eastcoastcal said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

"UCLA can play at 3, USC at 6"

So uCLA and USC will only have home games and never have to travel?

If the B1G wants those slots every week they need 4 WC teams.

---

The Big Ten doesn't need the late west coast time slot at all.

Their new TV deal puts a game on Fox broadcast at 9 am PT, followed by a game on CBS at 12:30 and then a game on NBC at 5. The 5 pm time slot can be filled with any B1G home game.

Every B1G game other than those three will be on Big Ten Network, FS1, or one of the streaming services or "cable" channels owned by the networks mentioned above. They don't need football games that start at 7 or 7:30 pm PT.

TV won't want eastern or central time zone viewers watching "their" teams in games that end after midnight their time. When UCLA or USC now plays a Pac-12 opponent at 10:30 ET, it's no big deal because the vast majority of the viewers are in the west. In contrast, a TV exec whose network is paying for Big Ten games will think that they are needlessly losing potential viewers if Penn State, Ohio State, etc. plays in LA starting at 10:30 ET.

---

The B1G doesn't NEED the 6 pm EST and 9 pm EST start times, but if they don't have it they are leaving money on the table. The whole point of all this is increasing revenue.

So you are telling me that if Cal was playing an away game that was on TV at 9 ending at midnight on a Saturday, you wouldn't watch? That is too late for you? The whole success of SNL is that people watch TV late night on Saturdays.

Bars want to have sports on their TVs. Saturday night is a huge night for patronage of drinking places. They would love to be able to have a game their patrons care about. They would love nothing more than to have viewing parties.

Moreover, fans of other teams in the other time zones are watching THEIR team earlier in the day. The later games have the ability to attract a general audience.

It is the huge value West Coast teams have that has barely been tapped. I think the B1G sees this and will expand to 4 or 6, but in the meantime Kliavkoff needs to capture it for the PAC, possibly through an alliance with the ACC, that would have OOC games spread through the season, or PAC-10 neutral site night games in LA or OC, or more likely the addition of SDSU with November featured night games played in Arizona or San Diego.

---

The TV networks have been broadcasting Pac-12 games every week at 10 or 10:30 pm ET for more than 10 years. It's not an untapped or undiscovered time slot, and they have plenty of data on it.

That data shows good games in that time slot do well on the west coast but don't attract many viewers in the east. Even the best weekly game in that late time slot is typically only about the 10th-most-watched game of its week. Last season, the best showing for a late Pac-12 game was 8th place for the week. Even the most watched late night game of the season had fewer than half the audience of the most watched CFB games that week.

(Oregon-Utah on Nov. 19 and Cal-USC on Nov. 5 were each #8 in their week. You can see the ratings for every CFB game this season here: https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/ )

And those games are maxing the west coast audience to compensate for having almost no eastern time zone audience. A Big Ten opponent with average audience appeal, say Michigan State, isn't going to make fans stay up late to watch. Lesser opponents will do even worse, in all time zones. Minnesota, Rutgers, or Indiana playing a 10:30 ET game at UCLA? The audience size would be so small that only Big Ten Network or a streaming service would want the game, and if the game is on one of those outlets it can be played at any time and doesn't need to fit into one of the noon/3:30/7:00/10:30 ET time windows anyway.

So, yeah, the existing data on games in the late night time slot shows that the time slot would be a poor way to use a game featuring any Big Ten team that has average or above-average appeal to the typical CFB fan. On top of that, the same data shows that games between two west coast teams in that time slot draw audiences that are solid by Pac-12 standards, but not large enough to justify the big dollars of the B1G TV contract that will be costing the TV networks about twice as much as the Pac's contract.

---

Here is a different opinion:
https://theathletic.com/3444339/2022/07/25/pac12-big12-tv-viewership/?amp=1

Mandel sees those slots as the PACs best bargaining tool.

Again, the value to the B1G is being able to put games that matter to East Coast viewers into the late night slots. It is valuable to the PAC as Mandel argues, but it is even MORE valuable to the B1G. Not just content to sell to the broadcast networks but content for the Big-10 Network. They compete with the SEC for eyeballs in every other time slot.

That is why it makes sense for the B1G to expand further on the West Coast. I think that after Kliavkoff negotiates a deal the B1G will make a move on at least two more PAC schools before the GOR is signed away, with the offer being something more than Kliavkoff got, but less than full share in the B1G.

---

I interpreted Mandel's article differently than you did.

He is saying that the Pac-10 is valuable enough to survive, and maybe make more TV money than the Big12 and ACC. He argues that to get that level of money, the Pac is going to have to schedule a ton of kickoffs after 10 pm ET. He is not saying that anyone in the Pac-10 has enough TV value to merit full shares of B1G revenue, given that the B1G's TV money per team is so much greater.

---

Right, but if you read the rest of what I wrote, there is MORE value to the B1G in obtaining more of those slots (plus adding additional markets) so after Kliavkoff comes up with a deal, before the GOR are signed, the B1G will likely make an offer to 2 or more PAC teams at an amount in between Kliavkoff's deal and full B1G payout.

With the only thing holding them back being antitrust concerns if they kill the PAC.

The next question is, would Cal and Stanford jump for an offer like that?

---

Could UW deliver the Seattle market singlehanded? Could Cal deliver the Bay Area alone?

I am still so pissed at ucla sneaking out in the middle of the night, I'm for denying them a second west coast game. Let them rot in their deal (yeah, I know).

As for furd, they can hold their noses in the air forever.

