I haven't seen this questions asked yet.

Bear_Territory said:

---

I haven't seen this questions asked yet.

---

The answer: unclear

Both were already vetted by the B1G so I would presume so.

wc22 said:

---

Both were already vetted by the B1G so I would presume so.

---

The "vetting" is based on publicly available information and does not require our attendance or request so it is unclear. From all reports we were OK with Kliavkoff's deal and viewed joining the B1G as being bad for "student athlete welfare." I think the solution is accepting whatever they offer but for football only and then put the other sports in the Big West

We have clearly been communicating our desire to join the Big 10. If they did accept us it would be for all sports, not just football. There is NO way they would take us as a football only member

calumnus said:

---

wc22 said:

---

Both were already vetted by the B1G so I would presume so.

---

The "vetting" is based on publicly available information and does not require our attendance or request so it is unclear. From all reports we were OK with Kliavkoff's deal and viewed joining the B1G as being bad for "student athlete welfare." I think the solution is accepting whatever they offer but for football only and then put the other sports in the Big West

---

Not necessarily from all reports. At least one person reported that the vote was 7 to 2 against taking the deal, which would presumably mean everyone except OSU and WSU voted against.

Sources tell me the PAC 12 grant of rights has very little support in the conference, 2/9 as it stands

— YouTube: The Monty Show (@TheMontyShow) August 4, 2023

And yes, I know that this contradicts other reporting. My point is that we just don't know.

That is the GOR which isn't the media deal. Those are the rules and penalties of the conference.

wc22 said:

---

That is the GOR which isn't the media deal. Those are the rules and penalties of the conference.

---

Yes, but it is good to hear that at least once at the meeting and saw the lay of the land she voted against signing the GORs.

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wc22 said:

---

Both were already vetted by the B1G so I would presume so.

---

The "vetting" is based on publicly available information and does not require our attendance or request so it is unclear. From all reports we were OK with Kliavkoff's deal and viewed joining the B1G as being bad for "student athlete welfare." I think the solution is accepting whatever they offer but for football only and then put the other sports in the Big West

---

Not necessarily from all reports. At least one person reported that the vote was 7 to 2 against taking the deal, which would presumably mean everyone except OSU and WSU voted against.

Sources tell me the PAC 12 grant of rights has very little support in the conference, 2/9 as it stands

— YouTube: The Monty Show (@TheMontyShow) August 4, 2023

And yes, I know that this contradicts other reporting. My point is that we just don't know.

---

The interesting thing about that 7-2 story is: There's a video clip of ASU's president talking about the Apple deal, and he sounded like he loved it. And he said this at the presser where ASU announced they were joining the Big 12. Based on that I'd bet he voted for the Apple deal.

calumnus said:

---

wc22 said:

---

That is the GOR which isn't the media deal. Those are the rules and penalties of the conference.

---

Yes, but it is good to hear that at least once at the meeting and saw the lay of the land she voted against signing the GORs.

---

I see. So it's like, we were going to take the TV deal but now we see it's not happening then we are not getting locked in to this.

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wc22 said:

---

That is the GOR which isn't the media deal. Those are the rules and penalties of the conference.

---

Yes, but it is good to hear that at least once at the meeting and saw the lay of the land she voted against signing the GORs.

---

I see. So it's like, we were going to take the TV deal but now we see it's not happening then we are not getting locked in to this.

---

Seems like it. Christ might have liked the revenue upside relative to the current contract and probably values national exposure less than others. However, once it became clear the others with options had already lined up new landing spots, wisely voted not to sign away our rights and is now (finally?) working on our other options.

This is from a UMich regent:

I think there's an argument that future TV deals will be positively affected by this. But that is the only argument other than UW and UO are great research institutions. But if that mattered, we'd have Cal and Stanford too.

— Jordan Acker (@JordanAckerMI) August 6, 2023

From this thread:

So I've been holding my tongue for a couple days on the conference realignment, Round 2023. But now its nap time on the shores of beautiful Lake Walloon in Northern Michigan so here goes...

