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.

---

Speak as you might to a golden retriever. How is being an independent a better proposition financially than being a member of the MWC? Honestly, I'm not getting how we can make > $5M as an indy,

Econ141 said:

---

Could amount to nothing at all but I’m told Stanford reached out to the B12 last night.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 5, 2023

This guy has been right on numerous counts. Why the F donqe hear nothing about what Cal is trying to do?

---

Who knows if right, but actually be smart leverage if just to fake interest and see if B1G/Fox steps up faster. They probably all think that Cal/Furd wouldn't consider B12 so they can come in super low whenever they want, but this may speed them up. And yes, we need those tweets about Cal doing the same and reaching out.

SoFlaBear said:

---

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?

---

I don't know that there is a better deal available. But I do know that a MWC schedule will cause a huge drop in ticket sales and athletic donations. I do know that $4M from the MWC doesn't even cover the cost of Wilcox's salary much less his assistants or any of the basketball coaches. And without increasing student fees (which I find highly unlikely to happen), the football will be operating in the red every year.

Is it even ethical to try and field a team at that point?

Or do you just cut your losses now; cut sports and pass off the athletic debt (from CMS to breach of contract with coaches and ESP donors) to the Regents now before that debt grows even larger?

The best hope for Cal is to lock down CA and the west coast with the MWC. Fox CBS and ESPN need the late night programming. Scarcity drives demand. The PAC-4 and the MWC can create scarcity of west coast football options.

The other Hail Mary option for you is to partner with Fresno State who has good Big 12 relationships and has been talking with BY for months. Fresno has been a Big 12 affiliate in a couple sports.

* Position Fresno/Cal to own most of Northern CA
* tell the Big 12 you will work with Fresno to offer joint doctoral degrees and make Fresno Tier 1.
* talk about a having the UC Flagship and the best football team among the CSU's.
* conservative Fresno balances out liberal Cal

Sactowndog said:

---

The best hope for Cal is to lock down CA and the west coast with the MWC. Fox CBS and ESPN need the late night programming. Scarcity drives demand. The PAC-4 and the MWC can create scarcity of west coast football options.

---

My thought as well. Yes - lots of 4* and 5* are going to want t go to UCLA and USC, and some will get in. Many won't, and there are still kids who are going to want to play near home, and who are going to want their families to come to see them in games they can drive to - not flying to Wisco or Michigan. I say we recruit the Hell out of California and tell the kids they'll play in the West.

TottenhamBear said:

---

I'm so frustrated that I literally created an account, paid just to write this. It's either big 10 or pray that someone takes Oski out back like Ol' Yeller.

---

Huh?

The other option is a Cal Fresno pairing. Fresno has a Big 12 relationship but lacks academic standing. Cal has academic standing but lacks a Big 12 relationship.

As much as we hate one another we could help each other out.

You can not play football in the mwc without student fees. You might in big sky while radically reducing expenses. Cms is less of a problem. Just tell Regents (like the ucs with county hospitals did) "your problem." If they don't like it impose 1000 a year "ucla screwed you fee" and see how Regents like the phone calls from irrate sacto politicians.

berserkeley said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

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?

---

I don't know that there is a better deal available. But I do know that a MWC schedule will cause a huge drop in ticket sales and athletic donations. I do know that $4M from the MWC doesn't even cover the cost of Wilcox's salary much less his assistants or any of the basketball coaches. And without increasing student fees (which I find highly unlikely to happen), the football will be operating in the red every year.

Is it even ethical to try and field a team at that point?

Or do you just cut your losses now:?; ut sports and pass off the athletic debt (from CMS to breach of contract with coaches and ESP donors) to the Regents now before that debt grows even larger?

---

No matter what, we will probably see a pivot to basketball, but college basketball isn't the moneymaker it used to be, and Haas hasn't been loud and full for a while.

