People talk about Calimony as if it were an accomplished fact. It isn't.
At this point, the BOR haven't said anything official about Calimony, about whether it will in fact be levied and how much the amount might be. It's all conjecture at this point.

Rushinbear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Strykur said:

---

maxer said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Strykur said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Strykur said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

maxer said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

Even if they lowball us with a small share, all that matters is we have the opportunity to eventually gain a full share

---

Yes, accepting a half share of B1G money for a few years is worth it as long as we have a path to a full share.

---

Presumably the Calimony from UCLA would tide us over during that period, if that's what happens.

---

Would we still get Calimony?

---

Is this a serious question? I think we cancel that as part of the deal.

---

I could see Cal getting reduced payments from UCLA until Cal qualifies for a full share.

---

JFC do you want the B1G or not?

---

Let me clear, if Cal gets an invite to the B1G they should take it, regardless of stipulations, as long as the stipulation is not a permanent lesser share.

---

100% yes.

---

We take any B1G offer now, re-negotiate later.

---

Once you agree to a deal, where's the leverage to renegotiate later? Can we, for once, play hardball?

---

Does Cal have any leverage right now? I dont think now is the time for hardball. I'm sure if the B1G wanted, ASU and Utah would jump at being our replacement.

---

Do you think Calimony would be subject to BIG negotiations? I don't, or at least it shouldn't. And, if UCLA tries to make it so from their end, I'd involve the Regents again and settle it once and for all.

If it isn't part of a BIG deal, one way or the other, we take the BIG deal and kneel on the UCLA neck separately.

---

Ridiculously stupid take.

Before anyone starts celebrating… here's an espn article claiming the Big Ten is only looking at Washington and Oregon. Better hope this is wrong.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38123037/big-ten-explores-possible-expansion-amid-pac-12-instability

Quote:

---

ESPN reported on Monday that Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti had begun quiet diligence on both Washington and Oregon. Sources indicated that has ramped up throughout the week, although there's some patience to see how things unfold in the Pac-12.

While there's some presidential interest in adding Cal and Stanford, those potential additions were met with chilly responses last year when the Big Ten pondered adding more teams, in part because of their lack of television resonance. Stanford's addition to the Big Ten has long been paired to a potential Notre Dame addition, which doesn't appear imminent at this point.

---

PaulCali said:

---

People talk about Calimony as if it were an accomplished fact. It isn't.
At this point, the BOR haven't said anything official about Calimony, about whether it will in fact be levied and how much the amount might be. It's all conjecture at this point.

---

Do we even know if it is a one time payment or annual?

We should get a ton just for the emotional strain this whole realignment nonsense has caused for fans.

We are taking $20m. Join. Done.

And what if ultimately we don't join. Don't see how they add us if 2 marquee programs from the east coast become available very soon.

Would the alimony be (big ten deal minus pac deal) * tbd coefficient? Per year? I agree that it goes away even if we get paid 20 mm in the B1G.

philly1121 said:

---

maxer said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

UCLA left the Pac 12. If we get invited to the B1G, we are leaving the Pac 9. Whatever share we get from the B1G if we join will likely be greater than anything we get from the P9. All bets are off. This would be on the front end of conditions for UCLA to give their support for our entry.

---

---

Quote:

---

Do you think Calimony would be subject to BIG negotiations? I don't, or at least it shouldn't. And, if UCLA tries to make it so from their end, I'd involve the Regents again and settle it once and for all.

If it isn't part of a BIG deal, one way or the other, we take the BIG deal and kneel on the UCLA neck separately.

---

And this ladies and gentleman ^^, is why no one wants us. We are so insufferable. That we would negotiate entry into the B1G by having UCLA continue to pay a penalty for leaving the P12. Unbelievable. lol

---

Amazing right? And with an incredible lack of self awareness.

Rushinbear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Strykur said:

---

maxer said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Strykur said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Strykur said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

maxer said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

Even if they lowball us with a small share, all that matters is we have the opportunity to eventually gain a full share

---

Yes, accepting a half share of B1G money for a few years is worth it as long as we have a path to a full share.

