I agree it's plausible people with agendas are making stuff up.

Big Dog 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.

---

So you're suggesting that Cal, knowing USC and UCLA were leaving for the B1G, was offered a B1G invite at a full share and turned it down?!

Zero chance that's true.

---

Well, we are teh only school ever to turn down College Game Day.

---

When the P12 split into divisions Cal insisted on having the toughest in-conference schedule slate every year by playing SC and UCLA in the name of tradition, and on top of the north. SC and UCLA loved that idea because Cal just got rid of Tedford and then saddled the Sonny Dykes era w/ a bargain basement staff because Cal is Cal.

So if Cal can Cal they will find a way,

But lets face some facts here: this expansion, like the several before it, has zero to do with the caliber of the school, the impact it would have on student athletes, tradition or rivalry. It has everything to do with TV dollars. But everyone knows that.

— Jordan Acker (@JordanAckerMI) August 6, 2023

CAL4LIFE said:

---

Big Dog 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.

---

So you're suggesting that Cal, knowing USC and UCLA were leaving for the B1G, was offered a B1G invite at a full share and turned it down?!

Zero chance that's true.

---

Well, we are teh only school ever to turn down College Game Day.

---

When the P12 split into divisions Cal insisted on having the toughest in-conference schedule slate every year by playing SC and UCLA in the name of tradition, and on top of the north. SC and UCLA loved that idea because Cal just got rid of Tedford and then saddled the Sonny Dykes era w/ a bargain basement staff because Cal is Cal.

So if Cal can Cal they will find a way,

---

We benefitted massively during the Helton and end of Mora eras at usc and ucla. However that was Wilcox at his peak and luckily for him, when he was negotiating his bloated contract

OMG, the woman reporter said, "let's hear a quote from the Cal State coach!"

Ha, ha, we ARE Cal State!!!!

Then why do they promote high school football coverage, where about 200 parents in the Bay Area actually care about each game? I understand "eyeballs" and ratings, but HS sports seems to fly in the face of this theory.

TandemBear said:

---

Then why do they promote high school football coverage, where about 200 parents in the Bay Area actually care about each game? I understand "eyeballs" and ratings, but HS sports seems to fly in the face of this theory.

---

The "rights fee" paid to televise a HS football game is probably between zero and $50,000. ESPN or FS1 will spend more than that getting their crew and equipment to and from the game. So they don't need great ratings for a HS game.

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 conference is down to 4 teams and Christ is still turning down a B1G invite?!

Again, ZERO chance that this is true.

TomBear said:

---

One more thought:

I thought the commentary by the Channel 7 spokesman was pretty thorough and amazingly forthcoming, except for one aspect that has been overlooked by him, and by (seemingly) many others:

Media coverage of Cal and stanford by his channel, and by the printed media in the Bay Area has been almost nonexistent. During the season they devote maybe a minute to the final scores of the games, and the printed media will have a write-up as well. But if you look at the media in Seattle, L.A., Eugene, SLC etc., you find much better overall coverage of their local schools.

The Bay Area media has made college athletics (in general, but especially in football) an after thought. Even if Cal and stanford are having bad years, they are THE local college athletic competition in the footprint of the station's/paper's coverage. And there are plenty of people like me who pay more attention to college football and basketball than they do the professional game.

So in my opinion, the media also has some blame for the demise of enthusiasm for college football and basketball because they have ignored (or at the very least, demoted it) to a ridiculous level, especially in comparison with other markets in the PAC.

---

It's not the media's job to promote sports. Journalism based on a level of interest relative to other choices, and their resources relative to people supporting the given journalistic outlet is still the bottom line.
I don't live in the Bay Area, but if you want to convince me that Cal and Furd has the same kind of interest as the Giants, Warriors, and Niners, then go for it. Winning boosts interest, and therefore a justification of more journalistic efforts-I predict there will be more stories written/told(in the major outlets) about the Niners, definitely among the NFC favorites, in a few weeks than were written about Cal and Furd all of last year.

Sorry MB, i come from the school of journalism that says "if it is news, it should be reported".....as it used to be.

Media in the Bay Area used to report on college sports pretty well. Even into the early years of professional sports .

