juarezbear said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

BearSD said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

More fodder ... Is Cal really invested in this bad idea? Shouldn't we just have one mission at this point - get into the B1G or risk losing all our current starters and recruits? What the hell are the Cal folks doing - 100% of the "focus" should be spent on prostituting themselves to the B1G.

Pac-4's focus: "adding, not merging." Oregon State, Washington State, Stanford and Cal formulate a survival plan.

Plus:
• Apple details leak
• Did Fox manipulate?
• 'Internet has no Chill'

Read: https://t.co/Kfq0gxewCV

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) August 6, 2023

---

Christ is still in the denial phase after getting blindsided on Friday. Not surprising since half this board is still stuck in the bargaining stage and think we have any leverage at all to get into B1G

---

Pretty sure that Cal and Stanford asked and were told no by the Big Ten. If Plan A is to keep asking, that's fine, but it can't be the sole focus.

Arguing that there should be no Plan B is not a good argument. All of the Pac-4 schools should be developing multiple options as quickly as they can.

---

I see your "B1G no" and raise. I have a friend with a source inside UCOP who says we were already offered by the B1G last summer for a full share and Christ was the one who said no. I have no idea if it's true, but it would explain a lot.

---

That suggests that Cal knew USC and UCLA were leaving for the B1G, Cal was then offered an invite at a full share and turned it down?!

Zero chance that's true.

---

The reason given was travel. As it was explained to me this source was astonished that she would turn her nose up at an extra $30M, but said she just didn't care. Kicker is this source claims this offer is/was still open. We know it was leaked that we were vetted. Initial rumors this week were that we were being considered. We know the B1G presidents are rumored to want us. What if that initial inclusion this week was them reaching out and her saying "still no"? We know she is rumored to have been prepared to sign the GOR this week. Like I said I don't want to believe it but can't clear it either.

---

The chancellor has been upfront about the fact that there hasn't been a B1G invite. Unless she's lying, and I don't think she's that kind of person, it's total BS.

---

I have no idea how I would have missed this but can you provide a link or statement where she said this?

---

I already asked. There's no public statement, as we know. His response is basically "you're not connected enough, I've talked to her and she'd never lie to me so you must be lying."

People with access and sway need to stop kissing rings and demand real answers WITH PROOF. All of these communications are subject to public inspection. Get them. If it's true than literally none exist, that's a massive problem too. At minimum there should be emails where she's begging for admission. GET THEM!

---

100%

If we received an offer and Carol rejected, she needs to be kicked to the curb immediately.

If they have actually said no after she reached out to express interest, I can stomach that.

Either way, show some transparency to prove that you are just not "standing on the sidelines."

---

or, as is more likely, JK inquired about reaching out to the BiG and she said, "No thank you, we want to keep college sports local for our institutional values."

The BiG Presidents are not a piranhas which will steal their friends' significant others. They need the friends to reach out to them first, expressing interest, getting vetted & approved, and then getting an offer. It's all very hush-hush as to not embarrass anyone if the decision goes south. If we never expressed interest, of course, they never made us an offer.

---

Not reaching out is grounds to be ousted in my opinion. Your job is to do what is best for Cal Athletics - reaching out to the B1G is about exploring all options. You can still say no. The fact is, travel would now be even less of a concern with the pac-8 in the B1G. She is dumb if she has not considered on top of the financial viability the B1G offers. I hope she is not that big of an idiot.

---

I am hoping the regents meeting was basically Carol getting taken to the wood shed for being a complete dolt through all of this.

---

The UC President hires the Chancellors. As I've asked before, why does UCLA consistently end up with Chancellors who support IA and we get fence-sitters. This should serve as a wake-up call to the UC President as well because the stadium debt will end up at their desk. They should vet candidates who are in it to win it....but now who the hell knows what anybody could do.

---

That's a good take too - I get that the Regents are technically in control, but they have limited time and other jobs. The UC President and UCOP need to vet all decisions under them of consequences and have an idea on the consequences. Drake and the president office should have been aware of the hundred million dollar consequences of the UCLA move, and not just give carte blanche to do what they want. Just another reason for UC as a whole to assume the CMS debt if a landing spot for Cal isn't found.

sycasey said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

sycasey said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

We had come such a long way with media exposure, depended on the Conference office to keep carrying that ball, and then Larry Scott happened...

---

In fairness to Scott, he actually did improve the conference's media exposure quite a bit. Not just by starting the network, but also by striking deals with Fox and ESPN to get more national slots.

