Econ141 said:

---

6956bear said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

BearSD said:

---

philbert said:

---

ACC officials discussed releasing a statement in response to the situation with the 7. But...

“We’re not unified,” ACC source says. “We’re unified until someone offers a school more to go somewhere else. Everyone is going to grab it.”

From @ByPatForde - https://t.co/GM1OqeSBL4

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) May 17, 2023

---

Looks like all of the bitter ghouls hoping for conference destruction have turned their attention to the east coast this week.

---

The ACC is arguably in a worst spot than the PAC-12 because while for the latter things are pretty fluid and open the ACC is handcuffed by their grant of rights through 2036 and now that Clemson makes less money than Purdue there could be an ugly divorce up next because of the money involved.

---

It is why a PAC-12 and ACC quasi merger makes so much sense. The value created by having East Coast teams play on the West Coast in games the East Coast cares about in the East Coast evening time slots on ESPN is huge. It counters Fox and the B1G getting the LA schools. The increased TV contract keeps the ACC teams in and keeps the PAC -10 together. It is a compelling basketball league too. It creates a clear #3 conference, eclipsing the B-12 which would now be the SEC's focus for expansion. Eventually the LA schools might even want to come back. The coasts are where the population, money, media and best schools are.

---

I have been in favor of a Pac-#/ACC merger ever since USC and Southern Branch announced their defection. the B1G is not interested in us. They may take UO and UW and possibly Stanford but we are likely to be left out. And dreams of a Pac-B1G merger are just dreams.

I think the ACC is a better cultural fit and a coast-to-coast conference will work, but the Pac division of the new expanded/merged conference would have to add a few teams to balance the two divisions, maybe UNLV, Colorado State, SMU, New Mexico.

---

The B1G may ultimately not have an interest in Cal. But if the ACC breaks apart what will be left to merge with will not be worth a lot. The big programs like Clemson, FSU, UNC will all land closer to home either in the B1G or SEC or possibly even the Big 12.. A merging with Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest that do not interest the major conferences is not something TV will likely have a great deal of interest in.

I think for Cal the best bet is to hope the B1G is not expanding til 2030 and use these next several seasons to become a decent program and make bowls. Hoops needs to be good as well. Fans will need to watch the games. The University resides in a great market that at present does not watch or attend the games at strong levels. That will need to change. Winning is what will drive that change.

The B1G presidents like Cal. But TV is paying. They have to show the TV folks that there is an interest in the programs. Merging with the ACC now given their GOR makes little sense to the P12 members. They do not want to be tied into a GOR of that length. It would require a breaking of the GOR and if that happens several current members that have options will not want to be in a west coast conference. Particularly one that has duds like UNLV, New Mexico or Colorado St.

Cal IMO needs to do whatever it takes to get to the B1G. If that does not happen they better find a way to keep the current membership intact. If UW and UO leave and the B1G does not want Cal now or in 2030 the program is in deep peril.

---

We are in deep peril for sure. There is smoke coming out from UW and Oregon but crickets from Cal. I get that things would be kept close to the chest but I highly doubt Christ and Knowlton are working around the clock to get Cal to land safely here. They have their own scandals they need to cover up.

I think we are left to just crossing our fingers and see how things shake out. Yes Larry Scott played a huge in this but our decades long administration failures also did...so we can't be totally pissed when we no longer get to enjoy cal football.

---

calumnus said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

6956bear said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

BearSD said:

---

philbert said:

---

ACC officials discussed releasing a statement in response to the situation with the 7. But...

“We’re not unified,” ACC source says. “We’re unified until someone offers a school more to go somewhere else. Everyone is going to grab it.”

From @ByPatForde - https://t.co/GM1OqeSBL4

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) May 17, 2023

---

Looks like all of the bitter ghouls hoping for conference destruction have turned their attention to the east coast this week.

---

The ACC is arguably in a worst spot than the PAC-12 because while for the latter things are pretty fluid and open the ACC is handcuffed by their grant of rights through 2036 and now that Clemson makes less money than Purdue there could be an ugly divorce up next because of the money involved.