---

Presumably the Calimony from UCLA would tide us over during that period, if that's what happens.

---

Would we still get Calimony?

---

Is this a serious question? I think we cancel that as part of the deal.

---

I could see Cal getting reduced payments from UCLA until Cal qualifies for a full share.

---

JFC do you want the B1G or not?

---

Let me clear, if Cal gets an invite to the B1G they should take it, regardless of stipulations, as long as the stipulation is not a permanent lesser share.

---

100% yes.

---

We take any B1G offer now, re-negotiate later.

---

Once you agree to a deal, where's the leverage to renegotiate later? Can we, for once, play hardball?

---

Does Cal have any leverage right now? I dont think now is the time for hardball. I'm sure if the B1G wanted, ASU and Utah would jump at being our replacement.

---

Do you think Calimony would be subject to BIG negotiations? I don't, or at least it shouldn't. And, if UCLA tries to make it so from their end, I'd involve the Regents again and settle it once and for all.

If it isn't part of a BIG deal, one way or the other, we take the BIG deal and kneel on the UCLA neck separately.

---

If the B1G says, "As part of your invitation into the league, Cal will drop any demands for additional compensation from any other league member" you can be sure the university will accept it happily.

Dan Wetzel was on John Canzano's radio show today.

Wetzel said pretty much the same things he said in his Yahoo column: No decision made by the Big Ten yet. Big Ten presidents are discussing it, commissioner not involved yet. Could be all four, could be just UO and UW. Presidents probably wouldn't waste their time with this unless it was going to happen eventually. Big Ten presidents would love the Big 12 to move first so that it doesn't look like they collapsed a viable conference by adding more Pac schools.

BearSD said:

---

Dan Wetzel was on John Canzano's radio show today.

Wetzel said pretty much the same things he said in his Yahoo column: No decision made by the Big Ten yet. Big Ten presidents are discussing it, commissioner not involved yet. Could be all four, could be just UO and UW. Presidents probably wouldn't waste their time with this unless it was going to happen eventually. Big Ten presidents would love the Big 12 to move first so that it doesn't look like they collapsed a viable conference by adding more Pac schools.

---

The irony is, they did kill the Pac-12. Perhaps less because they took the LA schools are more because they took Fox Sports with them.

Fox refused to negotiate with the Pac-12 before negotiations even started. Without Fox, the Pac-12 needed more homes for its content and had no one competing against the few available linear provides. And jt sounds as though the streamers wanted all or nothing so there wasn't even competition for each tier.

Without Fox participating, the Pac-12 simply was not in a a position to get a viable deal.

BearSD said:

---

Before anyone starts celebrating… here's an espn article claiming the Big Ten is only looking at Washington and Oregon. Better hope this is wrong.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38123037/big-ten-explores-possible-expansion-amid-pac-12-instability

Quote:

---

ESPN reported on Monday that Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti had begun quiet diligence on both Washington and Oregon. Sources indicated that has ramped up throughout the week, although there's some patience to see how things unfold in the Pac-12.

While there's some presidential interest in adding Cal and Stanford, those potential additions were met with chilly responses last year when the Big Ten pondered adding more teams, in part because of their lack of television resonance. Stanford's addition to the Big Ten has long been paired to a potential Notre Dame addition, which doesn't appear imminent at this point.

---

---

Oregon and UW have been and are pushing hard for a B1G invite. UCLA and USC (and Stanford) are our natural allies in this, we don't need to antagonize them more than we already have. People say Christ has been "doing everything possible to get us in" but whether she has or not, she really needs to right now. And that includes convincing Fox that we bring value.

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Before anyone starts celebrating… here's an espn article claiming the Big Ten is only looking at Washington and Oregon. Better hope this is wrong.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38123037/big-ten-explores-possible-expansion-amid-pac-12-instability

Quote:

---

ESPN reported on Monday that Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti had begun quiet diligence on both Washington and Oregon. Sources indicated that has ramped up throughout the week, although there's some patience to see how things unfold in the Pac-12.

