G will come after Stanford. I think that is almost certain. Maybe Cal and Stanford (with UCLA) if the Regents haven't completely pissed off the B1G. That is my concern with this action. We need to push for what we want, more than just being obstructionist.

You then raise the secondary but very interesting question, if UCLA is blocked and the B1G comes after only Stanford, would Stanford go? My sense is no, they don't need the money, they don't like the NIL era and their other sports and Directors' Cups are even more important to them than at Cal, but you never know. If they go, I think it would be more for the prestige than than the money.

---

Some take aways from the Stanford Daily article posted this thread regarding the faculty senate meeting:

1) Furd is in discussions with the B1G (this is subtly stated: "Confidential conversations are underway about whether Stanford should pursue conference realignment").

2) Furd and 9 other Pac teams are negotiating for a new media contract as the Pac
3) The difference in revenue between the B1G and Pac may be as much as $50 million annually
4) Furd athletics is running a significant operating deficit that despite all the love from faculty and administrators (something you don't hear at the Cal faculty senate meeting), some faculty expressed concern that the size of the deficit may start taking away from other priorities.
5) Furd has 817 athletes which is around 10% of the student body. [my add is there are around 7,500 undergrads, and if you add non-scholarship players, around 1,000 athletes].
6) Any solution would look at what is best for the athletes given the large number of athletes, The focus seems t be trying to make the Pac work.

---

Perhaps you have some inside info, but I don't read the article ( #1) as you do. It could just be that the Uni is having the strategic discussions on remaining in Big Time sports, which means participating in NIL to be competitive. In other words IFF the BiG comes calling -- not hat the BiG has actually reached out -- do we even want to entertain the offer if that means NIL + travel + everting else that goes with being competitive in the new P2. That is a discussion that any responsible AD should be having with its Prez right now to be prepared.

(Of course, since Cal does not have a P5 AD, no way Cal is having such discussions.)

---

IMHO, NIL is a reality no matter whether what conference we're in. Travel is a bigger issue. Clearly the more Pacific Coast teams there are in a conference, the better from a travel standpoint. But will the Big Ten invite more Pacific Coast schools? Who knows?

---

Sure, but at what level do they (and Cal, for that matter) want to compete? Do they/we want to recruit the talent to compete for FB and BB championships? Do they/we really want to bid $10m for a 5* QB? (Clearly, Cal does not have the financial wherewithal to be able to compete at that level; nor, does the Admin want to, even if the $$ did exist.)

Regardless, that is the strategic discussion that any responsible Uni would be having before receiving a bid to the BiG/SEC.

---

There continues to be a disconnect on NIL. Schools are not paying it, and can get into legal trupolbe if they stop players from getting paid. Absent some new legislation, the Cal administration or anyone else at the school doesn't get a say, unless they want to face an anti-trust suit. NIL is paid by donors. As Furd is about to find out, you can be philosophically opposed to NIL collectives, but NIL donors can do whatever they want - you can't stop them. At Cal, the only question is will donors step up to the plate.

---

Yes, I realize that NIL is paid from private funds, but it starts at the top. If the Stanford Admin does not want at the AD approving a Coach recruiting a 5* athlete bcos the alums will pay millions, it ain't gonna happen. If the Stanford Admin does not want a bunch of well-paid Football and basketball players, there are ways to make sure that they don't receive offers. If Stanford -- or any P5 -- does not want play big time NIL, they can limit recruiting to 2* players and remain bottom dwellers and/or underpay coaches (so good ones leave). Or raise admission standards for revenue sports. Perhaps a 1450 minimum SAT so they can compete for Ivy kids.

Ditto Cal Admin. (And that assumes that Cal alum's will even fund a program to make the Bears competitive in the NIL world -- I'm skeptical.) And the Chancellor has made it clear that competing for championships is a nice-to-have, not a goal.

The strategic question is whether Stanford (and Cal) want to compete for championships at the highest level -- and all that entails -- for the revenue sports.

---

Well the early responses were pretty clear that school was paying. The posts say that verbatim. But let's move beyond that little oversight.

I don't follow the logic of this last post. Cal and Furd recruit who fits what they want in a player. You somehow think the administrators now are going to say hey coaches, recruit players so lousy no one will ever want to give them NIL? Really?

The minute they decide to do this bizarre practice, the administrators lose their coaching staff, their donors, their fans, the good will of the politicians who actually passed NIL legislation, which for a state school is death, and upwards and onwards. No way in hell the conference they participate in allows them remain members. It is a parade of horribles. What the administrators really lose is their jobs. By the way, who is paying for non-revenue sports under this brilliant idea, since the football team has lost its competitiveness?

Let's take this a step further. Technically NIL can't be agreed upon until the player is enrolled under the laws of most states that passed NIL legislation, and NCAA rules which currently are not being enforced. But let's say you have a school that believes in following the letter of the law (so we are not talking about USC). What happens when the donors come to am existing player with NIL money? Before you answer, read the Alstom opinion, and place yourself in the shoes of school's general counsel advising the Cal or Furd administration. Just so you know, I have discussed this with Furd administrators who set policy and they acknowledge they can't legally do anything about the alums who are supposedly are starting a collective, and with all due respect, they know a whole lot more abut this subject than either of us.

Now for the kicker. Unlike at Furd, Cal's administration (through a lot of hard work by Sebasterbear) supports NIL collectives for whatever amounts of money they can raise and pay players, so the entire foundation for your argument is based on a faulty premise, besides faulty lawl and faulty logic.

Whether Cal supporters will open their wallets so Cal can be competitive for the players Cal wants to recruit remains to be seen. But I would not underestimate Sebaterbear, Beast Mode, and other involved in the Cal collectives.

---

That is why it's a strategic discussion. (Not sure what is so difficult.)

