I'd rather see Rice admitted to the PacX than SMU. Houston is a much larger metropolitan area than Dallas, and Rice is much better academically than SMU. SMU has a larger student population (12,000 vs. 7,000). Rice has 14 athletic programs (7 men's and 7 women's), although the football and men's basketball teams haven't had much success recently.

Consensus is that this is Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff (middle in hat) at Moody Coliseum next between SMU president R. Gerald Turner and David B. Miller who the court is named after#PonyUp #PonyUpDallas #PonyStampede #SMU2PAC @247Sports pic.twitter.com/o3dCivJbzW

— Jordan Hofeditz (@jhofeditz) February 9, 2023

southseasbear said:

---

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.

---

What is good for "the conference" is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.

---

Logically, the assumption here has to be all remaining Pac 10 teams want to continue on in the Pac for the length of the next media package. Otherwise, why is George even bothering, since he will have 4 to 6 teams off the B1G and 4 teams off the Big 12? What is the point of selling SMU to join a conference with 2 remaining teams in the Northwest (who go Mountain West if they don't go to the B1G)? I might add that so far, what little has been said publicly, is that all 10 teams are on board with staying (e.g. Utah AD, Zona AD, etc. - there is noise out of Udub they want more than a per share split)

BTW, Knowlton and the Chancellor have made it clear, that the Chancellor is the one making the decision on conference realignment, and the JK has limited (if any) input. For starters, it is the Chancellor, not JK, asking donors their views. I don't know when the Chancellor has the time to sleep.

---

I have a couple of questions:

1. Makes sense that the Chancellor would be the one calling the shots, just as it is the B1G presidents calling the shots in admitting new schools (which I think helps Cal should they be considered in the future). What I'm very curious about is what is the Chancellor's thinking on where Cal _should_ land (from what you've heard)? What is our ideal scenario in her view? The only public statements I recall came during the UCLA hearing where she was critical of the impact that being in the B1G might have (don't recall the exact quote, and I recognize she had to say what she said given the arguments being made about UCLA's departure). Does the Chancellor favor reuniting with SC and UCLA or is she committed to rebuilding the Pac-12? I've heard that all 10 schools are committed but there have been very few direct quotes from Cal (or Stanfurd for that matter) in the last 6 months. We know that UW and UO met with the B1G and may have even submitted applications. Did Cal reach out to the B1G too in the last 6 months? I imagine yes but nothing was reported. A lot of hay had been made by the Twitterati following a quote from UC Regent Richard Lieb in December that they looked into getting the foursome into th B1G but I'm not sure what exactly he meant by that

2. Not sure how attuned you are to what's going on across the Bay ... but your wife is a Furd. What's their thinking? Are they coordinating with Cal? In all this upheaval, my first priority is that Cal and Stanfurd remain in lockstep and end up in the same conference, even if it's the MWC. My second priority is continuing to play the LA schools in football. Sadly, I think this may the last year we play SC in football for a while.

---

Good points although I would take a more adversarial stance and refuse to play the LA schools. Let them cook in their own stew and wish them well in spending half of their season traveling to far off places.

---

I understand the sentiment and I sometimes feel the same way too. But it doesn't change the fact that I will be sad to see these rivalries go away. And if I'm rational about it, at least in football, we wouldn't be "punishing" USC/UCLA if we refuse to schedule them. They would simply find other West Coast schools to fill out their schedules and reduce travel , like UNLV, Fresno, SDSU, SJSU, Nevada, etc.

---

The rivalries died when SC and Southern Branch chose to leave without warning at the last minute.

I think the Pac and all of its teams should boycott the two secessionist schools. That would include SDSU and maybe UNLV and/or Reno. Let those 2 LA schools play Fresno and San Jose St, or else have to travel for even more games.

---

Would you feel the same way if the B1G added ND and Furd next? Would you not want to play Big Game any more?

Like I said, I get the sentiment. And part of me truly wants to see how the LA schools fare without any help to their schedules out west. Someone made the comment about their alums preferring to play the Bay Area schools vs other West Coast schools. That's true both ways, so we would also be hurting ourselves by boycotting them.

We also have to take into account where Cal sees itself 10 years from now. If we are committed to the Pac-10/12 for the long haul no matter what, then screw 'em. Cut 'em off. But if we someday hope to join them, we're better off keeping the series alive in the interim, if possible.

I know UT/A&M series interruption didn't stop Texas from catching up with A&M in the SEC. But we're not Texas.

viva las vegas

lol

Alkiadt said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Cal Strong strongly suggested we try to poach BYU and Nebraska. Pac-12 commissioner looking at SDSU instead. WEAK!!!!

---

What's "Weak" is thinking Nebraska would leave BIG money for Pac 12 scraps. You're as dumb as you come off sounding with the stupid meathead act of yours.

---

Alkiadt posting weak today. Thinking soft . . . like baby poop. Cal not soft like baby food.

Pac-12 has their rivals and a stronger recruiting footprint . . . and a stronger chance for them to make the Rose Bowl. That might not matter to weak posters, but it matters to strong football fans.

It much stronger idea to go after them than San Diego State.

Cal Strong! said:

---

Alkiadt said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Cal Strong strongly suggested we try to poach BYU and Nebraska. Pac-12 commissioner looking at SDSU instead. WEAK!!!!

---

What's "Weak" is thinking Nebraska would leave BIG money for Pac 12 scraps. You're as dumb as you come off sounding with the stupid meathead act of yours.

---

Alkiadt posting weak today. Thinking soft . . . like baby poop. Cal not soft like baby food.

Pac-12 has their rivals and a stronger recruiting footprint . . . and a stronger chance for them to make the Rose Bowl. That might not matter to weak posters, but it matters to strong football fans.

It much stronger idea to go after them than San Diego State.

---

How is the tomato crop coming along?

Wow, had no idea that Kliavkoff was a big supporter of NBA Finals.

Our Smiley Pool with the photo of the night.

SMU nor the Pac-12 would confirm George Kliavkoff’s visit.

This appears to be SMU AD Rick Hart talking with Kliavkoff during the first half of SMU’s win over Temple. pic.twitter.com/RRvkAaF9C3

— Joseph Hoyt (@JoeJHoyt) February 9, 2023

New | If SMU had its way, likely no one outside a privileged few would have known he was there – the man who could hold the school’s athletic future in his hands.

On George Kliavkoff's visit, and a night emblematic of the conference expansion process.https://t.co/R1Zj6qSyo8

— Joseph Hoyt (@JoeJHoyt) February 9, 2023

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.

---

What is good for "the conference" is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.

---

Logically, the assumption here has to be all remaining Pac 10 teams want to continue on in the Pac for the length of the next media package. Otherwise, why is George even bothering, since he will have 4 to 6 teams off the B1G and 4 teams off the Big 12? What is the point of selling SMU to join a conference with 2 remaining teams in the Northwest (who go Mountain West if they don't go to the B1G)? I might add that so far, what little has been said publicly, is that all 10 teams are on board with staying (e.g. Utah AD, Zona AD, etc. - there is noise out of Udub they want more than a per share split)

BTW, Knowlton and the Chancellor have made it clear, that the Chancellor is the one making the decision on conference realignment, and the JK has limited (if any) input. For starters, it is the Chancellor, not JK, asking donors their views. I don't know when the Chancellor has the time to sleep.