This is a disaster. In a financial sense, it isn't that different than if the school had somehow been hit by a fire or earthquake, or hurricane that somehow only struck the athletic department. I take your point, but I believe it is ethical to continue because, like any disaster, this needs to be viewed as a short-term setback. We will be in the red and we will play opponents we aren't used to playing, and there may be a lot of coach and player turnover. But we are a large public school that offers some of the best education on the planet. We still have value and reasonably good facilities. I think we suck it up in '24 and '25; do what we can to win games in our new surroundings (winning tends to sell tickets); and see what we can negotiate in '26 when the MWC media deal renews.

But that's just me.

What really sucks with the stadium is that, because of the legal restrictions due to its location, we can't - for example - just tear CMS down, eat the loss, and build condos. to make back a good chunk of the money. We could make it over (involving borrowing more money) and reconfigure it as an amphitheater-style performance venue. I joked with someone that we could get some pharmacology profs. from UCSF and some ag profs from UC Davis to come over and, in the off-season, put a bunch of hoop houses on the field at CMS and generate some extra revenue by growing weed, extracting the THC, and selling a bunch of Oski gummies and edibles to the locals.

SoFlaBear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

---

---

---

What really sucks with the stadium is that, because of the legal restrictions due to its location, we can't - for example - just tear CMS down, eat the loss, and build condos. to make back a good chunk of the money. We could make it over (involving borrowing more money) and reconfigure it as an amphitheater-style performance venue. I joked with someone that we could get some pharmacology profs. from UCSF and some ag profs from UC Davis to come over and, in the off-season, put a bunch of hoop houses on the field at CMS and generate some extra revenue by growing weed, extracting the THC, and selling a bunch of Oski gummies and edibles to the locals.

---

Probably can't turn it into a performance venue, due to the restriction on the number of high-attendance events at CMS that were agreed to in order to get the Panoramic Hill a--holes to end their lawsuits.

SoFlaBear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

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?

---

I don't know that there is a better deal available. But I do know that a MWC schedule will cause a huge drop in ticket sales and athletic donations. I do know that $4M from the MWC doesn't even cover the cost of Wilcox's salary much less his assistants or any of the basketball coaches. And without increasing student fees (which I find highly unlikely to happen), the football will be operating in the red every year.

Is it even ethical to try and field a team at that point?

Or do you just cut your losses now:?; ut sports and pass off the athletic debt (from CMS to breach of contract with coaches and ESP donors) to the Regents now before that debt grows even larger?

---

No matter what, we will probably see a pivot to basketball, but college basketball isn't the moneymaker it used to be, and Haas hasn't been loud and full for a while.

This is a disaster. In a financial sense, it isn't that different than if the school had somehow been hit by a fire or earthquake, or hurricane that somehow only struck the athletic department. I take your point, but I believe it is ethical to continue because, like any disaster, this needs to be viewed as a short-term setback. We will be in the red and we will play opponents we aren't used to playing, and there may be a lot of coach and player turnover. But we are a large public school that offers some of the best education on the planet. We still have value and reasonably good facilities. I think we suck it up in '24 and '25; do what we can to win games in our new surroundings (winning tends to sell tickets); and see what we can negotiate in '26 when the MWC media deal renews.

But that's just me.

What really sucks with the stadium is that, because of the legal restrictions due to its location, we can't - for example - just tear CMS down, eat the loss, and build condos. to make back a good chunk of the money. We could make it over (involving borrowing more money) and reconfigure it as an amphitheater-style performance venue. I joked with someone that we could get some pharmacology profs. from UCSF and some ag profs from UC Davis to come over and, in the off-season, put a bunch of hoop houses on the field at CMS and generate some extra revenue by growing weed, extracting the THC, and selling a bunch of Oski gummies and edibles to the locals.

---

Sadly CMS is too central for the university to do what they SHOULD do - let it go to seed and make it problem of the city or the regents. The bond (and really the PSLs/ESP) are beside the point. The bonds are not issued by the campus but by the regents and likely too the PSLs, There is no "backstop" to the individual campuses because that really isn't how UIC finances are set up (they would be for ICA but not for the debts on these sorts of things).

