philly1121 said:

---

The article reads that his actual contributions to Oregon may never be known. He's donated to athletic and academic projects at Oregon. Given he's worth close to $41 billion, I'm sure his philanthropic legacy will be preserved for years to come. Even after he passes.

I think your question is more one of sustainability. Clearly, Oregon's future financial outlook will be positive. Will that lead to long term success in football or other sports? I don't know. But I'd rather have Oregon's bank book.

---

Would also be nice to have Oregon's presence in a state that has no NFL team, and no major pro teams at all other than NBA. That's a huge asset for them.

Any NFL team that isn't consistently lousy will have a larger local following than college teams, sooner or later. USC is fortunate to have had their Pete Carroll run while the NFL was on a 20-year sabbatical from LA, and now that the NFL is back in LA, USC was right to cash in their chips and push their way into the Big Ten, because their SoCal popularity peaked during Carroll's tenure and won't reach those heights ever again.

95bears said:

---

Even before the Bee went downhill, Sunday's paper's lead article was almost always the top 20 high school programs in hoops or football. You'd have whole articles/pages about the high school programs, kind of like what CoCo Times used to write about DLS. Then it would focus on the Kings (or 9ers because they practice in Rocklin). Then Sac State and Davis. Bay Area and LA colleges were back page with the same "rank".

---

The Niners no longer practice in Rocklin. All of their practices are now held at their facility adjacent to Levi's Stadium.

BearSD said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

The article reads that his actual contributions to Oregon may never be known. He's donated to athletic and academic projects at Oregon. Given he's worth close to $41 billion, I'm sure his philanthropic legacy will be preserved for years to come. Even after he passes.

I think your question is more one of sustainability. Clearly, Oregon's future financial outlook will be positive. Will that lead to long term success in football or other sports? I don't know. But I'd rather have Oregon's bank book.

---

Would also be nice to have Oregon's presence in a state that has no NFL team, and no major pro teams at all other than NBA. That's a huge asset for them.

Any NFL team that isn't consistently lousy will have a larger local following than college teams, sooner or later. USC is fortunate to have had their Pete Carroll run while the NFL was on a 20-year sabbatical from LA, and now that the NFL is back in LA, USC was right to cash in their chips and push their way into the Big Ten, because their SoCal popularity peaked during Carroll's tenure and won't reach those heights ever again.

---

Agreed, I was thinking this about USC, why they were so popular in LA with fans with no affiliation to the school.

I think to get Sacramento or more of the Bay Area even, you kind of need overlapping interests and a storyline.

I think the University of Washington is pretty successful with similar demographics of the Bay Area. Maybe they have a more successful football tradition. Maybe they are the undisputed flagship brand of their state. But they seem to capture more of the city and region.

Even though Washington and Oregon are two states, I view them as the Pacific Northwest region. I view NorCal, Central Valley, and SoCal as different regions. In a different world they would be three different states. UW is culturally different than Eastern Washington. That is obvious.

Waters down Cal's reach to Sactown because UC Davis and Sac State both play football. Even at a lower division.

Hawaii Haas said:

---

Waters down Cal's reach to Sactown because UC Davis and Sac State both play football. Even at a lower division.

---

Yes, though Oregon is big in Portland despite the existence Portland State. Texas is big in Dallas and Houston despite more local schools.

I think it helps to bear the name of the state on your uniform. It is why I think we should make a push to call ourselves "California" more and "Cal" less.

HearstMining said:

---

airspace said:

---

Econ141, what I believe.

I agree with you about the athletic potential of California & Stanford in the long run (just athletics). This does not factor in the Academics where California and Stanford outshine everyone else.

Currently, Oregon and Washington (more so) are of greater value than California and Stanford. This is based on what has been reported. If California and Stanford made the changes necessary, they could flip the script.

What we do know is that Oregon and Washington both approached the Big Ten about membership. They were very public about it. I have not heard anything about California and Stanford approaching the Big Ten. Maybe they have, just have heard nothing but crickets.

Say they have. Given how the Big Ten operates, you will not hear anything until it is announced. Look at Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers, USC and UCLA. Outside of Maryland where it broke a week or two before the announcement, cricket s until it became public.

As I have said before, my observations of the Big Ten is that they are very slow to act. They like to integrate the new university into the system of how the Big Ten operates (see what was said about the BTAA).

