Well if we had a merely competent AD at Cal, we would not have Fox as our basketball coach and our team would not be mired at the bottom of the nation.calumnus said:southseasbear said:Pipe dream. Even if the B1G wanted to expand further (which at this time they do not) there would be no interest in Oregon State, Washington State, or us.calumnus said:95bears said:
Listening to Canzano and Wilner interview the Big 12 commissioner is unnerving:
https://soundcloud.com/canzano-wilner
He has a hyper-aggressive disposition relative to our commissioner and seems like a sports media shark. It's clear he is going to continue to try and destabilize and carve up the Pac-12. It's also clear that academics and student-athlete experiences are not a significant part of his mandate, when Wilner asks about the higher education mission of his member schools, he spews verbal pablum for 1-2 minutes.
He really pats himself on the back for getting his market timing down relative to the belt-tightening at Disney/ESPN and across the media market. This is a major thing we're missing in the discussions on this board. We may be more valuable than the Big 12 in general, but in a down market, you're only as valuable as someone is willing to pay, and it looks like the P12 will only have one serious bidder if all the rumors are true.
Given that it is a down market, you normally wouldn't want to lock in for the long term. Maybe just a one year contract, but Kliavkoff needs the PAC-10 teams to sign away long-term GORs, which they may not do if the number is too low….
I still think Kliavkoff needs to be negotiating terms of surrender with the Big 10.
Well, if we had a smart, visionary AD at Cal, we would be working with UCLA, USC, Stanford, UW and Oregon to defect and form the Big 10s West Coast pod (albeit at a lower payout for the new members). But we have Knowlton so we have to put our hopes in Kliavkoff.
A quasi merger with the Big 10, forming a football only super conference but the Big 10 and PAC-12 for other sports, is the best option for Kliavkoff and the PAC-10 as a whole. It would solve the other sports problem for USC and UCLA (and the Big 10).
Second-best is a similar deal with the ACC, especially if it includes Notre Dame (who is pledged to the ACC). That would have East Coast teams playing on the West Coast in their evenings, giving them a reason to watch and greatly increasing the value of those slots. ACC and PAC-10 could have more basketball matchups throughout the season. The schools are a good match academically. Importantly, the Big -12 would be the P5 conference left out, directly competing with the SEC in their best markets. It might also force the Big 10s hand, with the PAC-10, ACC (with another Dame) and Big 10 forming a football only super conference to outflank the SEC.
southseasbear said:Well if we had a merely competent AD at Cal, we would not have Fox as our basketball coach and our team would not be mired at the bottom of the nation.calumnus said:southseasbear said:Pipe dream. Even if the B1G wanted to expand further (which at this time they do not) there would be no interest in Oregon State, Washington State, or us.calumnus said:95bears said:
Listening to Canzano and Wilner interview the Big 12 commissioner is unnerving:
https://soundcloud.com/canzano-wilner
He has a hyper-aggressive disposition relative to our commissioner and seems like a sports media shark. It's clear he is going to continue to try and destabilize and carve up the Pac-12. It's also clear that academics and student-athlete experiences are not a significant part of his mandate, when Wilner asks about the higher education mission of his member schools, he spews verbal pablum for 1-2 minutes.
He really pats himself on the back for getting his market timing down relative to the belt-tightening at Disney/ESPN and across the media market. This is a major thing we're missing in the discussions on this board. We may be more valuable than the Big 12 in general, but in a down market, you're only as valuable as someone is willing to pay, and it looks like the P12 will only have one serious bidder if all the rumors are true.
Given that it is a down market, you normally wouldn't want to lock in for the long term. Maybe just a one year contract, but Kliavkoff needs the PAC-10 teams to sign away long-term GORs, which they may not do if the number is too low….
I still think Kliavkoff needs to be negotiating terms of surrender with the Big 10.
Well, if we had a smart, visionary AD at Cal, we would be working with UCLA, USC, Stanford, UW and Oregon to defect and form the Big 10s West Coast pod (albeit at a lower payout for the new members). But we have Knowlton so we have to put our hopes in Kliavkoff.
A quasi merger with the Big 10, forming a football only super conference but the Big 10 and PAC-12 for other sports, is the best option for Kliavkoff and the PAC-10 as a whole. It would solve the other sports problem for USC and UCLA (and the Big 10).
