Original message deleted by Cal Strong. See comment below.

Not sure about the numbers presented, but football only national conferences with localized schedules for the non-football sports make a lot of sense. Not just for a schools like Cal, but virtually every school faced with huge travel bills for no extra money.

Cal STRONG HELL NO

oskiswifeshusband said:

---

Cal STRONG HELL NO

---

Comment deleted. See below.

My crazy idea that I dont actually like all that much, but may bring money and attention.

Go independent and play all the home games at 6:30 pm on fridays. You might be able to work an exclusive tv deal with espn or fox sports for a late night college football game not on a saturday.

You would lose me and a ton of out of town attendees. Friday nights are for high school football and other assorted local activities. Getting off on Fridays is just not realistic. And it harms high school players of coming to CMS to see a game, something we absolutely need to help with recruiting locals. And as for getting a tv audience in the midwest or south, not gonna happen because Friday night high school football is king in those states, and east coasters won't watch because games would end around midnight.

But I'm enjoying the "outside the box" ideas.

Cal Strong is pitching his solution to Chancellor Christ and Director Knowlton. If it is ignored or rejected, and if people here are interested, he can repost it in a few weeks. If you DM Cal Strong, he can keep you posted.

Go Bears!

AZ Bear said:

---

Cal Strong, in my limited time on BearInsider, I did notice your posts due to your somewhat odd persona and diction, along with your propensity to rile up certain other members.

But I must say you have posted several interesting comments today. (I also enjoyed reading your thoughts on Ben Finley. especially regarding his interview skills). Your conference idea on this thread may not get adopted -- it may not even be good, I'm not really sure - but it's a bit different and it's interesting. And you make a really good point about how Cal should consider accepting a very reduced initial share to join the B1G.

My instinct tells me that Cal should seek and accept any bid form the B1G, even if their revenue share is extremely lowball for a number of years, as long as we have the chance to move toward a higher share over time.

We could possibly make up the monetary shortfall some other way, but if we fall into a Pac-4/MWC type of conference, I fear we would suffer a recruiting hemorrhage that we might never recover from. Just getting into the B1G would vastly reduce the risk of bad optics to recruits...I don't think recruits would be overly alarmed by Cal getting a lower revenue share for some period of time, as long as they were part of one of the two super-conferences. And since the SEC is not gonna invite us, we should do whatever it takes to wriggle into the B1G.

---

AZ Bear posting STRONG today!!!! Keep up the strong reading and thinking AZ Bear!!!

Cal Strong had been in discussions with Chancellor and AD's office. Within the past 24 hours, he received what appears to be final responses from Chancellor's EA and from Dan Moguluf.

From Chancellor's EA:

Dear [Cal Strong]:

Thank you for your message. It, and your proposal, have been shared with Chancellor Christ, and I am responding on her behalf, and as per her guidance. In case you haven't seen it, here is the message the Chancellor and Athletic Director sent to the campus community last Friday:

[here she pasted the .pdf of the email they sent to supporters]

-------------------------
From Dan Moguluf:

Dear [Cal Strong],

I believe the campus message makes clear the extent to which we recognize the importance of a thriving Cal Athletics program, and that we are actively pursuing options that align with a broad range of institutional values. We appreciate the time and effort it took to put together your proposal, and I can assure you that the university's leadership is more than ready to think outside the box.

Sincerely,

Dan Mogulof
Asst. Vice Chancellor
Office of Communications and Public Affairs
UC Berkeley

----------------------

Here is Cal Strong's written response to Dan Moguluf:

Dear Mr Moguluf,

Respectfully, this is the sort of pre-packaged and confidence-numbing response that has cost the University precious time and money in countless matters, from the Tree Sitters to retaining failed coaches far past their expiry date. Candidly, this is not thinking "outside the box."

There is no more time for the same sort of thinkers to hunker down and shut out the most innovative and disruptive ideas. We need to win this crisis, instead of just "addressing" it.

-----------------------------

Cal Strong had phone conversation with Chancellor's office, so he can't paste it here.

Here was the summary page of the proposal Cal Strong submitted, which he offered to them for free. He also offered to come on board as a consultant, which they were considering for a time -- but then it seems they rejected.


The Problem with joining the B1G (if they would even offer us):

The Apple deal is supposed to pay institutions $20m/year. The B1G dealt a bit less than $59m to its institutions last year. So that is an approximately $39m difference.