---

It is why a PAC-12 and ACC quasi merger makes so much sense. The value created by having East Coast teams play on the West Coast in games the East Coast cares about in the East Coast evening time slots on ESPN is huge. It counters Fox and the B1G getting the LA schools. The increased TV contract keeps the ACC teams in and keeps the PAC -10 together. It is a compelling basketball league too. It creates a clear #3 conference, eclipsing the B-12 which would now be the SEC's focus for expansion. Eventually the LA schools might even want to come back. The coasts are where the population, money, media and best schools are.

---

I have been in favor of a Pac-#/ACC merger ever since USC and Southern Branch announced their defection. the B1G is not interested in us. They may take UO and UW and possibly Stanford but we are likely to be left out. And dreams of a Pac-B1G merger are just dreams.

I think the ACC is a better cultural fit and a coast-to-coast conference will work, but the Pac division of the new expanded/merged conference would have to add a few teams to balance the two divisions, maybe UNLV, Colorado State, SMU, New Mexico.

---

The B1G may ultimately not have an interest in Cal. But if the ACC breaks apart what will be left to merge with will not be worth a lot. The big programs like Clemson, FSU, UNC will all land closer to home either in the B1G or SEC or possibly even the Big 12.. A merging with Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest that do not interest the major conferences is not something TV will likely have a great deal of interest in.

I think for Cal the best bet is to hope the B1G is not expanding til 2030 and use these next several seasons to become a decent program and make bowls. Hoops needs to be good as well. Fans will need to watch the games. The University resides in a great market that at present does not watch or attend the games at strong levels. That will need to change. Winning is what will drive that change.

The B1G presidents like Cal. But TV is paying. They have to show the TV folks that there is an interest in the programs. Merging with the ACC now given their GOR makes little sense to the P12 members. They do not want to be tied into a GOR of that length. It would require a breaking of the GOR and if that happens several current members that have options will not want to be in a west coast conference. Particularly one that has duds like UNLV, New Mexico or Colorado St.

Cal IMO needs to do whatever it takes to get to the B1G. If that does not happen they better find a way to keep the current membership intact. If UW and UO leave and the B1G does not want Cal now or in 2030 the program is in deep peril.

---

We are in deep peril for sure. There is smoke coming out from UW and Oregon but crickets from Cal. I get that things would be kept close to the chest but I highly doubt Christ and Knowlton are working around the clock to get Cal to land safely here. They have their own scandals they need to cover up.

I think we are left to just crossing our fingers and see how things shake out. Yes Larry Scott played a huge in this but our decades long administration failures also did...so we can't be totally pissed when we no longer get to enjoy cal football.

---

I do think Cal has reached out to the B1G. If the B1G is trying to find enough money or another partner to possibly add UW and UO it may be difficult to find enough to add 2 more. Is Carol Christ the voice you want to be reaching out to the B1G? I think that would not be her strength. UW and UO do have smoke coming about the B1G but not from them. It is coming from others. But I have been told by a UW donor (friend) they are expecting an invite. For 2024. Is that accurate? No clue.

Cal's athletic performance which has been poor in the revenue sports far precedes both her and Knowltons time here. TV is looking for ratings (eyeballs) and Cal has not shown that in recent seasons. It may not matter how hard Christ promotes Cal to the B1G. The performances and the ratings tell a big story. College athletics is a big business. Cal if they want to stay in a P5 conference will need to improve their performances on the field, in attendance and TV ratings. And quickly. If UW and UO are extended an invite for 2024 and Cal does not it may be too late.

There is talk that the B1G does not want to break up the P12. But in reality Cal may need to hope the P12 does not want to break up the P12. At least not this media deal cycle. If UW and UO get actionable offers I think they would find it hard to say no to the B1G. Unless the dollars are similar to the P12.

But I do think there is more realignment coming. When is the question.

---

Just a couple years before Knowlton arrived we had a player taken #1 in the NFL draft and had a basketball team with three McDonald's All Americans that went undefeated at home and earned a #4 seed in the NCAA Tournament. I would stack that up against most of the B1G.

It is under Knowlton that we sunk to the lowest scoring team with the worst record in the entire country in basketball and extended a coach to year 11 that has not had a winning record through year 6, all while mired in scandal and lawsuits for ignoring the abuse of young women in the swim program.

There is no other time in Cal history when we have been THIS bad in football and basketball (women's too). There is no time that attendance has been THIS bad. And it has come at precisely the wrong time in history.