Second-best is a similar deal with the ACC, especially if it includes Notre Dame (who is pledged to the ACC). That would have East Coast teams playing on the West Coast in their evenings, giving them a reason to watch and greatly increasing the value of those slots. ACC and PAC-10 could have more basketball matchups throughout the season. The schools are a good match academically. Importantly, the Big -12 would be the P5 conference left out, directly competing with the SEC in their best markets. It might also force the Big 10s hand, with the PAC-10, ACC (with another Dame) and Big 10 forming a football only super conference to outflank the SEC.
The B1G is not interested in us. There is a better chance of the Pac 12 (or what is left of it) taking Fresno and San Jose.
The merger with ACC has a better chance. We have more to offer them, bvy allowing them to become a coast to coast conference. The academics of the combined conference would not quite match the B1G but it would be close. Some western teams woul dneed to be added for balance: SD St., UNLV, Nevada, SMU, Rice.
calumnus said:southseasbear said:Well if we had a merely competent AD at Cal, we would not have Fox as our basketball coach and our team would not be mired at the bottom of the nation.calumnus said:southseasbear said:Pipe dream. Even if the B1G wanted to expand further (which at this time they do not) there would be no interest in Oregon State, Washington State, or us.calumnus said:95bears said:
Listening to Canzano and Wilner interview the Big 12 commissioner is unnerving:
https://soundcloud.com/canzano-wilner
He has a hyper-aggressive disposition relative to our commissioner and seems like a sports media shark. It's clear he is going to continue to try and destabilize and carve up the Pac-12. It's also clear that academics and student-athlete experiences are not a significant part of his mandate, when Wilner asks about the higher education mission of his member schools, he spews verbal pablum for 1-2 minutes.
He really pats himself on the back for getting his market timing down relative to the belt-tightening at Disney/ESPN and across the media market. This is a major thing we're missing in the discussions on this board. We may be more valuable than the Big 12 in general, but in a down market, you're only as valuable as someone is willing to pay, and it looks like the P12 will only have one serious bidder if all the rumors are true.
Given that it is a down market, you normally wouldn't want to lock in for the long term. Maybe just a one year contract, but Kliavkoff needs the PAC-10 teams to sign away long-term GORs, which they may not do if the number is too low….
I still think Kliavkoff needs to be negotiating terms of surrender with the Big 10.
Well, if we had a smart, visionary AD at Cal, we would be working with UCLA, USC, Stanford, UW and Oregon to defect and form the Big 10s West Coast pod (albeit at a lower payout for the new members). But we have Knowlton so we have to put our hopes in Kliavkoff.
A quasi merger with the Big 10, forming a football only super conference but the Big 10 and PAC-12 for other sports, is the best option for Kliavkoff and the PAC-10 as a whole. It would solve the other sports problem for USC and UCLA (and the Big 10).
Second-best is a similar deal with the ACC, especially if it includes Notre Dame (who is pledged to the ACC). That would have East Coast teams playing on the West Coast in their evenings, giving them a reason to watch and greatly increasing the value of those slots. ACC and PAC-10 could have more basketball matchups throughout the season. The schools are a good match academically. Importantly, the Big -12 would be the P5 conference left out, directly competing with the SEC in their best markets. It might also force the Big 10s hand, with the PAC-10, ACC (with another Dame) and Big 10 forming a football only super conference to outflank the SEC.
The B1G is not interested in us. There is a better chance of the Pac 12 (or what is left of it) taking Fresno and San Jose.
The merger with ACC has a better chance. We have more to offer them, bvy allowing them to become a coast to coast conference. The academics of the combined conference would not quite match the B1G but it would be close. Some western teams woul dneed to be added for balance: SD St., UNLV, Nevada, SMU, Rice.
It is far too sweeping a statement to say "The B1G is not interested in us."
I would agree that the B1G is probably not interested in us as a full share member. Hiwever, they are probably interested in more West Coast schools to combine with the LA schools. Cal and Stanford are naturals. The B1G presidents love us and they are the ultimate decision makers. The only Midwest market bigger than ours is Chicago. They have a travel problem for the other sports that adding more West Coast schools to form a pod would largely solve. So I think they have some interest, but tge degree of their interest needs to be determined and for antitrust reasons, the initiative probably needs to come from our side.
The best way to not get in is to not even ask. If they flat out are not interested at ANY level, THEN move on to the next option.
philly1121 said:
USC is not going to take less than the full share of the B1G media deal and would never agree to an equal share of the non-revenue sports in some quasi P12 "olympic sports league". They'll never agree to that and its why they left in the first place. Never gonna happen.