— Jordan Acker (@JordanAckerMI) August 6, 2023

So does Twitter basically not work anymore unless you're signed in? I can't see threads or comments and main feeds aren't chronological.

WalterSobchak said:

---

So does Twitter basically not work anymore unless you're signed in? I can't see threads or comments and main feeds aren't chronological.

---

Basically that this is indefensible, the NCAA should be fighting this instead of NIL, and it's all about the TV money and has nothing to do with academics anymore.

So same old same

WalterSobchak said:

---

So does Twitter basically not work anymore unless you're signed in? I can't see threads or comments and main feeds aren't chronological.

---

The latest version only works if you call it "X".

Big C said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

So does Twitter basically not work anymore unless you're signed in? I can't see threads or comments and main feeds aren't chronological.

---

The latest version only works if you call it "X".

---

I'll try that and report back. I never use Twitter except through links from other sites so I'm genuinely curious. Oops I called it twitter again guess I'm ****ed now.

From the hinter lands of ohio.

First, vetting for the Big 10 is researching on various universities whether they are a fit for the Big 10. Academically, athletically, culture and other intangibles. They take a look at each university separately. It is reported that they have a list of about a dozen universities that could be a fit (Cal & Stanford are 2 of them).

For a university, THEY must take the first step and approach the Big 10 about membership. The Big 10 does not approach the university in question. Once contact has been made, usually they share information back and forth to see if they fit. This can take up to a year. The shortest I have seen was Nebraska and that was over a 2 to 3 month period. And that was because Nebraska was on a short time line with the Big 12.

Recently, USC and UCLA took 6 months to a year. Oregon and Washington both approached the Big 10 over a year ago. Both situations had info going back and forth. This is where the real vetting goes and detail information is shared. The Big 10 office may agree BUT it is the Big 10 Presidents that vote. on acceptance (75%). In this last go round, it was reported that Wisconsin had issues with one of the candidates and wanted more information. When it comes time that both parties agreed (done deal really), the university asks for membership and the Big 10 accepts. If either party does not agree, neither one wants to embarrass the other and it is dropped (because there may come a day it is approached again).

From what we hear back here (not confirmed), neither Stanford or Cal has approached the Big 10 about membership. If they do, I would imagine that it could take months to vett and agree (maybe not given that the PAC 12 is dead).

Good luck, you deserve better.

Seems to me the only "vetting" that was applied to UW and UO was if the TV media powers were willing to shell out more money. The rest is "window dressing".

Dead?!?!

Have you ever been in a fight with caged cougar, bear, beaver and red?

airspace said:

---

From the hinter lands of ohio.

First, vetting for the Big 10 is researching on various universities whether they are a fit for the Big 10. Academically, athletically, culture and other intangibles. They take a look at each university separately. It is reported that they have a list of about a dozen universities that could be a fit (Cal & Stanford are 2 of them).

For a university, THEY must take the first step and approach the Big 10 about membership. The Big 10 does not approach the university in question. Once contact has been made, usually they share information back and forth to see if they fit. This can take up to a year. The shortest I have seen was Nebraska and that was over a 2 to 3 month period. And that was because Nebraska was on a short time line with the Big 12.

Recently, USC and UCLA took 6 months to a year. Oregon and Washington both approached the Big 10 over a year ago. Both situations had info going back and forth. This is where the real vetting goes and detail information is shared. The Big 10 office may agree BUT it is the Big 10 Presidents that vote. on acceptance (75%). In this last go round, it was reported that Wisconsin had issues with one of the candidates and wanted more information. When it comes time that both parties agreed (done deal really), the university asks for membership and the Big 10 accepts. If either party does not agree, neither one wants to embarrass the other and it is dropped (because there may come a day it is approached again).