Do we want to continue to be competitive in the P2/P5, and all that requires in the new world order? How much would a new TV contract earn with current 10 members, plus perhaps SDSU? What happens if the BiG invites Oregon and U-Dub in two years? How much annual NIL fund-raising is realistic? How much can be raised if we remain a bottom dweller in the Rev sports (with an Admin that does not care much about winning)? Do we even want to continue to remain FBS? What does that mean for the non-Rev sports? What does that mean for 30+ sports being carried? What would say, a 20-sport program cost to maintain? What is the diversity impact? What is the donation impact? And, of course, the elephant: how do the CMS bonds get paid off? (You can probably come up with many others.)

In short, do we really want to compete for championships in the two Rev sports?

I have no doubt that Stanford is having such a discussion and that to me is what is alluded to in the Stanford Daily article.


"But I would not underestimate Sebaterbear, Beast Mode, and other involved in the Cal collectives. " How long will they continue to support NIL when the team remains at the bottom of the League? (Common sense, says not long. Heck, just read on this thread how many folks are cancelling season tix.)

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

gardenstatebear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey 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?

---

The logic is just people making stuff up.

---

The logic is that SC need a companion (and probably was promised one) and Stanford leaving for the B!G would not require government approval, unlike with the State schools. For those that think Washington or Oregon can just leave behind the other state school, that sentiment is wrong.

Money talks, even at Furd. Whether a 100% share in the B1G does that depends on the PAC media contract.

---

The original statement was that if the Regents block UCLA, the B1G will come after Stanford. I think that is almost certain. Maybe Cal and Stanford (with UCLA) if the Regents haven't completely pissed off the B1G. That is my concern with this action. We need to push for what we want, more than just being obstructionist.

You then raise the secondary but very interesting question, if UCLA is blocked and the B1G comes after only Stanford, would Stanford go? My sense is no, they don't need the money, they don't like the NIL era and their other sports and Directors' Cups are even more important to them than at Cal, but you never know. If they go, I think it would be more for the prestige than than the money.

---

Some take aways from the Stanford Daily article posted this thread regarding the faculty senate meeting:

1) Furd is in discussions with the B1G (this is subtly stated: "Confidential conversations are underway about whether Stanford should pursue conference realignment").

2) Furd and 9 other Pac teams are negotiating for a new media contract as the Pac
3) The difference in revenue between the B1G and Pac may be as much as $50 million annually
4) Furd athletics is running a significant operating deficit that despite all the love from faculty and administrators (something you don't hear at the Cal faculty senate meeting), some faculty expressed concern that the size of the deficit may start taking away from other priorities.
5) Furd has 817 athletes which is around 10% of the student body. [my add is there are around 7,500 undergrads, and if you add non-scholarship players, around 1,000 athletes].
6) Any solution would look at what is best for the athletes given the large number of athletes, The focus seems t be trying to make the Pac work.

---

Perhaps you have some inside info, but I don't read the article ( #1) as you do. It could just be that the Uni is having the strategic discussions on remaining in Big Time sports, which means participating in NIL to be competitive. In other words IFF the BiG comes calling -- not hat the BiG has actually reached out -- do we even want to entertain the offer if that means NIL + travel + everting else that goes with being competitive in the new P2. That is a discussion that any responsible AD should be having with its Prez right now to be prepared.

(Of course, since Cal does not have a P5 AD, no way Cal is having such discussions.)

---

IMHO, NIL is a reality no matter whether what conference we're in. Travel is a bigger issue. Clearly the more Pacific Coast teams there are in a conference, the better from a travel standpoint. But will the Big Ten invite more Pacific Coast schools? Who knows?

---

Sure, but at what level do they (and Cal, for that matter) want to compete? Do they/we want to recruit the talent to compete for FB and BB championships? Do they/we really want to bid $10m for a 5* QB? (Clearly, Cal does not have the financial wherewithal to be able to compete at that level; nor, does the Admin want to, even if the $$ did exist.)

Regardless, that is the strategic discussion that any responsible Uni would be having before receiving a bid to the BiG/SEC.

---

There continues to be a disconnect on NIL. Schools are not paying it, and can get into legal trupolbe if they stop players from getting paid. Absent some new legislation, the Cal administration or anyone else at the school doesn't get a say, unless they want to face an anti-trust suit. NIL is paid by donors. As Furd is about to find out, you can be philosophically opposed to NIL collectives, but NIL donors can do whatever they want - you can't stop them. At Cal, the only question is will donors step up to the plate.

---

Yes, I realize that NIL is paid from private funds, but it starts at the top. If the Stanford Admin does not want at the AD approving a Coach recruiting a 5* athlete bcos the alums will pay millions, it ain't gonna happen. If the Stanford Admin does not want a bunch of well-paid Football and basketball players, there are ways to make sure that they don't receive offers. If Stanford -- or any P5 -- does not want play big time NIL, they can limit recruiting to 2* players and remain bottom dwellers and/or underpay coaches (so good ones leave). Or raise admission standards for revenue sports. Perhaps a 1450 minimum SAT so they can compete for Ivy kids.

Ditto Cal Admin. (And that assumes that Cal alum's will even fund a program to make the Bears competitive in the NIL world -- I'm skeptical.) And the Chancellor has made it clear that competing for championships is a nice-to-have, not a goal.

The strategic question is whether Stanford (and Cal) want to compete for championships at the highest level -- and all that entails -- for the revenue sports.

---

Well the early responses were pretty clear that school was paying. The posts say that verbatim. But let's move beyond that little oversight.

I don't follow the logic of this last post. Cal and Furd recruit who fits what they want in a player. You somehow think the administrators now are going to say hey coaches, recruit players so lousy no one will ever want to give them NIL? Really?

The minute they decide to do this bizarre practice, the administrators lose their coaching staff, their donors, their fans, the good will of the politicians who actually passed NIL legislation, which for a state school is death, and upwards and onwards. No way in hell the conference they participate in allows them remain members. It is a parade of horribles. What the administrators really lose is their jobs. By the way, who is paying for non-revenue sports under this brilliant idea, since the football team has lost its competitiveness?

