Well. Let's consider Forbes 2022. MIT is 1. Cal is 2. Usc is 21. UW is 33.

Don't get me wrong - Uw is a good school and surprisingly affordable for out of state. And a great campus. But USC has closed the gap recently. It's not the same old USC that it was when I was at Cal in the 80s.

golden sloth said:

---

I was curious to know about ACC viewership and how Cal stacks up. According to this article, Cal ranked 45ty overall, but would be 5th in the ACC behind Notre dame, Clemson, Florida State, Navy, and NC state. Cal is just ahead of North Carolina.

But honestly, if you look at the ratings, you have Notre Dame, Clemson and Florida state ahead of everyone and then 5 schools between 800k and 1 million viewers, which is where both Cal and Stanford fall. Pitt, Miami (?!), Duke, wake forest, and Boston college are below us (some quite substantially).

I'm also not a fan of the author using a 'zero' when ratings information is not available, but I'm not sure where to find better data.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2022-94eca4f6acbd

---

Not only that, but the ACC has an even worse contract than we do. We would be going to another poorly managed conference that is on the verge of imploding.

Big10 or bust!

CarmelBear said:

---

Well. Let's consider Forbes 2022. MIT is 1. Cal is 2. Usc is 21. UW is 33.

Don't get me wrong - Uw is a good school and surprisingly affordable for out of state. And a great campus. But USC has closed the gap recently. It's not the same old USC that it was when I was at Cal in the 80s.

---

It's the same old corrupt USC that will let anyone who can pay in but they have figured how out to bump up their rankings like a lot of privates do.

dimitrig said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I was curious to know about ACC viewership and how Cal stacks up. According to this article, Cal ranked 45ty overall, but would be 5th in the ACC behind Notre dame, Clemson, Florida State, Navy, and NC state. Cal is just ahead of North Carolina.

But honestly, if you look at the ratings, you have Notre Dame, Clemson and Florida state ahead of everyone and then 5 schools between 800k and 1 million viewers, which is where both Cal and Stanford fall. Pitt, Miami (?!), Duke, wake forest, and Boston college are below us (some quite substantially).

I'm also not a fan of the author using a 'zero' when ratings information is not available, but I'm not sure where to find better data.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2022-94eca4f6acbd

---

Not only that, but the ACC has an even worse contract than we do. We would be going to another poorly managed conference that is on the verge of imploding.

Big10 or bust!

---

Assuming B1G (meaning Fox) doesn't think we are worth it and does not extend an invite, you would prefer to shut it down than join ACC?

Clemson has been in three College Football Playoffs in the last 7 years and won 2. They are ACC football, nobody else is close and they realize it which is why they want more money. From Clemson's perspective the addition of Cal and Stanford provides nothing but another body bag game 3000 miles away

. The way this might work is as a "let's see where we are" exercise to reapportion money- give Clemson more- Cal and Stanford and maybe others less- in order to make them happy or give greater financial incentives for performance- win a conference title, national title, etc. . The other factor here is- that despite their threats to leave the path to a national championship is a lot easier here than the SEC. It seems to me that keeping Clemson happy and in the conference is the key otherwise this conference may also split apart. Paying blackmail is cheaper, more effective too.

cal83dls79 said:

---

ncbears said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Just send the lacrosse teams East and tell them to stay until the end of season.

---

they probably wouldn't protest that much frankly …do we have a LX team or is it a club?

---

Cal has a womens lacrosse team. It has not been good for several years (sound familiar) - and a new coach started last year. Team improved to 5-13 (2-8) from 2-16 (1-9. Pre-COVID, in 2019, team was 7-12 (3-9) Lacrosse - California Golden Bears Athletics (calbears.com)

---

and folks this is where your football dollars end up.

---

You could have said Women's Volleyball or a whole host of other sports aside from Aquatics.
It doesnt really matter given Title IX.

DiabloWags said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

ncbears said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Just send the lacrosse teams East and tell them to stay until the end of season.

---

they probably wouldn't protest that much frankly …do we have a LX team or is it a club?

---

Cal has a womens lacrosse team. It has not been good for several years (sound familiar) - and a new coach started last year. Team improved to 5-13 (2-8) from 2-16 (1-9. Pre-COVID, in 2019, team was 7-12 (3-9) Lacrosse - California Golden Bears Athletics (calbears.com)

---

and folks this is where your football dollars end up.