---

I have a couple of questions:

1. Makes sense that the Chancellor would be the one calling the shots, just as it is the B1G presidents calling the shots in admitting new schools (which I think helps Cal should they be considered in the future). What I'm very curious about is what is the Chancellor's thinking on where Cal _should_ land (from what you've heard)? What is our ideal scenario in her view? The only public statements I recall came during the UCLA hearing where she was critical of the impact that being in the B1G might have (don't recall the exact quote, and I recognize she had to say what she said given the arguments being made about UCLA's departure). Does the Chancellor favor reuniting with SC and UCLA or is she committed to rebuilding the Pac-12? I've heard that all 10 schools are committed but there have been very few direct quotes from Cal (or Stanfurd for that matter) in the last 6 months. We know that UW and UO met with the B1G and may have even submitted applications. Did Cal reach out to the B1G too in the last 6 months? I imagine yes but nothing was reported. A lot of hay had been made by the Twitterati following a quote from UC Regent Richard Lieb in December that they looked into getting the foursome into th B1G but I'm not sure what exactly he meant by that

2. Not sure how attuned you are to what's going on across the Bay ... but your wife is a Furd. What's their thinking? Are they coordinating with Cal? In all this upheaval, my first priority is that Cal and Stanfurd remain in lockstep and end up in the same conference, even if it's the MWC. My second priority is continuing to play the LA schools in football. Sadly, I think this may be the last year we play SC in football for a while.

---

All good questions,

I had a very good idea about 2 months ago where Cal and Furd were. They were waiting for the TV contract, which still is the case. If you believe the Oregon writer, the hold-up is Amazon (Prime) wants to see more teams, and is willing to make it worth the Pac's while to expand. Remember Amazon wants big markets because football is a lost leader to more Prime subscriptions.

Furd was taking a very MBA like approach, and any new expansion or move to the B1G had to make financial sense, and make sense using charters for all teams for travel (in other words, they are not going to let academics slide either). So their vote on expansion will turn on how lucrative bringing in a specific program will be. They had been approached about Notre Dame and Furd going to the B1G and would have considered the approach, by it never gained traction with Notre Dame, who appears to be staying independent. Furd was working closely with Cal, but if choices had to be made, both schools agree the decision ultimately is up to each school.

Cal's Chancellor was taking a more holistic approach. She wants to know the economics, the academic fits, travel impacts, what alums and donors think, etc. She also is surprisingly nostalgic and more of a fan than I first appreciated. She was incensed by how UCLA handled all this. But my take as of two months ago, was she is willing to stay with the Pac if the economics make sense and do not make our programs less competitive. As for new teams, the schools have to have aspirations of being in the AAU. Given the noise about the TV contract, the academics of the new schools may be less priority

I also have some sense that Utah and Oregon thought very much alike with Cal and Furd on this. Utah clearly is wanted by the Big 12 if things don't work out and maybe even by the B1G. Again, my information may be outdated as I have not talked to the Chancellor, MTL or Muir in a while, though I have talked with someone with authority in one of the other schools more recently, since we sit on a board together.

I guess the real question is how aggressive the B1G will be toward developing a west coast pod for USC and UCLA once the Pac media contract is announced, and the B1G can gauge whether expansion taking other Pac schools makes sense.

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

The sad truth, or happy truth, depending on your perspective, is we might never play SC again. If they have 9 conference games and continue to play Notre Dame, it's going to be really difficult to fit into their schedule.

---

We probably end up in the Big Ten and it continues.

Strykur said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

The sad truth, or happy truth, depending on your perspective, is we might never play SC again. If they have 9 conference games and continue to play Notre Dame, it's going to be really difficult to fit into their schedule.

---

We probably end up in the Big Ten and it continues.

---

...or....or....MWC-type conference. Remember travel money is tight in Berkeley!

tequila4kapp said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

I don't understand the anger toward USC and UCLA. The college football landscape has changed dramatically and the Pac-12 was/is simply not getting it done so they did the right thing for their programs. If you want to be angry, be angry at Larry Scott for running the league into the ground or at Cal's AD for not adapting to the new reality. USC and UCLA made the smart move and any anger toward them is simply sour grapes.

---

1. The P12 could have had the Super Conference gravitas that SC currently wants, except that SC killed that very thing by veto'ing Texas and Oklahoma (and others?) joining.

2. The way they left - keeping their intentions secret, allowing the rest of the conference to move toward a new contract assuming their inclusion in the conference, etc. - screwed the rest of the conference.

3. UCLA ignored the UC requirements about not harming other UC schools.

---

When did SC veto UT/Oklahoma? In 2012? Pretty sure the entire conference wanted UT but they chose to stay where they were because of the Longhorn Network. Are you referring to last year, when SC vetoed expansion that would have included TCU and others, perhaps (according to reports)?

wifeisafurd said:

---

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.

---

What is good for "the conference" is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.

---

Logically, the assumption here has to be all remaining Pac 10 teams want to continue on in the Pac for the length of the next media package. Otherwise, why is George even bothering, since he will have 4 to 6 teams off the B1G and 4 teams off the Big 12? What is the point of selling SMU to join a conference with 2 remaining teams in the Northwest (who go Mountain West if they don't go to the B1G)? I might add that so far, what little has been said publicly, is that all 10 teams are on board with staying (e.g. Utah AD, Zona AD, etc. - there is noise out of Udub they want more than a per share split)

BTW, Knowlton and the Chancellor have made it clear, that the Chancellor is the one making the decision on conference realignment, and the JK has limited (if any) input. For starters, it is the Chancellor, not JK, asking donors their views. I don't know when the Chancellor has the time to sleep.

---

I have a couple of questions:

1. Makes sense that the Chancellor would be the one calling the shots, just as it is the B1G presidents calling the shots in admitting new schools (which I think helps Cal should they be considered in the future). What I'm very curious about is what is the Chancellor's thinking on where Cal _should_ land (from what you've heard)? What is our ideal scenario in her view? The only public statements I recall came during the UCLA hearing where she was critical of the impact that being in the B1G might have (don't recall the exact quote, and I recognize she had to say what she said given the arguments being made about UCLA's departure). Does the Chancellor favor reuniting with SC and UCLA or is she committed to rebuilding the Pac-12? I've heard that all 10 schools are committed but there have been very few direct quotes from Cal (or Stanfurd for that matter) in the last 6 months. We know that UW and UO met with the B1G and may have even submitted applications. Did Cal reach out to the B1G too in the last 6 months? I imagine yes but nothing was reported. A lot of hay had been made by the Twitterati following a quote from UC Regent Richard Lieb in December that they looked into getting the foursome into th B1G but I'm not sure what exactly he meant by that

2. Not sure how attuned you are to what's going on across the Bay ... but your wife is a Furd. What's their thinking? Are they coordinating with Cal? In all this upheaval, my first priority is that Cal and Stanfurd remain in lockstep and end up in the same conference, even if it's the MWC. My second priority is continuing to play the LA schools in football. Sadly, I think this may be the last year we play SC in football for a while.

---

All good questions,

I had a very good idea about 2 months ago where Cal and Furd were. They were waiting for the TV contract, which still is the case. If you believe the Oregon writer, the hold-up is Amazon (Prime) wants to see more teams, and is willing to make it worth the Pac's while to expand. Remember Amazon wants big markets because football is a lost leader to more Prime subscriptions.

Furd was taking a very MBA like approach, and any new expansion or move to the B1G had to make financial sense, and make sense using charters for all teams for travel (in other words, they are not going to let academics slide either). So their vote on expansion will turn on how lucrative bringing in a specific program will be. They had been approached about Notre Dame and Furd going to the B1G and would have considered the approach, by it never gained traction with Notre Dame, who appears to be staying independent. Furd was working closely with Cal, but if choices had to be made, both schools agree the decision ultimately is up to each school.

