Our best option... discuss

28,099 Views | 188 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by jdgaucho
Hawaii Haas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berserkeley said:

Sactowndog said:

Quite frankly UCLA is 0-4 against Fresno their last 4 games. SDSU beat Utah 2 years ago.

Every school that left for the Big 12 depends on CA recruiting. If forced to rely on Midwest recruiting it will further dilute their pool of talent.

You guys are Cal alums… act like it and start problem solving and understanding your advantages….

1) if you merge with the MWC then CBS and ESPN have no west coast programming. Fox will have the Big but will have pissed off much of the west coast….

2) two schools with a 12% acceptance rate is not how the BiG operates. Having Fresno State, SJSU and SDSU in conference increases your conference reach. If it somehow kills your Doctoral programs then they weren't that good anyway.

3) own and dominate California and expand from their….

4) the top MWC programs are better than you think….


Own California? That's not possible for any MWC team. Even if USC and UCLA dropped down to the MWC. California would just dropout of the national conversation.


One problem with the PAC in the past 10 years was parity. Couldn't get a team on a run to finish with top 5 ranking. That affects national perception.

California is too big and diverse for one team to own it.

Drivable games could save college football in NorCal. A PAC-MWC merger could do that.

That would also free up cable tv slots that the MWC has at night. To get more "linear" programming to go along with Apple+.

Lastly, I've never watched live sports on a streamer. I would think Apple would be able to know exactly how much viewership each game and perhaps team has. So, revenue can be unequal using data. Sounds like the future to me.

Money aside, I can see the day UCLA would want to come back. If the merger is successful.



zorbarick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hawaii Haas said:






That would also free up cable tv slots that the MWC has at night. To get more "linear" programming to go along with Apple+.

Lastly, I've never watched live sports on a streamer. I would think Apple would be able to know exactly how much viewership each game and perhaps team has. So, revenue can be unequal using data. Sounds like the future to me.


Is there any reason to think there is any Apple+ money in a Pac-4/MWC merger? I suppose Apple may be desperate enough to get a foothold that they'd make an offer, but if that were the case, you'd think they would have worked harder to put a deal together for the Pac-10/9.

I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think the economics exist for Cal to compete in a Pac/MWC merger.

I'm holding out hope that the B1G will still make some kind of offer to Cal and Stanfurd. Barring that, I think we're essentially doomed as a Div. 1 football school. And it breaks my heart.
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
zorbarick said:

Hawaii Haas said:






That would also free up cable tv slots that the MWC has at night. To get more "linear" programming to go along with Apple+.

Lastly, I've never watched live sports on a streamer. I would think Apple would be able to know exactly how much viewership each game and perhaps team has. So, revenue can be unequal using data. Sounds like the future to me.


Is there any reason to think there is any Apple+ money in a Pac-4/MWC merger? I suppose Apple may be desperate enough to get a foothold that they'd make an offer, but if that were the case, you'd think they would have worked harder to put a deal together for the Pac-10/9.

I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think the economics exist for Cal to compete in a Pac/MWC merger.

I'm holding out hope that the B1G will still make some kind of offer to Cal and Stanfurd. Barring that, I think we're essentially doomed as a Div. 1 football school. And it breaks my heart.


Because there is no transparency whatsoever (despite being a public school), we have no idea what Carol and Jim are thinking or doing.

Many read into their silence as them being super secretive and working behind the scenes but it's clear now that either 1) they actually didn't do anything (highly likely) or 2) they were incompetent (equally likely), or 3) no one took them seriously in these discussions and were just silenced by lip service from the B1G (also highly likely).

You see what's going on? Go ahead tell me what you see? U C Berkeley going to die in the MWC.

If we don't get a B1G invite in the next few days, that ship has sailed and we are done. We heard absolutely nothing this whole time from Jim and Carol and in the end we got nothing ... Not one piece of info to think we are headed in the right direction. They don't have options and they don't have clue and we are going to be anxious for another year trying to figure out where and if we will land safely. All we will get though is another statement proudly announcing that we will move into the MWC as it is what is best for ALL of our student athletes. This will be followed by all sports sucking. Yeah I'm depressed.
MTbear22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nikeykid said:

check his tweets this entire week. he's nailed everything, including timing of decisions.
I've read all his tweets. He's never posted a single thing that wasn't reported/ posted/ tweeted elsewhere first. That's what I'm saying - even when he gets something right, there's zero evidence he's got any inside source. He's just reading message boards, occasionally adding some spice, and throwing it all up on his twitter.
MTbear22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hawaii Haas said:




Money aside, I can see the day UCLA would want to come back. If the merger is successful.




1CalFan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Whittier shut down their football program last spring. Maybe the SCIAC wants to expand into NoCal. We may even win the conference!
Honestly this whole situation has made me give up thinking Cal Football will be competitive in major college football in the future.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearMDJD said:

Cal can either: 1. Join the MWC and make $4/5 million a year 2. Go independent and make zero media revenues dollars or 3. Fold competitive football as we know it.

Option1: 4/5 million a year is not worth the hit to the university's prestige and the hordes of donors that would immediately stop showing up and stop writing checks.