---

FWIW, I believe the conference looks for TV access not necessarily how much the region cares- Rutgers was added for the NYC metro area. Nobody in NY (or honestly NJ) cares about Rutgers football. But having them allows for TV access to the region. I think the idea is that we'd give any conference access to the Bay Area media market which is pretty large

---

Correct:

Quote:

---

On the evening of June 29, 2022, the Big Ten held a Zoom invitation that one Big Ten president labeled as a "Confidential Strategic Meeting." The following day, news broke that UCLA and USC planned to join the Big Ten.

About 45 minutes before the Zoom meeting, Ohio State Senior Vice President and Athletic Director Gene Smith texted Ohio State President Dr. Kristina Johnson, "Not sure if u r on call tonight,,, I will raise a couple concerns but am still supportive assuming a plan emerges to mitigate some operational concerns."

On3 obtained a copy of text messages between Smith and Johnson through a public records request for any documents regarding the potential financial, travel or scheduling implications of Big Ten expansion.

The guest list on the invitation for that Zoom meeting included eight Big Ten employees and at least two representatives from every Big Ten institution. In most cases, each member institution's athletic director and university president or chancellor were listed.

****

There was only one redaction in five pages of text messages between Smith and Johnson, which were sent between June 29 and June 30, 2022. Based on the context, the partially redacted message may have referenced the projected financial impact of Big Ten expansion.

"Was [redaction]," Johnson wrote to Smith on the evening of June 30.

Smith responded, "I would have to go back and look but it sounds right…. But the value included Big Ten schools going in those markets not just the value of those two schools."

Johnson replied, "I will make that point," to which Smith wrote back, "We need to accept them in."

---

https://www.on3.com/news/ucla-usc-big-ten-expansion-conference-realignment-ohio-state-gene-smith/

eastcoastcal said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

"UCLA can play at 3, USC at 6"

So uCLA and USC will only have home games and never have to travel?

If the B1G wants those slots every week they need 4 WC teams.

---

The Big Ten doesn't need the late west coast time slot at all.

Their new TV deal puts a game on Fox broadcast at 9 am PT, followed by a game on CBS at 12:30 and then a game on NBC at 5. The 5 pm time slot can be filled with any B1G home game.

Every B1G game other than those three will be on Big Ten Network, FS1, or one of the streaming services or "cable" channels owned by the networks mentioned above. They don't need football games that start at 7 or 7:30 pm PT.

TV won't want eastern or central time zone viewers watching "their" teams in games that end after midnight their time. When UCLA or USC now plays a Pac-12 opponent at 10:30 ET, it's no big deal because the vast majority of the viewers are in the west. In contrast, a TV exec whose network is paying for Big Ten games will think that they are needlessly losing potential viewers if Penn State, Ohio State, etc. plays in LA starting at 10:30 ET.

---

The B1G doesn't NEED the 6 pm EST and 9 pm EST start times, but if they don't have it they are leaving money on the table. The whole point of all this is increasing revenue.

So you are telling me that if Cal was playing an away game that was on TV at 9 ending at midnight on a Saturday, you wouldn't watch? That is too late for you? The whole success of SNL is that people watch TV late night on Saturdays.

Bars want to have sports on their TVs. Saturday night is a huge night for patronage of drinking places. They would love to be able to have a game their patrons care about. They would love nothing more than to have viewing parties.

Moreover, fans of other teams in the other time zones are watching THEIR team earlier in the day. The later games have the ability to attract a general audience.

It is the huge value West Coast teams have that has barely been tapped. I think the B1G sees this and will expand to 4 or 6, but in the meantime Kliavkoff needs to capture it for the PAC, possibly through an alliance with the ACC, that would have OOC games spread through the season, or PAC-10 neutral site night games in LA or OC, or more likely the addition of SDSU with November featured night games played in Arizona or San Diego.

---

The TV networks have been broadcasting Pac-12 games every week at 10 or 10:30 pm ET for more than 10 years. It's not an untapped or undiscovered time slot, and they have plenty of data on it.

That data shows good games in that time slot do well on the west coast but don't attract many viewers in the east. Even the best weekly game in that late time slot is typically only about the 10th-most-watched game of its week. Last season, the best showing for a late Pac-12 game was 8th place for the week. Even the most watched late night game of the season had fewer than half the audience of the most watched CFB games that week.

(Oregon-Utah on Nov. 19 and Cal-USC on Nov. 5 were each #8 in their week. You can see the ratings for every CFB game this season here: https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/ )

And those games are maxing the west coast audience to compensate for having almost no eastern time zone audience. A Big Ten opponent with average audience appeal, say Michigan State, isn't going to make fans stay up late to watch. Lesser opponents will do even worse, in all time zones. Minnesota, Rutgers, or Indiana playing a 10:30 ET game at UCLA? The audience size would be so small that only Big Ten Network or a streaming service would want the game, and if the game is on one of those outlets it can be played at any time and doesn't need to fit into one of the noon/3:30/7:00/10:30 ET time windows anyway.

So, yeah, the existing data on games in the late night time slot shows that the time slot would be a poor way to use a game featuring any Big Ten team that has average or above-average appeal to the typical CFB fan. On top of that, the same data shows that games between two west coast teams in that time slot draw audiences that are solid by Pac-12 standards, but not large enough to justify the big dollars of the B1G TV contract that will be costing the TV networks about twice as much as the Pac's contract.

---

Here is a different opinion:
https://theathletic.com/3444339/2022/07/25/pac12-big12-tv-viewership/?amp=1

Mandel sees those slots as the PACs best bargaining tool.