Cal's Chancellor was taking a more holistic approach. She wants to know the economics, the academic fits, travel impacts, what alums and donors think, etc. She also is surprisingly nostalgic and more of a fan than I first appreciated. She was incensed by how UCLA handled all this. But my take as of two months ago, was she is willing to stay with the Pac if the economics make sense and do not make our programs less competitive. As for new teams, the schools have to have aspirations of being in the AAU. Given the noise about the TV contract, the academics of the new schools may be less priority

I also have some sense that Utah and Oregon thought very much alike with Cal and Furd on this. Utah clearly is wanted by the Big 12 if things don't work out and maybe even by the B1G. Again, my information may be outdated as I have not talked to the Chancellor, MTL or Muir in a while, though I have talked with someone with authority in one of the other schools more recently, since we sit on a board together.

I guess the real question is how aggressive the B1G will be toward developing a west coast pod for USC and UCLA once the Pac media contract is announced, and the B1G can gauge whether expansion taking other Pac schools makes sense.

---

Thank you WIAF. I very much appreciate these insights into each school's thinking. Not sure if it makes me feel better about Cal's situation, especially the notion that Cal and Furd have mutually agreed to look after their own interests first. Of course they should but I was hoping "potential damage to Cal/Stanfurd rivalry from breaking up" is a primary consideration for both schools. The fact that it may not be a primary consideration just means that the doomsday scenario of Cal being left behind by all their rivals is still in play.

In the end, as you say, it all depends on what the B1G wants to do. I just hope Cal is focused on making sure we are one of the top 2 choices (or 3, if we include UW), should the B1G decide to expand again.

Wife's informed comment:
"Cal's Chancellor was taking a more holistic approach. She wants to know the economics, the academic fits, travel impacts, what alums and donors think, etc. She also is surprisingly nostalgic and more of a fan than I first appreciated. She was incensed by how UCLA handled all this. But my take as of two months ago, was she is willing to stay with the Pac if the economics make sense and do not make our programs less competitive. As for new teams, the schools have to have aspirations of being in the AAU. Given the noise about the TV contract, the academics of the new schools may be less priority"

My thoughts:

• I want to believe the best about Carol but "nostalgic" implies looking back, not forward, and when you combine it with her comment about college sports being about more than just winning, I worry that what she's nostalgic for is the communal aspect of fandom, not winning actual sports competition. I worry that she'll settle for a plan that just guarantees alums can still get together at a football game on a sunny October afternoon (and that they'll donate because of this).
• Regarding candidate schools needing to aspire to join the AAU, which has a research focus, wouldn't that eliminate San Diego St or Fresno since they don't have PhD programs?

tequila4kapp said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

I don't understand the anger toward USC and UCLA. The college football landscape has changed dramatically and the Pac-12 was/is simply not getting it done so they did the right thing for their programs. If you want to be angry, be angry at Larry Scott for running the league into the ground or at Cal's AD for not adapting to the new reality. USC and UCLA made the smart move and any anger toward them is simply sour grapes.

---

1. The P12 could have had the Super Conference gravitas that SC currently wants, except that SC killed that very thing by veto'ing Texas and Oklahoma (and others?) joining.

2. The way they left - keeping their intentions secret, allowing the rest of the conference to move toward a new contract assuming their inclusion in the conference, etc. - screwed the rest of the conference.

3. UCLA ignored the UC requirements about not harming other UC schools.

---

It's business. People who have no problem with "NIL"-style corrupt abuse fully understand. Those who don't, have one option.

Add: SDSU, LV, SMU, Rice

ferCALgm2 said:

---

Screw U$C and UCLA. Stop with the excuses. I hope they enjoy their hours and hours of travel.

---

Might be possible students will stay back east for a week or two and take classes via Zoom calls?

Some Info on the research levels of San Diego State, Fresno State, SMU, TCU, UNLV and Rice:

AAU Member: Rice

R1: Doctoral Universities Very high research activity:UNLV

R2: Doctoral Universities High research activity: San Diego State, Fresno State, TCU and SMU

San Diego State does have a number of PhD programs: https://admissions.sdsu.edu/grad-programs/doctorates

Fresno State has 3 PhD programs: https://academics.fresnostate.edu/drgs/gradstudies/prospectivestudents/index.html

ferCALgm2 said:

---

Screw U$C and UCLA. Stop with the excuses. I hope they enjoy their hours and hours of travel.

---

Exactly! +1

6956bear said:

---

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.

---

What is good for "the conference" is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.

---

Logically, the assumption here has to be all remaining Pac 10 teams want to continue on in the Pac for the length of the next media package. Otherwise, why is George even bothering, since he will have 4 to 6 teams off the B1G and 4 teams off the Big 12? What is the point of selling SMU to join a conference with 2 remaining teams in the Northwest (who go Mountain West if they don't go to the B1G)? I might add that so far, what little has been said publicly, is that all 10 teams are on board with staying (e.g. Utah AD, Zona AD, etc. - there is noise out of Udub they want more than a per share split)

BTW, Knowlton and the Chancellor have made it clear, that the Chancellor is the one making the decision on conference realignment, and the JK has limited (if any) input. For starters, it is the Chancellor, not JK, asking donors their views. I don't know when the Chancellor has the time to sleep.

---

I have a couple of questions:

1. Makes sense that the Chancellor would be the one calling the shots, just as it is the B1G presidents calling the shots in admitting new schools (which I think helps Cal should they be considered in the future). What I'm very curious about is what is the Chancellor's thinking on where Cal _should_ land (from what you've heard)? What is our ideal scenario in her view? The only public statements I recall came during the UCLA hearing where she was critical of the impact that being in the B1G might have (don't recall the exact quote, and I recognize she had to say what she said given the arguments being made about UCLA's departure). Does the Chancellor favor reuniting with SC and UCLA or is she committed to rebuilding the Pac-12? I've heard that all 10 schools are committed but there have been very few direct quotes from Cal (or Stanfurd for that matter) in the last 6 months. We know that UW and UO met with the B1G and may have even submitted applications. Did Cal reach out to the B1G too in the last 6 months? I imagine yes but nothing was reported. A lot of hay had been made by the Twitterati following a quote from UC Regent Richard Lieb in December that they looked into getting the foursome into th B1G but I'm not sure what exactly he meant by that

2. Not sure how attuned you are to what's going on across the Bay ... but your wife is a Furd. What's their thinking? Are they coordinating with Cal? In all this upheaval, my first priority is that Cal and Stanfurd remain in lockstep and end up in the same conference, even if it's the MWC. My second priority is continuing to play the LA schools in football. Sadly, I think this may be the last year we play SC in football for a while.

---

All good questions,

I had a very good idea about 2 months ago where Cal and Furd were. They were waiting for the TV contract, which still is the case. If you believe the Oregon writer, the hold-up is Amazon (Prime) wants to see more teams, and is willing to make it worth the Pac's while to expand. Remember Amazon wants big markets because football is a lost leader to more Prime subscriptions.

Furd was taking a very MBA like approach, and any new expansion or move to the B1G had to make financial sense, and make sense using charters for all teams for travel (in other words, they are not going to let academics slide either). So their vote on expansion will turn on how lucrative bringing in a specific program will be. They had been approached about Notre Dame and Furd going to the B1G and would have considered the approach, by it never gained traction with Notre Dame, who appears to be staying independent. Furd was working closely with Cal, but if choices had to be made, both schools agree the decision ultimately is up to each school.

Cal's Chancellor was taking a more holistic approach. She wants to know the economics, the academic fits, travel impacts, what alums and donors think, etc. She also is surprisingly nostalgic and more of a fan than I first appreciated. She was incensed by how UCLA handled all this. But my take as of two months ago, was she is willing to stay with the Pac if the economics make sense and do not make our programs less competitive. As for new teams, the schools have to have aspirations of being in the AAU. Given the noise about the TV contract, the academics of the new schools may be less priority

I also have some sense that Utah and Oregon thought very much alike with Cal and Furd on this. Utah clearly is wanted by the Big 12 if things don't work out and maybe even by the B1G. Again, my information may be outdated as I have not talked to the Chancellor, MTL or Muir in a while, though I have talked with someone with authority in one of the other schools more recently, since we sit on a board together.