Even if Cal were extended an invitation ioin the B1G, it is unlikely we would receive an equal share. Thus the difference would almost certainly be far less than $39m.

Nebraska had to wait six years to receive a full B1G share, and they have more devoted fans than Cal does at present. Despite six consecutive losing years, Nebraska routinely boasts 60,000-80,000 in the stands, and it was considered a "crisis" last year when attendance dipped below 50,000 for the first and only time ever. In contrast, we are nowhere close to that due to 16 consecutive subpar years of football, as well as many years of weak men's and women's basketball.

If Cal were to enter the B1G, it very likely we would have to wait at least 6 years to receive a full share. In the meantime, we would likely get substantially less than the $59m/year that full-share B1G members received last year.

If, like Nebraska, we get 55% for the intermediate future. That would be about $35m/year for several years.

This would represent a significant increase ($15m) from the Apple Deal. But would the $15m bump be enough to justify sending hundreds of student athletes in non-revenue sports all over the country, often to remote areas, away from their classes every single week?

Even if the B1G were to invite us to join them, this scenario would not be ideal.

The Solution:

My proposal would take the form of proposing an even lower (37%?) share than what Nebraska received for perhaps even more (5-7?) of years, but as a "football only" member of the B1G. We would agree to schedule B1G teams for most of our out of conference games for basketball and non-revenue sports, but those teams would either join the MWC or another conference (perhaps the WCC) until we become full share members of the B1G.

I believe that this would be more attractive for both the B1G and for Cal. The B1G conference would have access to our media market and recruiting footprint for football, but wouldn't have to send their non-revenue teams here all the time. And they could give us a smaller share of their pie for the mid-term future. Of course this proposal can be easily modified to include men's and women's basketball as part of the immediate B1G package. Including basketball would require the B1G to shift our initial share upwards to offset travel expenses.

I have read reporting that some of the presidents of the more elite academic institutions within the B1G are interested in adding Cal for our academic reputation. In addition to its other benefits, this would be a way for them to sell our inclusion to their ADs and to the other presidents.

I think this is generally on course.

the next step really is to unpack our _current_ (understand that status quo) non revenue sports and see which ones really have conference affiliations that truly require extensive travel. As folks have pointed out in the endless number of threads, waterpolo competes in an entireley seperate conferfence because that isn't a Pac12 sport. Others (mens golf?) may be nominally in a conference but that only really matters for the confference tournament and a handful of home and homes.

Really the question about B1G affiliation is about which teams that matters for and whether (because the existing west coast B1G have an interest) there is a way to carve out a manageable travel schedule.

I would assume the biggest challenges are baseball, softball, WBB,and perhaps the volleyball. Don't know how Tennis, Gymnastics and Track, x country organize things. Ditto women's field hockey.

The horrific wrinkle is this (which the numbskulls may not have considered). In some cases (big west?) the conference may not LET cal affiliate because they have strong institutional commitment to limiting scholarships. Cal would come in and dominate. And those scholarship HAVE to be offered because of Title IX.

This was actually a problem for UCSD when it was D3 and d2. The other schools in their old conference were so small that a school with 30K undergrads dominated. One of the arguments to move up to D1 was that it would be possible to find a home - at a time when Cal Baptist was getting frustrated with having to play UCSD.

socaltownie said:

---

I think this is generally on course.

---

Cal Strong appreciate your feedback socaltownie. But from Cal Strong's (limited but no too limited) interactions with the senior leadership teams (Chancellors Office, Athletic Department, and Public Relations/External Coms), this proposal is not even under discussion. His experience with them is that they are stale minds thinking about two stale options:

1. Full membership along with furd in the B1G for a small share -- with or without WSU and OSU.

2. Full membership along with furd (no WSU and OSU) in ACC -- or perhaps Big12 as a last result if they want us. These conferences would also offer only a partial share, but it would a higher share than the B1G option.

There was absolutely no outside the box thinking. Cal Strong sensed that everything that makes Cal an elite academic institution is absent from the three leadership groups.

If they continue down this stale path, the best result will be a partial share in a conference very far away -- in which our non-revenue sports will have to participate.

Cal Strong! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think this is generally on course.