Again, the value to the B1G is being able to put games that matter to East Coast viewers into the late night slots. It is valuable to the PAC as Mandel argues, but it is even MORE valuable to the B1G. Not just content to sell to the broadcast networks but content for the Big-10 Network. They compete with the SEC for eyeballs in every other time slot.

That is why it makes sense for the B1G to expand further on the West Coast. I think that after Kliavkoff negotiates a deal the B1G will make a move on at least two more PAC schools before the GOR is signed away, with the offer being something more than Kliavkoff got, but less than full share in the B1G.

---

I interpreted Mandel's article differently than you did.

He is saying that the Pac-10 is valuable enough to survive, and maybe make more TV money than the Big12 and ACC. He argues that to get that level of money, the Pac is going to have to schedule a ton of kickoffs after 10 pm ET. He is not saying that anyone in the Pac-10 has enough TV value to merit full shares of B1G revenue, given that the B1G's TV money per team is so much greater.

---

Right, but if you read the rest of what I wrote, there is MORE value to the B1G in obtaining more of those slots (plus adding additional markets) so after Kliavkoff comes up with a deal, before the GOR are signed, the B1G will likely make an offer to 2 or more PAC teams at an amount in between Kliavkoff's deal and full B1G payout.

With the only thing holding them back being antitrust concerns if they kill the PAC.

The next question is, would Cal and Stanford jump for an offer like that?

---

Could UW deliver the Seattle market singlehanded? Could Cal deliver the Bay Area alone?

I am still so pissed at ucla sneaking out in the middle of the night, I'm for denying them a second west coast game. Let them rot in their deal (yeah, I know).

As for furd, they can hold their noses in the air forever.

---

FWIW, I believe the conference looks for TV access not necessarily how much the region cares- Rutgers was added for the NYC metro area. Nobody in NY (or honestly NJ) cares about Rutgers football. But having them allows for TV access to the region. I think the idea is that we'd give any conference access to the Bay Area media market which is pretty large

---

This is exactly correct. If the Big Ten has a team in an area's footprint, then it is entitled to be paid much more for carriage rights. It doesn't matter that much how many actual viewers that team has. BTW, people might care about Rutgers football if the team were good, but the Scarlet Knights make the Cal Bears look like world-beaters.

okaydo said:

---

---

I wonder by which criteria this person concludes that UCLA has passed Cal academically. It is true that they are better in being able to provide housing for their students and probably have less crime, but by purely academic measures they are not close to Cal.

You know, academically speaking, I'm sure we are higher ranked than UCLA. Our standing in the academic community is solid and will continue to be hopefully. But when it comes to athletics - who gives a sh*t?

Are we going to continue to argue about academics when we win the Mountain West? Or when we are getting are a**es kicked in the Big 10? Yeah, that will work.

philly1121 said:

---

You know, academically speaking, I'm sure we are higher ranked than UCLA. Our standing in the academic community is solid and will continue to be hopefully. But when it comes to athletics - who gives a sh*t?

Are we going to continue to argue about academics when we win the Mountain West? Or when we are getting are a**es kicked in the Big 10? Yeah, that will work.

---

My fear is that Cal is doing nothing to change (academically speaking, we know athletics is in the dumpster). Yes academic reputation wise we spank UCLA but overall ratings wise they have caught up and we've stayed constant. We are resting on our laurels and when you do that you get passed up.

The move to the B1G will be huge for the UCLA brand. They are essentially going to go national with their "#1 public university" nonsense and guess what, the rest of the country watches a ton of football.

Perception matters and Cal better get start putting some strategic measures in place or we will justifiably or not, lose our flagship status.

Ucla alums give a ****, that's why they bring it up. You have to understand the world they live in, desperately trying to convince themselves they're "the best" while simultaneously living in Cal's shadow academically and USC's athletically. It wears on them. That's why this "tax" annoys them so much. It's a very public reminder that Cal is above them in the UC pecking order and that USC will be better off in yet another way competitively when they both get to the B1G. It's as much a USC subsidy as it is a Cal tax. They're absolutely green with envy that USC can do whatever the hell it wants to do and there's no external oversight outside literal legal action. And the fact that it's Cal doing it to them frustrates them intensely. They think they're better than Cal on all fronts. They can't figure out what Regent Chair Leib was talking about in the preamble to the December meeting because he never used the words "football" or "Berkeley" but there he was, diminishing the business at hand by praising Cal for a(nother) truly historic achievement before giving Cal money out of Ucla's pocket for athletics. Cal is responsible for more major research breakthroughs in the last decade than Ucla has ever contributed.

Econ141 said:

---

Perception matters and Cal better get start putting some strategic measures in place or we will justifiably or not, lose our flagship status.

---

This is not even close to being true.

How does any of what you just wrote help us win games next season?

Reputation? Academic historical achievements? Wow. That's great. Let's send the Academic Senate a gift basket.

I thought we were trying to win games?

You're responding to a post about a Ucla alum's opinion piece that brings up academics. You're aware of that, yes?

WalterSobchak said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Perception matters and Cal better get start putting some strategic measures in place or we will justifiably or not, lose our flagship status.

---

This is not even close to being true.

---

Why do we love to hang our hat on the fact that we have so many NLs? Who cares? How does this impact the student experience?

I can say that in my four years at Cal, having so many NL was either neutral (not teaching my classes) or negative (best researcher are terrible lecturers).

Simple: There's more to an elite University than the undergraduate experience. Ucla get more applications than Cal. Cal has more research achievements. Neither really matters to the average undergrad after they matriculate. Both count for something. One counts for more in terms of academic prestige and funding.

And my point is that academic prestige is a vanity metric that shouldn't be the only consideration when ranking top universities.

