https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-08-01/climate-change-extreme-heat-is-making-air-travel-worse#xj4y7vzkg

"The net effect is that flight delays will probably keep rising, adding to climate change's growing impact on air travel. It's already making turbulence more dangerous, lengthening flights because of changing wind patterns, and fueling the extreme weather that leads to more delays."

Anarchistbear said:

---

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

---

The whole discussion is how much additional TV revenue we can bring either ESPN kicks in money for the later time slot ACC games on the West Coast that we make possible (and ESPN avoids potential litigation) and/or we bring in Apple as a streaming partner.

If FSU and Clemsen really want to leave maybe the ACC let's them pay their exit fee in annual installments (presumably from their SEC earnings) through the end of the current contract? Again, ESPN controls the money for both conferences.

sycasey said:

---

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).

---

I think they want to see what happens with ACC first. They dont want to waste a spot on us and stanford if the best of the ACC becomes available.

I got to think that FSU is squirming to get out of their $120 million dollar exit fee to join the B1G.

BearHunter said:

---

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

---

Clemson:

2015 Orange Bowl + CFP NCG
2016 Fiesta Bowl + CFP NCG (National Champions)
2017 Sugar Bowl
2018 Cotton Bowl + CFP NCG (National Champions)
2019 Fiesta Bowl + CFP NCG
2020 Sugar Bowl
2021 Cheez-It Bowl
2022 Orange Bowl

Fun game.

DiabloWags said:

---

I got to think that FSU is squirming to get out of their $120 million dollar exit fee to join the B1G.

---

Yes, I think a lot of smart people are working to find a way to make this happen. I just hope the ACC doesnt lose all of their florida schools.

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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).

---

I think they want to see what happens with ACC first. They dont want to waste a spot on us and stanford if the best of the ACC becomes available.

---

Yeah, but it does seem like it'll be pretty hard for any of those schools to get out right now.

calumnus said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

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

---

The whole discussion is how much additional TV revenue we can bring either ESPN kicks in money for the later time slot ACC games on the West Coast that we make possible (and ESPN avoids potential litigation) and/or we bring in Apple as a streaming partner.

If FSU and Clemsen really want to leave maybe the ACC let's them pay their exit fee in annual installments (presumably from their SEC earnings) through the end of the current contract? Again, ESPN controls the money for both conferences.

---

I don't think either leaves

Also, Per Pat Forde

"In the spring, news broke that seven of the 14 football-playing membersFlorida State, Clemson, Miami, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia and Virginia Techhad met to explore options outside the ACC. That triggered some tense face-to-face meetings and ultimately led to the league approving unequal revenue distribution to schools that had success in the College Football Playoff and NCAA basketball tournament."

I also don't see where we get votes without a lot more money on the table. Hopefully the BIG is still alive because this conference looks like it will end up in tears and lawsuits

DiabloWags said:

---

I got to think that FSU is squirming to get out of their $120 million dollar exit fee to join the B1G.

---

I thought FSU wanted into the SEC?

$120 million might be paid off at about $11 million per year for 12 years. If Cal and Stanford slip into FSU's and Clemson's slots in the current contract, we make more than B-12 (and more than the B1G is likely offering) and there is $22 million more to be split among the schools.

SEC doesn't need FSU. The BiG would like a footprint in Florida and the Carolinas.

Anarchistbear said:

---

SEC doesn't need FSU. The BiG would like a footprint in Florida and the Carolinas.

---

North Carolina, Georgia Tech and Miami

calumnus said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I got to think that FSU is squirming to get out of their $120 million dollar exit fee to join the B1G.

---

I thought FSU wanted into the SEC?

$120 million might be paid off at about $11 million per year for 12 years. If Cal and Stanford slip into FSU's and Clemson's slots in the current contract, we make more than B-12 (and more than the B1G is likely offering) and there is $22 million more to be split among the schools.

---

Miami definitely wants to be in the SEC.

FSU and Clemson have something of the same predicament - there is already an SEC team in their states. This is not an insurmountable problem - Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi all have two SEC teams. But the idea has been floated that it might be more profitable for all parties concerned if FSU and Clemson went to the B1G.

As you likely know, the problem is the ACC GOR (Grant of Rights) which has a really steep exit fee and runs (IIRC) through 2036. FSU, Miami, and Clemson are looking for a way out by fair means or foul. Two weeks ago, it was floated that FSU, Miami, and Clemson would find five friends and essentially dissolve the GOR or possibly the entire conference - but this has not yet come to pass.