It was his predecessor, Tom Hansen, who consistently dropped the ball on that.

---

It might be valid that Scott got more national slots on FOX and ESPN, but I don't buy that the Pac-12 Network led to the conference getting more exposure as it was notoriously hard to access.

---

Well, there were also many games in the Hansen era that were not televised at all because of how bad our TV deal was. The P12 Network fixed that at least.

---

Let's say that it was potentially a good idea in theory and resolved some problems in the short term but wasn't executed well which resulted it in being a problem and a source of underexposure when we look at today.

---

Absolutely. Scott was just so inflexible about changing the carriage fees to get the network on more platforms.

---

Failure to get DirecTV to carry Pac-12 Network was shameful. Build leverage and stickiness, even if you have to take a hit initially, instead of assuming that carriers should assume all risk with a new concept.

Just one failed decision after another.

calbear93 said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

BearSD said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

More fodder ... Is Cal really invested in this bad idea? Shouldn't we just have one mission at this point - get into the B1G or risk losing all our current starters and recruits? What the hell are the Cal folks doing - 100% of the "focus" should be spent on prostituting themselves to the B1G.

Pac-4's focus: "adding, not merging." Oregon State, Washington State, Stanford and Cal formulate a survival plan.

Plus:
• Apple details leak
• Did Fox manipulate?
• 'Internet has no Chill'

Read: https://t.co/Kfq0gxewCV

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) August 6, 2023

---

Christ is still in the denial phase after getting blindsided on Friday. Not surprising since half this board is still stuck in the bargaining stage and think we have any leverage at all to get into B1G

---

Pretty sure that Cal and Stanford asked and were told no by the Big Ten. If Plan A is to keep asking, that's fine, but it can't be the sole focus.

Arguing that there should be no Plan B is not a good argument. All of the Pac-4 schools should be developing multiple options as quickly as they can.

---

I see your "B1G no" and raise. I have a friend with a source inside UCOP who says we were already offered by the B1G last summer for a full share and Christ was the one who said no. I have no idea if it's true, but it would explain a lot.

---

That suggests that Cal knew USC and UCLA were leaving for the B1G, Cal was then offered an invite at a full share and turned it down?!

Zero chance that's true.

---

The reason given was travel. As it was explained to me this source was astonished that she would turn her nose up at an extra $30M, but said she just didn't care. Kicker is this source claims this offer is/was still open. We know it was leaked that we were vetted. Initial rumors this week were that we were being considered. We know the B1G presidents are rumored to want us. What if that initial inclusion this week was them reaching out and her saying "still no"? We know she is rumored to have been prepared to sign the GOR this week. Like I said I don't want to believe it but can't clear it either.

---

The chancellor has been upfront about the fact that there hasn't been a B1G invite. Unless she's lying, and I don't think she's that kind of person, it's total BS.

---

I have no idea how I would have missed this but can you provide a link or statement where she said this?

---

I already asked. There's no public statement, as we know. His response is basically "you're not connected enough, I've talked to her and she'd never lie to me so you must be lying."

People with access and sway need to stop kissing rings and demand real answers WITH PROOF. All of these communications are subject to public inspection. Get them. If it's true than literally none exist, that's a massive problem too. At minimum there should be emails where she's begging for admission. GET THEM!

---

100%

If we received an offer and Carol rejected, she needs to be kicked to the curb immediately.

If they have actually said no after she reached out to express interest, I can stomach that.

Either way, show some transparency to prove that you are just not "standing on the sidelines."

---

or, as is more likely, JK inquired about reaching out to the BiG and she said, "No thank you, we want to keep college sports local for our institutional values."

The BiG Presidents are not a piranhas which will steal their friends' significant others. They need the friends to reach out to them first, expressing interest, getting vetted & approved, and then getting an offer. It's all very hush-hush as to not embarrass anyone if the decision goes south. If we never expressed interest, of course, they never made us an offer.

---

Not reaching out is grounds to be ousted in my opinion. Your job is to do what is best for Cal Athletics - reaching out to the B1G is about exploring all options. You can still say no. The fact is, travel would now be even less of a concern with the pac-8 in the B1G. She is dumb if she has not considered on top of the financial viability the B1G offers. I hope she is not that big of an idiot.

---

I am hoping the regents meeting was basically Carol getting taken to the wood shed for being a complete dolt through all of this.