From a career perspective, hiring managers view us and UCLA as equals. From a student experience perspective, we used to be on par but now UCLA is pulling ahead, especially when it comes to athletics.

We better make changes quickly or pretty soon the popular perception will be that UCLA and we can only cling to our past achievements like making the Rose Bowl in the 50s or making nuclear advancements in the 40s.

I don't know what to tell you, maybe you should've just gone to Ucla. I'm not sure why you put any emphasis at all on sports when talking about hiring managers. If you're at a place that's giving the nod to candidates based on football records I'd focus more on that.

And? You're worried about reputation and how UCLA is pissed about paying us. Great! Again - how does this improve our athletic situation?

UCLA has already laid everything on the table in terms of what they think of us - which is - not very much. They don't care about the UC system. They don't care about our game between them (I hesitate to even call it a rivalry). They don't care about the P12. The only thing they care about is $$, winning and their true rival, USC. They let their academics speak for itself as we should. When it comes to athletics - academic rep or NL mean d*ck to an athlete.

I literally can't understand why you're so impressed with Ucla. They finished in 6th place. Their recruiting class sits at 24, behind the Ducks, Trojans, and Utes. We just beat them for Cardwell head-to-head. Why aren't you beating the drum for those teams? Academics don't matter, right? UW is about on par with Ucla academically (see what I did there?), you could root for them. They finished ahead of Ucla too.

Well, though they finished 6th, they were 9-3. And the teams above them are all ranked. And in the CFP Rankings, all 5 that finished ahead of UCLA are in the top 15. They have also made a bold decision to join the Big 10. Whether that leads to success is not known yet. nevertheless, they appear to have made a bold decision for the betterment of their financial situation.

That said, UCLA is ranked in the top 10 in terms of the quality of their transfers.

As for our transfers in - I like Cardwell. I think he will be a quality addition. I think the jury may be out on Sergio Allen. He didn't get much playing time at Clemson. I think he only saw action in two games but he should be worked in immediately at the linebacker spot.

But I guarantee you that Byron Cardwell didn't choose us over UCLA because we have more Nobel Laureates than the Bruins. As far as UW and UCLA academics - who cares? Seriously.

philly1121 said:

---

Well, though they finished 6th, they were 9-3. And the teams above them are all ranked. And in the CFP Rankings, all 5 that finished ahead of UCLA are in the top 15. They have also made a bold decision to join the Big 10. Whether that leads to success is not known yet. nevertheless, they appear to have made a bold decision for the betterment of their financial situation.

That said, UCLA is ranked in the top 10 in terms of the quality of their transfers.

As for our transfers in - I like Cardwell. I think he will be a quality addition. I think the jury may be out on Sergio Allen. He didn't get much playing time at Clemson. I think he only saw action in two games but he should be worked in immediately at the linebacker spot.

But I guarantee you that Byron Cardwell didn't choose us over UCLA because we have more Nobel Laureates than the Bruins. As far as UW and UCLA academics - who cares? Seriously.

---

UCLA's 9 wins included 3 home non conference wins over non P5 schools. Nobody wants to remember those. They had one of, if not the easiest, schedule in America.

philly1121 said:

---

Well, though they finished 6th, they were 9-3. And the teams above them are all ranked. And in the CFP Rankings, all 5 that finished ahead of UCLA are in the top 15. They have also made a bold decision to join the Big 10. Whether that leads to success is not known yet. nevertheless, they appear to have made a bold decision for the betterment of their financial situation.

That said, UCLA is ranked in the top 10 in terms of the quality of their transfers.

As for our transfers in - I like Cardwell. I think he will be a quality addition. I think the jury may be out on Sergio Allen. He didn't get much playing time at Clemson. I think he only saw action in two games but he should be worked in immediately at the linebacker spot.

But I guarantee you that Byron Cardwell didn't choose us over UCLA because we have more Nobel Laureates than the Bruins. As far as UW and UCLA academics - who cares? Seriously.

---

You've evaded the question.

USC is 11-2. They beat Ucla. Their current class rank sits at 11. They have also made the bold move to jump to the B1G. Some might say they initiated it.

UW is 10-2, but they lost to Ucla on the road and their current class is only ranked 30 right now so that's why I though maybe the academic parity with your darlin' Ucla might be something for you to consider.

Utah is 10-3 and headed to their second straight Rose Bowl with a class ranked a few notches above Ucla's, but they lost to Ucla on the road too.

Oregon is 9-3 just like Ucla. They absolutely destroyed Ucla at Autzen. The game was effectively over in the second quarter. 31-13 at the half. Ucla did "win the second half" though to close the gap by 3 points for a 45-30 final so kudos to them for that. Oregon is also killing it today. Their class sits at #8 with three 5 stars. After Ucla flipped the very floppy Moore from them in what would've been their 4th 5 star they rebounded to fill the slot with a 4 star today.

(Even Oregon State is 10-3 but their class stinks at 55 so they're disqualified. They'll never be able to build a winner with those results. Too bad Ucla didn't get a chance to play them to prove how superior they are.)

So my question is why don't you expound the virtues of any of those programs like you do for Ucla?
Why do you spend so much time on a Cal message board pumping Ucla, a middle of the Pac program?
Why not Utah or USC or Oregon, clearly the strongest programs in the Pac right now?
You also have spent a considerable amount of time promoting the ultra-cringe Ucla meme that Cal should be embarrassed by the "tax."
If I didn't know any better I'd think maybe you are actually a closeted Ucla fan...