From what we hear back here (not confirmed), neither Stanford or Cal has approached the Big 10 about membership. If they do, I would imagine that it could take months to vett and agree (maybe not given that the PAC 12 is dead).

Good luck, you deserve better.

---

Thanks. That is what is looks like and what I have been saying it looks like for months, not that the B1G rejected us, but that we have not yet applied because staying in the PAC was Christ's preference. I don't know why people her felt the need to attack me for pointing to the evidence and making that logical conclusion. Meanwhile there are people who conclude "The B1G doesn't want us or else we would be in already." Again, the evidence is we haven't yet asked.

Hopefully Cal and Stanford apply now.

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wc22 said:

---

Both were already vetted by the B1G so I would presume so.

---

The "vetting" is based on publicly available information and does not require our attendance or request so it is unclear. From all reports we were OK with Kliavkoff's deal and viewed joining the B1G as being bad for "student athlete welfare." I think the solution is accepting whatever they offer but for football only and then put the other sports in the Big West

---

Not necessarily from all reports. At least one person reported that the vote was 7 to 2 against taking the deal, which would presumably mean everyone except OSU and WSU voted against.

Sources tell me the PAC 12 grant of rights has very little support in the conference, 2/9 as it stands

— YouTube: The Monty Show (@TheMontyShow) August 4, 2023

And yes, I know that this contradicts other reporting. My point is that we just don't know.

---

This vote on GoR was for the Apple deal, correct?

airspace said:

---

From the hinter lands of ohio.

First, vetting for the Big 10 is researching on various universities whether they are a fit for the Big 10. Academically, athletically, culture and other intangibles. They take a look at each university separately. It is reported that they have a list of about a dozen universities that could be a fit (Cal & Stanford are 2 of them).

For a university, THEY must take the first step and approach the Big 10 about membership. The Big 10 does not approach the university in question. Once contact has been made, usually they share information back and forth to see if they fit. This can take up to a year. The shortest I have seen was Nebraska and that was over a 2 to 3 month period. And that was because Nebraska was on a short time line with the Big 12.

Recently, USC and UCLA took 6 months to a year. Oregon and Washington both approached the Big 10 over a year ago. Both situations had info going back and forth. This is where the real vetting goes and detail information is shared. The Big 10 office may agree BUT it is the Big 10 Presidents that vote. on acceptance (75%). In this last go round, it was reported that Wisconsin had issues with one of the candidates and wanted more information. When it comes time that both parties agreed (done deal really), the university asks for membership and the Big 10 accepts. If either party does not agree, neither one wants to embarrass the other and it is dropped (because there may come a day it is approached again).

From what we hear back here (not confirmed), neither Stanford or Cal has approached the Big 10 about membership. If they do, I would imagine that it could take months to vett and agree (maybe not given that the PAC 12 is dead).

Good luck, you deserve better.

---

I want what you are smoking. Vetting goes no further than $$$. Academics, nah. Culture, nah. Intangibles, nah.

Mullah $$$$ is the law of this land, mate.

Now pass the doobie...

UrsineMaximus said:

---

airspace said:

---

From the hinter lands of ohio.

First, vetting for the Big 10 is researching on various universities whether they are a fit for the Big 10. Academically, athletically, culture and other intangibles. They take a look at each university separately. It is reported that they have a list of about a dozen universities that could be a fit (Cal & Stanford are 2 of them).

For a university, THEY must take the first step and approach the Big 10 about membership. The Big 10 does not approach the university in question. Once contact has been made, usually they share information back and forth to see if they fit. This can take up to a year. The shortest I have seen was Nebraska and that was over a 2 to 3 month period. And that was because Nebraska was on a short time line with the Big 12.

Recently, USC and UCLA took 6 months to a year. Oregon and Washington both approached the Big 10 over a year ago. Both situations had info going back and forth. This is where the real vetting goes and detail information is shared. The Big 10 office may agree BUT it is the Big 10 Presidents that vote. on acceptance (75%). In this last go round, it was reported that Wisconsin had issues with one of the candidates and wanted more information. When it comes time that both parties agreed (done deal really), the university asks for membership and the Big 10 accepts. If either party does not agree, neither one wants to embarrass the other and it is dropped (because there may come a day it is approached again).