Option 3: Folding up football is not possible because we have hundreds of millions in debt on the stadium that needs to be paid back and we have ESP donors that would immediately sue at worst and stop writing checks to the rest of the university at best.

That leads us to option 3 which is making potentially making zero media revenue dollars (or near zero) either in a zombie PAC, as an independent, or subservient to a conference that will let us schedule with them - yes, the B1G would take us for free. At least in this scenario ticket sales continue, the ESP holders aren't frozen out, and some revenue is generated despite a massive financial donut hole.

If the decision comes down to defaulting on the stadium debt and breaking ESP pledges, I'm pretty sure main campus would decide they have to fill the $30 million dollar media dollar gap from somewhere. Losing $30 million a year and hoping we can get into a bigger conference later is still far far far better than defaulting with no football team.

This may become Cal's come to Jesus moment, and honestly, it might be exactly what Cal deserves and needs. That hole is going to have to be covered by either massive donor support or main campus (endowment?).
Also:

1) No sports or no football likely violates endowments which means that money is retuned to the grantor or escheats to the State. Loss of huge dollars.

2) No sport or no football probably means violation of sponsor agreements.

As a practicable manner they have to find a conference to play-in.

3) Mountain West would require a massive debt relief and significant financial assistance from the Regents, partially funded by UCLA. Cal would end-u finding to what degree big time sports are a gateway to campus donations, and administrators might not like the answer.

Seems like the Chancellor needs to find a Power conference result, even if that means a less than full share from the B1g, an attitude adjustment towards the B12, or a difficult situation for non-football athletes travel requirement in the ACC.
berserkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hawaii Haas said:

berserkeley said:

Sactowndog said:

Quite frankly UCLA is 0-4 against Fresno their last 4 games. SDSU beat Utah 2 years ago.

Every school that left for the Big 12 depends on CA recruiting. If forced to rely on Midwest recruiting it will further dilute their pool of talent.

You guys are Cal alums… act like it and start problem solving and understanding your advantages….

1) if you merge with the MWC then CBS and ESPN have no west coast programming. Fox will have the Big but will have pissed off much of the west coast….

2) two schools with a 12% acceptance rate is not how the BiG operates. Having Fresno State, SJSU and SDSU in conference increases your conference reach. If it somehow kills your Doctoral programs then they weren't that good anyway.

3) own and dominate California and expand from their….

4) the top MWC programs are better than you think….


Own California? That's not possible for any MWC team. Even if USC and UCLA dropped down to the MWC. California would just dropout of the national conversation.


One problem with the PAC in the past 10 years was parity. Couldn't get a team on a run to finish with top 5 ranking. That affects national perception.

California is too big and diverse for one team to own it.

Drivable games could save college football in NorCal. A PAC-MWC merger could do that.

That would also free up cable tv slots that the MWC has at night. To get more "linear" programming to go along with Apple+.

Lastly, I've never watched live sports on a streamer. I would think Apple would be able to know exactly how much viewership each game and perhaps team has. So, revenue can be unequal using data. Sounds like the future to me.

Money aside, I can see the day UCLA would want to come back. If the merger is successful.






UCLA will never want to come back. That's irrational. There's no path to relevancy here.
southseasbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berserkeley said:

Hawaii Haas said:

berserkeley said:

Sactowndog said:

Quite frankly UCLA is 0-4 against Fresno their last 4 games. SDSU beat Utah 2 years ago.

Every school that left for the Big 12 depends on CA recruiting. If forced to rely on Midwest recruiting it will further dilute their pool of talent.

You guys are Cal alums… act like it and start problem solving and understanding your advantages….

1) if you merge with the MWC then CBS and ESPN have no west coast programming. Fox will have the Big but will have pissed off much of the west coast….

2) two schools with a 12% acceptance rate is not how the BiG operates. Having Fresno State, SJSU and SDSU in conference increases your conference reach. If it somehow kills your Doctoral programs then they weren't that good anyway.

3) own and dominate California and expand from their….

4) the top MWC programs are better than you think….


Own California? That's not possible for any MWC team. Even if USC and UCLA dropped down to the MWC. California would just dropout of the national conversation.


One problem with the PAC in the past 10 years was parity. Couldn't get a team on a run to finish with top 5 ranking. That affects national perception.

California is too big and diverse for one team to own it.

Drivable games could save college football in NorCal. A PAC-MWC merger could do that.

That would also free up cable tv slots that the MWC has at night. To get more "linear" programming to go along with Apple+.

Lastly, I've never watched live sports on a streamer. I would think Apple would be able to know exactly how much viewership each game and perhaps team has. So, revenue can be unequal using data. Sounds like the future to me.

Money aside, I can see the day UCLA would want to come back. If the merger is successful.






UCLA will never want to come back. That's irrational. There's no path to relevancy here.
They may have wanted to come back if the Pac had stayed intact with SDSU and a couple other schools such as UNLV and/or SMU. They are not going to come "back" to the MWC.

We are screwed. Joining the MWC may be the most obvious solution but we will see a mass exodus of our best players through the portal and (hard to believe) a drop off in recruiting. Face it, Egghead Christ and Know Nothing Knowlton got outplayed by their conference counterparts. The piloted us into being a laughingstock among D1 teams. This will be their legacy.
Michiganmoon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Pac12 bit the BigTen first arguably and USC shares the blame.