We did ask. So did UW and UO. The B1G made it clear that they are not interested in expanding at this time (though indications are they would accept ND). If they expand it will will be UW and UO. We are not the attractive candidate you think we are. Our basketball team is likely the worst in the country. Our football team has consistently had a losing conference record (in a weak conference). Sure, we have academics, but so do UW and UO. The B1G will have access to UC's library through the Southern Branch. And speaking of Southern Branch, they receive more applications every year and have a lower acceptance rate than we do. We do not have much to offer thanks to our backward administration and faculty which are buried in the 19th Century.calumnus said:southseasbear said:Well if we had a merely competent AD at Cal, we would not have Fox as our basketball coach and our team would not be mired at the bottom of the nation.calumnus said:southseasbear said:Pipe dream. Even if the B1G wanted to expand further (which at this time they do not) there would be no interest in Oregon State, Washington State, or us.calumnus said:95bears said:
Listening to Canzano and Wilner interview the Big 12 commissioner is unnerving:
https://soundcloud.com/canzano-wilner
He has a hyper-aggressive disposition relative to our commissioner and seems like a sports media shark. It's clear he is going to continue to try and destabilize and carve up the Pac-12. It's also clear that academics and student-athlete experiences are not a significant part of his mandate, when Wilner asks about the higher education mission of his member schools, he spews verbal pablum for 1-2 minutes.
He really pats himself on the back for getting his market timing down relative to the belt-tightening at Disney/ESPN and across the media market. This is a major thing we're missing in the discussions on this board. We may be more valuable than the Big 12 in general, but in a down market, you're only as valuable as someone is willing to pay, and it looks like the P12 will only have one serious bidder if all the rumors are true.
Given that it is a down market, you normally wouldn't want to lock in for the long term. Maybe just a one year contract, but Kliavkoff needs the PAC-10 teams to sign away long-term GORs, which they may not do if the number is too low….
I still think Kliavkoff needs to be negotiating terms of surrender with the Big 10.
Well, if we had a smart, visionary AD at Cal, we would be working with UCLA, USC, Stanford, UW and Oregon to defect and form the Big 10s West Coast pod (albeit at a lower payout for the new members). But we have Knowlton so we have to put our hopes in Kliavkoff.
A quasi merger with the Big 10, forming a football only super conference but the Big 10 and PAC-12 for other sports, is the best option for Kliavkoff and the PAC-10 as a whole. It would solve the other sports problem for USC and UCLA (and the Big 10).
Second-best is a similar deal with the ACC, especially if it includes Notre Dame (who is pledged to the ACC). That would have East Coast teams playing on the West Coast in their evenings, giving them a reason to watch and greatly increasing the value of those slots. ACC and PAC-10 could have more basketball matchups throughout the season. The schools are a good match academically. Importantly, the Big -12 would be the P5 conference left out, directly competing with the SEC in their best markets. It might also force the Big 10s hand, with the PAC-10, ACC (with another Dame) and Big 10 forming a football only super conference to outflank the SEC.
The B1G is not interested in us. There is a better chance of the Pac 12 (or what is left of it) taking Fresno and San Jose.
The merger with ACC has a better chance. We have more to offer them, bvy allowing them to become a coast to coast conference. The academics of the combined conference would not quite match the B1G but it would be close. Some western teams woul dneed to be added for balance: SD St., UNLV, Nevada, SMU, Rice.
It is far too sweeping a statement to say "The B1G is not interested in us."
I would agree that the B1G is probably not interested in us as a full share member. Hiwever, they are probably interested in more West Coast schools to combine with the LA schools. Cal and Stanford are naturals. The B1G presidents love us and they are the ultimate decision makers. The only Midwest market bigger than ours is Chicago. They have a travel problem for the other sports that adding more West Coast schools to form a pod would largely solve. So I think they have some interest, but tge degree of their interest needs to be determined and for antitrust reasons, the initiative probably needs to come from our side.
The best way to not get in is to not even ask. If they flat out are not interested at ANY level, THEN move on to the next option.
I agree that expansion snd something with the ACC makes a lot of sense.southseasbear said:Well if we had a merely competent AD at Cal, we would not have Fox as our basketball coach and our team would not be mired at the bottom of the nation.calumnus said:southseasbear said:Pipe dream. Even if the B1G wanted to expand further (which at this time they do not) there would be no interest in Oregon State, Washington State, or us.calumnus said:95bears said:
Listening to Canzano and Wilner interview the Big 12 commissioner is unnerving:
https://soundcloud.com/canzano-wilner
He has a hyper-aggressive disposition relative to our commissioner and seems like a sports media shark. It's clear he is going to continue to try and destabilize and carve up the Pac-12. It's also clear that academics and student-athlete experiences are not a significant part of his mandate, when Wilner asks about the higher education mission of his member schools, he spews verbal pablum for 1-2 minutes.