I guess the real question is how aggressive the B1G will be toward developing a west coast pod for USC and UCLA once the Pac media contract is announced, and the B1G can gauge whether expansion taking other Pac schools makes sense.

---

Thank you WIAF. I very much appreciate these insights into each school's thinking. Not sure if it makes me feel better about Cal's situation, especially the notion that Cal and Furd have mutually agreed to look after their own interests first. Of course they should but I was hoping "potential damage to Cal/Stanfurd rivalry from breaking up" is a primary consideration for both schools. The fact that it may not be a primary consideration just means that the doomsday scenario of Cal being left behind by all their rivals is still in play.

In the end, as you say, it all depends on what the B1G wants to do. I just hope Cal is focused on making sure we are one of the top 2 choices (or 3, if we include UW), should the B1G decide to expand again.

---

The direction of college sports is very discouraging to me. I am fine with paying the players. I am ok with the concept of the transfer portal but the blatant and rampant tampering has to stop and the offenders punished severely. Realignment is fine as well, but the ways things are headed it will be a top 2 conferences with most everybody else operating at a serious and severe handicap due to the wide disparity in media revenues.

As a Cal person I am beyond horrifed at where the revenue sports programs sit today. The realignment issue likely pushes Cal even further down although the record could improve with the loss of 2 teams (USC and UCLA) that regularly beat the Bears each season.

I am not for adding SDSU and SMU. I understand the media companies are driving this decision. I also understand that the CFP will be expanded and the "new P12" will get at least one auto qualifier each season. Cal will NEVER qualify. They have too many mouths (sports) to feed and too many folks with agendas that will not allow the necessary investment into Cal revenue sports that will be needed.

Since I do not see Cal as ever being willing to fund football and basketball to the necessary levels then lets at least be a member of a real power conference. Where there will be enough money to keep all the sports active. This will not happen in a P12 with SDSU and SMU attempting to replace USC and UCLA.

I say lets forget about adding and go to market with 10 teams. If there are dissenting programs and networks then fine. Let each University be free agents in 2024 and let other conferences decide if they want them or not. If nobody wants Cal then fine lets close up shop and just be a great academic university. Cal is not serious about revenue sports anyway. Let the Regents take on the debt of CMS.

I know my idea will never be considered. But I have just about given up on college athletics. Greed is ruining the entire experience for me. Greedy media companies. Greedy University presidents and ADs. Greedy conference commisioners. It is too much. There is a place where every program can thrive. But not with the current thinking.

---

Paying players will force schools to withdraw from competition because they can't afford to compete. Cal will be among them. Yes we can raise NIL money, but not enough to win an arms race.

If the Pac 10/12 does not expand, it will die and we will be among the remnant. B1G does not want us. B12 does not want us. I'd rather add SMU and SD St. (and possibly a couple others) than go to the MWC. In the end, within 5 years, we may not have a choice.

southseasbear said:

---

6956bear said:

---

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.

---

What is good for "the conference" is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.

---

Logically, the assumption here has to be all remaining Pac 10 teams want to continue on in the Pac for the length of the next media package. Otherwise, why is George even bothering, since he will have 4 to 6 teams off the B1G and 4 teams off the Big 12? What is the point of selling SMU to join a conference with 2 remaining teams in the Northwest (who go Mountain West if they don't go to the B1G)? I might add that so far, what little has been said publicly, is that all 10 teams are on board with staying (e.g. Utah AD, Zona AD, etc. - there is noise out of Udub they want more than a per share split)

BTW, Knowlton and the Chancellor have made it clear, that the Chancellor is the one making the decision on conference realignment, and the JK has limited (if any) input. For starters, it is the Chancellor, not JK, asking donors their views. I don't know when the Chancellor has the time to sleep.

---

I have a couple of questions:

1. Makes sense that the Chancellor would be the one calling the shots, just as it is the B1G presidents calling the shots in admitting new schools (which I think helps Cal should they be considered in the future). What I'm very curious about is what is the Chancellor's thinking on where Cal _should_ land (from what you've heard)? What is our ideal scenario in her view? The only public statements I recall came during the UCLA hearing where she was critical of the impact that being in the B1G might have (don't recall the exact quote, and I recognize she had to say what she said given the arguments being made about UCLA's departure). Does the Chancellor favor reuniting with SC and UCLA or is she committed to rebuilding the Pac-12? I've heard that all 10 schools are committed but there have been very few direct quotes from Cal (or Stanfurd for that matter) in the last 6 months. We know that UW and UO met with the B1G and may have even submitted applications. Did Cal reach out to the B1G too in the last 6 months? I imagine yes but nothing was reported. A lot of hay had been made by the Twitterati following a quote from UC Regent Richard Lieb in December that they looked into getting the foursome into th B1G but I'm not sure what exactly he meant by that

2. Not sure how attuned you are to what's going on across the Bay ... but your wife is a Furd. What's their thinking? Are they coordinating with Cal? In all this upheaval, my first priority is that Cal and Stanfurd remain in lockstep and end up in the same conference, even if it's the MWC. My second priority is continuing to play the LA schools in football. Sadly, I think this may be the last year we play SC in football for a while.

---

All good questions,

I had a very good idea about 2 months ago where Cal and Furd were. They were waiting for the TV contract, which still is the case. If you believe the Oregon writer, the hold-up is Amazon (Prime) wants to see more teams, and is willing to make it worth the Pac's while to expand. Remember Amazon wants big markets because football is a lost leader to more Prime subscriptions.

Furd was taking a very MBA like approach, and any new expansion or move to the B1G had to make financial sense, and make sense using charters for all teams for travel (in other words, they are not going to let academics slide either). So their vote on expansion will turn on how lucrative bringing in a specific program will be. They had been approached about Notre Dame and Furd going to the B1G and would have considered the approach, by it never gained traction with Notre Dame, who appears to be staying independent. Furd was working closely with Cal, but if choices had to be made, both schools agree the decision ultimately is up to each school.

Cal's Chancellor was taking a more holistic approach. She wants to know the economics, the academic fits, travel impacts, what alums and donors think, etc. She also is surprisingly nostalgic and more of a fan than I first appreciated. She was incensed by how UCLA handled all this. But my take as of two months ago, was she is willing to stay with the Pac if the economics make sense and do not make our programs less competitive. As for new teams, the schools have to have aspirations of being in the AAU. Given the noise about the TV contract, the academics of the new schools may be less priority

I also have some sense that Utah and Oregon thought very much alike with Cal and Furd on this. Utah clearly is wanted by the Big 12 if things don't work out and maybe even by the B1G. Again, my information may be outdated as I have not talked to the Chancellor, MTL or Muir in a while, though I have talked with someone with authority in one of the other schools more recently, since we sit on a board together.

I guess the real question is how aggressive the B1G will be toward developing a west coast pod for USC and UCLA once the Pac media contract is announced, and the B1G can gauge whether expansion taking other Pac schools makes sense.

---

Thank you WIAF. I very much appreciate these insights into each school's thinking. Not sure if it makes me feel better about Cal's situation, especially the notion that Cal and Furd have mutually agreed to look after their own interests first. Of course they should but I was hoping "potential damage to Cal/Stanfurd rivalry from breaking up" is a primary consideration for both schools. The fact that it may not be a primary consideration just means that the doomsday scenario of Cal being left behind by all their rivals is still in play.

In the end, as you say, it all depends on what the B1G wants to do. I just hope Cal is focused on making sure we are one of the top 2 choices (or 3, if we include UW), should the B1G decide to expand again.