The BigTen and Pac12 had an agreement in place to have a football challenge where all of the teams would play 1 from the other conference every year in a head to head conference versus conference. The best teams versus the best and the bottom versus the other bottom.

This would have generated lots of TV $ interest for both conferences.

It was the Pac12 that backed out of this deal, not the BigTen. Had this challenge been in place, the Pac12 probably still exists right now.

The Pac12 backed out in part because USC said 9 conference games, plus Notre Dame, plus a top tier BigTen opponent every year was too much.
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Michiganmoon said:

The Pac12 bit the BigTen first arguably and USC shares the blame.

The BigTen and Pac12 had an agreement in place to have a football challenge where all of the teams would play 1 from the other conference every year in a head to head conference versus conference. The best teams versus the best and the bottom versus the other bottom.

This would have generated lots of TV $ interest for both conferences.

It was the Pac12 that backed out of this deal, not the BigTen. Had this challenge been in place, the Pac12 probably still exists right now.

The Pac12 backed out in part because USC said 9 conference games, plus Notre Dame, plus a top tier BigTen opponent every year was too much.
Now they get Rutgers at home every decade or so, so they win.
SoFlaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think the next thing that has to happen is that the ADs and Chancellors/Presidents of Cal, Stanford, Washington State, and Oregon State should sit down in private and discuss their thoughts on a future course of action. To use a popular cliche - the four schools are not in the same boat, but we are in the same storm. They may have different ideas at this point that don't involve Cal and Stanford. It would be helpful to know that. Stanford may have no interest in playing in certain conferences - it would be helpful to know that.

From a financial standpoint, we made a huge mistake on CMS. We can't undo that. What we can do is start figuring out what we can do with it when we are not playing football there. Music festivals, evangelists, Barrett-Jackson auto auctions - I do not know and do not care. Generate whatever money can be generated. The naming rights are basically worthless, but if we can sell them again, please let's sell to an established company with roots in the Bay Area and not a startup. A bank. A car dealership. A shipping company. Somebody who will be around. We are a debtor who has experienced an unanticipated disaster, and we need to show our creditors we are serious about trying to make our payments. It may help in discussions about short-term debt relief.

We should at least float the notion of UCLA alimony to the regents (and I'd suggest the same concept to Washington State and Oregon State). I think there is a case to be made that their actions harmed Cal and that Cal made certain decisions based on the reasonable expectation that we'd continue to be in a conference with them. The worst the regents can say is "no."

Pick a deadline to stop relying on the kindness of strangers: We want to keep hoping in desperation for a bid from the B1G or the Big 12. Fine. We can do that until August 14th. If by some miracle we get a bid - great! Otherwise, after that, we move on to our new reality. Our reality is that we weren't asked to join these conferences because they don't believe we bring sufficient value to them.

We all agree this situation stinks/sucks/blows - whatever term your generation uses. Would I prefer a bid to the B1G or Big 12 or an ACC deal? Yes. The reality is we've got to make the best of what we've got. If there is a path to making more money as an independent, I'm willing to have that discussion - but I'm not seeing how we get to $400K - $500K per game in media income doing that -- even if we get deals to be slaughtered by Alabama and Ohio State in prime time.

Keeping the PAC name has an appeal, and I don't hate the scenarios involving SMU, SDSU, UNLV, Hawaii, etc in a reimagined PAC - but what I don't see anyone getting around are the exit fees involved in making such a deal. Some posters here are turning their noses up at $5M per year that joining the MW would bring. It's a big pay cut, to be sure - but it beats no media income at all. So I would not rule out the MW options that have been discussed. If all four PAC teams join, it becomes a 16-team mega-conference - strange, but true. Unlike the B1G and the Big - 12, this is a conference to which we would bring value. They renegotiate their media deal in 2026. It'd be two years in the wilderness for us, but at that point, my guess would be that the four PAC teams have made it more valuable. Maybe we can sweeten it in the interim with a streaming deal that doesn't bring in the $20M base for a PAC deal but ensures that all of the PAC legacy members have their games streamed when they aren't on linear TV. In 2026, we reassess. We look at how the landscape has continued to change, what new opportunities have emerged, and the offers, if any, that are out there. If we play our cards right, maybe we have two successful football seasons in this conference.

It's a new era. Joe Starkey has left the booth, Joe Kapp has passed, and the Pacific Athletic Conference is terminally ill. Justin Allegri will broadcast the last Pac-12 season and presumably be our broadcaster in whatever comes next. The 2024 season is going to look very different than the past 100 years no matter what we do.

Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SoFlaBear said:

I think the next thing that has to happen is that the ADs and Chancellors/Presidents of Cal, Stanford, Washington State, and Oregon State should sit down in private and discuss their thoughts on a future course of action. To use a popular cliche - the four schools are not in the same boat, but we are in the same storm. They may have different ideas at this point that don't involve Cal and Stanford. It would be helpful to know that. Stanford may have no interest in playing in certain conferences - it would be helpful to know that.