Let's take this a step further. Technically NIL can't be agreed upon until the player is enrolled under the laws of most states that passed NIL legislation, and NCAA rules which currently are not being enforced. But let's say you have a school that believes in following the letter of the law (so we are not talking about USC). What happens when the donors come to am existing player with NIL money? Before you answer, read the Alstom opinion, and place yourself in the shoes of school's general counsel advising the Cal or Furd administration. Just so you know, I have discussed this with Furd administrators who set policy and they acknowledge they can't legally do anything about the alums who are supposedly are starting a collective, and with all due respect, they know a whole lot more abut this subject than either of us.

Now for the kicker. Unlike at Furd, Cal's administration (through a lot of hard work by Sebasterbear) supports NIL collectives for whatever amounts of money they can raise and pay players, so the entire foundation for your argument is based on a faulty premise, besides faulty lawl and faulty logic.

Whether Cal supporters will open their wallets so Cal can be competitive for the players Cal wants to recruit remains to be seen. But I would not underestimate Sebaterbear, Beast Mode, and other involved in the Cal collectives.

---

That is why it's a strategic discussion. (Not sure what is so difficult.)

Do we want to continue to be competitive in the P2/P5, and all that requires in the new world order? How much would a new TV contract earn with current 10 members, plus perhaps SDSU? What happens if the BiG invites Oregon and U-Dub in two years? How much annual NIL fund-raising is realistic? How much can be raised if we remain a bottom dweller in the Rev sports (with an Admin that does not care much about winning)? Do we even want to continue to remain FBS? What does that mean for the non-Rev sports? What does that mean for 30+ sports being carried? What would say, a 20-sport program cost to maintain? What is the diversity impact? What is the donation impact? And, of course, the elephant: how do the CMS bonds get paid off? (You can probably come up with many others.)

In short, do we really want to compete for championships in the two Rev sports?

I have no doubt that Stanford is having such a discussion and that to me is what is alluded to in the Stanford Daily article.


"But I would not underestimate Sebaterbear, Beast Mode, and other involved in the Cal collectives. " How long will they continue to support NIL when the team remains at the bottom of the League? (Common sense, says not long. Heck, just read on this thread how many folks are cancelling season tix.)

---

Bottom line is the e Chancellor is all in on football. Otherwise she is wasting way too much of her time dealing with conference realignment (which is about football) for no good reason. Calling a strategy that makes no practical sense a strategic discussion, still doesn't make the strategy have any logic behind it.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

gardenstatebear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey 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?

---

The logic is just people making stuff up.

---

The logic is that SC need a companion (and probably was promised one) and Stanford leaving for the B!G would not require government approval, unlike with the State schools. For those that think Washington or Oregon can just leave behind the other state school, that sentiment is wrong.

Money talks, even at Furd. Whether a 100% share in the B1G does that depends on the PAC media contract.

---

The original statement was that if the Regents block UCLA, the B1G will come after Stanford. I think that is almost certain. Maybe Cal and Stanford (with UCLA) if the Regents haven't completely pissed off the B1G. That is my concern with this action. We need to push for what we want, more than just being obstructionist.

You then raise the secondary but very interesting question, if UCLA is blocked and the B1G comes after only Stanford, would Stanford go? My sense is no, they don't need the money, they don't like the NIL era and their other sports and Directors' Cups are even more important to them than at Cal, but you never know. If they go, I think it would be more for the prestige than than the money.

---

Some take aways from the Stanford Daily article posted this thread regarding the faculty senate meeting:

1) Furd is in discussions with the B1G (this is subtly stated: "Confidential conversations are underway about whether Stanford should pursue conference realignment").

2) Furd and 9 other Pac teams are negotiating for a new media contract as the Pac
3) The difference in revenue between the B1G and Pac may be as much as $50 million annually
4) Furd athletics is running a significant operating deficit that despite all the love from faculty and administrators (something you don't hear at the Cal faculty senate meeting), some faculty expressed concern that the size of the deficit may start taking away from other priorities.
5) Furd has 817 athletes which is around 10% of the student body. [my add is there are around 7,500 undergrads, and if you add non-scholarship players, around 1,000 athletes].
6) Any solution would look at what is best for the athletes given the large number of athletes, The focus seems t be trying to make the Pac work.

---

Perhaps you have some inside info, but I don't read the article ( #1) as you do. It could just be that the Uni is having the strategic discussions on remaining in Big Time sports, which means participating in NIL to be competitive. In other words IFF the BiG comes calling -- not hat the BiG has actually reached out -- do we even want to entertain the offer if that means NIL + travel + everting else that goes with being competitive in the new P2. That is a discussion that any responsible AD should be having with its Prez right now to be prepared.

(Of course, since Cal does not have a P5 AD, no way Cal is having such discussions.)

---

IMHO, NIL is a reality no matter whether what conference we're in. Travel is a bigger issue. Clearly the more Pacific Coast teams there are in a conference, the better from a travel standpoint. But will the Big Ten invite more Pacific Coast schools? Who knows?

---

Sure, but at what level do they (and Cal, for that matter) want to compete? Do they/we want to recruit the talent to compete for FB and BB championships? Do they/we really want to bid $10m for a 5* QB? (Clearly, Cal does not have the financial wherewithal to be able to compete at that level; nor, does the Admin want to, even if the $$ did exist.)

Regardless, that is the strategic discussion that any responsible Uni would be having before receiving a bid to the BiG/SEC.

---

There continues to be a disconnect on NIL. Schools are not paying it, and can get into legal trupolbe if they stop players from getting paid. Absent some new legislation, the Cal administration or anyone else at the school doesn't get a say, unless they want to face an anti-trust suit. NIL is paid by donors. As Furd is about to find out, you can be philosophically opposed to NIL collectives, but NIL donors can do whatever they want - you can't stop them. At Cal, the only question is will donors step up to the plate.