My current best thinking is to impose a 1000-2000 a year fee and call it the "Ucla screwed Cal" fee and let the firestorm in Sacto get the regents to solve a problem THEY created. This really all wouldn't be an issue if they had done the right thing and joined cal at UCLA at the hip

(BTW - the closest analogy I can come up with is when UC took over the county hospitals. If memory serves that is UCI, UCLA, UCD, and UCSD). At that time they were HORRIFIC money losers (they still are at the ex-county hospitals). What the campuses did was play chcicken - essentially telling the regents that THEY would shut them down if the campuses themselves were on the hook for the red ink and that the regents/oop could live with screaming by state elected officials over the loss of care. So in this case - "If you don't want to clean up the mess we told you about and take on the debt and spread it out among the other 9 campuses then you get to live with the **** storm of students and parents screaming about a fee we will make as politically uncomfortable as possible. Door number 2 is to reduce in state slots and replace with full tuition paying foreign students. There are options for Cal to make things uncomfortable in Office of the Presdient).

Oh and for the Football above else crowd there is a varient on this.

"The regents sadly poorly stewarded this through. They left the campus with the sofie's choice of eitehr killing athletics for 900 students AND absorbing 10s of not 100s of millions of debts and legal obligations or, what wer are going to do, cut 1000 slots from in state admits and replace them with 1000 foreign students until we solve this problem the regents created and gain entrance to the b1g. Thank you and here is my email."

(I jest but the campus could take steps toward that. Or it could opt out of the collective bargaining agreement with grad students citing financial crisis. There are options guys)./

Realistically here are you options:

1) beg the Big but that option probably doesn't exist or you would be invited already

2) Stanford and Cal beg for the Big12…. No relationship with the Big 12. Two hyper elite schools in a Pro dominated market seems not appealing.

3) dominate the west coast by merging with the MWC if you can get Stanford to do it.

4) partner with a CSU to approach the Big 12. You could partner with SDSU but they don't have a great Big 12 relationship either. Fresno does. But Fresno is lower academically because UCSD partnered with SDSU and UCD thumbed their nose at Fresno. Fresno and Cal could own much of NorCal

The really downside risk for Cal is Stanford partners with SDSU for the last two spots in an 18 team Big 12. That would severely damage Cal as you would be in the 3rd tier CA conference. You need to be in the 2nd either from a merger or a partnership. Urgency matters

I'm hoping they have better options than what we see.. but

SoFlaBear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

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?

---

I don't know that there is a better deal available. But I do know that a MWC schedule will cause a huge drop in ticket sales and athletic donations. I do know that $4M from the MWC doesn't even cover the cost of Wilcox's salary much less his assistants or any of the basketball coaches. And without increasing student fees (which I find highly unlikely to happen), the football will be operating in the red every year.

Is it even ethical to try and field a team at that point?

Or do you just cut your losses now:?; ut sports and pass off the athletic debt (from CMS to breach of contract with coaches and ESP donors) to the Regents now before that debt grows even larger?

---

No matter what, we will probably see a pivot to basketball, but college basketball isn't the moneymaker it used to be, and Haas hasn't been loud and full for a while.

This is a disaster. In a financial sense, it isn't that different than if the school had somehow been hit by a fire or earthquake, or hurricane that somehow only struck the athletic department. I take your point, but I believe it is ethical to continue because, like any disaster, this needs to be viewed as a short-term setback. We will be in the red and we will play opponents we aren't used to playing, and there may be a lot of coach and player turnover. But we are a large public school that offers some of the best education on the planet. We still have value and reasonably good facilities. I think we suck it up in '24 and '25; do what we can to win games in our new surroundings (winning tends to sell tickets); and see what we can negotiate in '26 when the MWC media deal renews.

But that's just me.