From a financial standpoint, we made a huge mistake on CMS. We can't undo that. What we can do is start figuring out what we can do with it when we are not playing football there. Music festivals, evangelists, Barrett-Jackson auto auctions - I do not know and do not care. Generate whatever money can be generated. The naming rights are basically worthless, but if we can sell them again, please let's sell to an established company with roots in the Bay Area and not a startup. A bank. A car dealership. A shipping company. Somebody who will be around. We are a debtor who has experienced an unanticipated disaster, and we need to show our creditors we are serious about trying to make our payments. It may help in discussions about short-term debt relief.

We should at least float the notion of UCLA alimony to the regents (and I'd suggest the same concept to Washington State and Oregon State). I think there is a case to be made that their actions harmed Cal and that Cal made certain decisions based on the reasonable expectation that we'd continue to be in a conference with them. The worst the regents can say is "no."

Pick a deadline to stop relying on the kindness of strangers: We want to keep hoping in desperation for a bid from the B1G or the Big 12. Fine. We can do that until August 14th. If by some miracle we get a bid - great! Otherwise, after that, we move on to our new reality. Our reality is that we weren't asked to join these conferences because they don't believe we bring sufficient value to them.

We all agree this situation stinks/sucks/blows - whatever term your generation uses. Would I prefer a bid to the B1G or Big 12 or an ACC deal? Yes. The reality is we've got to make the best of what we've got. If there is a path to making more money as an independent, I'm willing to have that discussion - but I'm not seeing how we get to $400K - $500K per game in media income doing that -- even if we get deals to be slaughtered by Alabama and Ohio State in prime time.

Keeping the PAC name has an appeal, and I don't hate the scenarios involving SMU, SDSU, UNLV, Hawaii, etc in a reimagined PAC - but what I don't see anyone getting around are the exit fees involved in making such a deal. Some posters here are turning their noses up at $5M per year that joining the MW would bring. It's a big pay cut, to be sure - but it beats no media income at all. So I would not rule out the MW options that have been discussed. If all four PAC teams join, it becomes a 16-team mega-conference - strange, but true. Unlike the B1G and the Big - 12, this is a conference to which we would bring value. They renegotiate their media deal in 2026. It'd be two years in the wilderness for us, but at that point, my guess would be that the four PAC teams have made it more valuable. Maybe we can sweeten it in the interim with a streaming deal that doesn't bring in the $20M base for a PAC deal but ensures that all of the PAC legacy members have their games streamed when they aren't on linear TV. In 2026, we reassess. We look at how the landscape has continued to change, what new opportunities have emerged, and the offers, if any, that are out there. If we play our cards right, maybe we have two successful football seasons in this conference.

It's a new era. Joe Starkey has left the booth, Joe Kapp has passed, and the Pacific Athletic Conference is terminally ill. Justin Allegri will broadcast the last Pac-12 season and presumably be our broadcaster in whatever comes next. The 2024 season is going to look very different than the past 100 years no matter what we do.


Justin prolly signed a fifty year guaranteed contract with 25% escalators.
Hawaii Haas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MTbear22 said:

Hawaii Haas said:




Money aside, I can see the day UCLA would want to come back. If the merger is successful.







One day there will be an article (not SBNation, but an article), insinuating that they wish they could play in this PAC-MWC conference with easy travel (and this resurgence of California college football rivalry), but "the economics don't work." "That's why we'd love to schedule them OOC." Their OOC with California schools would be like a college student who went away, coming home for summer and back off to the Midwest. "I miss home."
berserkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SoFlaBear said:

I think the next thing that has to happen is that the ADs and Chancellors/Presidents of Cal, Stanford, Washington State, and Oregon State should sit down in private and discuss their thoughts on a future course of action. To use a popular cliche - the four schools are not in the same boat, but we are in the same storm. They may have different ideas at this point that don't involve Cal and Stanford. It would be helpful to know that. Stanford may have no interest in playing in certain conferences - it would be helpful to know that.

From a financial standpoint, we made a huge mistake on CMS. We can't undo that. What we can do is start figuring out what we can do with it when we are not playing football there. Music festivals, evangelists, Barrett-Jackson auto auctions - I do not know and do not care. Generate whatever money can be generated. The naming rights are basically worthless, but if we can sell them again, please let's sell to an established company with roots in the Bay Area and not a startup. A bank. A car dealership. A shipping company. Somebody who will be around. We are a debtor who has experienced an unanticipated disaster, and we need to show our creditors we are serious about trying to make our payments. It may help in discussions about short-term debt relief.

We should at least float the notion of UCLA alimony to the regents (and I'd suggest the same concept to Washington State and Oregon State). I think there is a case to be made that their actions harmed Cal and that Cal made certain decisions based on the reasonable expectation that we'd continue to be in a conference with them. The worst the regents can say is "no."

Pick a deadline to stop relying on the kindness of strangers: We want to keep hoping in desperation for a bid from the B1G or the Big 12. Fine. We can do that until August 14th. If by some miracle we get a bid - great! Otherwise, after that, we move on to our new reality. Our reality is that we weren't asked to join these conferences because they don't believe we bring sufficient value to them.

We all agree this situation stinks/sucks/blows - whatever term your generation uses. Would I prefer a bid to the B1G or Big 12 or an ACC deal? Yes. The reality is we've got to make the best of what we've got. If there is a path to making more money as an independent, I'm willing to have that discussion - but I'm not seeing how we get to $400K - $500K per game in media income doing that -- even if we get deals to be slaughtered by Alabama and Ohio State in prime time.