---

You could have said Women's Volleyball or a whole host of other sports aside from Aquatics.
It doesnt really matter given Title IX.

---

Do aquatic sports generate any revenue or are self-funded?

Any word out of the UC Regents meeting that was happening this AM?

ferCALgm2 said:

---

Do aquatic sports generate any revenue or are self-funded?

---

Self-Funded.

Case in point: The $18 million dollar Legends Aquatics Center was paid for in its entirety by private donations.
This is not anything new.

Fasten your goggles: New aquatic center is on its way | Berkeley

calbear93 said:

---

Marty said:

---

This just doesn't work. The PAC-4 teams will have to make 4-5 trips across country each year. The ACC teams will have to travel to the west coast once each. That's a competitive and financial hardship for us, not to mention the built-in hardship of taking a lower share of revenue to start with. And as everyone on this board knows, you can see the Pacific Ocean from Memorial Stadium. What sense does it make for a team playing within sight of the Pacific to be a member of the Atlantic Coast Conference?

---

Without an invite from the ACC or Big1G, the only thing that will be playing in the Memorial Stadium are large concerts that we will have to host just to have the hope of paying off our debts. There won't be football games playing there much longer. Football would not survive on $5 million a year, and most of the non-revenue sports will have to be self-sufficient and be on the edge every year.

---

The deal with the Panoramic Owners limits the number of events that can be held at Memorial through 2025. . Campus, neighborhood association settle stadium dispute | Berkeley

ferCALgm2 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

ncbears said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Just send the lacrosse teams East and tell them to stay until the end of season.

---

they probably wouldn't protest that much frankly …do we have a LX team or is it a club?

---

Cal has a womens lacrosse team. It has not been good for several years (sound familiar) - and a new coach started last year. Team improved to 5-13 (2-8) from 2-16 (1-9. Pre-COVID, in 2019, team was 7-12 (3-9) Lacrosse - California Golden Bears Athletics (calbears.com)

---

and folks this is where your football dollars end up.

---

You could have said Women's Volleyball or a whole host of other sports aside from Aquatics.
It doesnt really matter given Title IX.

---

Do aquatic sports generate any revenue or are self-funded?

---

I know mens water polo is self funded as is men's baseball. Both have very low carbon footprints which is paramount

Anarchistbear said:

---

Clemson has been in three College Football Playoffs in the last 7 years and won 2. They are ACC football, nobody else is close and they realize it which is why they want more money. From Clemson's perspective the addition of Cal and Stanford provides nothing but another body bag game 3000 miles away

. The way this might work is as a "let's see where we are" exercise to reapportion money- give Clemson more- Cal and Stanford and maybe others less- in order to make them happy or give greater financial incentives for performance- win a conference title, national title, etc. . The other factor here is- that despite their threats to leave the path to a national championship is a lot easier here than the SEC. It seems to me that keeping Clemson happy and in the conference is the key otherwise this conference may also split apart. Paying blackmail is cheaper, more effective too.

---

Its not about the win. Its about how much our playing Clemson would move the needle in terms of media value.

And there's no way that teams that are already in the ACC would give up money to make Clemson happy enough to let us and Stanford in. Makes no sense to do that. But that would also be one of the questions.

The ACC is in a tough spot because Clemson has been most successful recently and they need to keep them. I'm not sure apportioning more money to Clemson for us would have any popularity within the ACC membership.

ncbears said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Marty said:

---

This just doesn't work. The PAC-4 teams will have to make 4-5 trips across country each year. The ACC teams will have to travel to the west coast once each. That's a competitive and financial hardship for us, not to mention the built-in hardship of taking a lower share of revenue to start with. And as everyone on this board knows, you can see the Pacific Ocean from Memorial Stadium. What sense does it make for a team playing within sight of the Pacific to be a member of the Atlantic Coast Conference?

---

Without an invite from the ACC or Big1G, the only thing that will be playing in the Memorial Stadium are large concerts that we will have to host just to have the hope of paying off our debts. There won't be football games playing there much longer. Football would not survive on $5 million a year, and most of the non-revenue sports will have to be self-sufficient and be on the edge every year.