What really sucks with the stadium is that, because of the legal restrictions due to its location, we can't - for example - just tear CMS down, eat the loss, and build condos. to make back a good chunk of the money. We could make it over (involving borrowing more money) and reconfigure it as an amphitheater-style performance venue. I joked with someone that we could get some pharmacology profs. from UCSF and some ag profs from UC Davis to come over and, in the off-season, put a bunch of hoop houses on the field at CMS and generate some extra revenue by growing weed, extracting the THC, and selling a bunch of Oski gummies and edibles to the locals.

---

If the finances work, then obviously go for it. Only saying that the reason most look down on the $5M is because they don't think it's enough for Cal to field a team.

One think to keep in mind is with just the 4 Big teams and a merged MWC/PAC the TV needs 7:00 pm programming so the numbers might rise some if that is the route taken.

The doomsday scenario is Stanford and SDSU to the Big 12.

The Big 10 knowsCal is desperate and will offer a low ball deal in the next two weeks

Sactowndog said:

---

Realistically here are you options:

1) beg the Big but that option probably doesn't exist or you would be invited already

2) Stanford and Cal beg for the Big12…. No relationship with the Big 12. Two hyper elite schools in a Pro dominated market seems not appealing.

3) dominate the west coast by merging with the MWC if you can get Stanford to do it.

4) partner with a CSU to approach the Big 12. You could partner with SDSU but they don't have a great Big 12 relationship either. Fresno does. But Fresno is lower academically because UCSD partnered with SDSU and UCD thumbed their nose at Fresno. Fresno and Cal could own much of NorCal

The really downside risk for Cal is Stanford partners with SDSU for the last two spots in an 18 team Big 12. That would severely damage Cal as you would be in the 3rd tier CA conference. You need to be in the 2nd either from a merger or a partnership. Urgency matters

---

1. Option one could work if we come in low enough but high enough to fund the non-revenue sports.

2. Not going to happen. After all the hubris and rhetoric that we have thrown at the B12, you think they care about our academic standing?

3. Probably the only route. See if there is any forward motion for bringing in more revenue to the MWC than they already have. It won't be much.

4. I don't think this will happen. The play for the B12 now is SDSU (basketball) and probably Fresno State.

Option 3 seems most plausible in the time we have.

oskidunker said:

---

The Big 10 knowsCal is desperate and will offer a low ball deal in the next two weeks

---

I think so too, maybe with the initial low ball offer "boosted" with a high interest loan on future revenues.

We need to be working CLOSELY with Stanford, UCLA, USC and importantly Notre Dame. We need to perceived as part of that group, a group that has played each other directly or indirectly, and wants to play each other forever.

If for some reason we do not get into the Big 10 immediately, we still need to maintain the above connections. We only hurt ourselves if we do not. Thus our fall- back option is Cal and Stanford form an independent alliance with Notre Dame or we stay in an abbreviated PAC-4 (allowed by the NCAA short term) with OSU and WSU and schedule USC, UCLA and Notre Dame OOC. Our media partner could still be Apple. With only year to year grant of rights. In year 1 we just need to win the PAC-4 and be ranked higher than the 7th highest rated conference champion to make the CFP. Not great, but gives us a path to staying relevant for the next two years, maybe longer.

If plan B, fails, beginning two years from now we negotiate a deal to merge the PAC and MWC.

Importantly, the above is for football only. We send our other sports to the UC dominated Big West and greatly reduce our travel costs.

Sactowndog said:

---

One think to keep in mind is with just the 4 Big teams and a merged MWC/PAC the TV needs 7:00 pm programming so the numbers might rise some if that is the route taken.

The doomsday scenario is Stanford and SDSU to the Big 12.

---

Unfortunately, both the B1G and Big XII can now offer that 7 pm slot.

Econ141 said:

---

Could amount to nothing at all but I’m told Stanford reached out to the B12 last night.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 5, 2023

This guy has been right on numerous counts. Why the F donqe hear nothing about what Cal is trying to do?

---

Cal's only hope is that the Big 12 wants Stanford and is willing to take Cal to be a traveling partner and local opponent.