Keeping the PAC name has an appeal, and I don't hate the scenarios involving SMU, SDSU, UNLV, Hawaii, etc in a reimagined PAC - but what I don't see anyone getting around are the exit fees involved in making such a deal. Some posters here are turning their noses up at $5M per year that joining the MW would bring. It's a big pay cut, to be sure - but it beats no media income at all. So I would not rule out the MW options that have been discussed. If all four PAC teams join, it becomes a 16-team mega-conference - strange, but true. Unlike the B1G and the Big - 12, this is a conference to which we would bring value. They renegotiate their media deal in 2026. It'd be two years in the wilderness for us, but at that point, my guess would be that the four PAC teams have made it more valuable. Maybe we can sweeten it in the interim with a streaming deal that doesn't bring in the $20M base for a PAC deal but ensures that all of the PAC legacy members have their games streamed when they aren't on linear TV. In 2026, we reassess. We look at how the landscape has continued to change, what new opportunities have emerged, and the offers, if any, that are out there. If we play our cards right, maybe we have two successful football seasons in this conference.

It's a new era. Joe Starkey has left the booth, Joe Kapp has passed, and the Pacific Athletic Conference is terminally ill. Justin Allegri will broadcast the last Pac-12 season and presumably be our broadcaster in whatever comes next. The 2024 season is going to look very different than the past 100 years no matter what we do.




The reason we all turn up our noses at $5M from the MWC is because it's not enough to fund football in the MWC. SDSU spends a lot more on football than football generates. They fund athletics from student fees.
berserkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hawaii Haas said:

MTbear22 said:

Hawaii Haas said:




Money aside, I can see the day UCLA would want to come back. If the merger is successful.







One day there will be an article (not SBNation, but an article), insinuating that they wish they could play in this PAC-MWC conference with easy travel (and this resurgence of California college football rivalry), but "the economics don't work." "That's why we'd love to schedule them OOC." Their OOC with California schools would be like a college student who went away, coming home for summer and back off to the Midwest. "I miss home."


No, there won't. There is no resurgence of California football to be had. They may get left behind, but they will never want what ceilings is for the MWC.
westcoast101
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unfortunately, the "best" option is to cut a number of programs, move the remaining ones to the Big West/WCC/MWC and go Independent for football. Hopefully we're brought in at the next big realignment shakeup. If not, just shut down football.
RedlessWardrobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
westcoast101 said:

Unfortunately, the "best" option is to cut a number of programs, move the remaining ones to the Big West/WCC/MWC and go Independent for football. Hopefully we're brought in at the next big realignment shakeup. If not, just shut down football.
One question. Are you really Jim Knowlton? This sounds like an extension of what we've got from him so far, especially the final sentence.
3146gabby
How long do you want to ignore this user?
perhaps mentioned somewhere in this long thread:

1. an academic league, us, Stanford, Vandy, Duke, Tulane, Rice, Virginia [and for a patsy, MIT..

2. the demise of PAC 12 is sad, but perhaps above gives us a chance to be on top of something and frankly that would not be so bad....

I acknowledge the navet of the suggestion.

BigDaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hawaii Haas said:



Money aside, I can see the day UCLA would want to come back. If the merger is successful.
UCLA is not going to take a $75 million dollar a year haircut to come back to the Zombie Pac-12.
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
BigDaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
westcoast101 said:

Unfortunately, the "best" option is to cut a number of programs, move the remaining ones to the Big West/WCC/MWC and go Independent for football. Hopefully we're brought in at the next big realignment shakeup. If not, just shut down football.
Going independent is not the answer. It is a disaster waiting to happen, Cal is not Notre Dame. It is UConn, or worse.
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
SoFlaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berserkeley said:

SoFlaBear said:

I think the next thing that has to happen is that the ADs and Chancellors/Presidents of Cal, Stanford, Washington State, and Oregon State should sit down in private and discuss their thoughts on a future course of action. To use a popular cliche - the four schools are not in the same boat, but we are in the same storm. They may have different ideas at this point that don't involve Cal and Stanford. It would be helpful to know that. Stanford may have no interest in playing in certain conferences - it would be helpful to know that.

From a financial standpoint, we made a huge mistake on CMS. We can't undo that. What we can do is start figuring out what we can do with it when we are not playing football there. Music festivals, evangelists, Barrett-Jackson auto auctions - I do not know and do not care. Generate whatever money can be generated. The naming rights are basically worthless, but if we can sell them again, please let's sell to an established company with roots in the Bay Area and not a startup. A bank. A car dealership. A shipping company. Somebody who will be around. We are a debtor who has experienced an unanticipated disaster, and we need to show our creditors we are serious about trying to make our payments. It may help in discussions about short-term debt relief.

We should at least float the notion of UCLA alimony to the regents (and I'd suggest the same concept to Washington State and Oregon State). I think there is a case to be made that their actions harmed Cal and that Cal made certain decisions based on the reasonable expectation that we'd continue to be in a conference with them. The worst the regents can say is "no."