News is not a popularity contest, though it has become that in recent years. It isn't about what's popular, it's about what's happening. That's what news is.

I covered University of Washington sports as a commentator for a few stations in Seattle. They compete with the "hawks and Mariners too. But the Huskies got coverage, and still do.

Media has turned to sh__ in this country. And there are any number of reasons for it. But to me, ignoring college sports (even when put up against professional sports) is failing at the core of what reporting should be.

TomBear said:

---

Sorry MB, i come from the school of journalism that says "if it is news, it should be reported".....as it used to be.

Media in the Bay Area used to report on college sports pretty well. Even into the early years of professional sports .

News is not a popularity contest, though it has become that in recent years. It isn't about what's popular, it's about what's happening. That's what news is.

I covered University of Washington sports as a commentator for a few stations in Seattle. They compete with the "hawks and Mariners too. But the Huskies got coverage, and still do.

Media has turned to sh__ in this country. And there are any number of reasons for it. But to me, ignoring college sports (even when put up against professional sports) is failing at the core of what reporting should be.

---

Well, that's a long way from talking about media as promoting sports, and I don't have a problem with your general premise. It's still about resources, so they cover, but right, not all that well.
I wouldn't equate the Huskies to Cal in terms of "interest", but I'm all for increased coverage in absolute terms.. And I would like to see Cal's women basketball covered similar to how some of the Cal's men sports are, based on the criteria you set out.

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?

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!

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."

from the minute USC and UCLA left, "conference realignment" went from an extremely underreported phenomenon from a journalistic point of view and a tiny corner of CFB twitter to a full on sport, with leaks coming from all over the place. There is NO WAY that Cal was offered membership. It would have been reported by Thamel, McMurphy, Dellenger, etc or leaked by twitter people Flugaur, MHVer3, Genetics56 (god I can't believe I'm typing these handles). And you can bet all of those especially Dodd and McMurphy would be cackle-posting articles about how dumb Cal was for passing this up.

TomBear said:

---

Sorry MB, i come from the school of journalism that says "if it is news, it should be reported".....as it used to be.

Media in the Bay Area used to report on college sports pretty well. Even into the early years of professional sports .

News is not a popularity contest, though it has become that in recent years. It isn't about what's popular, it's about what's happening. That's what news is.

I covered University of Washington sports as a commentator for a few stations in Seattle. They compete with the "hawks and Mariners too. But the Huskies got coverage, and still do.

Media has turned to sh__ in this country. And there are any number of reasons for it. But to me, ignoring college sports (even when put up against professional sports) is failing at the core of what reporting should be.

---

Just to add Tom: how you define "media" matters here too. I'm not going to defend how Cal is covered in the Bay Area, if that sounded like I was doing that. But beyond that: having lived out of the Pac-12 footprint since graduating, I look back on the day of having to go into bars (with satellite coordinates in hand) and ask to dial up the Cal game. The Pac-12 Network was iffy distribution at best, but, by and large, Cal football games were available from the comfort of my couch. I never loved the "After Dark" end at 2am games, but at least they were on a very mainstream outlet. When Cal had any success at all, what was written or not written locally mattered little to the eye balls seeing Cal nationally when on a major outlet at a reasonable time.
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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Latest from Wilner: https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/08/07/pac-12-collapse-our-five-step-guide-to-rebuilding-the-conference-around-the-four-schools-left-behind/

Bleak. Stanford leading inquiries to Big Ten and ACC with Cal as travel partner, but answers expected within a week but unlikely. A rebuilt PAC with MW and AAC members might only fetch half of Apples's original low $20Ms offer (I think he's pulling numbers out his ass here).

sosheezy said:

---

Latest from Wilner: https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/08/07/pac-12-collapse-our-five-step-guide-to-rebuilding-the-conference-around-the-four-schools-left-behind/

Bleak. Stanford leading inquiries to Big Ten and ACC with Cal as travel partner, but answers expected within a week but unlikely. A rebuilt PAC with MW and AAC members might only fetch half of Apples's original low $20Ms offer (I think he's pulling numbers out his ass here).

---

Anyone else pissed that it's always someone else doing the leading and NEVER Cal? I guess pissed but never surprised.