---

The UC President hires the Chancellors. As I've asked before, why does UCLA consistently end up with Chancellors who support IA and we get fence-sitters. This should serve as a wake-up call to the UC President as well because the stadium debt will end up at their desk. They should vet candidates who are in it to win it....but now who the hell knows what anybody could do.

---

Considering how generally hostile the academic side of UC Berkeley is to athletics, the main responsibility of the Chancellor is to hire a competent AD. The AD can keep the focus on athletics and make sure decisions are made to engender alumni and general public support, which will generate more options and funding for all athletics and, indirectly, the academic side of the house. The real failure is in the search firms we hire and the idiotic choices we have made over and over again, with lack of support and resources necessary to succeed. We all know from our professional careers that lukewarm effort is worse than utter failure, because it just allows wasted resources on an interminable cycle of acceptable underachievement and is a blocker to real change.

To the academic elitist who could not phantom that high performing athletics would encourage more donations overall from alumni like me can reap what they sow.

---

I agree with you on all this. Perhaps our current situation of staring into the abyss will wake those folks up. We obviously have made really bad AD choices, but until we get a reputation as a place where the administration backs athletics, we won't get the best options. That's what has to change if we're to move forward. So frustrating.

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

We had come such a long way with media exposure, depended on the Conference office to keep carrying that ball, and then Larry Scott happened...

---

In fairness to Scott, he actually did improve the conference's media exposure quite a bit. Not just by starting the network, but also by striking deals with Fox and ESPN to get more national slots.

It was his predecessor, Tom Hansen, who consistently dropped the ball on that.

---

That's fair, and I meant it to say Scott "happened" to the Conference as a whole, not speaking specifically to the TV deals. Imagine negotiating TV deals with Oklahoma and Texas in the conference? I hate all the "what if's," and now I am contributing to them...

juarezbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

BearSD said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

More fodder ... Is Cal really invested in this bad idea? Shouldn't we just have one mission at this point - get into the B1G or risk losing all our current starters and recruits? What the hell are the Cal folks doing - 100% of the "focus" should be spent on prostituting themselves to the B1G.

Pac-4's focus: "adding, not merging." Oregon State, Washington State, Stanford and Cal formulate a survival plan.

Plus:
• Apple details leak
• Did Fox manipulate?
• 'Internet has no Chill'

Read: https://t.co/Kfq0gxewCV

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) August 6, 2023

---

Christ is still in the denial phase after getting blindsided on Friday. Not surprising since half this board is still stuck in the bargaining stage and think we have any leverage at all to get into B1G

---

Pretty sure that Cal and Stanford asked and were told no by the Big Ten. If Plan A is to keep asking, that's fine, but it can't be the sole focus.

Arguing that there should be no Plan B is not a good argument. All of the Pac-4 schools should be developing multiple options as quickly as they can.

---

I see your "B1G no" and raise. I have a friend with a source inside UCOP who says we were already offered by the B1G last summer for a full share and Christ was the one who said no. I have no idea if it's true, but it would explain a lot.

---

That suggests that Cal knew USC and UCLA were leaving for the B1G, Cal was then offered an invite at a full share and turned it down?!

Zero chance that's true.

---

The reason given was travel. As it was explained to me this source was astonished that she would turn her nose up at an extra $30M, but said she just didn't care. Kicker is this source claims this offer is/was still open. We know it was leaked that we were vetted. Initial rumors this week were that we were being considered. We know the B1G presidents are rumored to want us. What if that initial inclusion this week was them reaching out and her saying "still no"? We know she is rumored to have been prepared to sign the GOR this week. Like I said I don't want to believe it but can't clear it either.

---

The chancellor has been upfront about the fact that there hasn't been a B1G invite. Unless she's lying, and I don't think she's that kind of person, it's total BS.

---

I have no idea how I would have missed this but can you provide a link or statement where she said this?

---

I already asked. There's no public statement, as we know. His response is basically "you're not connected enough, I've talked to her and she'd never lie to me so you must be lying."

People with access and sway need to stop kissing rings and demand real answers WITH PROOF. All of these communications are subject to public inspection. Get them. If it's true than literally none exist, that's a massive problem too. At minimum there should be emails where she's begging for admission. GET THEM!

---

100%

If we received an offer and Carol rejected, she needs to be kicked to the curb immediately.

If they have actually said no after she reached out to express interest, I can stomach that.

Either way, show some transparency to prove that you are just not "standing on the sidelines."