---

The direction of college sports is very discouraging to me. I am fine with paying the players. I am ok with the concept of the transfer portal but the blatant and rampant tampering has to stop and the offenders punished severely. Realignment is fine as well, but the ways things are headed it will be a top 2 conferences with most everybody else operating at a serious and severe handicap due to the wide disparity in media revenues.

As a Cal person I am beyond horrifed at where the revenue sports programs sit today. The realignment issue likely pushes Cal even further down although the record could improve with the loss of 2 teams (USC and UCLA) that regularly beat the Bears each season.

I am not for adding SDSU and SMU. I understand the media companies are driving this decision. I also understand that the CFP will be expanded and the "new P12" will get at least one auto qualifier each season. Cal will NEVER qualify. They have too many mouths (sports) to feed and too many folks with agendas that will not allow the necessary investment into Cal revenue sports that will be needed.

Since I do not see Cal as ever being willing to fund football and basketball to the necessary levels then lets at least be a member of a real power conference. Where there will be enough money to keep all the sports active. This will not happen in a P12 with SDSU and SMU attempting to replace USC and UCLA.

I say lets forget about adding and go to market with 10 teams. If there are dissenting programs and networks then fine. Let each University be free agents in 2024 and let other conferences decide if they want them or not. If nobody wants Cal then fine lets close up shop and just be a great academic university. Cal is not serious about revenue sports anyway. Let the Regents take on the debt of CMS.

I know my idea will never be considered. But I have just about given up on college athletics. Greed is ruining the entire experience for me. Greedy media companies. Greedy University presidents and ADs. Greedy conference commisioners. It is too much. There is a place where every program can thrive. But not with the current thinking.

---

Paying players will force schools to withdraw from competition because they can't afford to compete. Cal will be among them. Yes we can raise NIL money, but not enough to win an arms race.

If the Pac 10/12 does not expand, it will die and we will be among the remnant. B1G does not want us. B12 does not want us. I'd rather add SMU and SD St. (and possibly a couple others) than go to the MWC. In the end, within 5 years, we may not have a choice.

---

If the networks paying will pay more PER SCHOOL with expansion, I'm fine with it, especially in the interim while the NIL stuff stabilizes, and also to a point where Cal had a new AD. But adding multiple MWC level schools to a UCLA/USC less Pac 12 is bringing the conferene closer to the MWC level than raising its stature. All it would take is for UW/UO to leave and its MWC #2, but spanning a much less manageable footprint.

I'm just having a hard time believing that addding schools that are currently earning line 3-5 million in TV revenue will help the Pac 12 get up to payouts that are 35-40 million per school. If Amazon wants to throw money at the p12, maybe it's possible. But I doubt it's sustainable long term. Tech money seems to hit hard, then die out.

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.

---

What is good for "the conference" is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.

---

Logically, the assumption here has to be all remaining Pac 10 teams want to continue on in the Pac for the length of the next media package. Otherwise, why is George even bothering, since he will have 4 to 6 teams off the B1G and 4 teams off the Big 12? What is the point of selling SMU to join a conference with 2 remaining teams in the Northwest (who go Mountain West if they don't go to the B1G)? I might add that so far, what little has been said publicly, is that all 10 teams are on board with staying (e.g. Utah AD, Zona AD, etc. - there is noise out of Udub they want more than a per share split)

BTW, Knowlton and the Chancellor have made it clear, that the Chancellor is the one making the decision on conference realignment, and the JK has limited (if any) input. For starters, it is the Chancellor, not JK, asking donors their views. I don't know when the Chancellor has the time to sleep.

---

I have a couple of questions:

1. Makes sense that the Chancellor would be the one calling the shots, just as it is the B1G presidents calling the shots in admitting new schools (which I think helps Cal should they be considered in the future). What I'm very curious about is what is the Chancellor's thinking on where Cal _should_ land (from what you've heard)? What is our ideal scenario in her view? The only public statements I recall came during the UCLA hearing where she was critical of the impact that being in the B1G might have (don't recall the exact quote, and I recognize she had to say what she said given the arguments being made about UCLA's departure). Does the Chancellor favor reuniting with SC and UCLA or is she committed to rebuilding the Pac-12? I've heard that all 10 schools are committed but there have been very few direct quotes from Cal (or Stanfurd for that matter) in the last 6 months. We know that UW and UO met with the B1G and may have even submitted applications. Did Cal reach out to the B1G too in the last 6 months? I imagine yes but nothing was reported. A lot of hay had been made by the Twitterati following a quote from UC Regent Richard Lieb in December that they looked into getting the foursome into th B1G but I'm not sure what exactly he meant by that

2. Not sure how attuned you are to what's going on across the Bay ... but your wife is a Furd. What's their thinking? Are they coordinating with Cal? In all this upheaval, my first priority is that Cal and Stanfurd remain in lockstep and end up in the same conference, even if it's the MWC. My second priority is continuing to play the LA schools in football. Sadly, I think this may be the last year we play SC in football for a while.

---

All good questions,

I had a very good idea about 2 months ago where Cal and Furd were. They were waiting for the TV contract, which still is the case. If you believe the Oregon writer, the hold-up is Amazon (Prime) wants to see more teams, and is willing to make it worth the Pac's while to expand. Remember Amazon wants big markets because football is a lost leader to more Prime subscriptions.

Furd was taking a very MBA like approach, and any new expansion or move to the B1G had to make financial sense, and make sense using charters for all teams for travel (in other words, they are not going to let academics slide either). So their vote on expansion will turn on how lucrative bringing in a specific program will be. They had been approached about Notre Dame and Furd going to the B1G and would have considered the approach, by it never gained traction with Notre Dame, who appears to be staying independent. Furd was working closely with Cal, but if choices had to be made, both schools agree the decision ultimately is up to each school.

Cal's Chancellor was taking a more holistic approach. She wants to know the economics, the academic fits, travel impacts, what alums and donors think, etc. She also is surprisingly nostalgic and more of a fan than I first appreciated. She was incensed by how UCLA handled all this. But my take as of two months ago, was she is willing to stay with the Pac if the economics make sense and do not make our programs less competitive. As for new teams, the schools have to have aspirations of being in the AAU. Given the noise about the TV contract, the academics of the new schools may be less priority

I also have some sense that Utah and Oregon thought very much alike with Cal and Furd on this. Utah clearly is wanted by the Big 12 if things don't work out and maybe even by the B1G. Again, my information may be outdated as I have not talked to the Chancellor, MTL or Muir in a while, though I have talked with someone with authority in one of the other schools more recently, since we sit on a board together.

I guess the real question is how aggressive the B1G will be toward developing a west coast pod for USC and UCLA once the Pac media contract is announced, and the B1G can gauge whether expansion taking other Pac schools makes sense.

---

Thank you WIAF. I very much appreciate these insights into each school's thinking. Not sure if it makes me feel better about Cal's situation, especially the notion that Cal and Furd have mutually agreed to look after their own interests first. Of course they should but I was hoping "potential damage to Cal/Stanfurd rivalry from breaking up" is a primary consideration for both schools. The fact that it may not be a primary consideration just means that the doomsday scenario of Cal being left behind by all their rivals is still in play.

In the end, as you say, it all depends on what the B1G wants to do. I just hope Cal is focused on making sure we are one of the top 2 choices (or 3, if we include UW), should the B1G decide to expand again.

---

I probably didn't say that well. Unlike other schools, Furd and Cal are discussing developments with an eye for being a package deal, because there sports history, similar perspectives on academics, a lot of faculty and administrators went to the other school, they have joint programs and research and a ton of other interaction, and from a financial standpoint, they cover almost the entire Bay Area media market. That said, as much as they want this to be a package deal, they have different constituencies, such as donor bases, Cal is a state institution and has to respond to a Board of Regents, different financial models, etc. so if the situation was that if one school had to go one way and one the other due to factors outside their control, that is understandable. Also, there are anti-turst rules to consider But they are presenting as a package deal. Sorta like SC had to have UCLA to agree to leave to the B1G.

wifeisafurd said:

---

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.