---

The deal with the Panoramic Owners limits the number of events that can be held at Memorial through 2025. . Campus, neighborhood association settle stadium dispute | Berkeley

---

The only silver lining for the eventual earthquake would be all the NIMBYs losing their homes

golden sloth said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

ncbears said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Marty said:

---

This just doesn't work. The PAC-4 teams will have to make 4-5 trips across country each year. The ACC teams will have to travel to the west coast once each. That's a competitive and financial hardship for us, not to mention the built-in hardship of taking a lower share of revenue to start with. And as everyone on this board knows, you can see the Pacific Ocean from Memorial Stadium. What sense does it make for a team playing within sight of the Pacific to be a member of the Atlantic Coast Conference?

---

Without an invite from the ACC or Big1G, the only thing that will be playing in the Memorial Stadium are large concerts that we will have to host just to have the hope of paying off our debts. There won't be football games playing there much longer. Football would not survive on $5 million a year, and most of the non-revenue sports will have to be self-sufficient and be on the edge every year.

---

The deal with the Panoramic Owners limits the number of events that can be held at Memorial through 2025. . Campus, neighborhood association settle stadium dispute | Berkeley

---

what a shi* deal.

---

So we are three years away from a rock concert every night?

---

Two

golden sloth said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

ncbears said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Marty said:

---

This just doesn't work. The PAC-4 teams will have to make 4-5 trips across country each year. The ACC teams will have to travel to the west coast once each. That's a competitive and financial hardship for us, not to mention the built-in hardship of taking a lower share of revenue to start with. And as everyone on this board knows, you can see the Pacific Ocean from Memorial Stadium. What sense does it make for a team playing within sight of the Pacific to be a member of the Atlantic Coast Conference?

---

Without an invite from the ACC or Big1G, the only thing that will be playing in the Memorial Stadium are large concerts that we will have to host just to have the hope of paying off our debts. There won't be football games playing there much longer. Football would not survive on $5 million a year, and most of the non-revenue sports will have to be self-sufficient and be on the edge every year.

---

The deal with the Panoramic Owners limits the number of events that can be held at Memorial through 2025. . Campus, neighborhood association settle stadium dispute | Berkeley

---

what a shi* deal.

---

So we are three years away from a rock concert every night?

---

or a religious revival. It's a helluva venue, completely under utilized…we can all agree on that

Bearly Clad said:

---

This guys been right about a lot of expansion news so far so maybe this is a real possibility. At this point Idk anything for sure anymore

ACC/PAC4 first then. Stanford and Cal going to the ACC as a pair is a very real possibility now. FSU and Clemson are not happy about it. The monetary gain would be small and the travel would be a nightmare.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 7, 2023

---

The FSU scuttlebut is that the 'Noles and Clemson are on their way out for certain, it just depends on which conference they jump to. FSU President came right out and said leaving the conference was on the table, and Clemson operates in lockstep. The universities are closely aligned athletically and philosophically (plus it's a huge leverage advantage for the Tigers to join forces). Issue comes down payout - right now both schools would have to pay a *lot* to ACC to exit.

They will undoubtedly use this as an opportunity to negotiate a better exit for themselves. So it'll be ACC +4/ -2.

BTW this doesn't have anything to do with Cal or the West Coast. FSU and Clemson have been frustrated with the "Tobacco Road ACC" administration (and poor officiating) for years. There are a lot of reasons for this, but fundamentally it comes down to two premiere football programs are sitting in a basketball conference. There are some parallels under the surface b/t ACC and Pac 12, at least in the eyes of a lot of ACC fans, but overall ACC might be a good fit for Cal, and the ACC might feel they're better off adding a couple West Coast acadmic institutions and letting the football schools walk, even if it means leaving money on the table.

philly1121 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Clemson has been in three College Football Playoffs in the last 7 years and won 2. They are ACC football, nobody else is close and they realize it which is why they want more money. From Clemson's perspective the addition of Cal and Stanford provides nothing but another body bag game 3000 miles away

. The way this might work is as a "let's see where we are" exercise to reapportion money- give Clemson more- Cal and Stanford and maybe others less- in order to make them happy or give greater financial incentives for performance- win a conference title, national title, etc. . The other factor here is- that despite their threats to leave the path to a national championship is a lot easier here than the SEC. It seems to me that keeping Clemson happy and in the conference is the key otherwise this conference may also split apart. Paying blackmail is cheaper, more effective too.