Alkiadt said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Well, though they finished 6th, they were 9-3. And the teams above them are all ranked. And in the CFP Rankings, all 5 that finished ahead of UCLA are in the top 15. They have also made a bold decision to join the Big 10. Whether that leads to success is not known yet. nevertheless, they appear to have made a bold decision for the betterment of their financial situation.

That said, UCLA is ranked in the top 10 in terms of the quality of their transfers.

As for our transfers in - I like Cardwell. I think he will be a quality addition. I think the jury may be out on Sergio Allen. He didn't get much playing time at Clemson. I think he only saw action in two games but he should be worked in immediately at the linebacker spot.

But I guarantee you that Byron Cardwell didn't choose us over UCLA because we have more Nobel Laureates than the Bruins. As far as UW and UCLA academics - who cares? Seriously.

---

UCLA's 9 wins included 3 home non conference wins over non P5 schools. Nobody wants to remember those. They had one of, if not the easiest, schedule in America.

---

They're doing it again next season (except Coastal is no pushover and they'll have to go to SLC) but that all changes in 2024 for their initiation into the B1G when they also travel to Baton Rouge. Then in 2025 UGA comes to town for the opener in Pasadena and they do the return trip in 2026 to open the season in Athens. https://uclabruins.com/news/2021/8/26/football-announces-future-schedule-adjustments.aspx

I just have to look at their records. Is there anything more to say than that? I mean, when all is said and done, doesn't everyone look at the scoreboard? I fail to see how finishing 4-8 and finishing 9th in a 12 team conference is somehow better than UCLA or any team that finished above them.

But more to your point - Utah - two rose bowl appearances since they joined the P10 in 2010.

USC - always better than us
UW - they've won the North division 4 times in past 5 years?
Oregon - always better than us.

There's plenty of love to go around, but they're not exactly the topic at hand, now are they? What more would you like me to say about them? That they have Athletic Administrations that knows what they're doing? Please tell me how to expound on their virtues further and I'll be happy to do so.

And UCLA is a middle of the pac program? Hmm, yes, well technically you're correct. But I'd say, there's 6 quality teams in the P12, then there's 10 feet of crap, then there's us, Furd, ASU and Colorado.

Lastly, USC of course initiated this move. Were you raised on a farm? They're the one's that were sick of getting screwed out of all the revenue because they had to share equally even though they were the ones that brought all of it. UCLA jumped with them - a team that maybe, maybe brought 10% of the media revenue to the conference. USC drove the move, not UCLA. Did I miss anything?

The memes aren't mine but that's what is out there and I think its embarrassing and a touch humiliating that members on this board are so overjoyed that we are "punishing" UCLA with a little tax that is going to be used for student development, not athletics. But go on, you go for it. If that is what heals the wounds, cool. And again, its not me, its Twitter and Reddit that are saying the same stuff. You're like that Karen at the Raiders-Patriots game that got all upset that those two Patriots fans dared to cheer for their team in the "Raiders' house". I guess it sucks when people actually are forced to listen to a different opinion.

We need to be better and fast. I said we needed to have a winning record this past season. And now its make or break. We just can't seem to get our act together.

philly1121 said:

---

I just have to look at their records. Is there anything more to say than that? I mean, when all is said and done, doesn't everyone look at the scoreboard? I fail to see how finishing 4-8 and finishing 9th in a 12 team conference is somehow better than UCLA or any team that finished above them.

But more to your point - Utah - two rose bowl appearances since they joined the P10 in 2010.

USC - always better than us
UW - they've won the North division 4 times in past 5 years?
Oregon - always better than us.

There's plenty of love to go around, but they're not exactly the topic at hand, now are they? What more would you like me to say about them? That they have Athletic Administrations that knows what they're doing? Please tell me how to expound on their virtues further and I'll be happy to do so.

And UCLA is a middle of the pac program? Hmm, yes, well technically you're correct. But I'd say, there's 6 quality teams in the P12, then there's 10 feet of crap, then there's us, Furd, ASU and Colorado.

Lastly, USC of course initiated this move. Were you raised on a farm? They're the one's that were sick of getting screwed out of all the revenue because they had to share equally even though they were the ones that brought all of it. UCLA jumped with them - a team that maybe, maybe brought 10% of the media revenue to the conference. USC drove the move, not UCLA. Did I miss anything?

The memes aren't mine but that's what is out there and I think its embarrassing and a touch humiliating that members on this board are so overjoyed that we are "punishing" UCLA with a little tax that is going to be used for student development, not athletics. But go on, you go for it. If that is what heals the wounds, cool. And again, its not me, its Twitter and Reddit that are saying the same stuff. You're like that Karen at the Raiders-Patriots game that got all upset that those two Patriots fans dared to cheer for their team in the "Raiders' house". I guess it sucks when people actually are forced to listen to a different opinion.

We need to be better and fast. I said we needed to have a winning record this past season. And now its make or break. We just can't seem to get our act together.

---

Year 7 of Wilcox with Spavital at OC is really make or break. Our recruiting class is again near the bottom of the PAC-12 (currently 12th). Hopefully we get a top QB in the portal. A 7th year among the bottom dwellers would pretty much mean it will never happen even though Knowlton signed him through year 11.

philly1121 said:

---

I just have to look at their records. Is there anything more to say than that? I mean, when all is said and done, doesn't everyone look at the scoreboard? I fail to see how finishing 4-8 and finishing 9th in a 12 team conference is somehow better than UCLA or any team that finished above them.

But more to your point - Utah - two rose bowl appearances since they joined the P10 in 2010.

USC - always better than us
UW - they've won the North division 4 times in past 5 years?
Oregon - always better than us.