---

What is good for "the conference" is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.

---

Logically, the assumption here has to be all remaining Pac 10 teams want to continue on in the Pac for the length of the next media package. Otherwise, why is George even bothering, since he will have 4 to 6 teams off the B1G and 4 teams off the Big 12? What is the point of selling SMU to join a conference with 2 remaining teams in the Northwest (who go Mountain West if they don't go to the B1G)? I might add that so far, what little has been said publicly, is that all 10 teams are on board with staying (e.g. Utah AD, Zona AD, etc. - there is noise out of Udub they want more than a per share split)

BTW, Knowlton and the Chancellor have made it clear, that the Chancellor is the one making the decision on conference realignment, and the JK has limited (if any) input. For starters, it is the Chancellor, not JK, asking donors their views. I don't know when the Chancellor has the time to sleep.

---

I have a couple of questions:

1. Makes sense that the Chancellor would be the one calling the shots, just as it is the B1G presidents calling the shots in admitting new schools (which I think helps Cal should they be considered in the future). What I'm very curious about is what is the Chancellor's thinking on where Cal _should_ land (from what you've heard)? What is our ideal scenario in her view? The only public statements I recall came during the UCLA hearing where she was critical of the impact that being in the B1G might have (don't recall the exact quote, and I recognize she had to say what she said given the arguments being made about UCLA's departure). Does the Chancellor favor reuniting with SC and UCLA or is she committed to rebuilding the Pac-12? I've heard that all 10 schools are committed but there have been very few direct quotes from Cal (or Stanfurd for that matter) in the last 6 months. We know that UW and UO met with the B1G and may have even submitted applications. Did Cal reach out to the B1G too in the last 6 months? I imagine yes but nothing was reported. A lot of hay had been made by the Twitterati following a quote from UC Regent Richard Lieb in December that they looked into getting the foursome into th B1G but I'm not sure what exactly he meant by that

2. Not sure how attuned you are to what's going on across the Bay ... but your wife is a Furd. What's their thinking? Are they coordinating with Cal? In all this upheaval, my first priority is that Cal and Stanfurd remain in lockstep and end up in the same conference, even if it's the MWC. My second priority is continuing to play the LA schools in football. Sadly, I think this may be the last year we play SC in football for a while.

---

All good questions,

I had a very good idea about 2 months ago where Cal and Furd were. They were waiting for the TV contract, which still is the case. If you believe the Oregon writer, the hold-up is Amazon (Prime) wants to see more teams, and is willing to make it worth the Pac's while to expand. Remember Amazon wants big markets because football is a lost leader to more Prime subscriptions.

Furd was taking a very MBA like approach, and any new expansion or move to the B1G had to make financial sense, and make sense using charters for all teams for travel (in other words, they are not going to let academics slide either). So their vote on expansion will turn on how lucrative bringing in a specific program will be. They had been approached about Notre Dame and Furd going to the B1G and would have considered the approach, by it never gained traction with Notre Dame, who appears to be staying independent. Furd was working closely with Cal, but if choices had to be made, both schools agree the decision ultimately is up to each school.

Cal's Chancellor was taking a more holistic approach. She wants to know the economics, the academic fits, travel impacts, what alums and donors think, etc. She also is surprisingly nostalgic and more of a fan than I first appreciated. She was incensed by how UCLA handled all this. But my take as of two months ago, was she is willing to stay with the Pac if the economics make sense and do not make our programs less competitive. As for new teams, the schools have to have aspirations of being in the AAU. Given the noise about the TV contract, the academics of the new schools may be less priority

I also have some sense that Utah and Oregon thought very much alike with Cal and Furd on this. Utah clearly is wanted by the Big 12 if things don't work out and maybe even by the B1G. Again, my information may be outdated as I have not talked to the Chancellor, MTL or Muir in a while, though I have talked with someone with authority in one of the other schools more recently, since we sit on a board together.

I guess the real question is how aggressive the B1G will be toward developing a west coast pod for USC and UCLA once the Pac media contract is announced, and the B1G can gauge whether expansion taking other Pac schools makes sense.

---

Thank you WIAF. I very much appreciate these insights into each school's thinking. Not sure if it makes me feel better about Cal's situation, especially the notion that Cal and Furd have mutually agreed to look after their own interests first. Of course they should but I was hoping "potential damage to Cal/Stanfurd rivalry from breaking up" is a primary consideration for both schools. The fact that it may not be a primary consideration just means that the doomsday scenario of Cal being left behind by all their rivals is still in play.

In the end, as you say, it all depends on what the B1G wants to do. I just hope Cal is focused on making sure we are one of the top 2 choices (or 3, if we include UW), should the B1G decide to expand again.

---

I probably didn't say that well. Unlike other schools, Furd and Cal are discussing developments with an eye for being a package deal, because there sports history, similar perspectives on academics, a lot of faculty and administrators went to the other school, they have joint programs and research and a ton of other interaction, and from a financial standpoint, they cover almost the entire Bay Area media market. That said, as much as they want this to be a package deal, they have different constituencies, such as donor bases, Cal is a state institution and has to respond to a Board of Regents, different financial models, etc. so if the situation was that if one school had to go one way and one the other due to factors outside their control, that is understandable. But they are presenting as a package deal. Sorta like SC had to have UCLA to agree to leave to the B1G.

---

Good to hear. That's what I would hope. A situation where one school is getting way more media revenue than the other would lead to the rivalry dying rapidly in my view. I hope we stay together.

FWIW, this article just posted by the Athletic (paywall) suggests the media negotiation is not going well:

What we're hearing on Pac-12 expansion, SMU, the Big 12 and more - The Athletic

This section is brutal, particularly the quote from an AD:

Three people with knowledge of the discussions said commissioner George Kliavkoff is struggling to find partners willing to pay close to what the league is seeking. Two of those sources said Kliavkoff overpromised his members on how many bidders there would be and what dollar amount they could command a target north of $40 million per school, according to one league athletic director. Today, it's uncertain whether the Pac-12 will even be able to exceed the $31.6 million average the Big 12 reportedly landed in a six-year extension with ESPN and Fox it reached last fall.

"(We) don't have a deal because it hasn't been good," said the AD.

wifeisafurd said:

---

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.

---

What is good for "the conference" is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.

---

Logically, the assumption here has to be all remaining Pac 10 teams want to continue on in the Pac for the length of the next media package. Otherwise, why is George even bothering, since he will have 4 to 6 teams off the B1G and 4 teams off the Big 12? What is the point of selling SMU to join a conference with 2 remaining teams in the Northwest (who go Mountain West if they don't go to the B1G)? I might add that so far, what little has been said publicly, is that all 10 teams are on board with staying (e.g. Utah AD, Zona AD, etc. - there is noise out of Udub they want more than a per share split)

BTW, Knowlton and the Chancellor have made it clear, that the Chancellor is the one making the decision on conference realignment, and the JK has limited (if any) input. For starters, it is the Chancellor, not JK, asking donors their views. I don't know when the Chancellor has the time to sleep.