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

The Big 10 knowsCal is desperate and will offer a low ball deal in the next two weeks

---

I think so too, maybe with the initial low ball offer "boosted" with a high interest loan on future revenues.

---

Apparently there is a 420 million windfall that could be split between the remaining 4 pac teams. Sorry don't have a link but saw this from reliable source on Twitter

Econ141 said:

---

Apparently there is a 420 million windfall that could be split between the remaining 4 pac teams. Sorry don't have a link but saw this from reliable source on Twitter

---

Let's file that with the Too Good To Be True department.

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

The Big 10 knowsCal is desperate and will offer a low ball deal in the next two weeks

---

I think so too, maybe with the initial low ball offer "boosted" with a high interest loan on future revenues.

---

Apparently there is a 420 million windfall that could be split between the remaining 4 pac teams. Sorry don't have a link but saw this from reliable source on Twitter

---

lol

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

The Big 10 knowsCal is desperate and will offer a low ball deal in the next two weeks

---

I think so too, maybe with the initial low ball offer "boosted" with a high interest loan on future revenues.

---

Apparently there is a 420 million windfall that could be split between the remaining 4 pac teams. Sorry don't have a link but saw this from reliable source on Twitter

---

I think the source on this is Canzano which means there is absolutely no way that it's true.

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

The Big 10 knowsCal is desperate and will offer a low ball deal in the next two weeks

---

I think so too, maybe with the initial low ball offer "boosted" with a high interest loan on future revenues.

---

Apparently there is a 420 million windfall that could be split between the remaining 4 pac teams. Sorry don't have a link but saw this from reliable source on Twitter

---

Apple was only willing to pay $70M for the Pac-12 Network. But, hey, at least the 4 remaining teams get to divide up whatever profits we get from that sale.

berserkeley said:

---

Sactowndog said:

---

One think to keep in mind is with just the 4 Big teams and a merged MWC/PAC the TV needs 7:00 pm programming so the numbers might rise some if that is the route taken.

The doomsday scenario is Stanford and SDSU to the Big 12.

---

Unfortunately, both the B1G and Big XII can now offer that 7 pm slot.

---

The schools joining the B1G and Big 12 have reduced their inventory of games played in PST by roughly 50% on average. A school like Colorado will only have 1, when they play in Arizona. Night games in Boulder in November? Brrrr

Right now, for the B1G to offer the 4 pm and 7 pm PST slots every week, UCLA, USC, Oregon and UW will ALL have to play ALL of their home games at those times.

BC Calfan said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Apparently there is a 420 million windfall that could be split between the remaining 4 pac teams. Sorry don't have a link but saw this from reliable source on Twitter

---

Let's file that with the Too Good To Be True department.

---

They meant 420 windfall. It 's unquestionably medicinal at this moment

The problem Fresno State has is they are a Tier 2 school because UCDavis refused to offer joint PhD degrees with any of the valley Cal States. The academic standing gives the Presidents pause.

But the Fresno President has had weekly calls with Yormark and the Big 12 Presidents. He has a relationship. The Big 12 is intrigued by owning the valley and with Fresno and Cal they could really own much above the Tehachapi's.

If I am the Cal President, I'm calling the Fresno President and offering to put together a joint proposal with the Big 12. Not going head to head the USC in SoCal, gives you an elite school but also a school people can attend. Cal fixes Fresno's T1 problem.

It's as good a shot as any.

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

The Big 10 knowsCal is desperate and will offer a low ball deal in the next two weeks

---

I think so too, maybe with the initial low ball offer "boosted" with a high interest loan on future revenues.

---

Apparently there is a 420 million windfall that could be split between the remaining 4 pac teams. Sorry don't have a link but saw this from reliable source on Twitter

---

Ya I saw Canzano report this. But like much Canzano has said over the past year, I don't see any way that's even remotely true.

I think they would be more likely to take SDSU….

Fresno isn't Tier 1 and only a UC can help us. SDSU is helped by UCI and UCSD.
The won't want 2 teams in the Bay as the market is a Pro market
They won't want two institutions with below 15% acceptance rates.