---

Yes, I realize that NIL is paid from private funds, but it starts at the top. If the Stanford Admin does not want at the AD approving a Coach recruiting a 5* athlete bcos the alums will pay millions, it ain't gonna happen. If the Stanford Admin does not want a bunch of well-paid Football and basketball players, there are ways to make sure that they don't receive offers. If Stanford -- or any P5 -- does not want play big time NIL, they can limit recruiting to 2* players and remain bottom dwellers and/or underpay coaches (so good ones leave). Or raise admission standards for revenue sports. Perhaps a 1450 minimum SAT so they can compete for Ivy kids.

Ditto Cal Admin. (And that assumes that Cal alum's will even fund a program to make the Bears competitive in the NIL world -- I'm skeptical.) And the Chancellor has made it clear that competing for championships is a nice-to-have, not a goal.

The strategic question is whether Stanford (and Cal) want to compete for championships at the highest level -- and all that entails -- for the revenue sports.

---

Well the early responses were pretty clear that school was paying. The posts say that verbatim. But let's move beyond that little oversight.

I don't follow the logic of this last post. Cal and Furd recruit who fits what they want in a player. You somehow think the administrators now are going to say hey coaches, recruit players so lousy no one will ever want to give them NIL? Really?

The minute they decide to do this bizarre practice, the administrators lose their coaching staff, their donors, their fans, the good will of the politicians who actually passed NIL legislation, which for a state school is death, and upwards and onwards. No way in hell the conference they participate in allows them remain members. It is a parade of horribles. What the administrators really lose is their jobs. By the way, who is paying for non-revenue sports under this brilliant idea, since the football team has lost its competitiveness?

Let's take this a step further. Technically NIL can't be agreed upon until the player is enrolled under the laws of most states that passed NIL legislation, and NCAA rules which currently are not being enforced. But let's say you have a school that believes in following the letter of the law (so we are not talking about USC). What happens when the donors come to am existing player with NIL money? Before you answer, read the Alstom opinion, and place yourself in the shoes of school's general counsel advising the Cal or Furd administration. Just so you know, I have discussed this with Furd administrators who set policy and they acknowledge they can't legally do anything about the alums who are supposedly are starting a collective, and with all due respect, they know a whole lot more abut this subject than either of us.

Now for the kicker. Unlike at Furd, Cal's administration (through a lot of hard work by Sebasterbear) supports NIL collectives for whatever amounts of money they can raise and pay players, so the entire foundation for your argument is based on a faulty premise, besides faulty lawl and faulty logic.

Whether Cal supporters will open their wallets so Cal can be competitive for the players Cal wants to recruit remains to be seen. But I would not underestimate Sebaterbear, Beast Mode, and other involved in the Cal collectives.

---

That is why it's a strategic discussion. (Not sure what is so difficult.)

Do we want to continue to be competitive in the P2/P5, and all that requires in the new world order? How much would a new TV contract earn with current 10 members, plus perhaps SDSU? What happens if the BiG invites Oregon and U-Dub in two years? How much annual NIL fund-raising is realistic? How much can be raised if we remain a bottom dweller in the Rev sports (with an Admin that does not care much about winning)? Do we even want to continue to remain FBS? What does that mean for the non-Rev sports? What does that mean for 30+ sports being carried? What would say, a 20-sport program cost to maintain? What is the diversity impact? What is the donation impact? And, of course, the elephant: how do the CMS bonds get paid off? (You can probably come up with many others.)

In short, do we really want to compete for championships in the two Rev sports?

I have no doubt that Stanford is having such a discussion and that to me is what is alluded to in the Stanford Daily article.


"But I would not underestimate Sebaterbear, Beast Mode, and other involved in the Cal collectives. " How long will they continue to support NIL when the team remains at the bottom of the League? (Common sense, says not long. Heck, just read on this thread how many folks are cancelling season tix.)

---

Bottom line is the e Chancellor is all in on football. Otherwise she is wasting way too much of her time dealing with conference realignment (which is about football) for no good reason. Calling a strategy that makes no practical sense a strategic discussion, still doesn't make the strategy have any logic behind it.

---

We need to hear this kind of logical information. Her interview was just horrible. Her actions potentially tell a different story. We need something - anything - to give us some hope

tequila4kapp said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

gardenstatebear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey 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?

---

The logic is just people making stuff up.

---

The logic is that SC need a companion (and probably was promised one) and Stanford leaving for the B!G would not require government approval, unlike with the State schools. For those that think Washington or Oregon can just leave behind the other state school, that sentiment is wrong.

Money talks, even at Furd. Whether a 100% share in the B1G does that depends on the PAC media contract.

---

The original statement was that if the Regents block UCLA, the B1G will come after Stanford. I think that is almost certain. Maybe Cal and Stanford (with UCLA) if the Regents haven't completely pissed off the B1G. That is my concern with this action. We need to push for what we want, more than just being obstructionist.

You then raise the secondary but very interesting question, if UCLA is blocked and the B1G comes after only Stanford, would Stanford go? My sense is no, they don't need the money, they don't like the NIL era and their other sports and Directors' Cups are even more important to them than at Cal, but you never know. If they go, I think it would be more for the prestige than than the money.

---

Some take aways from the Stanford Daily article posted this thread regarding the faculty senate meeting:

1) Furd is in discussions with the B1G (this is subtly stated: "Confidential conversations are underway about whether Stanford should pursue conference realignment").

2) Furd and 9 other Pac teams are negotiating for a new media contract as the Pac
3) The difference in revenue between the B1G and Pac may be as much as $50 million annually
4) Furd athletics is running a significant operating deficit that despite all the love from faculty and administrators (something you don't hear at the Cal faculty senate meeting), some faculty expressed concern that the size of the deficit may start taking away from other priorities.
5) Furd has 817 athletes which is around 10% of the student body. [my add is there are around 7,500 undergrads, and if you add non-scholarship players, around 1,000 athletes].
6) Any solution would look at what is best for the athletes given the large number of athletes, The focus seems t be trying to make the Pac work.