There's plenty of love to go around, but they're not exactly the topic at hand, now are they? What more would you like me to say about them? That they have Athletic Administrations that knows what they're doing? Please tell me how to expound on their virtues further and I'll be happy to do so.

And UCLA is a middle of the pac program? Hmm, yes, well technically you're correct. But I'd say, there's 6 quality teams in the P12, then there's 10 feet of crap, then there's us, Furd, ASU and Colorado.

Lastly, USC of course initiated this move. Were you raised on a farm? They're the one's that were sick of getting screwed out of all the revenue because they had to share equally even though they were the ones that brought all of it. UCLA jumped with them - a team that maybe, maybe brought 10% of the media revenue to the conference. USC drove the move, not UCLA. Did I miss anything?

The memes aren't mine but that's what is out there and I think its embarrassing and a touch humiliating that members on this board are so overjoyed that we are "punishing" UCLA with a little tax that is going to be used for student development, not athletics. But go on, you go for it. If that is what heals the wounds, cool. And again, its not me, its Twitter and Reddit that are saying the same stuff. You're like that Karen at the Raiders-Patriots game that got all upset that those two Patriots fans dared to cheer for their team in the "Raiders' house". I guess it sucks when people actually are forced to listen to a different opinion.

We need to be better and fast. I said we needed to have a winning record this past season. And now its make or break. We just can't seem to get our act together.

---

Interesting response. No denial of being a Ucla fan and an analogy to a viral video that's inapposite if we're both Cal fans. It would have to be a Raider "Karen" yelling at another Raider fan for cheering for the Patriots to be analogous. I'm perfectly fine if you're a Ucla fan, I just don't understand why you won't admit it if you are. It seems we have a bunch of you guys around here. Not sure why the need to hide. Even the obvious troll Harry pretended to be a Cal fan. Why? Just come talk smack and let's go.

If you're truly not a Ucla fan then I don't understand what makes them so special to you. That's what I'm trying to get you to explain. I listed more than scores. Every team I listed has at least something going for it that Ucla doesn't. If you truly value the move to the B1G and a strong program why wouldn't you admire USC over Ucla? I just don't get it. USC owns Ucla and is only going to widen the gap going forward. USC is likely to be highly competitive in the B1G while Ucla suffers. I'm not advocating for anyone to become a USC fan, but it makes more sense than Ucla. Yes Ucla is the topic at hand but you leapt to support them and have been relentless with it. That's odd to me if you are really a Cal fan.

Think whatever you want to think. Cal Alum - Class of 93 - Poli Sci. And full disclosure - I donate, but not nearly what other posters on here do.

I'm telling it like it is, not how I want it to be or how it should be. I don't let "rivalries" or personal animosity get in the way. I just wrote that I can sing the praises of all the teams that finished above us and likely will continue to - absent USC and UCLA after next season. You ignored.

And yes, Calumnus - good point. I suppose it is possible to somehow turn it around - but as you wrote, its going to be year 7 for Wilcox and apart from 2019 - we've been off the boil and will continue to be. I continue to write that it is of paramount importance to figure out which direction we want to go to be successful. Do we embrace NIL to the extent we attract 4-5 start talent at the portal and high school levels? Or do we say, "we can't do this and be successful" and then look to try and keep the P10 together, bring in SDSU, UNLV or other partner, cut non-revenue sports, and forge ahead.

philly1121 said:

---

Think whatever you want to think. Cal Alum - Class of 93 - Poli Sci. And full disclosure - I donate, but not nearly what other posters on here do.

I'm telling it like it is, not how I want it to be or how it should be. I don't let "rivalries" or personal animosity get in the way. I just wrote that I can sing the praises of all the teams that finished above us and likely will continue to - absent USC and UCLA after next season. You ignored.

And yes, Calumnus - good point. I suppose it is possible to somehow turn it around - but as you wrote, its going to be year 7 for Wilcox and apart from 2019 - we've been off the boil and will continue to be. I continue to write that it is of paramount importance to figure out which direction we want to go to be successful. Do we embrace NIL to the extent we attract 4-5 start talent at the portal and high school levels? Or do we say, "we can't do this and be successful" and then look to try and keep the P10 together, bring in SDSU, UNLV or other partner, cut non-revenue sports, and forge ahead.

---

Re: "do we embrace NIL" question ... My understanding is that schools are not allowed to pay into this and that is only external donors / alums that can. If so, arent we already out of luck there because we don't have a strong group of wealthy donors let alone large alumni base that is passionate about fielding a competitive team?

philly1121 said:

---

Think whatever you want to think. Cal Alum - Class of 93 - Poli Sci. And full disclosure - I donate, but not nearly what other posters on here do.

I'm telling it like it is, not how I want it to be or how it should be. I don't let "rivalries" or personal animosity get in the way. I just wrote that I can sing the praises of all the teams that finished above us and likely will continue to - absent USC and UCLA after next season. You ignored.

And yes, Calumnus - good point. I suppose it is possible to somehow turn it around - but as you wrote, its going to be year 7 for Wilcox and apart from 2019 - we've been off the boil and will continue to be. I continue to write that it is of paramount importance to figure out which direction we want to go to be successful. Do we embrace NIL to the extent we attract 4-5 start talent at the portal and high school levels? Or do we say, "we can't do this and be successful" and then look to try and keep the P10 together, bring in SDSU, UNLV or other partner, cut non-revenue sports, and forge ahead.