Very depressing that this isn't likely. Would have reduced travel expenses for all the other PAC schools.

Also - anyone know how to think about that 150mm cost? Why is that so high? And are we at least worth as much as Colorado at 31.7 mm?

Will make this fast b/c it's not germaine to the overall topic but.......

MB, I'm impressed. I thought I was the only one who would go into a bar with satellite coordinates in hand to get a Cal game on their screens. But I did, and I particularly loved the raw feeds so I could see what was going on in CMS while everyone else watched commercials!

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.

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 seems quaint that we were complaining about Holiday Bowl and how Hansen was failing us with lack of prestigious bowl tie-in. If we go to the MWC path, we can now look forward to our champion going to the LA Bowl.

I survived through the departure of Snyder, comedy of the Gilbertson and Holmoe years with a brief Mariucci intermission , the Greek tragedy of the Tedford years, the betrayal of the Dykes years, and the ennui of the Wilcox years. If we do not get an invite to the Big 1G - and why would they need us now when we have lost all leverage to try to go as a group - I am done. Not worth keep paying attention to a program that begs to be ignored and willfully punishes those who stubbornly cares.

At a certain point, I will believe our school that our football program doesn't matter and is not worth anyone's money or attention.

Well said! I am hoping that this is the slap in the face they need to wake up. If they don't put us on the right path (I e. B1G invite) I am also done wasting my mind space on this program. It is B1G or bust for me ... And unfortunately that option looks high unlikely now.

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.

Oregon St trying to make moves...

Who wants to bet Cal is the last one to make a decision?

Now hold your horses and don’t lose your minds just yet. Let’s see where this goes. It will only happen if the money is right. Do you think SDSU and Oregon State will end up in the Big 12? Is this a good move? pic.twitter.com/WHlAnO5D8u

— CFB+ (@CFBN_Plus) August 7, 2023

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

yeah I'd love to see the data on that too. I'm a lacrosse fan and have noticed that espn found a way to broadcast that sport -- increasing its "exposure" -- for minimal costs. They just use the Uni's field camera that is already installed and have announcers call do the play-by-play and analysis from their home office. (tnanks to WFH). Not saying its a great broadcast, but it is dirt cheap while still increasing the sport's exposure.

Moreover, at what cost net of the Comcast rebate? How in anyone's critical thinking mind could they believe that teh pac-net could beat espn at its own game? Besides Larry Scott making bank, did any of the colleges actually get a net payout vs. what espn would have paid? It was the most moronic business decision I've seen in ages. (On second thought, not quite as bad as Elon paying 5x what Twitter was worth).

Econ141 said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

Latest from Wilner: https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/08/07/pac-12-collapse-our-five-step-guide-to-rebuilding-the-conference-around-the-four-schools-left-behind/

Bleak. Stanford leading inquiries to Big Ten and ACC with Cal as travel partner, but answers expected within a week but unlikely. A rebuilt PAC with MW and AAC members might only fetch half of Apples's original low $20Ms offer (I think he's pulling numbers out his ass here).

---

Anyone else pissed that it's always someone else doing the leading and NEVER Cal? I guess pissed but never surprised.

Very depressing that this isn't likely. Would have reduced travel expenses for all the other PAC schools.

Also - anyone know how to think about that 150mm cost? Why is that so high? And are we at least worth as much as Colorado at 31.7 mm?

---

The $150M is probably the cost for both over the term of the TV deal. Not an annual number. Sure it seems logical to think Cal is equivavlent to Colorado. But Colorado is split between 2 networks (Fox and ESPN) so it is $20M fro ESPN and $11.7 from Fox. and part of the goal was to eliminate the P12. Which has been accomplished.

The bigger concern is that it appears that neither Cal nor Stanford are additive to the networks with the B1G. They may have their sights set elsewhere. They could come back to Cal and Stanford if those other programs do not become available. That could be next week or in 2030 or never.

You are worth what somebody is willing to pay you.

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.

---

No way it was ever a good idea. Build out own network to compete with espn? huh? how is that rational? The west coast market is just different than the mid-west and SE. (and our current predicament just proves it.)

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.

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