---

Perhaps you have some inside info, but I don't read the article ( #1) as you do. It could just be that the Uni is having the strategic discussions on remaining in Big Time sports, which means participating in NIL to be competitive. In other words IFF the BiG comes calling -- not hat the BiG has actually reached out -- do we even want to entertain the offer if that means NIL + travel + everting else that goes with being competitive in the new P2. That is a discussion that any responsible AD should be having with its Prez right now to be prepared.

(Of course, since Cal does not have a P5 AD, no way Cal is having such discussions.)

---

IMHO, NIL is a reality no matter whether what conference we're in. Travel is a bigger issue. Clearly the more Pacific Coast teams there are in a conference, the better from a travel standpoint. But will the Big Ten invite more Pacific Coast schools? Who knows?

---

Sure, but at what level do they (and Cal, for that matter) want to compete? Do they/we want to recruit the talent to compete for FB and BB championships? Do they/we really want to bid $10m for a 5* QB? (Clearly, Cal does not have the financial wherewithal to be able to compete at that level; nor, does the Admin want to, even if the $$ did exist.)

Regardless, that is the strategic discussion that any responsible Uni would be having before receiving a bid to the BiG/SEC.

---

There continues to be a disconnect on NIL. Schools are not paying it, and can get into legal trupolbe if they stop players from getting paid. Absent some new legislation, the Cal administration or anyone else at the school doesn't get a say, unless they want to face an anti-trust suit. NIL is paid by donors. As Furd is about to find out, you can be philosophically opposed to NIL collectives, but NIL donors can do whatever they want - you can't stop them. At Cal, the only question is will donors step up to the plate.

---

Yes, I realize that NIL is paid from private funds, but it starts at the top. If the Stanford Admin does not want at the AD approving a Coach recruiting a 5* athlete bcos the alums will pay millions, it ain't gonna happen. If the Stanford Admin does not want a bunch of well-paid Football and basketball players, there are ways to make sure that they don't receive offers. If Stanford -- or any P5 -- does not want play big time NIL, they can limit recruiting to 2* players and remain bottom dwellers and/or underpay coaches (so good ones leave). Or raise admission standards for revenue sports. Perhaps a 1450 minimum SAT so they can compete for Ivy kids.

Ditto Cal Admin. (And that assumes that Cal alum's will even fund a program to make the Bears competitive in the NIL world -- I'm skeptical.) And the Chancellor has made it clear that competing for championships is a nice-to-have, not a goal.

The strategic question is whether Stanford (and Cal) want to compete for championships at the highest level -- and all that entails -- for the revenue sports.

---

Well the early responses were pretty clear that school was paying. The posts say that verbatim. But let's move beyond that little oversight.

I don't follow the logic of this last post. Cal and Furd recruit who fits what they want in a player. You somehow think the administrators now are going to say hey coaches, recruit players so lousy no one will ever want to give them NIL? Really?

The minute they decide to do this bizarre practice, the administrators lose their coaching staff, their donors, their fans, the good will of the politicians who actually passed NIL legislation, which for a state school is death, and upwards and onwards. No way in hell the conference they participate in allows them remain members. It is a parade of horribles. What the administrators really lose is their jobs. By the way, who is paying for non-revenue sports under this brilliant idea, since the football team has lost its competitiveness?

Let's take this a step further. Technically NIL can't be agreed upon until the player is enrolled under the laws of most states that passed NIL legislation, and NCAA rules which currently are not being enforced. But let's say you have a school that believes in following the letter of the law (so we are not talking about USC). What happens when the donors come to am existing player with NIL money? Before you answer, read the Alstom opinion, and place yourself in the shoes of school's general counsel advising the Cal or Furd administration. Just so you know, I have discussed this with Furd administrators who set policy and they acknowledge they can't legally do anything about the alums who are supposedly are starting a collective, and with all due respect, they know a whole lot more abut this subject than either of us.

Now for the kicker. Unlike at Furd, Cal's administration (through a lot of hard work by Sebasterbear) supports NIL collectives for whatever amounts of money they can raise and pay players, so the entire foundation for your argument is based on a faulty premise, besides faulty lawl and faulty logic.

Whether Cal supporters will open their wallets so Cal can be competitive for the players Cal wants to recruit remains to be seen. But I would not underestimate Sebaterbear, Beast Mode, and other involved in the Cal collectives.

---

That is why it's a strategic discussion. (Not sure what is so difficult.)

Do we want to continue to be competitive in the P2/P5, and all that requires in the new world order? How much would a new TV contract earn with current 10 members, plus perhaps SDSU? What happens if the BiG invites Oregon and U-Dub in two years? How much annual NIL fund-raising is realistic? How much can be raised if we remain a bottom dweller in the Rev sports (with an Admin that does not care much about winning)? Do we even want to continue to remain FBS? What does that mean for the non-Rev sports? What does that mean for 30+ sports being carried? What would say, a 20-sport program cost to maintain? What is the diversity impact? What is the donation impact? And, of course, the elephant: how do the CMS bonds get paid off? (You can probably come up with many others.)

In short, do we really want to compete for championships in the two Rev sports?

I have no doubt that Stanford is having such a discussion and that to me is what is alluded to in the Stanford Daily article.


"But I would not underestimate Sebaterbear, Beast Mode, and other involved in the Cal collectives. " How long will they continue to support NIL when the team remains at the bottom of the League? (Common sense, says not long. Heck, just read on this thread how many folks are cancelling season tix.)

---

Bottom line is the e Chancellor is all in on football. Otherwise she is wasting way too much of her time dealing with conference realignment (which is about football) for no good reason. Calling a strategy that makes no practical sense a strategic discussion, still doesn't make the strategy have any logic behind it.

---

We need to hear this kind of logical information. Her interview was just horrible. Her actions potentially tell a different story. We need something - anything - to give us some hope

---

The interview was about men's basketball which loses money. Not football. She literally is traveling around the country talking to large donors about conference realignment, and it very clear that the decision there is at her level, not at the AD level. She also is leading the charge with the Board of Regents and UCLA. If you have doubts I suggest you contact her. She reads her emails.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Bottom line is the Chancellor is all in on football. Otherwise she is wasting way too much of her time dealing with conference realignment (which is about football) for no good reason. Calling a strategy that makes no practical sense a strategic discussion, still doesn't make the strategy have any logic behind it.