Adding Cal and Stanford (as another poster pointed out - I think in this thread) serves several interests. Two respectable schools with long histories and superb academics. Two schools that could constitute additional votes to prevent a conference meltdown or a dissolution of the GOR. And/or two schools that could help soften the blow if the long sought loophole is found to allow FSU, Miami, and Clemson to leave.

SoFlaBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I got to think that FSU is squirming to get out of their $120 million dollar exit fee to join the B1G.

---

I thought FSU wanted into the SEC?

$120 million might be paid off at about $11 million per year for 12 years. If Cal and Stanford slip into FSU's and Clemson's slots in the current contract, we make more than B-12 (and more than the B1G is likely offering) and there is $22 million more to be split among the schools.

---

Miami definitely wants to be in the SEC.

FSU and Clemson have something of the same predicament - there is already an SEC team in their states. This is not an insurmountable problem - Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi all have two SEC teams. But the idea has been floated that it might be more profitable for all parties concerned if FSU and Clemson went to the B1G.

As you likely know, the problem is the ACC GOR (Grant of Rights) which has a really steep exit fee and runs (IIRC) through 2036. FSU, Miami, and Clemson are looking for a way out by fair means or foul. Two weeks ago, it was floated that FSU, Miami, and Clemson would find five friends and essentially dissolve the GOR or possibly the entire conference - but this has not yet come to pass.

Adding Cal and Stanford (as another poster pointed out - I think in this thread) serves several interests. Two respectable schools with long histories and superb academics. Two schools that could constitute additional votes to prevent a conference meltdown or a dissolution of the GOR. And/or two schools that could help soften the blow if the long sought loophole is found to allow FSU, Miami, and Clemson to leave.

---

Why would FSU, Miami, or Clemson agree to anything that weakens their bargaining power?

DoubtfulBear said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I got to think that FSU is squirming to get out of their $120 million dollar exit fee to join the B1G.

---

I thought FSU wanted into the SEC?

$120 million might be paid off at about $11 million per year for 12 years. If Cal and Stanford slip into FSU's and Clemson's slots in the current contract, we make more than B-12 (and more than the B1G is likely offering) and there is $22 million more to be split among the schools.

---

Miami definitely wants to be in the SEC.

FSU and Clemson have something of the same predicament - there is already an SEC team in their states. This is not an insurmountable problem - Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi all have two SEC teams. But the idea has been floated that it might be more profitable for all parties concerned if FSU and Clemson went to the B1G.

As you likely know, the problem is the ACC GOR (Grant of Rights) which has a really steep exit fee and runs (IIRC) through 2036. FSU, Miami, and Clemson are looking for a way out by fair means or foul. Two weeks ago, it was floated that FSU, Miami, and Clemson would find five friends and essentially dissolve the GOR or possibly the entire conference - but this has not yet come to pass.

Adding Cal and Stanford (as another poster pointed out - I think in this thread) serves several interests. Two respectable schools with long histories and superb academics. Two schools that could constitute additional votes to prevent a conference meltdown or a dissolution of the GOR. And/or two schools that could help soften the blow if the long sought loophole is found to allow FSU, Miami, and Clemson to leave.

---

Why would FSU, Miami, or Clemson agree to anything that weakens their bargaining power?

---

They wouldn't, but Duke, UVA, Wake Forest, NC State, BC, North Carolina, Georgia Tech very well might as a means of preventing exactly what happened in the Pac 12.

I don't know what I don't know about their bylaws, so i don't know if admitting members is by majority, supermajority, or unanimity.

SoFlaBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I got to think that FSU is squirming to get out of their $120 million dollar exit fee to join the B1G.

---

I thought FSU wanted into the SEC?

$120 million might be paid off at about $11 million per year for 12 years. If Cal and Stanford slip into FSU's and Clemson's slots in the current contract, we make more than B-12 (and more than the B1G is likely offering) and there is $22 million more to be split among the schools.

---

Miami definitely wants to be in the SEC.

FSU and Clemson have something of the same predicament - there is already an SEC team in their states. This is not an insurmountable problem - Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi all have two SEC teams. But the idea has been floated that it might be more profitable for all parties concerned if FSU and Clemson went to the B1G.

As you likely know, the problem is the ACC GOR (Grant of Rights) which has a really steep exit fee and runs (IIRC) through 2036. FSU, Miami, and Clemson are looking for a way out by fair means or foul. Two weeks ago, it was floated that FSU, Miami, and Clemson would find five friends and essentially dissolve the GOR or possibly the entire conference - but this has not yet come to pass.