Given the limited funds available to the media partners at this time, it may require creative programming (Friday night and/or Saturday night games) to create a window to generate additional funds for the new members. Add in, that the Big Ten does not want members to unfairly bear the burden of this. Is it fair that Indiana or Minnesota or California get stuck with multiple Friday/Saturday night games.

Also add in, we don't know what is really happening inside Big Ten headquarters. Are they active or are we operating with a lame duck administration. Again crickets.

How do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time. Plus, I believe the Big Ten is being cautious as to not kill the PAC. Now if it collapses, it will be interesting to see what they do.

---

I still can't get past the fact that Oregon's football "tradition" is only about 25 years old. Their success hinges almost entirely on the $$ and influence coming from an 85 year-old Phil Knight. He's not going to live forever and where will the money come from when he dies? UCLA has a much longer and more celebrated football heritage, as well as a larger population base, and virtually everybody agrees that they really rode into the B1G on USC's coattails. How is Oregon going to make it in the long term?

---

His money has already given them much of the infrastructure they need to succeed and he's leaving them a ****load when he dies.

Some random thoughts

1) Viewer Psychology: if your team is playing the other team during the season, you are more likely to watch their game in order to "scout" them - if you are a hard core fan. If they are in conference and playing another conference, you will more likely watch. True or not true?

2) Second Favorite Team: Through my Cal experience, I got some great access into the sports business world. A certain Oregon school told me that they strive to be America's 2nd favorite team - and grow their baseline fan base regardless of cyclical on-field performance. I bet Uncle Phil would agree with this branding strategy. Makes sense, everyone has their 1st love due to whatever life circumstance (mine was Hawaii, born and raised, undergrad and met my wife there). But Cal became my 2nd favorite (grad school, Bay Area living & professional network, great continuing education, first taste of "Big Time" football and college town campus). The reasons why Cal is my 2nd favorite makes me a small sliver of the overall population, in terms of what I care about. Should Cal focus on its strengths?

calumnus said:

---

Hawaii Haas said:

---

Waters down Cal's reach to Sactown because UC Davis and Sac State both play football. Even at a lower division.

---

Yes, though Oregon is big in Portland despite the existence Portland State. Texas is big in Dallas and Houston despite more local schools.

I think it helps to bear the name of the state on your uniform. It is why I think we should make a push to call ourselves "California" more and "Cal" less.

---

Fight songs normally are outdated and old. "Fight for California" there might be something there or not.

calumnus said:

---

Hawaii Haas said:

---

Waters down Cal's reach to Sactown because UC Davis and Sac State both play football. Even at a lower division.

---

Yes, though Oregon is big in Portland despite the existence Portland State. Texas is big in Dallas and Houston despite more local schools.

I think it helps to bear the name of the state on your uniform. It is why I think we should make a push to call ourselves "California" more and "Cal" less.

---

I think it helps to win more. Would love for the University to be more committed to winning games. I am all for Using California over Cal but if you want more fans lets try winning.

University President Michael Crow told The State Press media rights negotiations are "in the final stages," and that the school is committed to the Pac-12. https://t.co/GBIcUtWGTB

— State Press Sports (@statepresssport) March 15, 2023

philbert said:

---

University President Michael Crow told The State Press media rights negotiations are "in the final stages," and that the school is committed to the Pac-12. https://t.co/GBIcUtWGTB

— State Press Sports (@statepresssport) March 15, 2023

---

Props to the ASU student paper for getting direct quotes from their Prez.

philbert said:

---

University President Michael Crow told The State Press media rights negotiations are "in the final stages," and that the school is committed to the Pac-12. https://t.co/GBIcUtWGTB

— State Press Sports (@statepresssport) March 15, 2023

---

I am less concerned about ASU than UO or UW. I think the conference sticks together if the B1G does not have an invitation for UW and UO to join for 2024.

But all bets are off if the B1G has an offer on the table for those 2 programs. IMO some of the 4 corner schools could leave if UO and UW are headed to the B1G.

UA is more likely than ASU IMO to bolt. They are a big basketball brand and the Big 12 is at the moment the best basketball conference and UA wants the exposure that brings. They would get more exposure in that league and could get more money as well.

I put almost no stock into what Crow says publicly. All the school presidents and chancellors will be positive until there is a deal made or not.

What is interesting to me is the lack of noise coming from UW, Stanford and Cal. Virtual crickets. UO has been without a president until just the past few days. So not much would be coming from them. WSU and OSU are largely spectators at this point. They know that they have little to offer. I am a little chagrined that the UW president has been part of the P12 executive committee. In fact she is the head. She knows what is being offered and likley knows if the B1G could in fact invite them. Lots of moving parts and there has been some recent disagreements among the P12 presidents.