---

Cal Strong appreciate your feedback socaltownie. But from Cal Strong's (limited but no too limited) interactions with the senior leadership teams (Chancellors Office, Athletic Department, and Public Relations/External Coms), this proposal is not even under discussion. His experience with them is that they are stale minds thinking about two stale options:

1. Full membership along with furd in the B1G for a small share -- with or without WSU and OSU.

2. Full membership along with furd (no WSU and OSU) in ACC -- or perhaps Big12 as a last result if they want us. These conferences would also offer only a partial share, but it would a higher share than the B1G option.

There was absolutely no outside the box thinking. Cal Strong sensed that everything that makes Cal an elite academic institution is absent from the three leadership groups.

If they continue down this stale path, the best result will be a partial share in a conference very far away -- in which our non-revenue sports will have to participate.

---

My only additional crazy idea is the leadership of Cal being the ones to initiate the break from all the conferences and to develop their own semi-pro minor league football system. Cal, stanford, washington state, and oregon state own a useless tv network right now. Propose to the college football blue bloods to have a football only league with all the best teams, rebrand the pac-12 network to be the tv network for that league, make a streaming deal with apple or amazon, and sub license out the best games to the networks. The league would be about 30 - 40 deep and include the likes of Ohio state, michigan, Alabama, LSU, texas, etc. All the fat from the conferences would be cut out, and it would be the best product.

We all know this is where college football ends up, the only way Cal will be included is if they start it.

golden sloth said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think this is generally on course.

---

Cal Strong appreciate your feedback socaltownie. But from Cal Strong's (limited but no too limited) interactions with the senior leadership teams (Chancellors Office, Athletic Department, and Public Relations/External Coms), this proposal is not even under discussion. His experience with them is that they are stale minds thinking about two stale options:

1. Full membership along with furd in the B1G for a small share -- with or without WSU and OSU.

2. Full membership along with furd (no WSU and OSU) in ACC -- or perhaps Big12 as a last result if they want us. These conferences would also offer only a partial share, but it would a higher share than the B1G option.

There was absolutely no outside the box thinking. Cal Strong sensed that everything that makes Cal an elite academic institution is absent from the three leadership groups.

If they continue down this stale path, the best result will be a partial share in a conference very far away -- in which our non-revenue sports will have to participate.

---

My only additional crazy idea is the leadership of Cal being the ones to initiate the break from all the conferences and to develop their own semi-pro minor league football system. Cal, stanford, washington state, and oregon state own a useless tv network right now. Propose to the college football blue bloods to have a football only league with all the best teams, rebrand the pac-12 network to be the tv network for that league, make a streaming deal with apple or amazon, and sub license out the best games to the networks. The league would be about 30 - 40 deep and include the likes of Ohio state, michigan, Alabama, LSU, texas, etc. All the fat from the conferences would be cut out, and it would be the best product.

We all know this is where college football ends up, the only way Cal will be included is if they start it.

---

Cal Strong no agree that this is where CFB is certain to end up.

golden sloth said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think this is generally on course.

---

Cal Strong appreciate your feedback socaltownie. But from Cal Strong's (limited but no too limited) interactions with the senior leadership teams (Chancellors Office, Athletic Department, and Public Relations/External Coms), this proposal is not even under discussion. His experience with them is that they are stale minds thinking about two stale options:

1. Full membership along with furd in the B1G for a small share -- with or without WSU and OSU.

2. Full membership along with furd (no WSU and OSU) in ACC -- or perhaps Big12 as a last result if they want us. These conferences would also offer only a partial share, but it would a higher share than the B1G option.

There was absolutely no outside the box thinking. Cal Strong sensed that everything that makes Cal an elite academic institution is absent from the three leadership groups.

If they continue down this stale path, the best result will be a partial share in a conference very far away -- in which our non-revenue sports will have to participate.

---

My only additional crazy idea is the leadership of Cal being the ones to initiate the break from all the conferences and to develop their own semi-pro minor league football system. Cal, stanford, washington state, and oregon state own a useless tv network right now. Propose to the college football blue bloods to have a football only league with all the best teams, rebrand the pac-12 network to be the tv network for that league, make a streaming deal with apple or amazon, and sub license out the best games to the networks. The league would be about 30 - 40 deep and include the likes of Ohio state, michigan, Alabama, LSU, texas, etc. All the fat from the conferences would be cut out, and it would be the best product.