Adding Cal and Stanford (as another poster pointed out - I think in this thread) serves several interests. Two respectable schools with long histories and superb academics. Two schools that could constitute additional votes to prevent a conference meltdown or a dissolution of the GOR. And/or two schools that could help soften the blow if the long sought loophole is found to allow FSU, Miami, and Clemson to leave.

---

Agreed. But I think maybe we get the ACC votes by also being two more schools that might vote for dissolution if we had an agreement to get into the B1G for more $$$.

DiabloWags said:

---

I got to think that FSU is squirming to get out of their $120 million dollar exit fee to join the B1G.

---

For what it's worth: When it was reported last week that FSU is seeking private equity investment in FSU's athletic department, a couple of sportswriters speculated that (in the absence of an immediate SEC or Big Ten invitation) FSU might want to be a football independent, get the same arrangement with the ACC that Notre Dame has, and try to score a big TV contract for FSU football that they wouldn't have to share with other schools.

Maybe, the idea behind that speculation is that FSU would pay the ACC less to become a football indy than they would have to pay to join the Big Ten or SEC.

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.

---

They will do whatever the media companies tell them to do.

calumnus said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I got to think that FSU is squirming to get out of their $120 million dollar exit fee to join the B1G.

---

I thought FSU wanted into the SEC?

$120 million might be paid off at about $11 million per year for 12 years. If Cal and Stanford slip into FSU's and Clemson's slots in the current contract, we make more than B-12 (and more than the B1G is likely offering) and there is $22 million more to be split among the schools.

---

Miami definitely wants to be in the SEC.

FSU and Clemson have something of the same predicament - there is already an SEC team in their states. This is not an insurmountable problem - Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi all have two SEC teams. But the idea has been floated that it might be more profitable for all parties concerned if FSU and Clemson went to the B1G.

As you likely know, the problem is the ACC GOR (Grant of Rights) which has a really steep exit fee and runs (IIRC) through 2036. FSU, Miami, and Clemson are looking for a way out by fair means or foul. Two weeks ago, it was floated that FSU, Miami, and Clemson would find five friends and essentially dissolve the GOR or possibly the entire conference - but this has not yet come to pass.

Adding Cal and Stanford (as another poster pointed out - I think in this thread) serves several interests. Two respectable schools with long histories and superb academics. Two schools that could constitute additional votes to prevent a conference meltdown or a dissolution of the GOR. And/or two schools that could help soften the blow if the long sought loophole is found to allow FSU, Miami, and Clemson to leave.

---

Agreed. But I think maybe we get the ACC votes by also being two more schools that might vote for dissolution if we had an agreement to get into the B1G for more $$$.

---

Very true. And if it doesn't dissolve, we are in until 2036 in what is already considered to be a less-than-favorable TV deal. SMU might get thrown into the mix, which is another slice of the pie, but perhaps the Bay Area and Dallas convince ESPN to kick some money into the pot.

All of these discussions we are having on this board come down to "Cal ends up in a deal with a P5 conference and ends up with money but a bad travel situation" or "Cal ends up in the MW, as an independent, or in some reimagined PAC, and has a good travel situation, but a very bad financial situation" of "Cal bows out of NCAA football." Every day the media narrative shifts somewhat. A few days ago, many reporters seemed to still feel the B1G would reach out. Now it seems like the "pause at 18" or "they want to wait on Cal and Stanford and see if FSU/Clemson/ND have interest in those slots." We can certainly give it another week, but I don't think they are going to come knocking, and at some point soon we have to start looking at scheduling for ourselves if no clear solution is emerging.

I kind of like the fact that there is an ulterior motive for bringing Cal and Stanford in. We'd bring some prestige and a big, new market for the ACC, but mostly we'd bring value by helping the ACC expand and perhaps get leverage for a better TV deal or perhaps survive if those three schools buy their ways out of the GOR.

..and the basketball would be amazing. If this does come to pass, maybe we and our would-be partners discuss reaching out to Gonzaga.

sycasey said:

---

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).

---

IF they do start again, it will be with FSU and Clemson. Not us or Stanford. I'm sure Fox has already ascertained the value of each school in relation to joining the B1G. The play for the B1G is what happens to FSU and Clemson. If they somehow manage to leave the ACC, then I think that triggers Miami to go to the SEC and then we may have a repeat of what happened to the PAC.

BearHunter said:

---

Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne has published a paper demonstrating that the travel distance from Stanford and Cal to the ACC isn’t that bad. pic.twitter.com/AgBmUqM22l

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) August 8, 2023

Stanford's president said the travel distance isn't that bad.