Pick a deadline to stop relying on the kindness of strangers: We want to keep hoping in desperation for a bid from the B1G or the Big 12. Fine. We can do that until August 14th. If by some miracle we get a bid - great! Otherwise, after that, we move on to our new reality. Our reality is that we weren't asked to join these conferences because they don't believe we bring sufficient value to them.

We all agree this situation stinks/sucks/blows - whatever term your generation uses. Would I prefer a bid to the B1G or Big 12 or an ACC deal? Yes. The reality is we've got to make the best of what we've got. If there is a path to making more money as an independent, I'm willing to have that discussion - but I'm not seeing how we get to $400K - $500K per game in media income doing that -- even if we get deals to be slaughtered by Alabama and Ohio State in prime time.

Keeping the PAC name has an appeal, and I don't hate the scenarios involving SMU, SDSU, UNLV, Hawaii, etc in a reimagined PAC - but what I don't see anyone getting around are the exit fees involved in making such a deal. Some posters here are turning their noses up at $5M per year that joining the MW would bring. It's a big pay cut, to be sure - but it beats no media income at all. So I would not rule out the MW options that have been discussed. If all four PAC teams join, it becomes a 16-team mega-conference - strange, but true. Unlike the B1G and the Big - 12, this is a conference to which we would bring value. They renegotiate their media deal in 2026. It'd be two years in the wilderness for us, but at that point, my guess would be that the four PAC teams have made it more valuable. Maybe we can sweeten it in the interim with a streaming deal that doesn't bring in the $20M base for a PAC deal but ensures that all of the PAC legacy members have their games streamed when they aren't on linear TV. In 2026, we reassess. We look at how the landscape has continued to change, what new opportunities have emerged, and the offers, if any, that are out there. If we play our cards right, maybe we have two successful football seasons in this conference.

It's a new era. Joe Starkey has left the booth, Joe Kapp has passed, and the Pacific Athletic Conference is terminally ill. Justin Allegri will broadcast the last Pac-12 season and presumably be our broadcaster in whatever comes next. The 2024 season is going to look very different than the past 100 years no matter what we do.




The reason we all turn up our noses at $5M from the MWC is because it's not enough to fund football in the MWC. SDSU spends a lot more on football than football generates. They fund athletics from student fees.
westcoast101
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigDaddy said:

westcoast101 said:

Unfortunately, the "best" option is to cut a number of programs, move the remaining ones to the Big West/WCC/MWC and go Independent for football. Hopefully we're brought in at the next big realignment shakeup. If not, just shut down football.
Going independent is not the answer. It is a disaster waiting to happen, Cal is not Notre Dame. It is UConn, or worse.


Agree that we're not Notre Dame, but I think Independence would be much less of a disaster than joining the Mountain West. Seems like we could piece together an OK schedule with the key parts being Stanford, Army, ACC and MWC teams. Try to win 8-9 games per year and get into a bowl game (who knows what the tie ins look like going forward). Again, I don't think this is a long term solution and hate that it's even a discussion, but think it could work for a few years.
southseasbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
westcoast101 said:

BigDaddy said:

westcoast101 said:

Unfortunately, the "best" option is to cut a number of programs, move the remaining ones to the Big West/WCC/MWC and go Independent for football. Hopefully we're brought in at the next big realignment shakeup. If not, just shut down football.
Going independent is not the answer. It is a disaster waiting to happen, Cal is not Notre Dame. It is UConn, or worse.


Agree that we're not Notre Dame, but I think Independence would be much less of a disaster than joining the Mountain West. Seems like we could piece together an OK schedule with the key parts being Stanford, Army, ACC and MWC teams. Try to win 8-9 games per year and get into a bowl game (who knows what the tie ins look like going forward). Again, I don't think this is a long term solution and hate that it's even a discussion, but think it could work for a few years.
Agreed. And we should play an HBC team every year or two.
6956bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MTbear22 said:

MHver is not a reliable source.

Maybe not. I don't know. But I know the "reliable" sources many believed (Wilner and Canzano) were wrong. On virtually everything. The Big 12 anon bloggers have been right more often.

BigDaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
westcoast101 said:

BigDaddy said:

westcoast101 said:

Unfortunately, the "best" option is to cut a number of programs, move the remaining ones to the Big West/WCC/MWC and go Independent for football. Hopefully we're brought in at the next big realignment shakeup. If not, just shut down football.
Going independent is not the answer. It is a disaster waiting to happen, Cal is not Notre Dame. It is UConn, or worse.


Agree that we're not Notre Dame, but I think Independence would be much less of a disaster than joining the Mountain West. Seems like we could piece together an OK schedule with the key parts being Stanford, Army, ACC and MWC teams. Try to win 8-9 games per year and get into a bowl game (who knows what the tie ins look like going forward). Again, I don't think this is a long term solution and hate that it's even a discussion, but think it could work for a few years.
There is simply no money in it. BYU barely managed it, because they had their own TV network with 66 million subs and a national following due to their LDS affiliation. And the moment they got a chance at the Big XII theyt jumped at it.

“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
MTbear22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
6956bear said:

MTbear22 said:

MHver is not a reliable source.

Maybe not. I don't know. But I know the "reliable" sources many believed (Wilner and Canzano) were wrong. On virtually everything. The Big 12 anon bloggers have been right more often.