From what we hear back here (not confirmed), neither Stanford or Cal has approached the Big 10 about membership. If they do, I would imagine that it could take months to vett and agree (maybe not given that the PAC 12 is dead).

Good luck, you deserve better.

---

I want what you are smoking. Vetting goes no further than $$$. Academics, nah. Culture, nah. Intangibles, nah.

Mullah $$$$ is the law of this land, mate.

Now pass the doobie...

---

You have to have team laundry to sell to the fans also.

UrsineMaximus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wc22 said:

---

Both were already vetted by the B1G so I would presume so.

---

The "vetting" is based on publicly available information and does not require our attendance or request so it is unclear. From all reports we were OK with Kliavkoff's deal and viewed joining the B1G as being bad for "student athlete welfare." I think the solution is accepting whatever they offer but for football only and then put the other sports in the Big West

---

Not necessarily from all reports. At least one person reported that the vote was 7 to 2 against taking the deal, which would presumably mean everyone except OSU and WSU voted against.

Sources tell me the PAC 12 grant of rights has very little support in the conference, 2/9 as it stands

— YouTube: The Monty Show (@TheMontyShow) August 4, 2023

And yes, I know that this contradicts other reporting. My point is that we just don't know.

---

This vote on GoR was for the Apple deal, correct?

---

The vote on GoRs is just signing our rights to the conference, who then contracts with media, but apparently some presidents thought/hoped Kliavkoff would present a streaming deal and a more traditional linear deal. All the presidents had been making "pledges to the PAC" statements, but UW and Oregon apparently requested admission and have been negotiating with the B1G for a year, and the 4 corner schools had deals with the B-12 (all of which was widely rumored). There were no rumors about the PAC-4 and that now appears to confirm that they really were committed to the PAC without secretly lining up an out.

It is not even Monday after the fateful Friday. This week should be interesting. I am glad that Christ is "evaluating options" and hope she does not jump on joining the MWC. Joining the B1G should be the goal, but running the PAC-4 shell as a quasi independent in alliance with the ACC and backed by ESPN and/or Apple is a good fall back option.

seems credible.

But if neither Stanford or Cal have applied. ***…

calumnus said:

---

wc22 said:

---

Both were already vetted by the B1G so I would presume so.

---

The "vetting" is based on publicly available information and does not require our attendance or request so it is unclear. From all reports we were OK with Kliavkoff's deal and viewed joining the B1G as being bad for "student athlete welfare." I think the solution is accepting whatever they offer but for football only and then put the other sports in the Big West

---

From an article posted by BigDaddy, the Apple TV deal was actually quite competitive with the Big XII. It wasn't anywhere near as bad as reported by Internet sleuths. Which probably explains why Arizona did not accept the invite and ASU and Utah didn't even apply until after Oregon and Washington announced their intention to leave; they were willing to sign too.

The rumor that everyone was willing to sign until the B1G offered Oregon and Washington more money is backed up by the actions and words of the universities.

https://theathletic.com/4752583/2023/08/05/pac12-apple-tv-deal-college-football-realignment/

berserkeley said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wc22 said:

---

Both were already vetted by the B1G so I would presume so.

---

The "vetting" is based on publicly available information and does not require our attendance or request so it is unclear. From all reports we were OK with Kliavkoff's deal and viewed joining the B1G as being bad for "student athlete welfare." I think the solution is accepting whatever they offer but for football only and then put the other sports in the Big West

---

From an article posted by BigDaddy, the Apple TV deal was actually quite competitive with the Big XII. It wasn't anywhere near as bad as reported by Internet sleuths. Which probably explains why Arizona did not accept the invite and ASU and Utah didn't even apply until after Oregon and Washington announced their intention to leave; they were willing to sign too.