---

Its not about the win. Its about how much our playing Clemson would move the needle in terms of media value.

And there's no way that teams that are already in the ACC would give up money to make Clemson happy enough to let us and Stanford in. Makes no sense to do that. But that would also be one of the questions.

The ACC is in a tough spot because Clemson has been most successful recently and they need to keep them. I'm not sure apportioning more money to Clemson for us would have any popularity within the ACC membership.

---

There 's little media value for Clemson to play us, no more so than playing Wake Forest.

Unless the league is prepared to reward Clemson financially either directly or indirectly I don't see this happening. They are a big reason for their contract ; the rest of the league is another leftover football conference. And yes I agree that other teams are not going to willingly give up money for us which is why I don't see a path unless the whole money issue is renegotiated or there is additional network money coming forward

FloriDreaming said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

This guys been right about a lot of expansion news so far so maybe this is a real possibility. At this point Idk anything for sure anymore

ACC/PAC4 first then. Stanford and Cal going to the ACC as a pair is a very real possibility now. FSU and Clemson are not happy about it. The monetary gain would be small and the travel would be a nightmare.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 7, 2023

---

The FSU scuttlebut is that the 'Noles and Clemson are on their way out for certain, it just depends on which conference they jump to. FSU President came right out and said leaving the conference was on the table, and Clemson operates in lockstep. The universities are closely aligned athletically and philosophically (plus it's a huge leverage advantage for the Tigers to join forces). Issue comes down payout - right now both schools would have to pay a *lot* to ACC to exit.

They will undoubtedly use this as an opportunity to negotiate a better exit for themselves. So it'll be ACC +4/ -2.

BTW this doesn't have anything to do with Cal or the West Coast. FSU and Clemson have been frustrated with the "Tobacco Road ACC" administration (and poor officiating) for years. There are a lot of reasons for this, but fundamentally it comes down to two premiere football programs are sitting in a basketball conference. There are some parallels under the surface b/t ACC and Pac 12, at least in the eyes of a lot of ACC fans, but overall ACC might be a good fit for Cal, and the ACC might feel they're better off adding a couple West Coast acadmic institutions and letting the football schools walk, even if it means leaving money on the table.

---

The parallels are more similar to the Big East where the football schools left while the remaining basketball schools continued to dominate. I can see Duke/UNC/UVA preferring to drop football altogether rather than trying to make it work without FSU and Clemson

cal83dls79 said:

---

ferCALgm2 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

ncbears said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Just send the lacrosse teams East and tell them to stay until the end of season.

---

they probably wouldn't protest that much frankly …do we have a LX team or is it a club?

---

Cal has a womens lacrosse team. It has not been good for several years (sound familiar) - and a new coach started last year. Team improved to 5-13 (2-8) from 2-16 (1-9. Pre-COVID, in 2019, team was 7-12 (3-9) Lacrosse - California Golden Bears Athletics (calbears.com)

---

and folks this is where your football dollars end up.

---

You could have said Women's Volleyball or a whole host of other sports aside from Aquatics.
It doesnt really matter given Title IX.

---

Do aquatic sports generate any revenue or are self-funded?

---

I know mens water polo is self funded as is men's baseball. Both have very low carbon footprints which is paramount

---

Then you'll also know that Baseball was the #1 sport to get cut by AD Sandy Barbour in 2010 due to it being the highest net-cost of sports.

calbear93 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I was curious to know about ACC viewership and how Cal stacks up. According to this article, Cal ranked 45ty overall, but would be 5th in the ACC behind Notre dame, Clemson, Florida State, Navy, and NC state. Cal is just ahead of North Carolina.

But honestly, if you look at the ratings, you have Notre Dame, Clemson and Florida state ahead of everyone and then 5 schools between 800k and 1 million viewers, which is where both Cal and Stanford fall. Pitt, Miami (?!), Duke, wake forest, and Boston college are below us (some quite substantially).

I'm also not a fan of the author using a 'zero' when ratings information is not available, but I'm not sure where to find better data.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2022-94eca4f6acbd

---

Not only that, but the ACC has an even worse contract than we do. We would be going to another poorly managed conference that is on the verge of imploding.

Big10 or bust!