---

You have got to be kidding in saying that the Chancellor is all in on football. Seems to me that it would be hard to imagine a chancellor being more disinterested and disengaged from football than Chancellor Christ is. If she were truly "all in on football" she would not put up with the crap that Justin Wilcox and his staff are delivering on the field for 6 years with more years to come. If anything, she is leading the demise of the football program at Cal.

Golden One said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Bottom line is the Chancellor is all in on football. Otherwise she is wasting way too much of her time dealing with conference realignment (which is about football) for no good reason. Calling a strategy that makes no practical sense a strategic discussion, still doesn't make the strategy have any logic behind it.

---

You have got to be kidding in saying that the Chancellor is all in on football. Seems to me that it would be hard to imagine a chancellor being more disinterested and disengaged from football than Chancellor Christ is. If she were truly "all in on football" she would not put up with the crap that Justin Wilcox and his staff are delivering on the field for 6 years with more years to come. If anything, she is leading the demise of the football program at Cal.

---

The optics from on field performance and GameDay experience seem to back up this view. It's like they are trying to prepare us for the end of Cal football.

GoCal80 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The interview was about men's basketball which loses money. Not football. She literally is traveling around the country talking to large donors about conference realignment, and it very clear that the decision there is at her level, not at the AD level. She also is leading the charge with the Board of Regents and UCLA. If you have doubts I suggest you contact her. She reads her emails.

---

The Chancellor has staff members who read her emails for her and reply to some of them. They might summarize for her a common theme in emails addressed to her. Emails from major donors will tend to get more attention, but still might be answered by her staff. There are many, many demands on the Chancellor's time on a staggering variety of topics.

---

I have gotten personal e-mails from Chancellor Christ in response to mine. (I wrote her on an important issue on which I have something original to say because of past experience.) In these situations, her staff has said that it was forwarding my e-mail to her. I then get responses. It is impossible for me to believe from the content that some staff person is writing those responses.

I am a donor, but a small one.

I hasten to add that I have never corresponded with her about sports. I think I would certainly need to have something original to say in order to get a response.

FWIW,I think many of you are giving her a bum rap on sports. But that's a post for another time.

Econ141 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Bottom line is the Chancellor is all in on football. Otherwise she is wasting way too much of her time dealing with conference realignment (which is about football) for no good reason. Calling a strategy that makes no practical sense a strategic discussion, still doesn't make the strategy have any logic behind it.

---

You have got to be kidding in saying that the Chancellor is all in on football. Seems to me that it would be hard to imagine a chancellor being more disinterested and disengaged from football than Chancellor Christ is. If she were truly "all in on football" she would not put up with the crap that Justin Wilcox and his staff are delivering on the field for 6 years with more years to come. If anything, she is leading the demise of the football program at Cal.

---

The optics from on field performance and GameDay experience seem to back up this view. It's like they are trying to prepare us for the end of Cal football.

---

You are assuming that she is okay with the football team's performance and especially the GameDay experience, Those would be very incorrect assumptions. I have personally heard her go off on the game experience in front of someone in the AD's office. She is not a sports expert, and the AD negotiated the contract with Wilcox. I think it has become clear that the AD has strong points, but managing revenue sports, football and basketball, is not one of them. You could do far, far worse as I look at the Pac Presidents and past Chancellors in terms of supporting football. She may be the reason there was a football season in 2020. We might still have Larry Scott as Pac commissioner if it wasn't for her. The guys on this board really have no appreciation all she is doing behind the scenes. That said, unless you have $25 million, Wilcox is staying the coach. Let's hope Wilcox can pull it together and turn around the team, because a lot is riding on him to do so. As for football being financially supported and in the best conference, she is personally involved and engaged, and personally reaching out to donors. Probably more engaged than she should be, but she chose her AD and has to live with that decision. I really can't understand why a chancellor has to be the one addressing basketball teams specifics with reporters, except her AD isn't up to the part of the job. Yes, the optics are bad, but what she said about other things also mattering beside wins (presumably quality of student athlete experience at school) sounds like something any school President would say, and seems to be taken to extremes by some posters. The guy making the decision on retaining basketball coaches at most school not named Duke or Kansas, is supposed to be the AD.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

You have got to be kidding in saying that the Chancellor is all in on football. Seems to me that it would be hard to imagine a chancellor being more disinterested and disengaged from football than Chancellor Christ is. If she were truly "all in on football" she would not put up with the crap that Justin Wilcox and his staff are delivering on the field for 6 years with more years to come. If anything, she is leading the demise of the football program at Cal.

---

---

The optics from on field performance and GameDay experience seem to back up this view. It's like they are trying to prepare us for the end of Cal football.

---

You are assuming that she is okay with the football team's performance and especially the GameDay experience, Those would be very incorrect assumptions. I have personally heard her go off on the game experience in front of someone in the AD's office. She is not a sports expert, and the AD negotiated the contract with Wilcox. I think it has become clear that the AD has strong points, but managing revenue sports, football and basketball, is not one of them. You could do far, far worse as I look at the Pac Presidents and past Chancellors in terms of supporting football. She may be the reason there was a football season in 2020. We might still have Larry Scott as Pac commissioner if it wasn't for her. The guys on this board really have no appreciation all she is doing behind the scenes. That said, unless you have $25 million, Wilcox is staying the coach. Let's hope Wilcox can pull it together and turn around the team, because a lot is riding on him to do so. As for football being financially supported and in the best conference, she is personally involved and engaged, and personally reaching out to donors. Probably more engaged than she should be, but she chose her AD and has to live with that decision. I really can't understand why a chancellor has to be the one addressing basketball teams specifics with reporters, except her AD isn't up to the part of the job. Yes, the optics are bad, but what she said about other things also mattering beside wins (presumably quality of student athlete experience at school) sounds like something any school President would say, and seems to be taken to extremes by some posters. The guy making the decision on retaining basketball coaches at most school not named Duke or Kansas, is supposed to be the AD.