We all know this is where college football ends up, the only way Cal will be included is if they start it.

---

I like your thinking about blazing the trail for streaming, but I think that needs to be done with either Amazon, or Apple with the Pac-4.

hear me out, Apple correctly pegged the value of the PAC minus LA, but even LA market wouldn't have made a huge difference. There is something they understand that college football hasn't quite grasped, yet, the TV deals with ESPN, NBC, FOX, etc., are massively inflated. why? because outside of Boomers (no offense to older folks) and sportsbars, almost no sports fans are watching any of those networks, not legally, anyway.

ESPN, NBC, Fox are only able to pay these absurd contracts because they keep duping companies to advertise, but the reality is that the most important demographic for college football (20-40 year olds) are no longer watching games like they did in the 90s and 00's. I haven't been to a single party with college friends where they pay for ESPN, NBC, etc. Majority of folks are illegal streaming using VPN's or TOR browser whether on their phones or computers. that means all that ad money isn't following real world analytics. I think Apple actually has knowledge of what the analytics really say, and that is why they didn't make a huge offer. They're not going to jump in to lose money, no way they pay what ESPN, Fox, etc. have paid for the deals with conferences. The only thing I know folks pay for is NFL league pass.

The idea of taking partial share for Big 10, Big 12 for half a decade or longer makes no sense, because by that time the college landscape will have changed a lot because people will not be able to ignore the truth about a collapsing economy and analytics that don't bear out the price of advertising. everyone I know is still going to use VPN or TOR to illegally stream a handful of Big 10 and SEC games, just as they have been for the past decade.

and honestly, most folks go watch highlights, not entire games, thats literally what made ESPN so popular in the first place. and we either go to the youtube, espn, or even watch highlights on the gram.

but right now everything is being driven by archaic business model of network television agreed to in backroom deals by the old boys club that flies in the face of analytics.

BarcaBear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think this is generally on course.

---

Cal Strong appreciate your feedback socaltownie. But from Cal Strong's (limited but no too limited) interactions with the senior leadership teams (Chancellors Office, Athletic Department, and Public Relations/External Coms), this proposal is not even under discussion. His experience with them is that they are stale minds thinking about two stale options:

1. Full membership along with furd in the B1G for a small share -- with or without WSU and OSU.

2. Full membership along with furd (no WSU and OSU) in ACC -- or perhaps Big12 as a last result if they want us. These conferences would also offer only a partial share, but it would a higher share than the B1G option.

There was absolutely no outside the box thinking. Cal Strong sensed that everything that makes Cal an elite academic institution is absent from the three leadership groups.

If they continue down this stale path, the best result will be a partial share in a conference very far away -- in which our non-revenue sports will have to participate.

---

My only additional crazy idea is the leadership of Cal being the ones to initiate the break from all the conferences and to develop their own semi-pro minor league football system. Cal, stanford, washington state, and oregon state own a useless tv network right now. Propose to the college football blue bloods to have a football only league with all the best teams, rebrand the pac-12 network to be the tv network for that league, make a streaming deal with apple or amazon, and sub license out the best games to the networks. The league would be about 30 - 40 deep and include the likes of Ohio state, michigan, Alabama, LSU, texas, etc. All the fat from the conferences would be cut out, and it would be the best product.

We all know this is where college football ends up, the only way Cal will be included is if they start it.

---

I like your thinking about blazing the trail for streaming, but I think that needs to be done with either Amazon, or Apple with the Pac-4.

hear me out, Apple correctly pegged the value of the PAC minus LA, but even LA market wouldn't have made a huge difference. There is something they understand that college football hasn't quite grasped, yet, the TV deals with ESPN, NBC, FOX, etc., are massively inflated. why? because outside of Boomers (no offense to older folks) and sportsbars, almost no sports fans are watching any of those networks, not legally, anyway.

ESPN, NBC, Fox are only able to pay these absurd contracts because they keep duping companies to advertise, but the reality is that the most important demographic for college football (20-40 year olds) are no longer watching games like they did in the 90s and 00's. I haven't been to a single party with college friends where they pay for ESPN, NBC, etc. Majority of folks are illegal streaming using VPN's or TOR browser whether on their phones or computers. that means all that ad money isn't following real world analytics. I think Apple actually has knowledge of what the analytics really say, and that is why they didn't make a huge offer. They're not going to jump in to lose money, no way they pay what ESPN, Fox, etc. have paid for the deals with conferences. The only thing I know folks pay for is NFL league pass.