---

I guess you just refuse to explain your love for the Bruins. Fine. But you're only telling how it is for you. The fact is they were a middling Pac-12 team this year in what was supposed to be DTR's unfinished business season. They got exactly 2 quality wins at home, one faceplant, and a narrow 7 point win over the "lowly Cal Bears." Neither you nor they can legitimately claim there's a huge gulf between Ucla and everyone below them when they didn't play the next team down the rankings and lost AT HOME to the one below that, who were in turn demolished by the next team below them, who they also had to come back to barely beat by one score. And their future looks much, much harder. Even if you were 100% right about everything at some point you just become a hater. Everyone here knows the issues Cal faces and the areas where we've underperformed. Nobody needs to hear it from you, and constantly siding with a rival is ****ing weak. Show some pride. I personally love Cal and hate Ucla, just like I hate all of our rivals. There's nothing they do well that makes me happy or envious and every time they fail I enjoy it. I expect nothing but the same from them, and they meet that expectation time after time. Only weak people like you give yourself comfort by tearing down your own team and praising a rival. I'm just telling it like it is.

Awesome. I root for Cal. I root for the conference when teams are playing OOC. Especially when we're playing the SEC, ACC or Big 12. I want Cal to succeed. I want the conference to succeed. I don't refuse to say I'm a UCLA homer. I'm not. You're a sunshine pumper. Call me a Negabear. I don't care. I just feel that they tried to do something to better themselves. They had a plan. They executed it. Regents were never going to say no. And in 2024 UCLA is gonna get paid. If we only had the foresight or success to be in the same situation we would have jumped at the chance same as them. But, we aren't.

Anyway, this is getting tedious and boring. We disagree. Let's see how the classes are ranked in the P12 after today and go from there. Cheers.

philly1121 said:

---

Awesome. I root for Cal. I root for the conference when teams are playing OOC. Especially when we're playing the SEC, ACC or Big 12. I want Cal to succeed. I want the conference to succeed. I don't refuse to say I'm a UCLA homer. I'm not. You're a sunshine pumper. Call me a Negabear. I don't care. I just feel that they tried to do something to better themselves. They had a plan. They executed it. Regents were never going to say no. And in 2024 UCLA is gonna get paid. If we only had the foresight or success to be in the same situation we would have jumped at the chance same as them. But, we aren't.

Anyway, this is getting tedious and boring. We disagree. Let's see how the classes are ranked in the P12 after today and go from there. Cheers.

---

How much of it was them having a plan vs them being saved by USC wanting to maintain their rivalry and bring them along to the B1G party? I don't know honestly.

I will give them this though - when they were presented with the opportunity, they handled it and got it done. No way in hell would Cal have pulled the invite off successfully. They would have taken forever to make a decision, let the rumors leak and ultimately would have screwed up the deal.

I think probably both. I think SC was probably like, "well, we need someone else out here and we've been playing against each other forever. We know you're in debt. So....want to come too?"

And agree. We would have messed it up. TypiCal.

Econ141 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Awesome. I root for Cal. I root for the conference when teams are playing OOC. Especially when we're playing the SEC, ACC or Big 12. I want Cal to succeed. I want the conference to succeed. I don't refuse to say I'm a UCLA homer. I'm not. You're a sunshine pumper. Call me a Negabear. I don't care. I just feel that they tried to do something to better themselves. They had a plan. They executed it. Regents were never going to say no. And in 2024 UCLA is gonna get paid. If we only had the foresight or success to be in the same situation we would have jumped at the chance same as them. But, we aren't.

Anyway, this is getting tedious and boring. We disagree. Let's see how the classes are ranked in the P12 after today and go from there. Cheers.

---

How much of it was them having a plan vs them being saved by USC wanting to maintain their rivalry and bring them along to the B1G party? I don't know honestly.

I will give them this though - when they were presented with the opportunity, they handled it and got it done. No way in hell would Cal have pulled the invite off successfully. They would have taken forever to make a decision, let the rumors leak and ultimately would have screwed up the deal.

---

Successful theft at 2 am or serious consideration in the light of day. We won't know for a few years whether ucla's sneak attack was worth it or not. It could end up that Cal's being left behind was a good thing or not, except of course that ucla is paying Cal a lot of that ill-gotten-gain for its perfidy. Is Cal to blame for accepting it? Hell no!

Rushinbear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Awesome. I root for Cal. I root for the conference when teams are playing OOC. Especially when we're playing the SEC, ACC or Big 12. I want Cal to succeed. I want the conference to succeed. I don't refuse to say I'm a UCLA homer. I'm not. You're a sunshine pumper. Call me a Negabear. I don't care. I just feel that they tried to do something to better themselves. They had a plan. They executed it. Regents were never going to say no. And in 2024 UCLA is gonna get paid. If we only had the foresight or success to be in the same situation we would have jumped at the chance same as them. But, we aren't.

Anyway, this is getting tedious and boring. We disagree. Let's see how the classes are ranked in the P12 after today and go from there. Cheers.

---

How much of it was them having a plan vs them being saved by USC wanting to maintain their rivalry and bring them along to the B1G party? I don't know honestly.

I will give them this though - when they were presented with the opportunity, they handled it and got it done. No way in hell would Cal have pulled the invite off successfully. They would have taken forever to make a decision, let the rumors leak and ultimately would have screwed up the deal.

---

Successful theft at 2 am or serious consideration in the light of day. We won't know for a few years whether ucla's sneak attack was worth it or not. It could end up that Cal's being left behind was a good thing or not, except of course that ucla is paying Cal a lot of that ill-gotten-gain for its perfidy. Is Cal to blame for accepting it? Hell no!

---

We don't know how much is the transfer will be though. Is the $10 million only if Cal is left out of another Big Ten move and joins the MWC?