While there's some presidential interest in adding Cal and Stanford, those potential additions were met with chilly responses last year when the Big Ten pondered adding more teams, in part because of their lack of television resonance. Stanford's addition to the Big Ten has long been paired to a potential Notre Dame addition, which doesn't appear imminent at this point.

---

---

Oregon and UW have been and are pushing hard for a B1G invite. UCLA and USC (and Stanford) are our natural allies in this, we don't need to antagonize them more than we already have. People say Christ has been "doing everything possible to get us in" but whether she has or not, she really needs to right now. And that includes convincing Fox that we bring value.

---

Part of me wonders how much of an ally SC/UCLA really are vs. wanting California exclusivity in the B1G for recruiting purposes. Obviously the travel mitigation is the upside (as well as the preservation of traditional games) but if mercenary desires to maximize revenue/success come into play...

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Before anyone starts celebrating… here's an espn article claiming the Big Ten is only looking at Washington and Oregon. Better hope this is wrong.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38123037/big-ten-explores-possible-expansion-amid-pac-12-instability

Quote:

---

ESPN reported on Monday that Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti had begun quiet diligence on both Washington and Oregon. Sources indicated that has ramped up throughout the week, although there's some patience to see how things unfold in the Pac-12.

While there's some presidential interest in adding Cal and Stanford, those potential additions were met with chilly responses last year when the Big Ten pondered adding more teams, in part because of their lack of television resonance. Stanford's addition to the Big Ten has long been paired to a potential Notre Dame addition, which doesn't appear imminent at this point.

---

---

Oregon and UW have been and are pushing hard for a B1G invite. UCLA and USC (and Stanford) are our natural allies in this, we don't need to antagonize them more than we already have. People say Christ has been "doing everything possible to get us in" but whether she has or not, she really needs to right now. And that includes convincing Fox that we bring value.

---

Part of me wonders how much of an ally SC/UCLA really are vs. wanting California exclusivity in the B1G for recruiting purposes. Obviously the travel mitigation is the upside (as well as the preservation of traditional games) but if mercenary desires to maximize revenue/success come into play...

---

That is why we needed/need to be lobbying them and convincing them of the positives of our going with them instead of trying to block them them and demanding restitution while saying they don't care about their student athletes.

berserkeley said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Dan Wetzel was on John Canzano's radio show today.

Wetzel said pretty much the same things he said in his Yahoo column: No decision made by the Big Ten yet. Big Ten presidents are discussing it, commissioner not involved yet. Could be all four, could be just UO and UW. Presidents probably wouldn't waste their time with this unless it was going to happen eventually. Big Ten presidents would love the Big 12 to move first so that it doesn't look like they collapsed a viable conference by adding more Pac schools.

---

The irony is, they did kill the Pac-12. Perhaps less because they took the LA schools are more because they took Fox Sports with them.

Fox refused to negotiate with the Pac-12 before negotiations even started. Without Fox, the Pac-12 needed more homes for its content and had no one competing against the few available linear provides. And jt sounds as though the streamers wanted all or nothing so there wasn't even competition for each tier.

Without Fox participating, the Pac-12 simply was not in a a position to get a viable deal.

---

This is exactly correct. Fox (and ESPN, but mostly Fox) killed the PAC-12. Taking a big bite by poaching of the LA schools and then sitting back and waiting doing nothing while we bleed to death is exactly the way great white sharks kill elephant seals.

BearSD said:

---

Dan Wetzel was on John Canzano's radio show today.

Wetzel said pretty much the same things he said in his Yahoo column: No decision made by the Big Ten yet. Big Ten presidents are discussing it, commissioner not involved yet. Could be all four, could be just UO and UW. Presidents probably wouldn't waste their time with this unless it was going to happen eventually. Big Ten presidents would love the Big 12 to move first so that it doesn't look like they collapsed a viable conference by adding more Pac schools.