This Fall we need huge turnarounds. We do have reason for hope but even then it may be too little, too late. Larry Scott at the PAC-12 followed by Jim Knowlton at Cal has been an absolute killer. One sunk the ship we were on while the other has destroyed the lifeboats.

Cal needs to do more than "reach out" to the B1G. No, they don't want us at full membership. Have we offered to come in for less? We need to lobby them, repeatedly. You know UW and Oregon are dong that. The B1G needs to be able to honestly say "We did not come after Cal, but they were persistent and in the end we decided they make a great addition to our conference."

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

A few random realignment thoughts from someone unassociated with Cal or the PAC:

Dissolving the ACC will not obviate their GOR any more than my committing suicide will release my estate from paying debts I've incurred. The teams in the ACC are in the conference for many years (or more accurately, ESPN will own the schools' media rights) before a Texas/Oklahoma type buyout becomes feasible.

Oregon is not going to receive an invite from the Big Ten; their academics are on par with Nebraska (in some aspects considerably worse), and, like the Cornhuskers, their single selling point (football excellence) is, as experience has shown in a number of other top programs, fragile.

If the Big Ten does execute an additional two-school PAC expansion, in my view the most likely pair would be Stanford and Cal because of academics, markets, strong athletic programs (alas, sans football), and relative ease of travel (only one long travel leg to play two schools). I interpret the media fanfare with Oregon and Washington and the radio silence from Cal and Stanford in exactly the opposite sense than most posters do. Realignment moves are not made in the glare of the media spotlight.

My impression is that the Big Ten presidents are not keen on further expansion (other than Notre Dame) at the present, but as the Big Ten athletic departments finally face the details of the logistical challenges posed by having USC and UCLA in the conference, I believe that the attractiveness of adding the Cal/Stanford duo will considerably increase. If Cal and Stanford would agree to a reduced media payout for the length of the current media contract I believe both schools have a decent shot at a Big Ten invite.

---

mbBear said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

A few random realignment thoughts from someone unassociated with Cal or the PAC:

Dissolving the ACC will not obviate their GOR any more than my committing suicide will release my estate from paying debts I've incurred. The teams in the ACC are in the conference for many years (or more accurately, ESPN will own the schools' media rights) before a Texas/Oklahoma type buyout becomes feasible.

Oregon is not going to receive an invite from the Big Ten; their academics are on par with Nebraska (in some aspects considerably worse), and, like the Cornhuskers, their single selling point (football excellence) is, as experience has shown in a number of other top programs, fragile.

If the Big Ten does execute an additional two-school PAC expansion, in my view the most likely pair would be Stanford and Cal because of academics, markets, strong athletic programs (alas, sans football), and relative ease of travel (only one long travel leg to play two schools). I interpret the media fanfare with Oregon and Washington and the radio silence from Cal and Stanford in exactly the opposite sense than most posters do. Realignment moves are not made in the glare of the media spotlight.

My impression is that the Big Ten presidents are not keen on further expansion (other than Notre Dame) at the present, but as the Big Ten athletic departments finally face the details of the logistical challenges posed by having USC and UCLA in the conference, I believe that the attractiveness of adding the Cal/Stanford duo will considerably increase. If Cal and Stanford would agree to a reduced media payout for the length of the current media contract I believe both schools have a decent shot at a Big Ten invite.

---

Yeah, academics really count. I mean, just look at all the academic programming The Big 10 has put on their network after the initial promise of that back in the last century.
I want you to be right, but to make this about more than dollars and cents, yeah, sorry, I don't believe that for a second....and you can certainly put this back in my face when the time is right.

---

Econ141 said:

---

mbBear said:

---

RobertHedrock said:

---

A few random realignment thoughts from someone unassociated with Cal or the PAC:

Dissolving the ACC will not obviate their GOR any more than my committing suicide will release my estate from paying debts I've incurred. The teams in the ACC are in the conference for many years (or more accurately, ESPN will own the schools' media rights) before a Texas/Oklahoma type buyout becomes feasible.

Oregon is not going to receive an invite from the Big Ten; their academics are on par with Nebraska (in some aspects considerably worse), and, like the Cornhuskers, their single selling point (football excellence) is, as experience has shown in a number of other top programs, fragile.