---

I have a couple of questions:

1. Makes sense that the Chancellor would be the one calling the shots, just as it is the B1G presidents calling the shots in admitting new schools (which I think helps Cal should they be considered in the future). What I'm very curious about is what is the Chancellor's thinking on where Cal _should_ land (from what you've heard)? What is our ideal scenario in her view? The only public statements I recall came during the UCLA hearing where she was critical of the impact that being in the B1G might have (don't recall the exact quote, and I recognize she had to say what she said given the arguments being made about UCLA's departure). Does the Chancellor favor reuniting with SC and UCLA or is she committed to rebuilding the Pac-12? I've heard that all 10 schools are committed but there have been very few direct quotes from Cal (or Stanfurd for that matter) in the last 6 months. We know that UW and UO met with the B1G and may have even submitted applications. Did Cal reach out to the B1G too in the last 6 months? I imagine yes but nothing was reported. A lot of hay had been made by the Twitterati following a quote from UC Regent Richard Lieb in December that they looked into getting the foursome into th B1G but I'm not sure what exactly he meant by that

2. Not sure how attuned you are to what's going on across the Bay ... but your wife is a Furd. What's their thinking? Are they coordinating with Cal? In all this upheaval, my first priority is that Cal and Stanfurd remain in lockstep and end up in the same conference, even if it's the MWC. My second priority is continuing to play the LA schools in football. Sadly, I think this may be the last year we play SC in football for a while.

---

All good questions,

I had a very good idea about 2 months ago where Cal and Furd were. They were waiting for the TV contract, which still is the case. If you believe the Oregon writer, the hold-up is Amazon (Prime) wants to see more teams, and is willing to make it worth the Pac's while to expand. Remember Amazon wants big markets because football is a lost leader to more Prime subscriptions.

Furd was taking a very MBA like approach, and any new expansion or move to the B1G had to make financial sense, and make sense using charters for all teams for travel (in other words, they are not going to let academics slide either). So their vote on expansion will turn on how lucrative bringing in a specific program will be. They had been approached about Notre Dame and Furd going to the B1G and would have considered the approach, by it never gained traction with Notre Dame, who appears to be staying independent. Furd was working closely with Cal, but if choices had to be made, both schools agree the decision ultimately is up to each school.

Cal's Chancellor was taking a more holistic approach. She wants to know the economics, the academic fits, travel impacts, what alums and donors think, etc. She also is surprisingly nostalgic and more of a fan than I first appreciated. She was incensed by how UCLA handled all this. But my take as of two months ago, was she is willing to stay with the Pac if the economics make sense and do not make our programs less competitive. As for new teams, the schools have to have aspirations of being in the AAU. Given the noise about the TV contract, the academics of the new schools may be less priority

I also have some sense that Utah and Oregon thought very much alike with Cal and Furd on this. Utah clearly is wanted by the Big 12 if things don't work out and maybe even by the B1G. Again, my information may be outdated as I have not talked to the Chancellor, MTL or Muir in a while, though I have talked with someone with authority in one of the other schools more recently, since we sit on a board together.

I guess the real question is how aggressive the B1G will be toward developing a west coast pod for USC and UCLA once the Pac media contract is announced, and the B1G can gauge whether expansion taking other Pac schools makes sense.

---

Thank you WIAF. I very much appreciate these insights into each school's thinking. Not sure if it makes me feel better about Cal's situation, especially the notion that Cal and Furd have mutually agreed to look after their own interests first. Of course they should but I was hoping "potential damage to Cal/Stanfurd rivalry from breaking up" is a primary consideration for both schools. The fact that it may not be a primary consideration just means that the doomsday scenario of Cal being left behind by all their rivals is still in play.

In the end, as you say, it all depends on what the B1G wants to do. I just hope Cal is focused on making sure we are one of the top 2 choices (or 3, if we include UW), should the B1G decide to expand again.

---

I probably didn't say that well. Unlike other schools, Furd and Cal are discussing developments with an eye for being a package deal, because there sports history, similar perspectives on academics, a lot of faculty and administrators went to the other school, they have joint programs and research and a ton of other interaction, and from a financial standpoint, they cover almost the entire Bay Area media market. That said, as much as they want this to be a package deal, they have different constituencies, such as donor bases, Cal is a state institution and has to respond to a Board of Regents, different financial models, etc. so if the situation was that if one school had to go one way and one the other due to factors outside their control, that is understandable. But they are presenting as a package deal. Sorta like SC had to have UCLA to agree to leave to the B1G.

---

That is good to hear. We need to stick with Stanford.

I really think the goal we should be working toward is to end up in a conference or pod of a super conference that includes Stanford, UCLA and USC. That means we to work with them to either 1) get us into the B1G, 2) have a path for them to come back to the PAC, or 3) push Kliavkoff to negotiate a merger of sorts with B1G, with a Superconference structure and regional pods only for football, and all other sports to remain in the PAC-12. But with increased cross-sectional play with the Mid-west schools.

It is this third solution that I think would be best for ALL (except maybe Kliavkoff himself, but only in the short run) and is what our university presidents should be pushing for. It solves ALOT of problems, antitrust concerns, travel, the WSU and OSU problem, and makes the PAC-10 media deal more valuable. If he does not want to push for that, remove him or go back to option 1, getting Cal and Stanford into a California pod of the B1G.

In any case, we need to be working WITH UCLA and USC at this point, so petty squabbling and finger pointing is just self-destructive. It also means that the PAC-10 expanding just to expand could be counterproductive at this time if our end goal is reuniting the PAC-12 as part of the B1G, though even then it can be accommodated.

HearstMining said:

---

Wife's informed comment:
"Cal's Chancellor was taking a more holistic approach. She wants to know the economics, the academic fits, travel impacts, what alums and donors think, etc. She also is surprisingly nostalgic and more of a fan than I first appreciated. She was incensed by how UCLA handled all this. But my take as of two months ago, was she is willing to stay with the Pac if the economics make sense and do not make our programs less competitive. As for new teams, the schools have to have aspirations of being in the AAU. Given the noise about the TV contract, the academics of the new schools may be less priority"

My thoughts:

• I want to believe the best about Carol but "nostalgic" implies looking back, not forward, and when you combine it with her comment about college sports being about more than just winning, I worry that what she's nostalgic for is the communal aspect of fandom, not winning actual sports competition. I worry that she'll settle for a plan that just guarantees alums can still get together at a football game on a sunny October afternoon (and that they'll donate because of this).
• Regarding candidate schools needing to aspire to join the AAU, which has a research focus, wouldn't that eliminate San Diego St or Fresno since they don't have PhD programs?

---

When it comes to winning I can' t repeat the things she said about Notre Dame refs. Some of would not make it past the automatic censor. The comment about basketball and it not being all about winning is a bit out of context, and is something any school President would say. They always want to make it sounds like they are about educating student athletes, etc. and not just winning. You may to be aware, but she personally donates to the basketball programs.

SDSU now had PHD programs, an honors college and has upped its academic game with the view towards joining a P5 conference. Don't know much about FSU. Don't know much about UNLV, other than Vegas is growing considerably, a lot of Pac fans would travel there for games, and UNLV does have research and over 30 PHD program (it is real school). BYU had to be a non-starter with Sunday games. I would assume either Tulane and or Rice would be welcomed due to their TV markets and both are AAU. Tulane is good at football right now.

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

The Pac has to expand or else it will be on life support when the B1G inevitably goes after Washington and Oregon. I'd rather have SMU (preferably with a partner such as Tulane or TCU) than Fresno.

As usual, wifeisafurd is right: Adding SD St. (likely a done deal), SMU (a probable at this point), TCU and UNLV will strengthen the conference and widen the media base.

---

What is good for "the conference" is not necessarily good for Cal (and vice-versus). If UCLA. USC, Oregon and Washington all leave for the B1G, wouldn't we want to be in that group along with Stanford instead of creating a rival to the Mountain West? Don't we lose Utah, Colorado and the Arizona's to the Big 12 at that point?

If we can raid the Big 12 to take TCU, instead of SMU, maybe it would be more strategic for the PAC-12 to focus expansion on other Big 12 schools so they become the weak conference?