---

I don't understand why they would be concerned about the appearance they were responsible for the Pac's demise. First because everyone already knows they are responsible (partly at least, though USC/UCLA and above all the Pac itself also bear responsibility) but moreover what exactly would be the consequences of this perception? Hardly anyone cares about the Pac beyond the fans of the programs whose outlook without the Pac is bleak. I just don't see how even being squarely blamed by the media for the end of the Pac could significantly impact the B1G.

kal kommie said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Dan Wetzel was on John Canzano's radio show today.

Wetzel said pretty much the same things he said in his Yahoo column: No decision made by the Big Ten yet. Big Ten presidents are discussing it, commissioner not involved yet. Could be all four, could be just UO and UW. Presidents probably wouldn't waste their time with this unless it was going to happen eventually. Big Ten presidents would love the Big 12 to move first so that it doesn't look like they collapsed a viable conference by adding more Pac schools.

---

I don't understand why they would be concerned about the appearance they were responsible for the Pac's demise. First because everyone already knows they are responsible (partly at least, though USC/UCLA and above all the Pac itself also bear responsibility) but moreover what exactly would be the consequences of this perception? Hardly anyone cares about the Pac beyond the fans of the programs whose outlook without the Pac is bleak. I just don't see how even being squarely blamed by the media for the end of the Pac could significantly impact the B1G.

---

They may have violated the Sherman Antitrust act.

philly1121 said:

---

maxer said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

UCLA left the Pac 12. If we get invited to the B1G, we are leaving the Pac 9. Whatever share we get from the B1G if we join will likely be greater than anything we get from the P9. All bets are off. This would be on the front end of conditions for UCLA to give their support for our entry.

---

---

Quote:

---

Do you think Calimony would be subject to BIG negotiations? I don't, or at least it shouldn't. And, if UCLA tries to make it so from their end, I'd involve the Regents again and settle it once and for all.

If it isn't part of a BIG deal, one way or the other, we take the BIG deal and kneel on the UCLA neck separately.

---

And this ladies and gentleman ^^, is why no one wants us. We are so insufferable. That we would negotiate entry into the B1G by having UCLA continue to pay a penalty for leaving the P12. Unbelievable. lol

---

Read again.

bearsandgiants said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Dan Wetzel was on John Canzano's radio show today.

Wetzel said pretty much the same things he said in his Yahoo column: No decision made by the Big Ten yet. Big Ten presidents are discussing it, commissioner not involved yet. Could be all four, could be just UO and UW. Presidents probably wouldn't waste their time with this unless it was going to happen eventually. Big Ten presidents would love the Big 12 to move first so that it doesn't look like they collapsed a viable conference by adding more Pac schools.

---

I don't understand why they would be concerned about the appearance they were responsible for the Pac's demise. First because everyone already knows they are responsible (partly at least, though USC/UCLA and above all the Pac itself also bear responsibility) but moreover what exactly would be the consequences of this perception? Hardly anyone cares about the Pac beyond the fans of the programs whose outlook without the Pac is bleak. I just don't see how even being squarely blamed by the media for the end of the Pac could significantly impact the B1G.

---

They may have violated the Sherman Antitrust act.

---

They may need the Big XII to take the 4 corners first just to be sure there are as few bodies left as possible. You'd have to think that's another argument in favor of not leaving Cal/Stanford out.

berserkeley said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Dan Wetzel was on John Canzano's radio show today.

Wetzel said pretty much the same things he said in his Yahoo column: No decision made by the Big Ten yet. Big Ten presidents are discussing it, commissioner not involved yet. Could be all four, could be just UO and UW. Presidents probably wouldn't waste their time with this unless it was going to happen eventually. Big Ten presidents would love the Big 12 to move first so that it doesn't look like they collapsed a viable conference by adding more Pac schools.

---

I don't understand why they would be concerned about the appearance they were responsible for the Pac's demise. First because everyone already knows they are responsible (partly at least, though USC/UCLA and above all the Pac itself also bear responsibility) but moreover what exactly would be the consequences of this perception? Hardly anyone cares about the Pac beyond the fans of the programs whose outlook without the Pac is bleak. I just don't see how even being squarely blamed by the media for the end of the Pac could significantly impact the B1G.