If the Big Ten does execute an additional two-school PAC expansion, in my view the most likely pair would be Stanford and Cal because of academics, markets, strong athletic programs (alas, sans football), and relative ease of travel (only one long travel leg to play two schools). I interpret the media fanfare with Oregon and Washington and the radio silence from Cal and Stanford in exactly the opposite sense than most posters do. Realignment moves are not made in the glare of the media spotlight.

My impression is that the Big Ten presidents are not keen on further expansion (other than Notre Dame) at the present, but as the Big Ten athletic departments finally face the details of the logistical challenges posed by having USC and UCLA in the conference, I believe that the attractiveness of adding the Cal/Stanford duo will considerably increase. If Cal and Stanford would agree to a reduced media payout for the length of the current media contract I believe both schools have a decent shot at a Big Ten invite.

---

Yeah, academics really count. I mean, just look at all the academic programming The Big 10 has put on their network after the initial promise of that back in the last century.
I want you to be right, but to make this about more than dollars and cents, yeah, sorry, I don't believe that for a second....and you can certainly put this back in my face when the time is right.

---

In the tug of war between media (pro big-time college football) vs the university presidents (pro-academics), the media is going to win as this truly is all about the $$$.

Appreciate the non-pac12 view presumably from B1G territory but I agree with you, the money is calling all the shots and Cal will be left without a home. I think we are in the same boat as OSU and WSU praying for a pac-12 deal that keeps everything together for a few more years.

---

Washington State’s president gave a rare hint Friday where the Pac-12’s new TV revenue will land.

If he’s correct, it will be closely in line with the Big 12’s. https://t.co/sko0guMm65

— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) June 9, 2023

Econ141 said:

---

If it is in-line with B12 is that good, bad or meh? And how do we think about George K if this is true? Is he a savior of the conference or should be held accountable for not backing up his talk that we would be north of the B12?

And why in the world would the WSU AD go and leak this?

---

philbert said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

If it is in-line with B12 is that good, bad or meh? And how do we think about George K if this is true? Is he a savior of the conference or should be held accountable for not backing up his talk that we would be north of the B12?

And why in the world would the WSU AD go and leak this?

---

It was a public meeting where he was answering questions from University admins about a budget shortfall and future budgets forecasts.

---

Pac-12 making more media rights waves. WSU president set new expectations.

Source: "We will beat the Big 12's number."

More: https://t.co/AJDkAlDZmy

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) June 9, 2023

Econ141 said:

---

If it is in-line with B12 is that good, bad or meh? And how do we think about George K if this is true? Is he a savior of the conference or should be held accountable for not backing up his talk that we would be north of the B12?

And why in the world would the WSU AD go and leak this?

---

Econ141 said:

---

I don't have subscriptions to these articles but this implies beating the B12 from the same potential source. Lots of conflicting info as usual.

Pac-12 making more media rights waves. WSU president set new expectations.

Source: "We will beat the Big 12's number."

More: https://t.co/AJDkAlDZmy

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) June 9, 2023

---

Econ141 said:

---

If it is in-line with B12 is that good, bad or meh? And how do we think about George K if this is true? Is he a savior of the conference or should be held accountable for not backing up his talk that we would be north of the B12?

And why in the world would the WSU AD go and leak this?

---

BearSD said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

I don't have subscriptions to these articles but this implies beating the B12 from the same potential source. Lots of conflicting info as usual.

Pac-12 making more media rights waves. WSU president set new expectations.

Source: "We will beat the Big 12's number."

More: https://t.co/AJDkAlDZmy

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) June 9, 2023

---

IMO: Canzano's primary source on this topic is at Oregon State and has consistently seemed overly optimistic.

More likely, the Pac would only "beat" the Big 12's TV deal on a per-school basis if the Pac does not expand and thus only has to split its money 10 ways. Cutting the pie into 11 or 12 slices would probably result in per-school shares that are not larger than the Big 12's.

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

I don't have subscriptions to these articles but this implies beating the B12 from the same potential source. Lots of conflicting info as usual.

Pac-12 making more media rights waves. WSU president set new expectations.

Source: "We will beat the Big 12's number."

More: https://t.co/AJDkAlDZmy

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) June 9, 2023

---

IMO: Canzano's primary source on this topic is at Oregon State and has consistently seemed overly optimistic.