---

or, as is more likely, JK inquired about reaching out to the BiG and she said, "No thank you, we want to keep college sports local for our institutional values."

The BiG Presidents are not a piranhas which will steal their friends' significant others. They need the friends to reach out to them first, expressing interest, getting vetted & approved, and then getting an offer. It's all very hush-hush as to not embarrass anyone if the decision goes south. If we never expressed interest, of course, they never made us an offer.

---

Not reaching out is grounds to be ousted in my opinion. Your job is to do what is best for Cal Athletics - reaching out to the B1G is about exploring all options. You can still say no. The fact is, travel would now be even less of a concern with the pac-8 in the B1G. She is dumb if she has not considered on top of the financial viability the B1G offers. I hope she is not that big of an idiot.

---

I am hoping the regents meeting was basically Carol getting taken to the wood shed for being a complete dolt through all of this.

---

The UC President hires the Chancellors. As I've asked before, why does UCLA consistently end up with Chancellors who support IA and we get fence-sitters. This should serve as a wake-up call to the UC President as well because the stadium debt will end up at their desk. They should vet candidates who are in it to win it....but now who the hell knows what anybody could do.

---

Considering how generally hostile the academic side of UC Berkeley is to athletics, the main responsibility of the Chancellor is to hire a competent AD. The AD can keep the focus on athletics and make sure decisions are made to engender alumni and general public support, which will generate more options and funding for all athletics and, indirectly, the academic side of the house. The real failure is in the search firms we hire and the idiotic choices we have made over and over again, with lack of support and resources necessary to succeed. We all know from our professional careers that lukewarm effort is worse than utter failure, because it just allows wasted resources on an interminable cycle of acceptable underachievement and is a blocker to real change.

To the academic elitist who could not phantom that high performing athletics would encourage more donations overall from alumni like me can reap what they sow.

---

I agree with you on all this. Perhaps our current situation of staring into the abyss will wake those folks up. We obviously have made really bad AD choices, but until we get a reputation as a place where the administration backs athletics, we won't get the best options. That's what has to change if we're to move forward. So frustrating.

---

Exactly. Basic management is to set aspirational goals, provide necessary support for the team to succeed, and reward success and hold those who fail accountable. We do none of those things, which only punishes our student athletes and fans and rewards and enriches inept administrators.

Are you suggesting a FOIA request for any and all communications between Cal admin and B1G conference officials?

bluehenbear said:

---

Are you suggesting a FOIA request for any and all communications between Cal admin and B1G conference officials?

---

What about all about UCLA, all comm between big ten and ucla, and internal school emails, specifically between block and jarmond, and drake. Seems like something that would get stonewalled, or get hit with a hefty bill for the requester due to the large scope. If I were a (retired) lawyer and had a few extra dollars to throw around, I'd go all in just to see what could be found. Make noise and make people uncomfortable.

And seeing communication involving Christ, Knowlton, and the Big Ten would be potentially interesting.

bluehenbear said:

---

Are you suggesting a FOIA request for any and all communications between Cal admin and B1G conference officials?

---

Mostly I'm just venting bc I'm ****ing livid. But yes I'm also suggesting websites like this one and the people connected to it them should remind those in power THAT THEY WORK FOR US, there are rules, and we can do things the hard way or easy way. Mostly I'm just sick and tired of all the ****ing secrecy and deference while we watch the department get destroyed before our eyes by the people who are supposed to protect and elevate it.

But yes, I'm suggesting they and anyone else who cares about Cal should make a formal CPRA request if these communications aren't voluntarily provided. I'm busy now but will have more later. There's a very helpful PDF published by the League of California Cities on this subject. Anyone can do it and there's zero cost unless you want to file litigation to compel non response. They're required to help form requests to find relevant records, you can set cost limits for copies, you can elect to just inspect and take pics with your phone, etc etc etc.

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

We had come such a long way with media exposure, depended on the Conference office to keep carrying that ball, and then Larry Scott happened...

---

In fairness to Scott, he actually did improve the conference's media exposure quite a bit. Not just by starting the network, but also by striking deals with Fox and ESPN to get more national slots.

It was his predecessor, Tom Hansen, who consistently dropped the ball on that.

---

It might be valid that Scott got more national slots on FOX and ESPN, but I don't buy that the Pac-12 Network led to the conference getting more exposure as it was notoriously hard to access.