The idea of taking partial share for Big 10, Big 12 for half a decade or longer makes no sense, because by that time the college landscape will have changed a lot because people will not be able to ignore the truth about a collapsing economy and analytics that don't bear out the price of advertising. everyone I know is still going to use VPN or TOR to illegally stream a handful of Big 10 and SEC games, just as they have been for the past decade.

and honestly, most folks go watch highlights, not entire games, thats literally what made ESPN so popular in the first place. and we either go to the youtube, espn, or even watch highlights on the gram.

but right now everything is being driven by archaic business model of network television agreed to in backroom deals by the old boys club that flies in the face of analytics.

---

It's not even that. Look to what apple and Netflix and Hulu and Disney Plus are already doing.

The amount of people watching illegal streams isn't as high as you make it out to be. The amount of people who either dvr shows or watch them on streaming so they can bypass commercials and watch them on their schedule is far more significant. Almost everyone I know refuses to watch TV with commercials and waits for streaming or uses DVRs.

You know the one major exception to that rule? Live sports. It's almost impossible to avoid spoilers for live sports and sports in general are mostly a social activity. People want to live tweet about the play that just happened or text their friend did you just see that?

Live sports are the last things holding up the old TV models. Therefore they are worth more to the traditional networks than they are to anyone else. They are the last thing left holding up the existing model, and the owners and stakeholders of that model will fight tooth and nail to preserve their existence. Further, it's worth more to fox to overpay the value of live sports to block sports from going streaming for as long as possible. Once it is commonplace to stream sports then the traditional TV models die.

MrGPAC said:

---

BarcaBear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think this is generally on course.

---

Cal Strong appreciate your feedback socaltownie. But from Cal Strong's (limited but no too limited) interactions with the senior leadership teams (Chancellors Office, Athletic Department, and Public Relations/External Coms), this proposal is not even under discussion. His experience with them is that they are stale minds thinking about two stale options:

1. Full membership along with furd in the B1G for a small share -- with or without WSU and OSU.

2. Full membership along with furd (no WSU and OSU) in ACC -- or perhaps Big12 as a last result if they want us. These conferences would also offer only a partial share, but it would a higher share than the B1G option.

There was absolutely no outside the box thinking. Cal Strong sensed that everything that makes Cal an elite academic institution is absent from the three leadership groups.

If they continue down this stale path, the best result will be a partial share in a conference very far away -- in which our non-revenue sports will have to participate.

---

My only additional crazy idea is the leadership of Cal being the ones to initiate the break from all the conferences and to develop their own semi-pro minor league football system. Cal, stanford, washington state, and oregon state own a useless tv network right now. Propose to the college football blue bloods to have a football only league with all the best teams, rebrand the pac-12 network to be the tv network for that league, make a streaming deal with apple or amazon, and sub license out the best games to the networks. The league would be about 30 - 40 deep and include the likes of Ohio state, michigan, Alabama, LSU, texas, etc. All the fat from the conferences would be cut out, and it would be the best product.

We all know this is where college football ends up, the only way Cal will be included is if they start it.

---

I like your thinking about blazing the trail for streaming, but I think that needs to be done with either Amazon, or Apple with the Pac-4.

hear me out, Apple correctly pegged the value of the PAC minus LA, but even LA market wouldn't have made a huge difference. There is something they understand that college football hasn't quite grasped, yet, the TV deals with ESPN, NBC, FOX, etc., are massively inflated. why? because outside of Boomers (no offense to older folks) and sportsbars, almost no sports fans are watching any of those networks, not legally, anyway.

ESPN, NBC, Fox are only able to pay these absurd contracts because they keep duping companies to advertise, but the reality is that the most important demographic for college football (20-40 year olds) are no longer watching games like they did in the 90s and 00's. I haven't been to a single party with college friends where they pay for ESPN, NBC, etc. Majority of folks are illegal streaming using VPN's or TOR browser whether on their phones or computers. that means all that ad money isn't following real world analytics. I think Apple actually has knowledge of what the analytics really say, and that is why they didn't make a huge offer. They're not going to jump in to lose money, no way they pay what ESPN, Fox, etc. have paid for the deals with conferences. The only thing I know folks pay for is NFL league pass.