More likely, the Pac would only "beat" the Big 12's TV deal on a per-school basis if the Pac does not expand and thus only has to split its money 10 ways. Cutting the pie into 11 or 12 slices would probably result in per-school shares that are not larger than the Big 12's.

---

Why would we add a school that is dilutive? I am pretty sure we are discussing potential additions (San Diego State and?) with our media partners to get values of the deal if they are included or not included.

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

We could add 4 schools and relegate the bottom 4 to independent status each year. Would create multiple storylines.

---

Big Dog said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

We could add 4 schools and relegate the bottom 4 to independent status each year. Would create multiple storylines.

---

except that we might be one of those 4 schools, which would mean JK would give out contract extensions

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

I don't have subscriptions to these articles but this implies beating the B12 from the same potential source. Lots of conflicting info as usual.

Pac-12 making more media rights waves. WSU president set new expectations.

Source: "We will beat the Big 12's number."

More: https://t.co/AJDkAlDZmy

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) June 9, 2023

---

IMO: Canzano's primary source on this topic is at Oregon State and has consistently seemed overly optimistic.

More likely, the Pac would only "beat" the Big 12's TV deal on a per-school basis if the Pac does not expand and thus only has to split its money 10 ways. Cutting the pie into 11 or 12 slices would probably result in per-school shares that are not larger than the Big 12's.

---

Why would we add a school that is dilutive? I am pretty sure we are discussing potential additions (San Diego State and?) with our media partners to get values of the deal if they are included or not included.

---

The only reason to add a dilutive school woudl be a defensive strategy. In other words, offer SDSU to keep a toe-hold in SoCal and keep them from bolting to the B12. We could return to the P10 name with 11 schools.

---

BearSD said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

I don't have subscriptions to these articles but this implies beating the B12 from the same potential source. Lots of conflicting info as usual.

Pac-12 making more media rights waves. WSU president set new expectations.

Source: "We will beat the Big 12's number."

More: https://t.co/AJDkAlDZmy

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) June 9, 2023

---

IMO: Canzano's primary source on this topic is at Oregon State and has consistently seemed overly optimistic.

More likely, the Pac would only "beat" the Big 12's TV deal on a per-school basis if the Pac does not expand and thus only has to split its money 10 ways. Cutting the pie into 11 or 12 slices would probably result in per-school shares that are not larger than the Big 12's.

---

Why would we add a school that is dilutive? I am pretty sure we are discussing potential additions (San Diego State and?) with our media partners to get values of the deal if they are included or not included.

---

The only reason to add a dilutive school woudl be a defensive strategy. In other words, offer SDSU to keep a toe-hold in SoCal and keep them from bolting to the B12. We could return to the P10 name with 11 schools.

---

Those are good reasons to add SDSU regardless of the money, and they are probably in unless adding them dilutes the payouts so much that at least 3 members vote to stay at 10 teams. (75% yes vote is required.)

As for adding any school in addition to SDSU: The fact that SMU has been considered indicates that the Pac presidents/ADs think every MWC schools other than SDSU is not a good option. SMU makes no sense geographically.

If SDSU is added, then really the only good reason to add a 12th member is math. A conference with an odd number of teams has to play an even number of conference games, but a conference with an even number of teams can play either an odd or even number of conference games. (Try to work it out yourself if you don't believe it.) That means an 11-team Pac would have to play 8 or 10 conference games in football, whereas a 10 or 12- team Pac could take the preferred option of playing 9 conference games.

---

BearSD said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

I don't have subscriptions to these articles but this implies beating the B12 from the same potential source. Lots of conflicting info as usual.

Pac-12 making more media rights waves. WSU president set new expectations.

Source: "We will beat the Big 12's number."

More: https://t.co/AJDkAlDZmy

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) June 9, 2023

---

IMO: Canzano's primary source on this topic is at Oregon State and has consistently seemed overly optimistic.

More likely, the Pac would only "beat" the Big 12's TV deal on a per-school basis if the Pac does not expand and thus only has to split its money 10 ways. Cutting the pie into 11 or 12 slices would probably result in per-school shares that are not larger than the Big 12's.