In all honesty anyone who believed Canzano at any point was absolutely delusional. Canzano completely trashed his journalistic integrity/ reputation, and anyone who was paying attention at all knew it all along.
BearMDJD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nikeykid said:

check his tweets this entire week. he's nailed everything, including timing of decisions.


What he said about MTL blowing up is being confirmed. This person clearly knows something. If Stanford reached out to the Big XII without us that is highly distressing.
westcoast101
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigDaddy said:

westcoast101 said:

BigDaddy said:

westcoast101 said:

Unfortunately, the "best" option is to cut a number of programs, move the remaining ones to the Big West/WCC/MWC and go Independent for football. Hopefully we're brought in at the next big realignment shakeup. If not, just shut down football.
Going independent is not the answer. It is a disaster waiting to happen, Cal is not Notre Dame. It is UConn, or worse.


Agree that we're not Notre Dame, but I think Independence would be much less of a disaster than joining the Mountain West. Seems like we could piece together an OK schedule with the key parts being Stanford, Army, ACC and MWC teams. Try to win 8-9 games per year and get into a bowl game (who knows what the tie ins look like going forward). Again, I don't think this is a long term solution and hate that it's even a discussion, but think it could work for a few years.
There is simply no money in it. BYU barely managed it, because they had their own TV network with 66 million subs and a national following due to their LDS affiliation. And the moment they got a chance at the Big XII theyt jumped at it.




And they absolutely should have jumped to the Big XII and would have done so years prior if the invite was there earlier. There's a reason they left the MWC and never looked back. Independence is not a financially viable long term solution for us, but it seems like the only realistic path at potential survival at this point.
SoFlaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berserkeley said:

SoFlaBear said:

I think the next thing that has to happen is that the ADs and Chancellors/Presidents of Cal, Stanford, Washington State, and Oregon State should sit down in private and discuss their thoughts on a future course of action. To use a popular cliche - the four schools are not in the same boat, but we are in the same storm. They may have different ideas at this point that don't involve Cal and Stanford. It would be helpful to know that. Stanford may have no interest in playing in certain conferences - it would be helpful to know that.

From a financial standpoint, we made a huge mistake on CMS. We can't undo that. What we can do is start figuring out what we can do with it when we are not playing football there. Music festivals, evangelists, Barrett-Jackson auto auctions - I do not know and do not care. Generate whatever money can be generated. The naming rights are basically worthless, but if we can sell them again, please let's sell to an established company with roots in the Bay Area and not a startup. A bank. A car dealership. A shipping company. Somebody who will be around. We are a debtor who has experienced an unanticipated disaster, and we need to show our creditors we are serious about trying to make our payments. It may help in discussions about short-term debt relief.

We should at least float the notion of UCLA alimony to the regents (and I'd suggest the same concept to Washington State and Oregon State). I think there is a case to be made that their actions harmed Cal and that Cal made certain decisions based on the reasonable expectation that we'd continue to be in a conference with them. The worst the regents can say is "no."

Pick a deadline to stop relying on the kindness of strangers: We want to keep hoping in desperation for a bid from the B1G or the Big 12. Fine. We can do that until August 14th. If by some miracle we get a bid - great! Otherwise, after that, we move on to our new reality. Our reality is that we weren't asked to join these conferences because they don't believe we bring sufficient value to them.

We all agree this situation stinks/sucks/blows - whatever term your generation uses. Would I prefer a bid to the B1G or Big 12 or an ACC deal? Yes. The reality is we've got to make the best of what we've got. If there is a path to making more money as an independent, I'm willing to have that discussion - but I'm not seeing how we get to $400K - $500K per game in media income doing that -- even if we get deals to be slaughtered by Alabama and Ohio State in prime time.

Keeping the PAC name has an appeal, and I don't hate the scenarios involving SMU, SDSU, UNLV, Hawaii, etc in a reimagined PAC - but what I don't see anyone getting around are the exit fees involved in making such a deal. Some posters here are turning their noses up at $5M per year that joining the MW would bring. It's a big pay cut, to be sure - but it beats no media income at all. So I would not rule out the MW options that have been discussed. If all four PAC teams join, it becomes a 16-team mega-conference - strange, but true. Unlike the B1G and the Big - 12, this is a conference to which we would bring value. They renegotiate their media deal in 2026. It'd be two years in the wilderness for us, but at that point, my guess would be that the four PAC teams have made it more valuable. Maybe we can sweeten it in the interim with a streaming deal that doesn't bring in the $20M base for a PAC deal but ensures that all of the PAC legacy members have their games streamed when they aren't on linear TV. In 2026, we reassess. We look at how the landscape has continued to change, what new opportunities have emerged, and the offers, if any, that are out there. If we play our cards right, maybe we have two successful football seasons in this conference.

It's a new era. Joe Starkey has left the booth, Joe Kapp has passed, and the Pacific Athletic Conference is terminally ill. Justin Allegri will broadcast the last Pac-12 season and presumably be our broadcaster in whatever comes next. The 2024 season is going to look very different than the past 100 years no matter what we do.