---

Don't forget that Chancellor Christ gave Knowlton an 8-year extension. It's very hard to understand why anyone would be granted that type of long-term security, when there was nothing in his job performance that would seem to merit that. Her AD is also the guy who gave Wilcox an undeserved extension on his contract. That type of extension is not possible without the chancellors's approval. No chancellor who is seriously interested in success in the two major revenue sports would have allowed that to happen. So, I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the argument that Chancellor Christ strongly advocates success in our football program. Her actions clearly indicate that she is quite content with mediocrity.

gardenstatebear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your reporting on Christ and her involvement in saving football. Thank you.



Bottom line is the Chancellor is all in on football. Otherwise she is wasting way too much of her time dealing with conference realignment (which is about football) for no good reason. Calling a strategy that makes no practical sense a strategic discussion, still doesn't make the strategy have any logic behind it.

---

You have got to be kidding in saying that the Chancellor is all in on football. Seems to me that it would be hard to imagine a chancellor being more disinterested and disengaged from football than Chancellor Christ is. If she were truly "all in on football" she would not put up with the crap that Justin Wilcox and his staff are delivering on the field for 6 years with more years to come. If anything, she is leading the demise of the football program at Cal.

---

The optics from on field performance and GameDay experience seem to back up this view. It's like they are trying to prepare us for the end of Cal football.

---

You are assuming that she is okay with the football team's performance and especially the GameDay experience, Those would be very incorrect assumptions. I have personally heard her go off on the game experience in front of someone in the AD's office. She is not a sports expert, and the AD negotiated the contract with Wilcox. I think it has become clear that the AD has strong points, but managing revenue sports, football and basketball, is not one of them. You could do far, far worse as I look at the Pac Presidents and past Chancellors in terms of supporting football. She may be the reason there was a football season in 2020. We might still have Larry Scott as Pac commissioner if it wasn't for her. The guys on this board really have no appreciation all she is doing behind the scenes. That said, unless you have $25 million, Wilcox is staying the coach. Let's hope Wilcox can pull it together and turn around the team, because a lot is riding on him to do so. As for football being financially supported and in the best conference, she is personally involved and engaged, and personally reaching out to donors. Probably more engaged than she should be, but she chose her AD and has to live with that decision. I really can't understand why a chancellor has to be the one addressing basketball teams specifics with reporters, except her AD isn't up to the part of the job. Yes, the optics are bad, but what she said about other things also mattering beside wins (presumably quality of student athlete experience at school) sounds like something any school President would say, and seems to be taken to extremes by some posters. The guy making the decision on retaining basketball coaches at most school not named Duke or Kansas, is supposed to be the AD.

---

---

Wifeofafurd, I really appreciate your detailed response. I just wanted to comment on her quote about other things mattering beside winning and losing. This quote seems to outrage some here, but it shouldn't. As you say, any school president would say the same. In fact, everybody here would say the same. If the accusations against Teri McKeever prove true, then nobody would want to keep her despite her swimmers' successes. Hardly anyone here approved of the football recruiter (I forget his name) who brought in a bunch of athletes who didn't have the academic capability to succeed . (I've read that our football APR was 48% at one point!) No one would want a coach,no matter how many wins he or she had, who committed NCAA rule violations that got our team in trouble. (I am so old I remember that we were stripped of a track & field championship because of sanctions arising -- I think -- from the recruitment of Isaac Curtis.)

So there's nothing wrong with what she said. Nor have the decisions made during her chancellorship been as awful as some here depict. It was not unreasonable to extend Wilcox at a time when the team seemed on the upswing and he was being sought elsewhere. As terrible as the basketball team seems to be (I'm basing this on Jim Gillis's detailed report on the UC Davis game), keeping Fox was a defensible decision. Yes, Knowlton seems like an odd hire, but my understanding is that he has been a pretty good fund-raiser, and an AD needs to be an excellent fund-raiser.

So, as I suggested above, some posters are giving her a bad rap.That doesn't mean I'm happy with where things are. I wish our coaches were more effective. I believe all the posters who say the game experience has deteriorated.All these are areas in which progress has to be made -- soon! But laying our problems at Christ's feet is unfair.

---

So I kinda have to take issue with almost everything you said in the bolded paragraph. On some level, yes, you are right, there are more important things than winning and losing, and yes, obviously McKeever's (alleged) violations are beyond the pale and should be fireable offenses (and should have been investigated much earlier). However, giving those quotes to that reporter in the context of an article about the men's basketball coach who is in charge of the team during its worst stretch in 30+ years definitely gives the impression that she is ok with the levels of losing that Fox is overseeing. You can argue that wasn't her intent, but basically most people on this board took her statement as giving a bit of a pass to Fox's performance to this point. Maybe that wasn't her intent, but someone in her position knows the importance of parsing the quotes you give to reporters to make sure they don't imply anything you don't mean to imply.

And while you may not think it was unreasonable to give a coach who after 5 years has NEVER had a winning conference record an extension, there is absolutely no doubt that giving that extension while FULLY GUARANTEEING ALL OF THE YEARS preventing Cal from moving on from Wilcox even when things immediately got much worse should be considered AD malpractice. Maybe that's not directly on Christ, but her continued support of Knowlton is indirectly supporting it. And I think you really need to read the basketball boards more if you think that keeping Fox is in any way a reasonable decision.

Finally, while Knowlton might be a good fund-raiser, he has failed in what should be the most important decisions regarding the two biggest revenue generating sports of the athletic department and completely bungled the McKeever abuse allegations. Any one of those should make it clear he is completely in over his head.

Golden One said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Golden One said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

You have got to be kidding in saying that the Chancellor is all in on football. Seems to me that it would be hard to imagine a chancellor being more disinterested and disengaged from football than Chancellor Christ is. If she were truly "all in on football" she would not put up with the crap that Justin Wilcox and his staff are delivering on the field for 6 years with more years to come. If anything, she is leading the demise of the football program at Cal.