---

Based on his recent reputation, I'd say somebody better verify his data. 8^)

Lots of moving pieces and here are some random thoughts:

I don't believe that the B1G is "not interested" in expansion. They will do exactly what they did with UW/UO - see what Cal and Furd are offered and then decide if they want to match or beat it. There is no reason for B1G to negotiate at this point since they know Cal/Furd prefer B1G (or should). At the right price, I have no doubt B1G want Cal/Furd to balance travel, etc. At the right price.

Re ACC, I think there's a decent match for Cal there albeit travel will suck. Ideal situation would be to only have major sports in the ACC and have the rest play in other conferences. I assume FSU/Clemson would oppose any expansion - if for no other reason then they want the ACC to go away. I wonder what happens if ACC admits Cal/Furd/SMU (?) over the objections of FSU/Clemson? Do FSU/Clemson use that to take a position on the grant of rights and leave the league (i.e., litigation mode)?

At the end of the day, its comes down to the networks and specifically ESPN. Does ESPN want Clemson/FSU in the SEC (not sure they do). If they do, then ESPN can modify the ACC GOR to make that happen - for example throw additional $$ in the deal and/or shorten the term. Hypothetically, what if ESPN offered the ACC more annual money per team in exchange for letting FSU/Clemson go to the SEC? Who says no?

BearGoggles said:

---

Lots of moving pieces and here are some random thoughts:

I don't believe that the B1G is "not interested" in expansion. They will do exactly what they did with UW/UO - see what Cal and Furd are offered and then decide if they want to match or beat it. There is no reason for B1G to negotiate at this point since they know Cal/Furd prefer B1G (or should). At the right price, I have no doubt B1G want Cal/Furd to balance travel, etc. At the right price.

Re ACC, I think there's a decent match for Cal there albeit travel will suck. Ideal situation would be to only have major sports in the ACC and have the rest play in other conferences. I assume FSU/Clemson would oppose any expansion - if for no other reason then they want the ACC to go away. I wonder what happens if ACC admits Cal/Furd/SMU (?) over the objections of FSU/Clemson? Do FSU/Clemson use that to take a position on the grant of rights and leave the league (i.e., litigation mode)?

At the end of the day, its comes down to the networks and specifically ESPN. Does ESPN want Clemson/FSU in the SEC (not sure they do). If they do, then ESPN can modify the ACC GOR to make that happen - for example throw additional $$ in the deal and/or shorten the term. Hypothetically, what if ESPN offered the ACC more annual money per team in exchange for letting FSU/Clemson go to the SEC? Who says no?

---

Why would ESPN want to pay more to move FSU and Clemson from one conference they own to another conference they own?

MrGPAC said:

---

The ACC is very fractured right now.


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.

---

In response to Cal joining the ACC in football and the rest of their sports in the Big West, someone did suggest you cannot have football and basketball in separate conferences.

However ....

Hawaii has their football in the MWC and all other sports, including basketball, in the Big West. How someone could be that wrong while claiming to know everything about Big West conferences dynamics is beyond me.

dimitrig said:

---

Big C said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

Whatever you believe is the cause of travel disruption, the more teams travel to faraway places, the more hellish travel experiences they are going to have. This means more time away from classwork, less rest, jetlag, etc. I'm not thinking about football, but tennis, gymnastics, field hockey, baseball....

---

" ... time away from classwork ..."?!?

We are soooo past worrying about things like that. Do you want to compete at football, or not? Because the things we used to worry about, scheduling dates, kickoff times, game day experience, academic standards ... we abandoned all of that crap when the schools in our former conference started selling their souls to the devil.

---

If that is what competing in football is then no.

---

Yes, this is why I'm probably out after this coming season. I want to compete at college football, not at NFL-light. If I want pros where I'm basically rooting for laundry rather than the individual players, I can watch the 49ers on Saturdays. I get that Division I is now basically controlled by Fox, ESPN and the schools whose fans are basically people that don't have an NFL team to root for, because their region can't support one. But I'm really losing interest in competing under that model.

ferCALgm2 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

The ACC is very fractured right now.


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.

---

In response to Cal joining the ACC in football and the ret of their sports in the Big West, someone did suggest you cannot have football and basketball in separate conferences.

However ....

Hawaii had their football in the MWC and all.other sports, including basketball, in the Big West. How someone could be that wrong, claiming to know everything about Big West conferences dynamics, is beyond me.

---

But basketball in the ACC would have so many rich games! I wonder if we'd get more revenue and that would help offset travel expenses. I hope it's foosball + basketball (and nothing more).

---

I think we would kick ass in foosball.