Sadly such an outcome is bad for both of us.

Not to mention USC isn't going to play many games on Fox Sports 1 or 2. If the MWC has been absorbed those games are the open spots.

Heard something interesting from two 'furd professors. They are academics, so I doubt they are very in the loop w athletics, but they mentioned something interesting.

They said they are hearing that Stanford has no interest in joining the MWC, and is not interested in lashing itself to Cal's mast and only considering package deals w another power-4/5 conference either. They would strongly consider a move to a power conference with a school other than Cal, and if it were the b12, probably a school like Fresno State (existing strong b12 relationship) or SD State (socal viewership) and forming a pod of sorts out west w the former Pac schools and BYU in the big12. This seems to be their best hope. Many believe Cal offers little appeal as a partner, and further believe pairing with a different media market is the way to get Stanfurd the highest annual share of media revenue, as they attracted far better viewership this last decade in football than Cal (this read is sobering AF: https://sicem365.com/s/13048/how-many-viewers-did-your-ncaa-team-attract ). The Big Game would theoretically be maintained (perhaps not annually) and played OOC, assuming Cal would agree, which they believe Cal would bc it will be Cal's biggest revenue game.

IDK if it is true, but it would permanently position Stanford over Cal athletically, and it would leave 'furd athletic programs in the best overall position they could hope for at this point. I want to be skeptical, but I don't know why they wouldn't seriously consider that sort of move. Then it will be MWC or bust for Cal, which 'furd fans would of course lord over Cal fans.

If they don't do it right away, I would look to steal that move, pair with SD State and try to join the b12 if at all possible. Immediately. Just sort of doubt Cal gets into a a decent conference the way it has crapped the bed with its pathetic Atbletic Dept.

EDIT: and now I see people posting about Cal alreafy doing this, sorry, hadn't heard that yet.

BearSD said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

---

---

---

What really sucks with the stadium is that, because of the legal restrictions due to its location, we can't - for example - just tear CMS down, eat the loss, and build condos. to make back a good chunk of the money. We could make it over (involving borrowing more money) and reconfigure it as an amphitheater-style performance venue. I joked with someone that we could get some pharmacology profs. from UCSF and some ag profs from UC Davis to come over and, in the off-season, put a bunch of hoop houses on the field at CMS and generate some extra revenue by growing weed, extracting the THC, and selling a bunch of Oski gummies and edibles to the locals.

---

Probably can't turn it into a performance venue, due to the restriction on the number of high-attendance events at CMS that were agreed to in order to get the Panoramic Hill a--holes to end their lawsuits.

---

That settlement agreement expires within the next few years and the use restrictions will be gone. I used to have a copy of it way back when but can't find it now.

MTbear22 said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

The Big 10 knowsCal is desperate and will offer a low ball deal in the next two weeks

---

I think so too, maybe with the initial low ball offer "boosted" with a high interest loan on future revenues.

---

Apparently there is a 420 million windfall that could be split between the remaining 4 pac teams. Sorry don't have a link but saw this from reliable source on Twitter

---

Ya I saw Canzano report this. But like much Canzano has said over the past year, I don't see any way that's even remotely true.

---

Pretty sure it's based largely on liquidating network equipment, so speculative but grounded in reality.

Yep to my point.

But Stanford will pair with SDSU because they can't fix Fresno's Tier 2 problem. But Cal can. Fresno is the better football team than SDSU…. Cal is better than Stanford.

Fresno (Pres Sandoval) and Yormark have a relationship

For over 6 months Yormark and Sandoval had a standing conference call, Sandoval was Yorkmark's personal guest at the TCU v Michigan CFP game in AZ. Sat in the B12 suite.

There is a win win to be had with Fresno and Cal if Cal would consider it. Going to the Big 12 with a joint plan that adds both and brings Fresno to Tier 1 status within 5 years would be a pretty good plan.

Just as an aside it would also be good for the state and help elevate some of the poorest counties in the state.