He really pats himself on the back for getting his market timing down relative to the belt-tightening at Disney/ESPN and across the media market. This is a major thing we're missing in the discussions on this board. We may be more valuable than the Big 12 in general, but in a down market, you're only as valuable as someone is willing to pay, and it looks like the P12 will only have one serious bidder if all the rumors are true.
Given that it is a down market, you normally wouldn't want to lock in for the long term. Maybe just a one year contract, but Kliavkoff needs the PAC-10 teams to sign away long-term GORs, which they may not do if the number is too low….
I still think Kliavkoff needs to be negotiating terms of surrender with the Big 10.
Well, if we had a smart, visionary AD at Cal, we would be working with UCLA, USC, Stanford, UW and Oregon to defect and form the Big 10s West Coast pod (albeit at a lower payout for the new members). But we have Knowlton so we have to put our hopes in Kliavkoff.
A quasi merger with the Big 10, forming a football only super conference but the Big 10 and PAC-12 for other sports, is the best option for Kliavkoff and the PAC-10 as a whole. It would solve the other sports problem for USC and UCLA (and the Big 10).
Second-best is a similar deal with the ACC, especially if it includes Notre Dame (who is pledged to the ACC). That would have East Coast teams playing on the West Coast in their evenings, giving them a reason to watch and greatly increasing the value of those slots. ACC and PAC-10 could have more basketball matchups throughout the season. The schools are a good match academically. Importantly, the Big -12 would be the P5 conference left out, directly competing with the SEC in their best markets. It might also force the Big 10s hand, with the PAC-10, ACC (with another Dame) and Big 10 forming a football only super conference to outflank the SEC.
The B1G is not interested in us. There is a better chance of the Pac 12 (or what is left of it) taking Fresno and San Jose.
The merger with ACC has a better chance. We have more to offer them, bvy allowing them to become a coast to coast conference. The academics of the combined conference would not quite match the B1G but it would be close. Some western teams woul dneed to be added for balance: SD St., UNLV, Nevada, SMU, Rice
To what purpose? Display school laundry on mercenaries?tequila4kapp said:I agree that expansion snd something with the ACC makes a lot of sense.southseasbear said:Well if we had a merely competent AD at Cal, we would not have Fox as our basketball coach and our team would not be mired at the bottom of the nation.calumnus said:southseasbear said:Pipe dream. Even if the B1G wanted to expand further (which at this time they do not) there would be no interest in Oregon State, Washington State, or us.calumnus said:95bears said:
Listening to Canzano and Wilner interview the Big 12 commissioner is unnerving:
https://soundcloud.com/canzano-wilner
He has a hyper-aggressive disposition relative to our commissioner and seems like a sports media shark. It's clear he is going to continue to try and destabilize and carve up the Pac-12. It's also clear that academics and student-athlete experiences are not a significant part of his mandate, when Wilner asks about the higher education mission of his member schools, he spews verbal pablum for 1-2 minutes.
He really pats himself on the back for getting his market timing down relative to the belt-tightening at Disney/ESPN and across the media market. This is a major thing we're missing in the discussions on this board. We may be more valuable than the Big 12 in general, but in a down market, you're only as valuable as someone is willing to pay, and it looks like the P12 will only have one serious bidder if all the rumors are true.
Given that it is a down market, you normally wouldn't want to lock in for the long term. Maybe just a one year contract, but Kliavkoff needs the PAC-10 teams to sign away long-term GORs, which they may not do if the number is too low….
I still think Kliavkoff needs to be negotiating terms of surrender with the Big 10.
Well, if we had a smart, visionary AD at Cal, we would be working with UCLA, USC, Stanford, UW and Oregon to defect and form the Big 10s West Coast pod (albeit at a lower payout for the new members). But we have Knowlton so we have to put our hopes in Kliavkoff.
A quasi merger with the Big 10, forming a football only super conference but the Big 10 and PAC-12 for other sports, is the best option for Kliavkoff and the PAC-10 as a whole. It would solve the other sports problem for USC and UCLA (and the Big 10).
Second-best is a similar deal with the ACC, especially if it includes Notre Dame (who is pledged to the ACC). That would have East Coast teams playing on the West Coast in their evenings, giving them a reason to watch and greatly increasing the value of those slots. ACC and PAC-10 could have more basketball matchups throughout the season. The schools are a good match academically. Importantly, the Big -12 would be the P5 conference left out, directly competing with the SEC in their best markets. It might also force the Big 10s hand, with the PAC-10, ACC (with another Dame) and Big 10 forming a football only super conference to outflank the SEC.