---

---

The optics from on field performance and GameDay experience seem to back up this view. It's like they are trying to prepare us for the end of Cal football.

---

You are assuming that she is okay with the football team's performance and especially the GameDay experience, Those would be very incorrect assumptions. I have personally heard her go off on the game experience in front of someone in the AD's office. She is not a sports expert, and the AD negotiated the contract with Wilcox. I think it has become clear that the AD has strong points, but managing revenue sports, football and basketball, is not one of them. You could do far, far worse as I look at the Pac Presidents and past Chancellors in terms of supporting football. She may be the reason there was a football season in 2020. We might still have Larry Scott as Pac commissioner if it wasn't for her. The guys on this board really have no appreciation all she is doing behind the scenes. That said, unless you have $25 million, Wilcox is staying the coach. Let's hope Wilcox can pull it together and turn around the team, because a lot is riding on him to do so. As for football being financially supported and in the best conference, she is personally involved and engaged, and personally reaching out to donors. Probably more engaged than she should be, but she chose her AD and has to live with that decision. I really can't understand why a chancellor has to be the one addressing basketball teams specifics with reporters, except her AD isn't up to the part of the job. Yes, the optics are bad, but what she said about other things also mattering beside wins (presumably quality of student athlete experience at school) sounds like something any school President would say, and seems to be taken to extremes by some posters. The guy making the decision on retaining basketball coaches at most school not named Duke or Kansas, is supposed to be the AD.

---

Don't forget that Chancellor Christ gave Knowlton an 8-year extension. It's very hard to understand why anyone would be granted that type of long-term security, when there was nothing in his job performance that would seem to merit that. Her AD is also the guy who gave Wilcox an undeserved extension on his contract. That type of extension is not possible without the chancellors's approval. No chancellor who is seriously interested in success in the two major revenue sports would have allowed that to happen. So, I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the argument that Chancellor Christ strongly advocates success in our football program. Her actions clearly indicate that she is quite content with mediocrity.

---

You can also have strongly passionate and motivated people who really want to do well but are incompetent, in over their heads, managing things they know nothing about and making poor decisions that run their organizations into the ground.

---

Agree.

---

Does the name Tom Holmoe ring a bell?

gardenstatebear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your reporting on Christ and her involvement in saving football. Thank you.



Bottom line is the Chancellor is all in on football. Otherwise she is wasting way too much of her time dealing with conference realignment (which is about football) for no good reason. Calling a strategy that makes no practical sense a strategic discussion, still doesn't make the strategy have any logic behind it.

---

You have got to be kidding in saying that the Chancellor is all in on football. Seems to me that it would be hard to imagine a chancellor being more disinterested and disengaged from football than Chancellor Christ is. If she were truly "all in on football" she would not put up with the crap that Justin Wilcox and his staff are delivering on the field for 6 years with more years to come. If anything, she is leading the demise of the football program at Cal.

---

The optics from on field performance and GameDay experience seem to back up this view. It's like they are trying to prepare us for the end of Cal football.

---

You are assuming that she is okay with the football team's performance and especially the GameDay experience, Those would be very incorrect assumptions. I have personally heard her go off on the game experience in front of someone in the AD's office. She is not a sports expert, and the AD negotiated the contract with Wilcox. I think it has become clear that the AD has strong points, but managing revenue sports, football and basketball, is not one of them. You could do far, far worse as I look at the Pac Presidents and past Chancellors in terms of supporting football. She may be the reason there was a football season in 2020. We might still have Larry Scott as Pac commissioner if it wasn't for her. The guys on this board really have no appreciation all she is doing behind the scenes. That said, unless you have $25 million, Wilcox is staying the coach. Let's hope Wilcox can pull it together and turn around the team, because a lot is riding on him to do so. As for football being financially supported and in the best conference, she is personally involved and engaged, and personally reaching out to donors. Probably more engaged than she should be, but she chose her AD and has to live with that decision. I really can't understand why a chancellor has to be the one addressing basketball teams specifics with reporters, except her AD isn't up to the part of the job. Yes, the optics are bad, but what she said about other things also mattering beside wins (presumably quality of student athlete experience at school) sounds like something any school President would say, and seems to be taken to extremes by some posters. The guy making the decision on retaining basketball coaches at most school not named Duke or Kansas, is supposed to be the AD.

---

---

Wifeofafurd, I really appreciate your detailed response. I just wanted to comment on her quote about other things mattering beside winning and losing. This quote seems to outrage some here, but it shouldn't. As you say, any school president would say the same. In fact, everybody here would say the same. If the accusations against Teri McKeever prove true, then nobody would want to keep her despite her swimmers' successes. Hardly anyone here approved of the football recruiter (I forget his name) who brought in a bunch of athletes who didn't have the academic capability to succeed . (I've read that our football APR was 48% at one point!) No one would want a coach,no matter how many wins he or she had, who committed NCAA rule violations that got our team in trouble. (I am so old I remember that we were stripped of a track & field championship because of sanctions arising -- I think -- from the recruitment of Isaac Curtis.)

So there's nothing wrong with what she said. Nor have the decisions made during her chancellorship been as awful as some here depict. It was not unreasonable to extend Wilcox at a time when the team seemed on the upswing and he was being sought elsewhere. As terrible as the basketball team seems to be (I'm basing this on Jim Gillis's detailed report on the UC Davis game), keeping Fox was a defensible decision. Yes, Knowlton seems like an odd hire, but my understanding is that he has been a pretty good fund-raiser, and an AD needs to be an excellent fund-raiser.

So, as I suggested above, some posters are giving her a bad rap.That doesn't mean I'm happy with where things are. I wish our coaches were more effective. I believe all the posters who say the game experience has deteriorated.All these are areas in which progress has to be made -- soon! But laying our problems at Christ's feet is unfair.

---

Fully guaranteeing JW's contract and keeping Fox are indefensible.