---

They couldn't make a deal with DirecTV - which (at least in my part of the world) is the vendor-of-choice for the majority of purveyors of ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages in rooms filled with flat screens.

SoFlaBear said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

We had come such a long way with media exposure, depended on the Conference office to keep carrying that ball, and then Larry Scott happened...

---

In fairness to Scott, he actually did improve the conference's media exposure quite a bit. Not just by starting the network, but also by striking deals with Fox and ESPN to get more national slots.

It was his predecessor, Tom Hansen, who consistently dropped the ball on that.

---

It might be valid that Scott got more national slots on FOX and ESPN, but I don't buy that the Pac-12 Network led to the conference getting more exposure as it was notoriously hard to access.

---

They couldn't make a deal with DirecTV - which (at least in my part of the world) is the vendor-of-choice for the majority of purveyors of ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages in rooms filled with flat screens.

---

Obviously it's different now with all the streaming options, but at the time DirecTV was definitely the provider that just about all major sports consumers had, including sports bars and also national sports journalists. Keeping P12 games away from those people for so long was foolish.

sycasey said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

We had come such a long way with media exposure, depended on the Conference office to keep carrying that ball, and then Larry Scott happened...

---

In fairness to Scott, he actually did improve the conference's media exposure quite a bit. Not just by starting the network, but also by striking deals with Fox and ESPN to get more national slots.

It was his predecessor, Tom Hansen, who consistently dropped the ball on that.

---

It might be valid that Scott got more national slots on FOX and ESPN, but I don't buy that the Pac-12 Network led to the conference getting more exposure as it was notoriously hard to access.

---

They couldn't make a deal with DirecTV - which (at least in my part of the world) is the vendor-of-choice for the majority of purveyors of ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages in rooms filled with flat screens.

---

Obviously it's different now with all the streaming options, but at the time DirecTV was definitely the provider that just about all major sports consumers had, including sports bars and also national sports journalists. Keeping P12 games away from those people for so long was foolish.

---

Not having DirecTV was a major problem in organizing alumni viewing parties outside of the Bay Area. That is all.

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

We had come such a long way with media exposure, depended on the Conference office to keep carrying that ball, and then Larry Scott happened...

---

In fairness to Scott, he actually did improve the conference's media exposure quite a bit. Not just by starting the network, but also by striking deals with Fox and ESPN to get more national slots.

It was his predecessor, Tom Hansen, who consistently dropped the ball on that.

---

It might be valid that Scott got more national slots on FOX and ESPN, but I don't buy that the Pac-12 Network led to the conference getting more exposure as it was notoriously hard to access.

---

They couldn't make a deal with DirecTV - which (at least in my part of the world) is the vendor-of-choice for the majority of purveyors of ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages in rooms filled with flat screens.

---

Obviously it's different now with all the streaming options, but at the time DirecTV was definitely the provider that just about all major sports consumers had, including sports bars and also national sports journalists. Keeping P12 games away from those people for so long was foolish.

---

Not having DirecTV was a major problem in organizing alumni viewing parties outside of the Bay Area. That is all.

---

And if we had partnered with ESPN when it was becoming clear that the solo-ownership route was not working, they almost certainly would have been able to get the network on all carriers. Scott was stubborn.

sycasey said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

We had come such a long way with media exposure, depended on the Conference office to keep carrying that ball, and then Larry Scott happened...

---

In fairness to Scott, he actually did improve the conference's media exposure quite a bit. Not just by starting the network, but also by striking deals with Fox and ESPN to get more national slots.

It was his predecessor, Tom Hansen, who consistently dropped the ball on that.

---

It might be valid that Scott got more national slots on FOX and ESPN, but I don't buy that the Pac-12 Network led to the conference getting more exposure as it was notoriously hard to access.

---

They couldn't make a deal with DirecTV - which (at least in my part of the world) is the vendor-of-choice for the majority of purveyors of ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages in rooms filled with flat screens.

---

Obviously it's different now with all the streaming options, but at the time DirecTV was definitely the provider that just about all major sports consumers had, including sports bars and also national sports journalists. Keeping P12 games away from those people for so long was foolish.

---

Not having DirecTV was a major problem in organizing alumni viewing parties outside of the Bay Area. That is all.

---

And if we had partnered with ESPN when it was becoming clear that the solo-ownership route was not working, they almost certainly would have been able to get the network on all carriers. Scott was stubborn.