The B1G is not interested in us. There is a better chance of the Pac 12 (or what is left of it) taking Fresno and San Jose.
The merger with ACC has a better chance. We have more to offer them, bvy allowing them to become a coast to coast conference. The academics of the combined conference would not quite match the B1G but it would be close. Some western teams woul dneed to be added for balance: SD St., UNLV, Nevada, SMU, Rice
The future of college football is a self governing group of 50-60 schools that are will to pay football players, get T9 exceptions via federal legislation, recognize a football players union, etc. That is most likely to be comprised of SEC, B12 and something else. Merging with the ACC would give both conferences the gravitas to survive the change and be included
Not sure that they would stop at UW and UO. I agree that Cal is not attractive from an athletic POV, but since the school presidents would be making this decision it has a chance. UO is not on the same level as Cal. Yes they are a terrific athletic brand, but Cal is a very prestigious University and many of the B1G presidents would absolutely love Cal.southseasbear said:We did ask. So did UW and UO. The B1G made it clear that they are not interested in expanding at this time (though indications are they would accept ND). If they expand it will will be UW and UO. We are not the attractive candidate you think we are. Our basketball team is likely the worst in the country. Our football team has consistently had a losing conference record (in a weak conference). Sure, we have academics, but so do UW and UO. The B1G will have access to UC's library through the Southern Branch. And speaking of Southern Branch, they receive more applications every year and have a lower acceptance rate than we do. We do not have much to offer thanks to our backward administration and faculty which are buried in the 19th Century.calumnus said:southseasbear said:Well if we had a merely competent AD at Cal, we would not have Fox as our basketball coach and our team would not be mired at the bottom of the nation.calumnus said:southseasbear said:Pipe dream. Even if the B1G wanted to expand further (which at this time they do not) there would be no interest in Oregon State, Washington State, or us.calumnus said:95bears said:
Listening to Canzano and Wilner interview the Big 12 commissioner is unnerving:
https://soundcloud.com/canzano-wilner
He has a hyper-aggressive disposition relative to our commissioner and seems like a sports media shark. It's clear he is going to continue to try and destabilize and carve up the Pac-12. It's also clear that academics and student-athlete experiences are not a significant part of his mandate, when Wilner asks about the higher education mission of his member schools, he spews verbal pablum for 1-2 minutes.
He really pats himself on the back for getting his market timing down relative to the belt-tightening at Disney/ESPN and across the media market. This is a major thing we're missing in the discussions on this board. We may be more valuable than the Big 12 in general, but in a down market, you're only as valuable as someone is willing to pay, and it looks like the P12 will only have one serious bidder if all the rumors are true.
Given that it is a down market, you normally wouldn't want to lock in for the long term. Maybe just a one year contract, but Kliavkoff needs the PAC-10 teams to sign away long-term GORs, which they may not do if the number is too low….
I still think Kliavkoff needs to be negotiating terms of surrender with the Big 10.
Well, if we had a smart, visionary AD at Cal, we would be working with UCLA, USC, Stanford, UW and Oregon to defect and form the Big 10s West Coast pod (albeit at a lower payout for the new members). But we have Knowlton so we have to put our hopes in Kliavkoff.
A quasi merger with the Big 10, forming a football only super conference but the Big 10 and PAC-12 for other sports, is the best option for Kliavkoff and the PAC-10 as a whole. It would solve the other sports problem for USC and UCLA (and the Big 10).
Second-best is a similar deal with the ACC, especially if it includes Notre Dame (who is pledged to the ACC). That would have East Coast teams playing on the West Coast in their evenings, giving them a reason to watch and greatly increasing the value of those slots. ACC and PAC-10 could have more basketball matchups throughout the season. The schools are a good match academically. Importantly, the Big -12 would be the P5 conference left out, directly competing with the SEC in their best markets. It might also force the Big 10s hand, with the PAC-10, ACC (with another Dame) and Big 10 forming a football only super conference to outflank the SEC.
The B1G is not interested in us. There is a better chance of the Pac 12 (or what is left of it) taking Fresno and San Jose.
The merger with ACC has a better chance. We have more to offer them, bvy allowing them to become a coast to coast conference. The academics of the combined conference would not quite match the B1G but it would be close. Some western teams woul dneed to be added for balance: SD St., UNLV, Nevada, SMU, Rice.