The rumor that everyone was willing to sign until the B1G offered Oregon and Washington more money is backed up by the actions and words of the universities.

https://theathletic.com/4752583/2023/08/05/pac12-apple-tv-deal-college-football-realignment/

---

Given that it is a streaming offer and variable based on subscriptions, I would think it would still be available on essentially the same terms per school. Certainly more than what the MWC pays.

I think we should apply to the B1G, but as a fall back look at maintaining the 6 PAC (how many sports are required? If possible, maybe a football only conference?). by partnering with Apple and inviting UConn and UMass in as "members" in an alliance with the ACC (including Notre Dame).

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Dead?!?!

Have you ever been in a fight with caged cougar, bear, beaver and red?

---

Bill Walton has. And he lived to tell about it.

If Cal was honestly not even applying for B1G membership to this day, that is malpractice of the highest order. I shouldn't keep underestimating how badly our athletic administration can screw up, but that is excessive even for them.

Cal really does have to be presented with the ultimate doomsday scenario before actually taking action to save the football program, doesn't it?

sycasey said:

---

If Cal was honestly not even applying for B1G membership to this day, that is malpractice of the highest order. I shouldn't keep underestimating how badly our athletic administration can screw up, but that is excessive even for them.

Cal really does have to be presented with the ultimate doomsday scenario before actually taking action to save the football program, doesn't it?

---

Seriously. Even if we wanted to stay in a Pac that GK got a great streaming deal for, we apply to the B1G to keep our options open (and that has looked like our best option all along, anyway, at this point).

sycasey said:

---

If Cal was honestly not even applying for B1G membership to this day, that is malpractice of the highest order. I shouldn't keep underestimating how badly our athletic administration can screw up, but that is excessive even for them.

Cal really does have to be presented with the ultimate doomsday scenario before actually taking action to save the football program, doesn't it?

---

This is complicated but we have people in charge tgst can't handle simple stuff in athletics. They hired Mark Fox for Gods sake and then extended him. We had no chearleaders for most of the last season. Every high school in America is capable of fielding cheerleaders.

Why wouldn't Christ and Knowlton have at least discussed this with their football coach who coached at Wisconsin and has industry connects? Wilcox is saying he was blindsided How do you know what is best for the program

sycasey said:

---

If Cal was honestly not even applying for B1G membership to this day, that is malpractice of the highest order. I shouldn't keep underestimating how badly our athletic administration can screw up, but that is excessive even for them.

Cal really does have to be presented with the ultimate doomsday scenario before actually taking action to save the football program, doesn't it?

---

When everything started falling apart this year, Jim Knowlton got put under investigation and Carol Christ was planning her retirement.

If this all happened last year, I think we would've done slightly better. But now there is a donut hole at leadership at Cal.

One has to wonder, when, if not already, as the "vetting" process has gone on with USC, UCLA, UW and UO, those doing the vetting have considered whether current B1G members would pass such vetting. If you were making a conference to maximize TV revenue would you not consider dropping some schools that don't particularly add value and subbing in some others out there? Without analyzing the data, I would think Rutgers, Maryland, Minnesota, Indiana, Northwestern, Illinois and maybe others would be ones to drop. It might even make sense not to replace them from a financial point of view.

Not that I advocate making the conferences based just on financial data. It seems college football is on the edge of being destroyed as we know it, but it will take time. The non rev sports may suffer a worse outcome and it will come earlier.

I guess the "bright side" is that if Cal hasn't even applied yet, there is still hope we could get back into a power league. If only the powers that be could realize that this is the only real option. So far it sounds like Christ is still focused on keeping regionalism going.

Look, we need a win with alignment stuff right now. So let's start small. Which of Cal Strong's other summer crops should he fit under the bird netting? Once we solve this vegetable alignment issue, we will have the confidence, swagger, and stature to confront the conference realignment problem.