It has been rumored that both UA and Colorado have been in deeper discussions with the Big 12. That does not surprise me. ASU and Utah want to stay. But may be forced to look at the Big 12 if UO and UW are gone. The B1G IMO is the key. Do they offer UO and UW? Does the conference get another media company to come in and pay for a late window of games? if they do would they add Cal and Stanford? Does the supposed communication by Colorado and UA with the Big 12 mean they know the TV deal will be poor or just keeping options open?

If the recent rumors of 80% streaming for the P12 is accurate and unequal revenue sharing is part of the deal the P12 could be toast. Unless the dollars are better than the Big 12. I cannot see the 4 corner schools agreeing to that sort of deal. The presidents and Kliavkoff are supposedly meeting next week. That meeting should be very interesting.

I'd still say direct quotes are better than rumors and speculation from unnamed sources like in those stories by Dodds (CBS).

Arizona president Robert Robbins on the #Pac12 media rights and Big 12 rumors: "Why would you move for a couple million dollars a year more?”https://t.co/XuvtF7SwKo

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) March 15, 2023

philbert said:

---

I'd still say direct quotes are better than rumors and speculation from unnamed sources like in those stories by Dodds (CBS).

Arizona president Robert Robbins on the #Pac12 media rights and Big 12 rumors: "Why would you move for a couple million dollars a year more?”https://t.co/XuvtF7SwKo

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) March 15, 2023

---

Sure. But how does Robbins define competitive? Money? Exposure? Both? What about unequal revenue sharing? What about length of GOR? Not sure he said anything that has not been rumored or reported by Dodds, McMurphy, Thamel, Mandel and others.

There is no deal. So clearly what has been proposed up to now does not move the needle for enough schools to make a deal. Will that change? We will find out soon.

Well, he did specifically say 'why leave for a couple of million more?' He seems to be saying if it's close to what the B12 got, they wouldn't jump. This is directly in contrast to the rumored stories about the 4 corners schools that are ready to jump because things are going so bad with the media rights negotiations (which I would add very few people know the details of but we seem to get tons of rumors about).

Colorado being deeper in discussions with the B12 makes sense of Colorado State was rumored to be in discussions with the P12.

1) San Diego State
2) SMU
3) Colorado State

That 4th school is a mystery.

I don't think it's Tulane though. Despite a strong season or two, they were actually a detriment to the AAC when they were added ("TuLame").

I think uneven revenue share will make the remaining P12 "happier" and the G5 move-ups still "happy" because it's an upgrade in money.

I think if the P12 adds 2 to get to 12; and with uneven money splits; they might as well go to 14 or 16 sooner rather than later while the money is decently good. This is the window of time to be bold, money wise.

Game theory says, if UW/UO gets the call up from B10 then they are gone. Until then, they are captive. Four Corners have a choice between P12 or Big 12 (with a bunch of G5 call ups).

So, now the P12 should be bold with expansion, perception wise.

Discussion of less money - presumably than B12 - is super disappointing and does not bode well for the conference, IMO. Among other things, I still feel like the B10 would be smartly sitting on the sidelines with some "New P12 $ + X" number.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Discussion of less money - presumably than B12 - is super disappointing and does not bode well for the conference, IMO. Among other things, I still feel like the B10 would be smartly sitting on the sidelines with some "New P12 $ + X" number.

---

Also moronic to say this in a public setting if negotiations are still on-going. Couldn't expect more from an ASU guy.

I was hoping that George K would pull a rabbit out of his hat with some innovative thinking given his Vegas background and connections but he is more and more looking like just another ordinary guy working for the PAC-12

Crow and Robbins are known to be loose cannons. The kind of people who think that others will see them as more important if they keep talking and talking and talking.

philbert said:

---

Well, he did specifically say 'why leave for a couple of million more?' He seems to be saying if it's close to what the B12 got, they wouldn't jump. This is directly in contrast to the rumored stories about the 4 corners schools that are ready to jump because things are going so bad with the media rights negotiations (which I would add very few people know the details of but we seem to get tons of rumors about).

---

I think the 4 Corner schools' fate are more directly tied to what happens to Oregon and Washington, than the actual media deal numbers. Particularly since they are saying if the dollar value is close, why leave?