It is far too sweeping a statement to say "The B1G is not interested in us."
I would agree that the B1G is probably not interested in us as a full share member. Hiwever, they are probably interested in more West Coast schools to combine with the LA schools. Cal and Stanford are naturals. The B1G presidents love us and they are the ultimate decision makers. The only Midwest market bigger than ours is Chicago. They have a travel problem for the other sports that adding more West Coast schools to form a pod would largely solve. So I think they have some interest, but tge degree of their interest needs to be determined and for antitrust reasons, the initiative probably needs to come from our side.
The best way to not get in is to not even ask. If they flat out are not interested at ANY level, THEN move on to the next option.
That's the most likely reading of the consensus of Big Ten members. They're not looking to build a megaconference of 30 teams or whatever. They want Notre Dame because ND is, by far, the most valuable college sports franchise that hasn't already been locked up by the Big Ten or SEC, on top of ND being right n the middle of the Big Ten's traditional base.philly1121 said:
I think the scenario you describe would have already happened if the B1G really wanted to do it. They're waiting for ND.
It isn't what I want. But it's obvious that's what's coming. TV and a feckless NCAA have driven us to that point. Cal's choices are to find a way to be invited to the party or fold up shop. (dropping out of P5 to Mt West isn't an option - tv revenues will drop so much that the athletic department won't be able to support those 30 sports. And not for nothing, but many fans will go away too)Bobodeluxe said:To what purpose? Display school laundry on mercenaries?tequila4kapp said:I agree that expansion snd something with the ACC makes a lot of sense.southseasbear said:Well if we had a merely competent AD at Cal, we would not have Fox as our basketball coach and our team would not be mired at the bottom of the nation.calumnus said:southseasbear said:Pipe dream. Even if the B1G wanted to expand further (which at this time they do not) there would be no interest in Oregon State, Washington State, or us.calumnus said:95bears said:
Listening to Canzano and Wilner interview the Big 12 commissioner is unnerving:
https://soundcloud.com/canzano-wilner
He has a hyper-aggressive disposition relative to our commissioner and seems like a sports media shark. It's clear he is going to continue to try and destabilize and carve up the Pac-12. It's also clear that academics and student-athlete experiences are not a significant part of his mandate, when Wilner asks about the higher education mission of his member schools, he spews verbal pablum for 1-2 minutes.
He really pats himself on the back for getting his market timing down relative to the belt-tightening at Disney/ESPN and across the media market. This is a major thing we're missing in the discussions on this board. We may be more valuable than the Big 12 in general, but in a down market, you're only as valuable as someone is willing to pay, and it looks like the P12 will only have one serious bidder if all the rumors are true.
Given that it is a down market, you normally wouldn't want to lock in for the long term. Maybe just a one year contract, but Kliavkoff needs the PAC-10 teams to sign away long-term GORs, which they may not do if the number is too low….
I still think Kliavkoff needs to be negotiating terms of surrender with the Big 10.
Well, if we had a smart, visionary AD at Cal, we would be working with UCLA, USC, Stanford, UW and Oregon to defect and form the Big 10s West Coast pod (albeit at a lower payout for the new members). But we have Knowlton so we have to put our hopes in Kliavkoff.
A quasi merger with the Big 10, forming a football only super conference but the Big 10 and PAC-12 for other sports, is the best option for Kliavkoff and the PAC-10 as a whole. It would solve the other sports problem for USC and UCLA (and the Big 10).
Second-best is a similar deal with the ACC, especially if it includes Notre Dame (who is pledged to the ACC). That would have East Coast teams playing on the West Coast in their evenings, giving them a reason to watch and greatly increasing the value of those slots. ACC and PAC-10 could have more basketball matchups throughout the season. The schools are a good match academically. Importantly, the Big -12 would be the P5 conference left out, directly competing with the SEC in their best markets. It might also force the Big 10s hand, with the PAC-10, ACC (with another Dame) and Big 10 forming a football only super conference to outflank the SEC.
The B1G is not interested in us. There is a better chance of the Pac 12 (or what is left of it) taking Fresno and San Jose.
The merger with ACC has a better chance. We have more to offer them, bvy allowing them to become a coast to coast conference. The academics of the combined conference would not quite match the B1G but it would be close. Some western teams woul dneed to be added for balance: SD St., UNLV, Nevada, SMU, Rice
The future of college football is a self governing group of 50-60 schools that are will to pay football players, get T9 exceptions via federal legislation, recognize a football players union, etc. That is most likely to be comprised of SEC, B12 and something else. Merging with the ACC would give both conferences the gravitas to survive the change and be included
Enjoy.