---

Assuming B1G (meaning Fox) doesn't think we are worth it and does not extend an invite, you would prefer to shut it down than join ACC?

---

It really depends on the circumstances. If FSU and Clemson bolt and we are left with the dregs…

Let's just say I would not consider it a no brainer like the Big10.

Shutting it down is always an option.

DiabloWags said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

ferCALgm2 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

ncbears said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Just send the lacrosse teams East and tell them to stay until the end of season.

---

they probably wouldn't protest that much frankly …do we have a LX team or is it a club?

---

Cal has a womens lacrosse team. It has not been good for several years (sound familiar) - and a new coach started last year. Team improved to 5-13 (2-8) from 2-16 (1-9. Pre-COVID, in 2019, team was 7-12 (3-9) Lacrosse - California Golden Bears Athletics (calbears.com)

---

and folks this is where your football dollars end up.

---

You could have said Women's Volleyball or a whole host of other sports aside from Aquatics.
It doesnt really matter given Title IX.

---

Do aquatic sports generate any revenue or are self-funded?

---

I know mens water polo is self funded as is men's baseball. Both have very low carbon footprints which is paramount

---

Then you'll also know that Baseball was the #1 sport to get cut by AD Sandy Barbour in 2010 due to it being the highest net-cost of sports.

---

define "cost" …it was definitely a target given title 9.
I'd imagine all the games, head count and travel was outsized. I was being sarcastic about the carbon footprint …but yes I remember. Went to a ton of baseball games. Saw Elway, McGwire and Pete to mention a few. My roommates were on the team so I had an inside view to Milano

In 2021, Clemson played in the Cheez-It Bowl.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

I don't think the ACC would take OSU&WSU. At this point, I don't think you can hold us accountable for lack of solidarity with these two programs, given that the Pac is all but dead. FSU, Clemson and co already are a bit reluctant on taking Cal and Furd, they're not going to add 2 more programs that are even less attractive to them and even further away.

As a package pair to the ACC, Cal and Furd would only have to travel east on average 3.5 times per season (8 conference games, and we play each other ever year). It's not that much of a burden, and of course the financial burden from these 3.5 trips is dwarfed by the burden of no guaranteed B5 conference annual income or mid-major income (MWC).

---

RE: I don't think you can hold us accountable for lack of solidarity with these two programs, given that the Pac is all but dead. If it's possible, and they'd want to move on with us, then Cal should make a pitch on their behalf. But none of the remaining four schools can be blamed at all for finding whatever safe harbor they can reach.

RE: It's not that much of a burden, and of course the financial burden from these 3.5 trips is dwarfed by the burden of no guaranteed B5 conference annual income or mid-major income (MWC). The entire situation is a burden. We were part of a conference that was over 100 years old. We are going to have to play against unfamiliar teams starting in '24 to be sure. At this point, it looks like there is very little to zero chance of getting a nod from the B1G, and the Big 12 has signaled that they are done for now. The ACC is the only remaining peer conference of the PAC that is showing any interest in Cal and Stanford. So it is potentially take more money and travel or stay in our comfort zone and end up in the MWC or AAC or some reimagined PAC. Any way you look at it, getting through this is a burden.

---

I don't know if B1G is actually a zero possibility. Both ACC and B1G will come down to how much more the networks are willing to pay, with Fox less willing to pay anything than ESPN. The biggest difference is that B1G gets paid more than ACC, so inviting Cal/Stanford to B1G would mean more money that the networks will have to pay.

MWC is a non-starter. What will getting less than $5 million a year do for our debt situation and our program? It will be a negative revenue, so what would be the point of keeping it alive?

---

I'm also not sure why there is so much assumption that the B1G is completely out. Yes, there has been some vague media reporting that they are not interested, but as we have seen those things can change quickly. If the ACC starts putting a serious offer on the table for the remaining power schools in California, then Fox may reconsider if they want to let ESPN still have a foothold in that market.

And there are other logistical reasons why the B1G would want two more west coast teams. Let's see how it plays out.

---

Multiple reports have indicated that the B1G has signaled they want to pause at 18 teams.

Never say never, but it doesn't seem likely at this point.

SoFlaBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

I don't think the ACC would take OSU&WSU. At this point, I don't think you can hold us accountable for lack of solidarity with these two programs, given that the Pac is all but dead. FSU, Clemson and co already are a bit reluctant on taking Cal and Furd, they're not going to add 2 more programs that are even less attractive to them and even further away.