Econ141 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Discussion of less money - presumably than B12 - is super disappointing and does not bode well for the conference, IMO. Among other things, I still feel like the B10 would be smartly sitting on the sidelines with some "New P12 $ + X" number.

---

Also moronic to say this in a public setting if negotiations are still on-going. Couldn't expect more from an ASU guy.

I was hoping that George K would pull a rabbit out of his hat with some innovative thinking given his Vegas background and connections but he is more and more looking like just another ordinary guy working for the PAC-12

---

What it likely means is that the deal is pretty much done, the presidents of the remaining P10 schools know the amounts and are waiting to bring it forward.

The only question I have is Colorado State. That's not really a viable replacement for Colorado if Kliavkoff is intending to "back fill" if CU does leave. Fort Collins is not a "destination game". Doesn't make much geographic sense either. Who knows.

I hope the fourth school is North Texas. Research school. Large student body. Improving sports programs with room to improve greatly if in a better conference. Located in Texas and would bring a match for SMU. Interesting potential. Time for the PAC to lift its arrogant car as and think more broadly.

philly1121 said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

---

---

The only question I have is Colorado State. That's not really a viable replacement for Colorado if Kliavkoff is intending to "back fill" if CU does leave. Fort Collins is not a "destination game". Doesn't make much geographic sense either. Who knows.

---

Just spitballing here: Maybe putting CSU on the list is mostly a message to CU, such as, "If you leave, we will elevate your in-state competition and make it that much harder for you to fight for the 2 percent of Colorado football fans' attention that doesn't go solely to the Broncos."

this thread gotta lotta misinformation that has been aggressively put out there by the big 12 pr firm out of los angeles, colorado state & north texas have never been an expansion candidates for the pac 12

try reading the monster ever now & then

Nobody here has any knowledge of what is going on. It's all conjecture! I hope everyone understands that. My question is as to why CAL and Stanford have been extremely quiet about ANY expansion.

Hawaii Haas said:

---

Colorado being deeper in discussions with the B12 makes sense of Colorado State was rumored to be in discussions with the P12.

1) San Diego State
2) SMU
3) Colorado State

That 4th school is a mystery.

I don't think it's Tulane though. Despite a strong season or two, they were actually a detriment to the AAC when they were added ("TuLame").

I think uneven revenue share will make the remaining P12 "happier" and the G5 move-ups still "happy" because it's an upgrade in money.

I think if the P12 adds 2 to get to 12; and with uneven money splits; they might as well go to 14 or 16 sooner rather than later while the money is decently good. This is the window of time to be bold, money wise.

Game theory says, if UW/UO gets the call up from B10 then they are gone. Until then, they are captive. Four Corners have a choice between P12 or Big 12 (with a bunch of G5 call ups).

So, now the P12 should be bold with expansion, perception wise.

---

Depends on how they divide the shares. There is some that believe Kliavkoff is offering larger shares to UW, UO and Stanford and possibly Cal. Yes they can get a deal for SMU and SDSU as they want in but the devil is in the details. Cal will be getting a subsidy from UCLA and may be willing to take less than what UW and UO get.

IMO they know the money. They know the media partners. But how to divide the pie is a concern. Unequal shares can mean more than higher TV revenue dollars but also post season dollars.

Unless they can get all current members to sign an ironclad GOR I would not expand beyond 2 more at most. The conference may have to expand beyond that number because they know there are members that are leaving at the earliest possible opportunity. That list is basicly everybody. OSU and WSU may not have any options and BTW Cal and Stanford may be in that group as well.

this thread is proof that there are a lotta gullible cal fans at this site

Quote:

---

shocky's dumb azz friends: mr sun angel (money guy behind the asu nil collective) from silverleaf who got president michael crow & athletic director ray anderson on speed dial tole me these pac 12 four corner schools (asu, utah, arizona & colorado) to the big 12 unsourced rumours are not legit & just part of an intense misinformation campaign by the big 12

let's be real here, the con artist is afraid to make any public (including twitter) comments/interviews cuz he know's chancellor christ is working to terminate his employment so the only real source for any pac 12 realignment for bears fans is the monster

**** ucla's tracy pierson & his sorry azz broken down lies in an effort to undermine cal's 2024 junior day, these 2 teams are gonna meet this fall at the rose bowl & that's gonna be the biggest game of the year

chicken "4.0 gpa" little is not gonna move to the truck stop conference with **** academic schools (don't be a dumb azz)#