Exactly, though I think we should consider being independent to buy some time for a few years. Not ideal, but better than joining the MWC or folding up shop, both of which are death sentences to our interscholastic athletics.tequila4kapp said:It isn't what I want. But it's obvious that's what's coming. TV and a feckless NCAA have driven us to that point. Cal's choices are to find a way to be invited to the party or fold up shop. (dropping out of P5 to Mt West isn't an option - tv revenues will drop so much that the athletic department won't be able to support those 30 sports. And not for nothing, but many fans will go away too)Bobodeluxe said:To what purpose? Display school laundry on mercenaries?tequila4kapp said:I agree that expansion snd something with the ACC makes a lot of sense.southseasbear said:Well if we had a merely competent AD at Cal, we would not have Fox as our basketball coach and our team would not be mired at the bottom of the nation.calumnus said:southseasbear said:Pipe dream. Even if the B1G wanted to expand further (which at this time they do not) there would be no interest in Oregon State, Washington State, or us.calumnus said:95bears said:
Listening to Canzano and Wilner interview the Big 12 commissioner is unnerving:
https://soundcloud.com/canzano-wilner
He has a hyper-aggressive disposition relative to our commissioner and seems like a sports media shark. It's clear he is going to continue to try and destabilize and carve up the Pac-12. It's also clear that academics and student-athlete experiences are not a significant part of his mandate, when Wilner asks about the higher education mission of his member schools, he spews verbal pablum for 1-2 minutes.
He really pats himself on the back for getting his market timing down relative to the belt-tightening at Disney/ESPN and across the media market. This is a major thing we're missing in the discussions on this board. We may be more valuable than the Big 12 in general, but in a down market, you're only as valuable as someone is willing to pay, and it looks like the P12 will only have one serious bidder if all the rumors are true.
Given that it is a down market, you normally wouldn't want to lock in for the long term. Maybe just a one year contract, but Kliavkoff needs the PAC-10 teams to sign away long-term GORs, which they may not do if the number is too low….
I still think Kliavkoff needs to be negotiating terms of surrender with the Big 10.
Well, if we had a smart, visionary AD at Cal, we would be working with UCLA, USC, Stanford, UW and Oregon to defect and form the Big 10s West Coast pod (albeit at a lower payout for the new members). But we have Knowlton so we have to put our hopes in Kliavkoff.
A quasi merger with the Big 10, forming a football only super conference but the Big 10 and PAC-12 for other sports, is the best option for Kliavkoff and the PAC-10 as a whole. It would solve the other sports problem for USC and UCLA (and the Big 10).
Second-best is a similar deal with the ACC, especially if it includes Notre Dame (who is pledged to the ACC). That would have East Coast teams playing on the West Coast in their evenings, giving them a reason to watch and greatly increasing the value of those slots. ACC and PAC-10 could have more basketball matchups throughout the season. The schools are a good match academically. Importantly, the Big -12 would be the P5 conference left out, directly competing with the SEC in their best markets. It might also force the Big 10s hand, with the PAC-10, ACC (with another Dame) and Big 10 forming a football only super conference to outflank the SEC.
The B1G is not interested in us. There is a better chance of the Pac 12 (or what is left of it) taking Fresno and San Jose.
The merger with ACC has a better chance. We have more to offer them, bvy allowing them to become a coast to coast conference. The academics of the combined conference would not quite match the B1G but it would be close. Some western teams woul dneed to be added for balance: SD St., UNLV, Nevada, SMU, Rice
The future of college football is a self governing group of 50-60 schools that are will to pay football players, get T9 exceptions via federal legislation, recognize a football players union, etc. That is most likely to be comprised of SEC, B12 and something else. Merging with the ACC would give both conferences the gravitas to survive the change and be included
Enjoy.
airspace said:
From the hinter lands of ohio
Your best bet might be that the PAC collapses.
The Big Ten does not want to be responsible for the collapse BUT may be willing to pick up some of the pieces. They also don't want to be involved in legal issues. But has been said, Big Ten Presidents would love to be able to collaborate with California, Stanford and Washington.
First rule, the Conference does not approach the University, the University approaches the Conference. In previous expansion by the Big Ten, each of the schools has approached the Big Ten. In most cases there was someone at the university that had ties to a Big Ten university.
Also, in each case, the school has not received any less than what they had received in their previous conference affiliation. And were made full with the next media deal. Typically, each deal was tailored to the university and their circumstances. And the less than full share was base on the difference being a BUY IN to the Big Ten Network. Each school receiving an equal share of the network.