As a package pair to the ACC, Cal and Furd would only have to travel east on average 3.5 times per season (8 conference games, and we play each other ever year). It's not that much of a burden, and of course the financial burden from these 3.5 trips is dwarfed by the burden of no guaranteed B5 conference annual income or mid-major income (MWC).

---

RE: I don't think you can hold us accountable for lack of solidarity with these two programs, given that the Pac is all but dead. If it's possible, and they'd want to move on with us, then Cal should make a pitch on their behalf. But none of the remaining four schools can be blamed at all for finding whatever safe harbor they can reach.

RE: It's not that much of a burden, and of course the financial burden from these 3.5 trips is dwarfed by the burden of no guaranteed B5 conference annual income or mid-major income (MWC). The entire situation is a burden. We were part of a conference that was over 100 years old. We are going to have to play against unfamiliar teams starting in '24 to be sure. At this point, it looks like there is very little to zero chance of getting a nod from the B1G, and the Big 12 has signaled that they are done for now. The ACC is the only remaining peer conference of the PAC that is showing any interest in Cal and Stanford. So it is potentially take more money and travel or stay in our comfort zone and end up in the MWC or AAC or some reimagined PAC. Any way you look at it, getting through this is a burden.

---

I don't know if B1G is actually a zero possibility. Both ACC and B1G will come down to how much more the networks are willing to pay, with Fox less willing to pay anything than ESPN. The biggest difference is that B1G gets paid more than ACC, so inviting Cal/Stanford to B1G would mean more money that the networks will have to pay.

MWC is a non-starter. What will getting less than $5 million a year do for our debt situation and our program? It will be a negative revenue, so what would be the point of keeping it alive?

---

I'm also not sure why there is so much assumption that the B1G is completely out. Yes, there has been some vague media reporting that they are not interested, but as we have seen those things can change quickly. If the ACC starts putting a serious offer on the table for the remaining power schools in California, then Fox may reconsider if they want to let ESPN still have a foothold in that market.

And there are other logistical reasons why the B1G would want two more west coast teams. Let's see how it plays out.

---

Multiple reports have indicates that the B1G has signaled they want to pause at 18 teams.

---

It comes down to money. If the networks are willing to pitch in so that the existing teams don't have to take a cut, then it is a sure thing. There is nothing magical about 18 and not having more teams on the west coast to make the additions easier to schedule. Fox thinks Cal and Stanford, as well as the Bay Area, are not worth it. So that's why they will stop. We have to be able to leverage ACC and ESPN either as a viable alternative or as a threat to Fox that the money they just paid for the West Coast with USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington can be diluted by the ACC and ESPN. I have slight confidence that Stanford admin will be able to play this and hoping that our administration doesn't fall over themselves in this last ditch leverage play.

BigDaddy said:

---

Any word out of the UC Regents meeting that was happening this AM?

---

Sounds like it was strictly "informational"
That in and of itself is alarming.

That's not a good sign.

Ron Leuty on Twitter: "University of California statement on this morning's Regents meeting on Pac-12 conference: "The University of California Board of Regents met this morning in a closed special meeting for the purpose of being briefed by UC President Michael Drake …" / X

MrGPAC said:

---

The ACC is very fractured right now. There are two perspectives to look at this from:

1) The members who want to dissolve the GoR and leave the conference. Adding more teams will NOT in ANY way significantly bridge the gap in media contracts between the ACC and the SEC/B1G. What it WILL do is add more voting members impeding their options on dissolving the conference, which is likely their ultimate goal right now. There is ZERO upside to these teams to adding any members from the Pac, but there is downside (travel costs for one).

2) The members who do not want to dissolve the GoR and are being faced with the very real reality that if Cal and Stanford can be left out, so can they. Easiest way to ensure that they don't have to face that reality is to ensure that Cal and Stanford land on their feet, comforting them to the belief that they will too. It also adds more members to vote no on dissolving the conference, and the cost is relatively small for them.

I also imagine that the whole talk of realignment is making a lot of presidents very uncomfortable. The *only* people winning in this wave of realignment are the TV networks. Fans are losing. Tradition is losing. The product will be worse. The student athlete experience will be worse. There will be fewer high paying coaching jobs (remember, the coaching community is relatively small and tightnit and they are losing very high paying jobs). It is not hard to see a lot of parties looking to extend an olive branch here.