---

University President Michael Crow told The State Press media rights negotiations are "in the final stages," and that the school is committed to the Pac-12. https://t.co/GBIcUtWGTB

— State Press Sports (@statepresssport) March 15, 2023

so who is the person behind the big 12's misinformation campaign that comes up with fake news that's repeated by ucla's tracy pierson & the national media re: the demise of the pac 12 & the total fabrication of potential expansion candidates of north texas & colorado state?

that would be one of the most alpha bad azz *****es on earth, meet karen brodkin who rivals the iraqi minister of information for making **** up, compounding problems is that brodkin wuz passed over for the pac 12 commissioner job in the last recruitment, she got zero ethics/moral compass



but the real question cal fans should be asking is why isn't our athletic director sharing this information with us?...does he truly not know (which is certainly a possibility) or is he afraid to speak in public without prearranged questions/answers with his awareness that chancellor christ is working to terminate his employment?

andrew mcgraw for athletic director (revenue sports come 1st, then rightsize the financially unsustainable 30+ sports while shedding worthless bureaucrats)#

Stolibear said:

---

I hope the fourth school is North Texas. Research school. Large student body. Improving sports programs with room to improve greatly if in a better conference. Located in Texas and would bring a match for SMU. Interesting potential. Time for the PAC to lift its arrogant car as and think more broadly.

---

Agreed but was hoping "more broadly" meant a deal with the ACC and not tying our academic reputation to Colorado State, SMU, and whoever else. Yes, financially it makes sense to get over ourselves and let these universities become part of the conference but how do you place a monetary value on a reputational hit?

Anyways, pac-12 is going to be a shell of itself once this deal is done and we are getting paid less than B12 even though Georgie Porgie though that was the floor. Nothing bodes well for the pac remainders.

econ, ur sometimes kinda slow on the uptick but quick on the world is ending mantra u seem to live by, colorado state has never been considered for pac 12 expansion, got it?

Shocky1 said:

---

econ, ur sometimes kinda slow on the uptick but quick on the world is ending mantra u seem to live by, colorado state has never been considered for pac 12 expansion, got it?

---

If this is the truth, I am relieved.

6956bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Hawaii Haas said:

---

Waters down Cal's reach to Sactown because UC Davis and Sac State both play football. Even at a lower division.

---

Yes, though Oregon is big in Portland despite the existence Portland State. Texas is big in Dallas and Houston despite more local schools.

I think it helps to bear the name of the state on your uniform. It is why I think we should make a push to call ourselves "California" more and "Cal" less.

---

I think it helps to win more. Would love for the University to be more committed to winning games. I am all for Using California over Cal but if you want more fans lets try winning.

---

Of course, the two need (or needed)
to go hand in hand.

Hawaii Haas said:

---

Some random thoughts

1) Viewer Psychology: if your team is playing the other team during the season, you are more likely to watch their game in order to "scout" them - if you are a hard core fan. If they are in conference and playing another conference, you will more likely watch. True or not true?

2) Second Favorite Team: Through my Cal experience, I got some great access into the sports business world. A certain Oregon school told me that they strive to be America's 2nd favorite team - and grow their baseline fan base regardless of cyclical on-field performance. I bet Uncle Phil would agree with this branding strategy. Makes sense, everyone has their 1st love due to whatever life circumstance (mine was Hawaii, born and raised, undergrad and met my wife there). But Cal became my 2nd favorite (grad school, Bay Area living & professional network, great continuing education, first taste of "Big Time" football and college town campus). The reasons why Cal is my 2nd favorite makes me a small sliver of the overall population, in terms of what I care about. Should Cal focus on its strengths?

---

Good post. And, yes, and Hawaii is my second favorite team after Cal.

The WWF has shown it is also good to be a hated team. People will tune in to root against you too. USC, Notre Dame and Alabama all benefit from this effect (notably they are all good teams). "California" and "Berkeley" are names that people around the country either love or hate. However, we need to be good for people to latch onto us, and we need to be good to be hated.

I thought Canzano was actually the main press to write about Colorado State being in contact with the Pac, and he certainly is not on the Endeavor payroll - though maybe his sources in that regard were hearing things they were meant to hear. It has never made any sense as a straight add, and frankly doesn't make sense even if Colorado were to somehow bail vs other schools in Texas (UTSA, Rice etc) or say Tulane. I could see as a bit of a stick to get Colorado to quiet down the Big 12 talk.