If that happens, it will cost the Regent/UC system a whole lot more than that as they are the ones intimately holding the bag for the CMS remodel and operationally it makes no sense to insist Cal academics covers that debt without a revenue source.

It's really all on the Regents now in letting the move happen.

Econ141 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Awesome. I root for Cal. I root for the conference when teams are playing OOC. Especially when we're playing the SEC, ACC or Big 12. I want Cal to succeed. I want the conference to succeed. I don't refuse to say I'm a UCLA homer. I'm not. You're a sunshine pumper. Call me a Negabear. I don't care. I just feel that they tried to do something to better themselves. They had a plan. They executed it. Regents were never going to say no. And in 2024 UCLA is gonna get paid. If we only had the foresight or success to be in the same situation we would have jumped at the chance same as them. But, we aren't.

Anyway, this is getting tedious and boring. We disagree. Let's see how the classes are ranked in the P12 after today and go from there. Cheers.

---

How much of it was them having a plan vs them being saved by USC wanting to maintain their rivalry and bring them along to the B1G party? I don't know honestly.

I will give them this though - when they were presented with the opportunity, they handled it and got it done. No way in hell would Cal have pulled the invite off successfully. They would have taken forever to make a decision, let the rumors leak and ultimately would have screwed up the deal.

---

A good friend who is an executive directly involved with the B1G deal laid out the basic details to me...

USC had been unhappy with the Pac-12 for years, and had spent a lot of time in the last decade exploring their options, including the idea of going independent like Notre Dame and more recently BYU.

In the summer of 2021, Texas and Oklahoma announce they're heading to the SEC. Within a week or so, USC contacts the B1G to ask about membership in the conference. They knew going in that the B1G would most likely want to add a second team. USC's choice was Notre Dame. Long shot, but USC liked the idea of being the B1G's exclusive program on the West Coast.

B1G commish Kevin Warren says okay. FOX gets involved immediately. Of course they want this to happen as the B1G's media partner. Adding a brand like USC football is a slam dunk.

Warren brings in a select and trusted group of the league's major stakeholders, including Ohio State AD Gene Smith, to share the news. At some point, and very quickly, Smith reaches out to UCLA AD Martin Jarmond, who was in Ohio State's AD for many years. Very lucky break for UCLA. Smith essentially says, "USC is leaving the Pac-12 for the B1G. Oh, and btw the B1G is going to need another program to join them, so you may want to figure this out."

Jarmond relays all this to UCLA upper mgmt. UCLA immediately calls the B1G and begins their own negotiations. FOX is brought in, they love the idea of both Los Angeles schools joining the league.

At some point, one other former Buckeye is given a heads up. President of the UC Regents Michael V. Drake, who is a former president of Ohio State. Another lucky break for UCLA.

USC is informed that UCLA will be the second school. No argument. USC mega donor Rick Caruso, the biggest shot caller at USC, is at the time running for mayor of Los Angeles. Why piss off half the town by objecting or blocking UCLA? Also, USC sees the value in preserving tradition and rivalry, and it gives USC a partner and ally moving forward through the process. USC and UCLA immediately begin working together with the B1G and FOX on making the move.

For UCLA, being a public university, the process is a bit more complicated than for private school USC. They're also a bit risk averse. So at one point, UCLA gets a "fill or kill" call from FOX as the process dragged. Were they in or out? "We need to know in the next 24 hours". UCLA management signs off and does not look back.

The most amazing thing to me about this whole deal was that UCLA was able to keep the move to the B1G under wraps with absolutely no leaks. Incredible, really. Stuff like this always gets out... with the "I'm hearing" scuttlebutt that works it's way from the corridors of power to some big $$$$ donor playing 18 at Riviera and then down to drinks at SoHo House before landing on social media and the message boards. Never happened.

Instead, this information was "Top Secret/Eyes Only" and handled with the kind of operational security usually reserved for the Bin Laden raid. That, imo, was the key to the whole thing. The smartest thing UCLA did in this whole process was not telling the Regents, or Cal, anything before they announced the move. And then once they did that, it was too late.

One other thing my friend relayed to me is that a few years ago, USC and UCLA had spoken very informally to two other schools in the conference about leaving the Pac-12 for another conference, but nothing much came of it. He also mentioned that the Big XII had drawn up a plan to raid the Pac-12, and were looking at USC, UCLA, Oregon, Colorado and the Arizona schools, but the plan didn't really get enough traction internally before Texas and OU announced their SEC deal.

The only part that doesn't jive is the whole Fox said now or never thing.

The news broke literally hours before UCLA/USC would have been locked into the next Pac contract. If they had waited one more day they would have been on the hook for exit fees. It was the Pac that supplied the deadline, not Fox.

MrGPAC said:

---

The only part that doesn't jive is the whole Fox said now or never thing.

The news broke literally hours before UCLA/USC would have been locked into the next Pac contract. If they had waited one more day they would have been on the hook for exit fees. It was the Pac that supplied the deadline, not Fox.

---

Maybe this wasn't clear. FOX didn't tell UCLA 24 hours before the B!G announcement they needed to make a decision. They told them that, I think, more than a month or two before; "we need to know you're totally committed and moving forward, or we're moving on to another program."

I think there was some frustration with the speed of the UCLA process and that call created the urgency that ultimately streamlined and expedited things on the UCLA end,

This corresponds with what my contact at USC said to me. They have been unhappy for over a decade. Keep in mind this is a USC alum and employee's perspective so its slanted entirely to USC - but they felt that they were the ones that carried the conference in terms of wins, prestige and success. They felt the current deal did not reflect the value they brought to the conference and began exploring options. As they explained it to me, this was a long time coming.