---

Why would we add a school that is dilutive? I am pretty sure we are discussing potential additions (San Diego State and?) with our media partners to get values of the deal if they are included or not included.

---

The only reason to add a dilutive school woudl be a defensive strategy. In other words, offer SDSU to keep a toe-hold in SoCal and keep them from bolting to the B12. We could return to the P10 name with 11 schools.

---

Those are good reasons to add SDSU regardless of the money, and they are probably in unless adding them dilutes the payouts so much that at least 3 members vote to stay at 10 teams. (75% yes vote is required.)

As for adding any school in addition to SDSU: The fact that SMU has been considered indicates that the Pac presidents/ADs think every MWC schools other than SDSU is not a good option. SMU makes no sense geographically.

If SDSU is added, then really the only good reason to add a 12th member is math. A conference with an odd number of teams has to play an even number of conference games, but a conference with an even number of teams can play either an odd or even number of conference games. (Try to work it out yourself if you don't believe it.) That means an 11-team Pac would have to play 8 or 10 conference games in football, whereas a 10 or 12- team Pac could take the preferred option of playing 9 conference games.

---

Yeah, I get the math but don't buy into the point. We could have xx odd teams and play 9 conference games (or whatever is preferred). The rivalry games are maintained, and every other league game is computer pick 'em. Some years we'd miss out on U-Dub, another year it might be Colorado or ASU. A team not on your calendar this year will be on it next year. The top two teams play in the championship.

In reality, once you exceed 10 teams, and you only desire 9 conf games, then not everyone is gonna play everyone else that year. (See the new BiG schedule)

---

It is literally impossible to have an odd number of teams and an odd number of conference games if each team plays the same number of conference games. It's not just a matter of skipping one or two opponents each season or a matter of some teams having more home games. It is not possible to make a schedule with 11 teams and 9 conference games.

---

calumnus said:

---

Why would we add a school that is dilutive? I am pretty sure we are discussing potential additions (San Diego State and?) with our media partners to get values of the deal if they are included or not included.

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Why would we add a school that is dilutive? I am pretty sure we are discussing potential additions (San Diego State and?) with our media partners to get values of the deal if they are included or not included.

---

How ironic to hear this argument against diluting PAC-x value when that is the same argument being used by B1G against us joining them.

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Why would we add a school that is dilutive? I am pretty sure we are discussing potential additions (San Diego State and?) with our media partners to get values of the deal if they are included or not included.

---

How ironic to hear this argument against diluting PAC-x value when that is the same argument being used by B1G against us joining them.

---

BearSD said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Why would we add a school that is dilutive? I am pretty sure we are discussing potential additions (San Diego State and?) with our media partners to get values of the deal if they are included or not included.

---

How ironic to hear this argument against diluting PAC-x value when that is the same argument being used by B1G against us joining them.

---

For the Pac, if the total TV package is $350 million per year regardless of how many teams are in the league, then if it's 10 teams, each team gets $35 million, and if there's 12 teams each getting an equal share, each gets about $29.2 million. Adding more teams is dilutive unless the TV providers agree to pay the same amount per-school whether the conference has 10, 11, or 12 teams.

It's the same issue for the Big Ten, only with larger numbers, and it's a real issue for any athletic department that wants as much money as possible, i.e., all athletic departments. The fact that it's the same issue doesn't make it ironic.

---

calumnus said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Why would we add a school that is dilutive? I am pretty sure we are discussing potential additions (San Diego State and?) with our media partners to get values of the deal if they are included or not included.

---

How ironic to hear this argument against diluting PAC-x value when that is the same argument being used by B1G against us joining them.

---

Is it? I think the discussion is that we would come in at less than full share, we contribute one of the largest markets in the country, we would offer more later time slots for our home games adding value and relieving Midwest teams of having to play late games and save UCLA and USC travel expense. The point being that we only expect to be added if we are accretive for the B1G, and at some level greater than the prospective PAC-12 payout, we are.

Similarly, the PAC-10 will add San Diego State if it adds value and is accretive.

---

Pittstop said:

---

What if the 2 added schools received less than full shares, like say, $20M each (which is likely way more than SD State currently gets). Then, the other OG Pac schools would still get like $31M each, right. Would something like that be a viable option? Or, even at $25M each for the new schools, wouldn't that net the OG schools $30M or so?

---