The idea of taking partial share for Big 10, Big 12 for half a decade or longer makes no sense, because by that time the college landscape will have changed a lot because people will not be able to ignore the truth about a collapsing economy and analytics that don't bear out the price of advertising. everyone I know is still going to use VPN or TOR to illegally stream a handful of Big 10 and SEC games, just as they have been for the past decade.

and honestly, most folks go watch highlights, not entire games, thats literally what made ESPN so popular in the first place. and we either go to the youtube, espn, or even watch highlights on the gram.

but right now everything is being driven by archaic business model of network television agreed to in backroom deals by the old boys club that flies in the face of analytics.

---

It's not even that. Look to what apple and Netflix and Hulu and Disney Plus are already doing.

The amount of people watching illegal streams isn't as high as you make it out to be. The amount of people who either dvr shows or watch them on streaming so they can bypass commercials and watch them on their schedule is far more significant. Almost everyone I know refuses to watch TV with commercials and waits for streaming or uses DVRs.

You know the one major exception to that rule? Live sports. It's almost impossible to avoid spoilers for live sports and sports in general are mostly a social activity. People want to live tweet about the play that just happened or text their friend did you just see that?

Live sports are the last things holding up the old TV models. Therefore they are worth more to the traditional networks than they are to anyone else. They are the last thing left holding up the existing model, and the owners and stakeholders of that model will fight tooth and nail to preserve their existence. Further, it's worth more to fox to overpay the value of live sports to block sports from going streaming for as long as possible. Once it is commonplace to stream sports then the traditional TV models die.

---

numbers watching illegal streams is HUGE. go look at how few people signed up once Netflix clamped down on their passwords. the number of people watching illegal streams has skyrocketed. it is way higher than you think.

Disney+ has 150 million subscribers globally, g-l-o-b-a-l-l-y and thats because of illegal streaming.
Netflix has 239 million, a 5 million increase after the password enforcement...thats because of illegal streaming.
sports is even worse, people may pay for movies, but way less pay for sports. ESPN + has 25 million subscribers. 25. Fox Sports lost 10 million households through general cable in the past 5 years and lost 1 million in the past 6 months.

as to live sports...20-40 demographic are literally watching live sports using illegal streaming. I can list at least 20 streaming websites, and they are constantly changing because corporations go after them and they pop right back up. its whack a mole. and youth are even less willing to use subscriptions. they are probably the ones setting up all the illegal streams. lolol

I literally just went to a house party to watch Nate Diaz fight a clown and they were streaming DAZN illegally. I only know one super fan of boxing that pays for DAZN. btw, nobody is tweeting anymore, that service is dead. but everybody was posting on the gram the whole time. point is, the die hards didn't magically go up in number, which means the sportsnetworks will have to pay for the absurd overypayment by increasing subscription price and advertising costs. and once the economy tanks, those numbers drop.

I think you did hit it on the head. ESPN, FOX, NBC are all grossly overpaying in an attempt to keep Amazon, Apple and any other streamers out of the industry, because once they are in...it all collapses and the conferences blow up. thats basically what they are all trying to milk all they can, but Apple and Amazon or whoever else will step in and poof...it goes. but that is inevitable. current model does not in any way uphold any of the revenue at all if anyone asks to see the analytics.

ESPN, FOX, NBC are turning to advertisers and now demanding increase payments, but once advertisers actually pay attention and stop overpaying, that could also trigger a collapse of the archaic model and usher in the streamers.

And, at least a year or two ago, there were any number of services providing athletic events on overseas platforms that you could access with some modifications to a fire stick.

It's a little like what happened when music was on Napster in the early years.

Dan Moguluf still engaging with Cal Strong with long emails. But he no seem to get it. He has a very unrealistic outlook in Cal Strong's opinion. The three senior teams in charge of our path forward seem to share an outlook which paradoxically both overvalues and undervalues Cal's power and potential. Cal Strong saddened by his interactions with the three leadership teams/clusters who are handling this decision. They certainly need help; but they don't want to accept it for long enough to actually make something productive happen.

Cal Strong has no further conversations with the Chancellor's Office or the ADs office scheduled at this time. Moguluf is at present the only one engaging, but he doesn't seem to understand what is happening or how to find a way forward.

post deleted by Cal Strong