And I'm sure a lot are willing to do so...as long as it doesn't cost them money. If Cal and Stanford get into the ACC it will likely be without voting status and only for football (I saw someone post you cannot separate mbb from your other sports, I don't know if that's true or not). The ACC already has experience with having ND in the conference and it wouldn't be a huge ask for them, but our BEST outcome would involve using the ACC's interest as leverage to ensure we aren't completely short changed by the B1G.

---

Or Cal and Stanford made a special arrangement to blow up the ACC GOR from the inside as long as they go to the B1G in a package deal with FSU, Clemson, UNC, and UVA. Genius!

I'm not a member of X so cannot access the rest of the statement. Can you post?

HateRed said:

---

I'm not a member of X so cannot access the rest of the statement. Can you post?

---

It's a nothingburger.

Quote:

---

University of California statement on this morning's Regents meeting on Pac-12 conference:

"The University of California Board of Regents met this morning in a closed special meeting for the purpose of being briefed by UC President Michael Drake and UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ about the recent events with the Pac 12 and the campus's options going forward. The Regents expressed their concern for the impact on Cal's student athletes, underscored support for the academic mission of the campus, and also offered Chancellor Christ full support as she and her leadership team pursue their options in the quickly evolving landscape of intercollegiate athletics."

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

I don't think the ACC would take OSU&WSU. At this point, I don't think you can hold us accountable for lack of solidarity with these two programs, given that the Pac is all but dead. FSU, Clemson and co already are a bit reluctant on taking Cal and Furd, they're not going to add 2 more programs that are even less attractive to them and even further away.

As a package pair to the ACC, Cal and Furd would only have to travel east on average 3.5 times per season (8 conference games, and we play each other ever year). It's not that much of a burden, and of course the financial burden from these 3.5 trips is dwarfed by the burden of no guaranteed B5 conference annual income or mid-major income (MWC).

---

RE: I don't think you can hold us accountable for lack of solidarity with these two programs, given that the Pac is all but dead. If it's possible, and they'd want to move on with us, then Cal should make a pitch on their behalf. But none of the remaining four schools can be blamed at all for finding whatever safe harbor they can reach.

RE: It's not that much of a burden, and of course the financial burden from these 3.5 trips is dwarfed by the burden of no guaranteed B5 conference annual income or mid-major income (MWC). The entire situation is a burden. We were part of a conference that was over 100 years old. We are going to have to play against unfamiliar teams starting in '24 to be sure. At this point, it looks like there is very little to zero chance of getting a nod from the B1G, and the Big 12 has signaled that they are done for now. The ACC is the only remaining peer conference of the PAC that is showing any interest in Cal and Stanford. So it is potentially take more money and travel or stay in our comfort zone and end up in the MWC or AAC or some reimagined PAC. Any way you look at it, getting through this is a burden.

---

I don't know if B1G is actually a zero possibility. Both ACC and B1G will come down to how much more the networks are willing to pay, with Fox less willing to pay anything than ESPN. The biggest difference is that B1G gets paid more than ACC, so inviting Cal/Stanford to B1G would mean more money that the networks will have to pay.

MWC is a non-starter. What will getting less than $5 million a year do for our debt situation and our program? It will be a negative revenue, so what would be the point of keeping it alive?

---

I'm also not sure why there is so much assumption that the B1G is completely out. Yes, there has been some vague media reporting that they are not interested, but as we have seen those things can change quickly. If the ACC starts putting a serious offer on the table for the remaining power schools in California, then Fox may reconsider if they want to let ESPN still have a foothold in that market.

And there are other logistical reasons why the B1G would want two more west coast teams. Let's see how it plays out.

---

Multiple reports have indicated that the B1G has signaled they want to pause at 18 teams.

Never say never, but it doesn't seem likely at this point.

---

"Pause" can mean a lot of things. It suggests that at some point you want to start again.

Multiple reports have also signaled that the B1G presidents and alumni groups would love to add Cal and Stanford. So yeah, never say never. I think the Bay Area schools are now trying to gauge their value in the open market by shopping to a few different places, something they hadn't really done before (and yes, they should have done this before, but we are where we are).