But back to the first point, if our object is to be in the an eventual B1G West Coast pod, I think there is still the possibility of a negotiated merger to form a hybrid super league, including all of the current members of the PAC-12. PAC-12 expansion would only make options like that more difficult to achieve.

I understand Kliavkoff's motive for expansion. I just think Cal needs to think about where it wants to end up and be working toward that goal, along with Stanford and probably UW and Oregon, even UCLA and USC. That is why we need visionary leadership, not reactionary leadership or a do nothing like Knowlton.

---

Logically, the assumption here has to be all remaining Pac 10 teams want to continue on in the Pac for the length of the next media package. Otherwise, why is George even bothering, since he will have 4 to 6 teams off the B1G and 4 teams off the Big 12? What is the point of selling SMU to join a conference with 2 remaining teams in the Northwest (who go Mountain West if they don't go to the B1G)? I might add that so far, what little has been said publicly, is that all 10 teams are on board with staying (e.g. Utah AD, Zona AD, etc. - there is noise out of Udub they want more than a per share split)

BTW, Knowlton and the Chancellor have made it clear, that the Chancellor is the one making the decision on conference realignment, and the JK has limited (if any) input. For starters, it is the Chancellor, not JK, asking donors their views. I don't know when the Chancellor has the time to sleep.

---

I have a couple of questions:

1. Makes sense that the Chancellor would be the one calling the shots, just as it is the B1G presidents calling the shots in admitting new schools (which I think helps Cal should they be considered in the future). What I'm very curious about is what is the Chancellor's thinking on where Cal _should_ land (from what you've heard)? What is our ideal scenario in her view? The only public statements I recall came during the UCLA hearing where she was critical of the impact that being in the B1G might have (don't recall the exact quote, and I recognize she had to say what she said given the arguments being made about UCLA's departure). Does the Chancellor favor reuniting with SC and UCLA or is she committed to rebuilding the Pac-12? I've heard that all 10 schools are committed but there have been very few direct quotes from Cal (or Stanfurd for that matter) in the last 6 months. We know that UW and UO met with the B1G and may have even submitted applications. Did Cal reach out to the B1G too in the last 6 months? I imagine yes but nothing was reported. A lot of hay had been made by the Twitterati following a quote from UC Regent Richard Lieb in December that they looked into getting the foursome into th B1G but I'm not sure what exactly he meant by that

2. Not sure how attuned you are to what's going on across the Bay ... but your wife is a Furd. What's their thinking? Are they coordinating with Cal? In all this upheaval, my first priority is that Cal and Stanfurd remain in lockstep and end up in the same conference, even if it's the MWC. My second priority is continuing to play the LA schools in football. Sadly, I think this may be the last year we play SC in football for a while.

---

All good questions,

I had a very good idea about 2 months ago where Cal and Furd were. They were waiting for the TV contract, which still is the case. If you believe the Oregon writer, the hold-up is Amazon (Prime) wants to see more teams, and is willing to make it worth the Pac's while to expand. Remember Amazon wants big markets because football is a lost leader to more Prime subscriptions.

Furd was taking a very MBA like approach, and any new expansion or move to the B1G had to make financial sense, and make sense using charters for all teams for travel (in other words, they are not going to let academics slide either). So their vote on expansion will turn on how lucrative bringing in a specific program will be. They had been approached about Notre Dame and Furd going to the B1G and would have considered the approach, by it never gained traction with Notre Dame, who appears to be staying independent. Furd was working closely with Cal, but if choices had to be made, both schools agree the decision ultimately is up to each school.

Cal's Chancellor was taking a more holistic approach. She wants to know the economics, the academic fits, travel impacts, what alums and donors think, etc. She also is surprisingly nostalgic and more of a fan than I first appreciated. She was incensed by how UCLA handled all this. But my take as of two months ago, was she is willing to stay with the Pac if the economics make sense and do not make our programs less competitive. As for new teams, the schools have to have aspirations of being in the AAU. Given the noise about the TV contract, the academics of the new schools may be less priority

I also have some sense that Utah and Oregon thought very much alike with Cal and Furd on this. Utah clearly is wanted by the Big 12 if things don't work out and maybe even by the B1G. Again, my information may be outdated as I have not talked to the Chancellor, MTL or Muir in a while, though I have talked with someone with authority in one of the other schools more recently, since we sit on a board together.

I guess the real question is how aggressive the B1G will be toward developing a west coast pod for USC and UCLA once the Pac media contract is announced, and the B1G can gauge whether expansion taking other Pac schools makes sense.

---

Thank you WIAF. I very much appreciate these insights into each school's thinking. Not sure if it makes me feel better about Cal's situation, especially the notion that Cal and Furd have mutually agreed to look after their own interests first. Of course they should but I was hoping "potential damage to Cal/Stanfurd rivalry from breaking up" is a primary consideration for both schools. The fact that it may not be a primary consideration just means that the doomsday scenario of Cal being left behind by all their rivals is still in play.

In the end, as you say, it all depends on what the B1G wants to do. I just hope Cal is focused on making sure we are one of the top 2 choices (or 3, if we include UW), should the B1G decide to expand again.

---

I probably didn't say that well. Unlike other schools, Furd and Cal are discussing developments with an eye for being a package deal, because there sports history, similar perspectives on academics, a lot of faculty and administrators went to the other school, they have joint programs and research and a ton of other interaction, and from a financial standpoint, they cover almost the entire Bay Area media market. That said, as much as they want this to be a package deal, they have different constituencies, such as donor bases, Cal is a state institution and has to respond to a Board of Regents, different financial models, etc. so if the situation was that if one school had to go one way and one the other due to factors outside their control, that is understandable. But they are presenting as a package deal. Sorta like SC had to have UCLA to agree to leave to the B1G.

---

That is good to hear. We need to stick with Stanford.

I really think the goal we should be working toward is to end up in a conference or pod of a super conference that includes Stanford, UCLA and USC. That means we to work with them to either 1) get us into the B1G, 2) have a path for them to come back to the PAC, or 3) push Kliavkoff to negotiate a merger of sorts with B1G, with a Superconference structure and regional pods only for football, and all other sports to remain in the PAC-12. But with increased cross-sectional play with the Mid-west schools.

It is this third solution that I think would be best for ALL (except maybe Kliavkoff himself, but only in the short run) and is what our university presidents should be pushing for. It solves ALOT of problems, antitrust concerns, travel, the WSU and OSU problem, and makes the PAC-10 media deal more valuable. If he does not want to push for that, remove him or go back to option 1, getting Cal and Stanford into a California pod of the B1G.

In any case, we need to be working WITH UCLA and USC at this point, so petty squabbling and finger pointing is just self-destructive. It also means that the PAC-10 expanding just to expand could be counterproductive at this time if our end goal is reuniting the PAC-12 as part of the B1G, though even then it can be accommodated.

---

SC has moved on. There just isn't much interaction from what I have heard. It maybe SC just thinks there will be a west code pod. UCLA is trying to to schedule OOC matches and games, but has been told by everyone we will get back to you. I don't know that reflects hostility at the AD level, as much as the Pac can't commit until there is more certainty as to what is going on.

Golden One said:

---

Houston is a much larger metropolitan area than Dallas

---

4
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MSA
7,759,615
7,637,387
+1.60%
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA

5
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX MSA
7,206,841
7,122,240
+1.19%
Houston-The Woodlands, TX CSA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area

movielover said:

---

ferCALgm2 said:

---

Screw U$C and UCLA. Stop with the excuses. I hope they enjoy their hours and hours of travel.

---

Might be possible students will stay back east for a week or two and take classes via Zoom calls?

---

That's true, they probably should. Athlete students at it's finest!