The reason we all turn up our noses at $5M from the MWC is because it's not enough to fund football in the MWC. SDSU spends a lot more on football than football generates. They fund athletics from student fees.
What better deal are we going to get? The B1G ain't coming to rescue us, and neither is the Big 12. I'd love to be wrong on that, but if it were going to happen, it would have happened already. But I'm fine with giving it two more weeks and see if anything changes. But it's either "$5M is better than nothing" or cut football. Cutting football might sound like a great option, but it is a really bad look for a school that sunk over half a billion dollars into training facilities and rebuilding a then-~90-year-old stadium.

See how the final year in the PAC goes. Wilcox should use this with every departing PAC team we play - "You know what ? They don't think you're good enough. They don't think our team is worth their time. Play angry and show them they are wrong." No mater what, we eat humble pie; go to the MWC, and do everything possible (within the rules - of course) to win 8+ games per year in '24 & '25. Become a big fish in a smaller pond, and reassess the situation when the MWC media rights deal comes up in '26.

Or maybe Oski wins Mega Millions?
SoFlaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
3146gabby said:

perhaps mentioned somewhere in this long thread:

1. an academic league, us, Stanford, Vandy, Duke, Tulane, Rice, Virginia [and for a patsy, MIT..

2. the demise of PAC 12 is sad, but perhaps above gives us a chance to be on top of something and frankly that would not be so bad....

I acknowledge the navet of the suggestion.


I mentioned something similar in another thread about the ACC potentially blowing up (widely rumored to be the next shoe to drop)

The West Coast remnants of the PAC (Stanford, Cal, Washington State, Oregon State, and a TBD - maybe Rice or SMU) form a conference with ACC partners Duke, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Virginia, and maybe North Carolina) Academically, those schools fit pretty well together, but I'm not sure how that would work practically.
bearsandgiants
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How is there not one single rabid Cal billionaire out there?
philly1121
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think there's one thing that we are currently forgetting - and one thing that Christ and Knowlton certainly have not figured out - is that the only metric that matters at this point is non-revenue sports. Identifying a number to keep football going and also finances non-revenue sports. And if Administration aren't operating off that metric - then the program is going to fold.

We should be presenting this number to the B1G as a minimum number for us to survive as a football team and for non-revenue sports that we want to keep

We should also be discussing this with the Mountain West. Would we add ANY value to the MW if the Pac4 moves to the MW. Would it move the needle $2-5 million?

Keep this in mind - the "survival metric" depends on how important we regard non-revenue sports. I think cuts are going to be made regardless. There have to be, right? But this is where Christ and Knowlton appear to have dropped the ball. Placing the critical importance of a successful football and basketball program is a MUST if you want to field all these sports. And they don't recognize this. They make decisions that are irresponsible (contract extensions) or ill timed (UCLA/USC exit).

I would put it to the board - either we join a revamped MWC and try to own the conference to set the table for a new conference 5-6 years down the road, or we look to a process of deconstructing our football program. We are on a one year timeline. We can't look to immediate survival from the ACC, B12 or B1G. Its not going to come. Join the MWC, own the conference and try and move forward from there. And if we have to cut to survive - we suspend or cut until a conference wants us or realignment happens again.
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Econ141 said:

zorbarick said:

Hawaii Haas said:






That would also free up cable tv slots that the MWC has at night. To get more "linear" programming to go along with Apple+.

Lastly, I've never watched live sports on a streamer. I would think Apple would be able to know exactly how much viewership each game and perhaps team has. So, revenue can be unequal using data. Sounds like the future to me.


Is there any reason to think there is any Apple+ money in a Pac-4/MWC merger? I suppose Apple may be desperate enough to get a foothold that they'd make an offer, but if that were the case, you'd think they would have worked harder to put a deal together for the Pac-10/9.

I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think the economics exist for Cal to compete in a Pac/MWC merger.

I'm holding out hope that the B1G will still make some kind of offer to Cal and Stanfurd. Barring that, I think we're essentially doomed as a Div. 1 football school. And it breaks my heart.


Because there is no transparency whatsoever (despite being a public school), we have no idea what Carol and Jim are thinking or doing.

Many read into their silence as them being super secretive and working behind the scenes but it's clear now that either 1) they actually didn't do anything (highly likely) or 2) they were incompetent (equally likely), or 3) no one took them seriously in these discussions and were just silenced by lip service from the B1G (also highly likely).

You see what's going on? Go ahead tell me what you see? U C Berkeley going to die in the MWC.

If we don't get a B1G invite in the next few days, that ship has sailed and we are done. We heard absolutely nothing this whole time from Jim and Carol and in the end we got nothing ... Not one piece of info to think we are headed in the right direction. They don't have options and they don't have clue and we are going to be anxious for another year trying to figure out where and if we will land safely. All we will get though is another statement proudly announcing that we will move into the MWC as it is what is best for ALL of our student athletes. This will be followed by all sports sucking. Yeah I'm depressed.
If Carol and Jim are strategizing at all, as opposed to waiting to see what options fall to them, they are trying to carve out a super-Ivy conference with us, Furd, ND, Rice, Tulane, SMU, NW (after house cleaning), Vandy (after an internecine civil war), GT, Miami, BC (these last 3 prying themselves out of the ACC). That's how out of touch they are - mice preening as the cat prepares to pounce.
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?


This guy has been right on numerous counts. Why the F donqe hear nothing about what Cal is trying to do?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.