Cal's viability if joining the ACC

Econ141

Joined: Jan 10, 2009

Posts: 4,639

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

9:56a, 8/9/23

As nice (not great) as it sounds to potentially join the ACC, how realistic is it that this saves Cal football. We would be getting paid less than every school by a mile. I no nothing about the financials of running a college football team but:

I assume we will not be able to compete for good coaches

A non-significant amount of money will go into extra travel and associated costs

Our reputation will be further tarnished (our valuation is fixed significantly below the worst ACC teams, B12 teams, etc) which will impact recruiting

So in how ever many years the contract is for, won't their be a widening in the gap between all these teams and us? So much so that in the next realignment we get an ever worse valuation and less justification for being added to the B1G?

All this is just starting to sound like a slow, but growing momentum, roll to the end of Cal football.

With the B1G the above still applies but at least cost is reduced, recruits see is as part of the B1G and will get tons of exposure etc.

2

golden sloth

Joined: Nov 3, 2012

Posts: 4,083

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

10:35a, 8/9/23

The end goal remains either the B1G or the SEC as those are the only two longterm financially viable conferences. Everyone else, including the ACC and Big XII is not.

That said, joining the ACC is a temporary stay of execution. If Cal does not join the ACC now, they die in two or three years. If Cal does join the ACC, they live until the end of the decade. So joining the ACC gives us about 5 years.

6

westcoast101

Joined: Nov 21, 2017

Posts: 509

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

10:43a, 8/9/23

I don't think that Cal joining the ACC is a long-term (10+ years) solution, but it almost assuredly would keep the program going better in the near-term. Traveling out east for 4-5 games/season would be a financial burden, but I definitely think it's doable for a handful of years. The economics of the most viable alternative (MWC) don't work and would cause a much quicker death for the program. There's going to be another big college football shakeup at some point, and we need to make sure the program is alive and in a relatively healthy state (which I believe would happen even with a reduced ACC share) when that times come.

2

Econ141

Joined: Jan 10, 2009

Posts: 4,639

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to westcoast101 • 11:27a, 8/9/23

westcoast101 said:
I don't think that Cal joining the ACC is a long-term (10+ years) solution, but it almost assuredly would keep the program going better in the near-term. Traveling out east for 4-5 games/season would be a financial burden, but I definitely think it's doable for a handful of years. The economics of the most viable alternative (MWC) don't work and would cause a much quicker death for the program. There's going to be another big college football shakeup at some point, and we need to make sure the program is alive and in a relatively healthy state (which I believe would happen even with a reduced ACC share) when that times come.

What I can't wrap my head around is how with 30+ million a year for the past decade we have not been able to improve our on the field product and now with significantly less and more travel we are going to to prove that in 5-10 years we are still a "healthy program."

It's not even just less money, it's the widening differential vs the B1G. If we competed for the same athletes with UCLA before, no way we can compete with them now. Our best players will leave. So if anything we are going to be in worse off in 5 years than we are now unless some crazy donors help us close that gap....we got the billionaires to do it but I doubt they have the have the interest and the trust in the leadership to do so.

5

sycasey

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 30,633

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to golden sloth • 11:48a, 8/9/23

golden sloth said:
The end goal remains either the B1G or the SEC as those are the only two longterm financially viable conferences. Everyone else, including the ACC and Big XII is not.

That said, joining the ACC is a temporary stay of execution. If Cal does not join the ACC now, they die in two or three years. If Cal does join the ACC, they live until the end of the decade. So joining the ACC gives us about 5 years.

This. Everyone is looking for a life raft until the next realignment happens. Unless something else materializes, this would be ours.

4

MilleniaBear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 3,150

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to golden sloth • 2:38p, 8/9/23

I favor the MWC merger. They at least have 3 schools that have played in BCS bowls(?). Redo the media rights after the merger. And I hear the Pac4 gets to keep the revenue the Pac12 earned?

2

95bears

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 1,256

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Econ141 • 12:38a, 8/10/23

Econ141 said:
westcoast101 said:
I don't think that Cal joining the ACC is a long-term (10+ years) solution, but it almost assuredly would keep the program going better in the near-term. Traveling out east for 4-5 games/season would be a financial burden, but I definitely think it's doable for a handful of years. The economics of the most viable alternative (MWC) don't work and would cause a much quicker death for the program. There's going to be another big college football shakeup at some point, and we need to make sure the program is alive and in a relatively healthy state (which I believe would happen even with a reduced ACC share) when that times come.

What I can't wrap my head around is how with 30+ million a year for the past decade we have not been able to improve our on the field product and now with significantly less and more travel we are going to to prove that in 5-10 years we are still a "healthy program."

It's not even just less money, it's the widening differential vs the B1G. If we competed for the same athletes with UCLA before, no way we can compete with them now. Our best players will leave. So if anything we are going to be in worse off in 5 years than we are now unless some crazy donors help us close that gap....we got the billionaires to do it but I doubt they have the have the interest and the trust in the leadership to do so.

Christ and knowlton distributed the money to all the other sports. And the chancellors office takes 10% of athletic donations that until recently, were also distributed across all sports. Go look at her comments about athletics being a very wide porch for everyone. We've been running a wealth redistribution scheme for years until Sebasta's recent wins.

3

1 edit

calumnus

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 31,671

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to 95bears • 3:40a, 8/10/23

95bears said:
Econ141 said:
westcoast101 said:
I don't think that Cal joining the ACC is a long-term (10+ years) solution, but it almost assuredly would keep the program going better in the near-term. Traveling out east for 4-5 games/season would be a financial burden, but I definitely think it's doable for a handful of years. The economics of the most viable alternative (MWC) don't work and would cause a much quicker death for the program. There's going to be another big college football shakeup at some point, and we need to make sure the program is alive and in a relatively healthy state (which I believe would happen even with a reduced ACC share) when that times come.

What I can't wrap my head around is how with 30+ million a year for the past decade we have not been able to improve our on the field product and now with significantly less and more travel we are going to to prove that in 5-10 years we are still a "healthy program."

It's not even just less money, it's the widening differential vs the B1G. If we competed for the same athletes with UCLA before, no way we can compete with them now. Our best players will leave. So if anything we are going to be in worse off in 5 years than we are now unless some crazy donors help us close that gap....we got the billionaires to do it but I doubt they have the have the interest and the trust in the leadership to do so.

Christ and knowlton distributed the money to all the other sports. And the chancellors office takes 10% of athletic donations that until recently, were also distributed across all sports. Go look at her comments about athletics being a very wide porch for everyone. We've been running a wealth redistribution scheme for years until Sebasta's recent wins.

We will get a new chancellor in a year and hopefully a new AD then, if not sooner. We just need to survive and start the process of achieving our potential, either under Wilcox or his replacement 4 years from now.

The non-revenue sports need to be put into the the WCC or the Big West, with their scholarships limited to instate tuition.

1

evanluck

Joined: Oct 18, 2013

Posts: 313

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

5:15a, 8/10/23

ACC is a temporary life raft. Basically if we can align with a conference situation that was at least as good as the old PAC12, then we can continue our positive momentum in recruiting that a well run NIL effort and transfer portal strategy has created. With better players, Wilcox gets over the hump and with a few years of winning seasons and bowl appearances, fans will reengage and we'll be in a
much better position for the next shake up.

NIL can even the playing field as impact players are less focused on the things that athletic budgets buy and more focused on NIL. We just need to be making enough money in our media deal to support our status quo.