---

They may have violated the Sherman Antitrust act.

---

They may need the Big XII to take the 4 corners first just to be sure there are as few bodies left as possible. You'd have to think that's another argument in favor of not leaving Cal/Stanford out.

---

Agreed, Colorado helped them, but it is not enough. Now that the PAC-10 media deal has been presented they need the schools that want into the B1G to be the ones knocking on the door. We cannot sit back and wait for an invite. Christ/Cal need to be seen as being very aggressive in wanting in.

If there is an antitrust suit (my guess is there will be, because someone will get left behind and they will have a very strong case), the real instigators and deep pockets to go after are Fox and ESPN.

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Before anyone starts celebrating… here's an espn article claiming the Big Ten is only looking at Washington and Oregon. Better hope this is wrong.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38123037/big-ten-explores-possible-expansion-amid-pac-12-instability

Quote:

---

ESPN reported on Monday that Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti had begun quiet diligence on both Washington and Oregon. Sources indicated that has ramped up throughout the week, although there's some patience to see how things unfold in the Pac-12.

While there's some presidential interest in adding Cal and Stanford, those potential additions were met with chilly responses last year when the Big Ten pondered adding more teams, in part because of their lack of television resonance. Stanford's addition to the Big Ten has long been paired to a potential Notre Dame addition, which doesn't appear imminent at this point.

---

---

Oregon and UW have been and are pushing hard for a B1G invite. UCLA and USC (and Stanford) are our natural allies in this, we don't need to antagonize them more than we already have. People say Christ has been "doing everything possible to get us in" but whether she has or not, she really needs to right now. And that includes convincing Fox that we bring value.

---

Part of me wonders how much of an ally SC/UCLA really are vs. wanting California exclusivity in the B1G for recruiting purposes. Obviously the travel mitigation is the upside (as well as the preservation of traditional games) but if mercenary desires to maximize revenue/success come into play...

---

I guarantee you that USC does not consider Cal a recruiting competitor. Not for players they really want. If they want to protect California they would oppose Oregon not Cal. USC has a long rivalry with Cal I am quite sure their alums and donors would love to continue that rivalry even if not every season.

The quislings, USC and UCLA, are not our allies.

Anarchistbear said:

---

The quislings, USC and UCLA, are not our allies.

---

Perhaps. But UCLA would benefit if we get into B1G for simply the Calimony.

ferCALgm2 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The quislings, USC and UCLA, are not our allies.

---

Perhaps. But UCLA would benefit if we get into B1G for simply the Calimony.

---

Would you let your ex wife into your country club to reduce alimony? Interesting question.

At this point I'd rather be with the SEC than the Chuldren of the Corn. Better culture, food and music than the lard asses.

From what I am heairng in the Chicago area is that the BIG Presidents/Chancelors want Cal and Stanford beacuse they fit the academic profile while the ADs want Oregon and Washington beacuse of their on the field success.

Anarchistbear said:

---

The quislings, USC and UCLA, are not our allies.

---

And that's fine. Cal isn't even an ally of itself.

So, who runs the ship, the presidents or the ADs?

philly1121 said:

---

maxer said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

UCLA left the Pac 12. If we get invited to the B1G, we are leaving the Pac 9. Whatever share we get from the B1G if we join will likely be greater than anything we get from the P9. All bets are off. This would be on the front end of conditions for UCLA to give their support for our entry.

---

---

Quote:

---

Do you think Calimony would be subject to BIG negotiations? I don't, or at least it shouldn't. And, if UCLA tries to make it so from their end, I'd involve the Regents again and settle it once and for all.

If it isn't part of a BIG deal, one way or the other, we take the BIG deal and kneel on the UCLA neck separately.

---

And this ladies and gentleman ^^, is why no one wants us. We are so insufferable. That we would negotiate entry into the B1G by having UCLA continue to pay a penalty for leaving the P12. Unbelievable. lol

---

Isn't ucla leaving the Pac-12 a major reason why the Pac-9 is now on the verge of collapse?