---

I remember being out at the bars in San francisco last year and having both the washington and oregon games playing on the TVs, but not the Cal game, because it was on the Pac 12 network. I'll repeat, the local bars in san francisco did not have the Cal game because they did not have the channel!

sycasey said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mbBear said:

---

We had come such a long way with media exposure, depended on the Conference office to keep carrying that ball, and then Larry Scott happened...

---

In fairness to Scott, he actually did improve the conference's media exposure quite a bit. Not just by starting the network, but also by striking deals with Fox and ESPN to get more national slots.

It was his predecessor, Tom Hansen, who consistently dropped the ball on that.

---

It might be valid that Scott got more national slots on FOX and ESPN, but I don't buy that the Pac-12 Network led to the conference getting more exposure as it was notoriously hard to access.

---

They couldn't make a deal with DirecTV - which (at least in my part of the world) is the vendor-of-choice for the majority of purveyors of ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages in rooms filled with flat screens.

---

Obviously it's different now with all the streaming options, but at the time DirecTV was definitely the provider that just about all major sports consumers had, including sports bars and also national sports journalists. Keeping P12 games away from those people for so long was foolish.

---

Not having DirecTV was a major problem in organizing alumni viewing parties outside of the Bay Area. That is all.

---

And if we had partnered with ESPN when it was becoming clear that the solo-ownership route was not working, they almost certainly would have been able to get the network on all carriers. Scott was stubborn.

---

I think it was more greed than stubbornness. He fancied himself as a media mogul, deserving of media mogul money. And partnering would mean partnering-type money, i.e., the kinda money that the AD's of the BiG and ACC and B12 were getting, not his multiple.

ColoradoBear said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

I am hoping the regents meeting was basically Carol getting taken to the wood shed for being a complete dolt through all of this.

---

The UC President hires the Chancellors. As I've asked before, why does UCLA consistently end up with Chancellors who support IA and we get fence-sitters. This should serve as a wake-up call to the UC President as well because the stadium debt will end up at their desk. They should vet candidates who are in it to win it....but now who the hell knows what anybody could do.

---

That's a good take too - I get that the Regents are technically in control, but they have limited time and other jobs. The UC President and UCOP need to vet all decisions under them of consequences and have an idea on the consequences. Drake and the president office should have been aware of the hundred million dollar consequences of the UCLA move, and not just give carte blanche to do what they want. Just another reason for UC as a whole to assume the CMS debt if a landing spot for Cal isn't found.

---

UC President Michael Drake? He is the former president of Ohio State. The UCLA AD worked at Ohio Statre for 10 years. Ohio State is probably the most powerful team in the B1G, politically.

Very clear to me what happened there.

sycasey said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Not having DirecTV was a major problem in organizing alumni viewing parties outside of the Bay Area. That is all.

---

And if we had partnered with ESPN when it was becoming clear that the solo-ownership route was not working, they almost certainly would have been able to get the network on all carriers. Scott was stubborn.

---

If Scott and the Pac-12 had partnered with ESPN in 2019, USC and UCLA would have been locked in to a similiar media rights deal and Grant of Rights that the ACC has.

The Pac-12 would still be alive and kicking.

BigDaddy said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Not having DirecTV was a major problem in organizing alumni viewing parties outside of the Bay Area. That is all.

---

And if we had partnered with ESPN when it was becoming clear that the solo-ownership route was not working, they almost certainly would have been able to get the network on all carriers. Scott was stubborn.

---

If Scott and the Pac-12 had partnered with ESPN in 2019, USC and UCLA would have been locked in to a similiar media rights deal and Grant of Rights that the ACC has.

The Pac-12 would still be alive and kicking.

---

If the Presidents had hired some rando off of LinkedIn instead of Larry Scott, we'd still be alive and kicking.

BigDaddy said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Not having DirecTV was a major problem in organizing alumni viewing parties outside of the Bay Area. That is all.

---

And if we had partnered with ESPN when it was becoming clear that the solo-ownership route was not working, they almost certainly would have been able to get the network on all carriers. Scott was stubborn.

---

If Scott and the Pac-12 had partnered with ESPN in 2019, USC and UCLA would have been locked in to a similiar media rights deal and Grant of Rights that the ACC has.

The Pac-12 would still be alive and kicking.

---

No, USC absolutely would not have agreed to an extended GOR. Other schools too.

In fact, we can be pretty sure p12 members actually said no to that offer because it didn't happen.

Obviously would have been good for Cal, but you need a unanimous decisions for a grant of rights.