Hope that helps. Good luck.
philly1121 said:
I understand what you're saying. I still think its far fetched and offers only those schools who need a lifeline the best outcome. But for other non-revenue sports that would be stacked into some sort of Pac12-lite - USC and UCLA would not accept equal revenue sharing. Whether UW Oregon Cal Stanford join the B1G for football only, USC will still demand a higher share of media revenue for any iteration of the P12.
I think the scenario you describe would have already happened if the B1G really wanted to do it. They're waiting for ND.
philly1121 said:
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. If the B1G schools accept, say, 4 schools from the P12 as only football members, then the other nonrevenue sports are going to stay in the P12. Is that what you're saying?
So there would have to be some media deal for those sports, yes? To broadcast those sports on ESPNU or FS2 or the P12 Network. Is that even still around? Are you saying UCLA and USC stay in the B12 for all sports? Or do they revert the non revenue sports back to the P12? Either way, I can't imagine that media deal to broadcast those gymnastics or water polo matches would would amount to anything without football or basketball.
philly1121 said:
I think I see what you're saying. I really don't see that happening. Even if they were to come in at a lesser share to the B1G. It would constitute what amounts to a wash for the schools that were fortunate enough to get an invite. I actually don't see any of the schools doing that. There's no upside if, say, they were admitted at $25 million per team - which won't happen. The only upside would be that "we're in the Big 10!". The tough question is whether with this new media deal - we end up cutting programs anyway.
At a swim and dive championship banquet in Houston yesterday, the San Diego State Athletic Director told people SDSU will be joining the Pac-12 and it will be announced soon.
— Jason Scheer (@jasonscheer) February 19, 2023
PaulCali said:
Having trouble seeing how this would not be a payout dilution for the existing 10 members of the PAC.
BigDaddy said:At a swim and dive championship banquet in Houston yesterday, the San Diego State Athletic Director told people SDSU will be joining the Pac-12 and it will be announced soon.
— Jason Scheer (@jasonscheer) February 19, 2023
Econ141 said:BigDaddy said:At a swim and dive championship banquet in Houston yesterday, the San Diego State Athletic Director told people SDSU will be joining the Pac-12 and it will be announced soon.
— Jason Scheer (@jasonscheer) February 19, 2023
Love how the PAC can't keep the lid on this but the b1G can keep the lid on USC and UCLA coming over. What a crap run conference.
The prospective media partner(s) likely wanted assurance that there would be an expanded footprint back into So Cal, so keeping the the expansion a secret would not have been beneficial. The B1G was already a BIG deal before expanding to LA.Econ141 said:BigDaddy said:At a swim and dive championship banquet in Houston yesterday, the San Diego State Athletic Director told people SDSU will be joining the Pac-12 and it will be announced soon.
— Jason Scheer (@jasonscheer) February 19, 2023
Love how the PAC can't keep the lid on this but the b1G can keep the lid on USC and UCLA coming over. What a crap run conference.
tequila4kapp said:
The B12s media deal pays members 31.6m annually. In other words, our worst case number is their ceiling.
Their conference if filled with a bunch of nothing media
If that collection of crappy sw/Midwest areas is worth 31.6m then SF, Phoenix, Provo, Seattle, Portland and presumably San Diego has to be north of 40m, if not pushing 50m.
Agreed. If we can't get Houston, let's go after Rice. Great academic school while providing a travel partner for SMU.philly1121 said:
I've said this before, we need to be in survival mode. Set the B1G aside. Look at the direction the B12 is going and defend/attack from there. Academics? Who cares. Media market? Yeah, it matters but - we need replacements.
SDSU - make it happen before they go to the B1G. New stadium, great basketball program with a new-ish arena. Cannot beat San Diego as a travel destination. Gets the conference back into SoCal. Gaslamp, Old Town. Make it happen.
UNLV - destination game. I think UNLV is ranked higher academically than SDSU but whatever. Its Vegas.
SMU - not sure on this one. School only has 11k students. But would be an entry point to Texas.
Houston - had we been forward thinking, we should have added this school.
Keep the conference together for 4-5 years. There's no other option. Then see where Notre Dame is.
Listen champ, if you want in, you gotta learn the updated Pac lore to know whose side to choose. You too @BarstoolSDSU https://t.co/PrVbRkiSDL pic.twitter.com/37q62gsJj0
— Barstool Beavs (@BarstoolBeavs) February 17, 2023