HateRed said:

---

So, who runs the ship, the presidents or the ADs?

---

The money. These are money decisions not academic ones.

Do you think UCLA a public school in the largest public school system in the country sudddnly thought they had more in common academically with Midwest schools halfway across the country than their West Coast peers?

Anarchistbear said:

---

HateRed said:

---

So, who runs the ship, the presidents or the ADs?

---

The money. These are money decisions not academic ones.

Do you think UCLA a public school in the largest public school system in the country sudddnly thought they had more in common academically with Midwest schools halfway across the country than their West Coast peers?

---

Gene Block had almost no involvement in the B1G move, what does that tell you.

Anarchistbear said:

---

ferCALgm2 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The quislings, USC and UCLA, are not our allies.

---

Perhaps. But UCLA would benefit if we get into B1G for simply the Calimony.

---

Would you let your ex wife into your country club to reduce alimony? Interesting question.

At this point I'd rather be with the SEC than the Chuldren of the Corn. Better culture, food and music than the lard asses.

---

Better culture …

Anarchistbear said:

---

At this point I'd rather be with the SEC than the Chuldren of the Corn. Better culture, food and music than the lard asses.

---

If you get your wish and Cal doesn't get a Big Ten invitation, then the good food you'll be getting on Cal road trips won't be in Tuscaloosa and Baton Rouge, it will be in Honolulu and Albuquerque.

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Before anyone starts celebrating… here's an espn article claiming the Big Ten is only looking at Washington and Oregon. Better hope this is wrong.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38123037/big-ten-explores-possible-expansion-amid-pac-12-instability

Quote:

---

ESPN reported on Monday that Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti had begun quiet diligence on both Washington and Oregon. Sources indicated that has ramped up throughout the week, although there's some patience to see how things unfold in the Pac-12.

While there's some presidential interest in adding Cal and Stanford, those potential additions were met with chilly responses last year when the Big Ten pondered adding more teams, in part because of their lack of television resonance. Stanford's addition to the Big Ten has long been paired to a potential Notre Dame addition, which doesn't appear imminent at this point.

---

---

Oregon and UW have been and are pushing hard for a B1G invite. UCLA and USC (and Stanford) are our natural allies in this, we don't need to antagonize them more than we already have. People say Christ has been "doing everything possible to get us in" but whether she has or not, she really needs to right now. And that includes convincing Fox that we bring value.

---

I'm not sure I understand why USC would be an ally to us. They don't stand to gain much by sticking their necks out for us. UCLA I would hope would throw us a bone since they're a sister school but who knows. At this point I suspect our strongest ally is Stanfurd and that their alumni base would much rather see us still compete with them in the same conference (wherever that may be) than for them to sell out and and join with Notre Dame.

BearSD said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

At this point I'd rather be with the SEC than the Chuldren of the Corn. Better culture, food and music than the lard asses.

---

If you get your wish and Cal doesn't get a Big Ten invitation, then the good food you'll be getting on Cal road trips won't be in Tuscaloosa and Baton Rouge, it will be in Honolulu and Albuquerque.

---

Agreed and that's why I'd endorse what is more reasonable and likely.

Anarchistbear said:

---

ferCALgm2 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The quislings, USC and UCLA, are not our allies.

---

Perhaps. But UCLA would benefit if we get into B1G for simply the Calimony.

---

Would you let your ex wife into your country club to reduce alimony? Interesting question.

At this point I'd rather be with the SEC than the Chuldren of the Corn. Better culture, food and music than the lard asses.

---

The SEC already has their token nerd school with Vanderbilt. They don't need us.

The only conceivable reason they'd let us join is so that they can beat up on us every week to really "own the libs".

badger said:

---

From what I am heairng in the Chicago area is that the BIG Presidents/Chancelors want Cal and Stanford beacuse they fit the academic profile while the ADs want Oregon and Washington beacuse of their on the field success.

---

They massively elevate the academic profile.