Story Poster
Photo by Mike Wondolowski
Cal Football

Cal's Athletic Future - And what FOX Sports and others are missing

August 12, 2023
67,313

In the next seven days, Cal believes it will have a clear answer to its athletic future.  Will the ACC offer admission?   Will the Big Ten come up with enough of a financial commitment to make Cal viable?   Or will Cal be forced to remain in a reimagined Pac-12 whose members will primarily be Group of 5 members from the American and Mountain West Conference?

Let’s start with setting some context.  And that doesn’t include how we got here and who and what may be to blame for the current situation.    What’s relevant is where we are today and how Cal can emerge in a place that preserves the scope and ambition of its athletic endeavors and the essential yet ephemeral connection it provides the world’s leading public institution of higher learning to its students, alumni, and donors.   The other helpful backdrop is that college football is in the middle of an increasingly accelerating realization that it is better defined as a multi-billion dollar media business rather than a bastion of amateur athletics.

Without opining on whether this is a positive change for the constituencies involved or not, let’s accept this is our reality.  And that for at least two decades, Cal and many other schools have supported a diverse number of sports on the backs of the revenue being generated by Football and to a far lesser extent Men’s Basketball.   That revenue became an entitlement that has shifted the decision-making power of college athletics from the hands of University presidents to those of Sports Network executives.   And the status quo of powerful conferences and their highly paid commissioners only adds to the underbrush that delays what is inevitable.

A unified BCS Football organization that can manage broader TV rights would be to the benefit of all of the schools, overseeing the competitive dynamics to create an even playing field inclusive of NIL, the transfer portal, and the operation of the highly lucrative and fan-pleasing 8+ team playoff.  In the wake of Cal finding itself on the wrong side of a game of musical chairs, the imperative becomes ensuring that it has a place in this future entity.   Unfortunately, this is not a situation where time and patience will create that reality.   A single season for Cal outside the BCS will almost certainly prove fatal to its ability to retain its student-athletes, support their non-revenue sports, and sustain the donor and fan interest that are the lifeblood of the athletic department.

Cal is not alone, their long-time rival Stanford finds itself in the same predicament.   And whilst the financial dynamics are different for the two schools, they are working in lockstep to preserve the future of their athletic departments.    It’s my understanding that there is robust communication and alignment of interest between soon-to-be retired Chancellor Christ and Stanford interim President Richard Saller.

Both schools have made joining the B10 the top priority with the ACC a less ideal lifeline.  The options beyond that are simply different takes that would best remind one of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal.  The overwhelming logic of the school's academic credentials, the opportunity to meaningfully mitigate the travel requirements for the other West Coast B10 members, and access to the Bay Area’s media markets which are rife with the alumni of the historic and future members of the B10.

The impediment is that FOX Sports does not believe the additional allocation of capital for Cal and Stanford is worth the value that they will bring.  Thus, they are not willing to offer anything even remotely in the neighborhood of what Oregon and UW have been committed.  Whilst one can argue that Cal and Stanford should be near-term immune to the financials given the chance that there will be no life raft of any value remaining, the reality is that simply being a member of the Big10 (or any conference) is not a sufficiency.  The B10 does not want wildly uncompetitive members, whilst the value of being a BCS school for Cal and Stanford becomes only optics and the dire consequences to athletic department revenue, fan, and donor interest remain.

As has been reported by ESPN and others, the ACC needs 12 of their current 15 schools to approve any new additions and currently, the Bay Area schools are one vote shy of meeting that requirement.  The ACC provides a potential bridge to the final evolution of BCS football yet in almost every other way imaginable is problematic.    No West Coast pod means travel requirements will be beyond onerous and highly expensive further reducing the value of the revenue stream they provide.

I’m told that one certainty in a situation where very little can be relied on is that regardless of the outcome of Cal’s conference affiliation, the school will be forced to reduce the number of sports it supports.  In my mind, this is a long overdue albeit painful measure needed to ensure the long-term viability of the athletic department.

As Chancellor Christ, AD Jim Knowlton, and their advisors burn up the phone and zoom lines between now and Friday, the fulcrum of their efforts will be focused on convincing the media experts who are currently unconvinced that Cal and Stanford will add significant revenue heft to their TV deals.  In my mind, those folks have short memories and limited imaginations.  To wit:

  • The commonly repeated narrative that Cal doesn’t invest in its football and basketball programs is stale news that no longer reflects reality.  This isn’t to say that the University has made the necessary commitments over the past dozen years, but rather that Cal’s donor base has bridged the gap such that Cal’s total football budget now finds itself in the top half of the Pac-12 of 2023 (inclusive of USC and UCLA).   That takes into account coaching salaries, the size, and salaries of the support staff, recruiting budgets, etc.
  • Cal’s NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal.   The proof is obvious given the success that both Men’s Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal
  • The changes above are recent and should start to show up in success on the football field and basketball court these upcoming seasons, reigniting the fan base and meaningfully changing the calculus of any TV viewership analysis
  • Only five short years ago, Stanford was a national power in football with regular appearances in the Rose Bowl.   Less than fifteen years ago, Jeff Tedford led Cal to a seven-year run of national prominence as the clear 2nd best program in the Pac-10 behind only Pete Carrol’s storied USC program.   And most importantly, Cal’s TV ratings and game attendance during that period were top-tier by any relative measure
  • Cal has one of the largest alumni bases in the country and one of the wealthiest.  The potential value of those eyeballs should not be lost on FOX or other media networks.  Stanford’s are even wealthier albeit it against a smaller and less engaged fan base
  • The Bay Area is the nation’s 7th largest media market and it’s home to hundred’s of thousands of alums of Ohio State, Virginia, Duke, Michigan, Northwestern, et al not to mention UCLA, USC, UW, and Oregon.  That’s an audience that is going to care about Stanford and Cal as they are their opponents and rivals within their conference.
  • Beyond the revenue sports, the ACC and B10 networks need shoulder content and the value of Cal and Stanford’s Olympic sports offerings is as good as any two schools in the nation.  Not to mention the media value and inclusion of the star-studded alums in the NFL, NBA, and MLB from the two schools
  • It’s an understandable concern from the networks and members of the ACC and B10 that Cal and Stanford’s administrations may not be as fully committed to their revenue sports as they would like.  However, the answer is as simple as asking the question.  The leaders at both schools now have the type of fulsome clarity which only the potential extinction of their current athletic departments can provide.   Christ and Saller can and should lay out for their potential partners how they plan to invest in football and basketball, not only to help them be relevant on the national stage but to effectively buttress the capital needed for their non-revenue sports.  As pointed out above, Cal can point to its near-term cutting of non-revenue sports as well as its passionate and deep-pocketed donor base as well as the historical embrace of a winning team by its fans to underscore their potential as part of their forward-looking plan

This next week is going to be a roller coaster ride that has no rails and one in which Cal does not control its own fate.   The hope is that the TV execs and potential new conference partners can think long-term and take the time to truly understand the value of having Cal as part of the future of College sports.

Discussion from...

Cal's Athletic Future - And what FOX Sports and others are missing

49,791 Views | 170 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by phyrux
LunchTime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGreg said:

LunchTime said:




Does Cal have attendance and relevance when it wins? Sure. What team doesnt, though?
Stanford

Addendum: It's about the upside on revenue (TV ratings, donations, etc) when a team wins. With Stanford, that's been historically very low, and ditto for Washington State, Oregon State, and many other P5 programs. Conversely, with Cal, it's very high.

So the school we would be linked with in a move has no upside?

Or is the argument that we should abandon Furd to get into the B1G?
LunchTime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

HKBear97! said:

BearGreg said:

StarsDoMatter said:

"Cal's NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal. The proof is obvious given the success that both Men's Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal"

You have to be kidding?!

Our transfer portal "success" is mediocre at best. Recruiting might the worst it's ever been.

We need to be honest with ourselves.
247 ranked Cal's Tranfer Class in 2023 15th nationally
On3 ranked the same transfer football clas 24th nationally

In basketball, On3 ranked Cal's basketball class 7th in the country
247 ranked the class 18th in the country


And yet the media picked Cal to finish near the bottom of the PAC-12 and most betting sites have us missing a bowl game yet again. When you look at what Cal has done in a vacuum, it seems like progress, but not when you take our competition into consideration.

Bottom line, the conferences and media companies have done the math and determined Cal adds little to no value.


ESPN would pay the ACC full shares for Cal and Stanford and is pushing the deal, offering to also cover travel expenses. It is 4 schools that are blocking that deal, not ESPN, presumably because they want an even better deal. Apple still wants to do a deal with us.
Fox is the one that seems determined to "refuse to deal" and may be claiming we bring no value. We don't know how the negotiations are going, we don't know if Fox has other motives.
ESPN would pay "full share" to Cal for an ACC that doesnt include the two teams people will pay to watch.

The minute the ACC realigns, the agreements are reset and FSU and Clemson walk away for more. ACC becomes a low value conference, but with enormous travel costs.

Not sure how Cal benefits from ACC discussions. That conference is like ghosts of Pac12 past.
Shocky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sebastapool & bear greg, ur both undervaluing the impact of knowlton's underfunding the revenue sports & further engaging the department in future lawsuits while building a bloated bureaucracy that won't cut sports/reduce expenses & that is borrowing money from the central campus while the bearinsider.com watches it all burn without calling him out

carol christ forgave the memorial stadium debt for several hundred million dollars, yeah she's a fan of title ix & she's successfully overseeing the #1 public ranked university in the world, it's not her full time job to save cal athletics

it's not christ's responsibility to lead the conference alignment charge, why then is she paying the worthless absentee bureaucrat athletic director who lives in colorado springs most of the year $1,300,000+?

but agreed it's acc or big 10 or bust, ima not gonna travel to every football game (and maybe the basketball program again someday if a return to the program is in the cards) unless it's big time sports...if my future fandom is 100% cal golf both collegiately & the pro tour then so be it, got zero interest in professional sports teams

this myopic article should've been about why james arthur knowlton is the worst athletic director in the united states (and also the only one with out any social media presence and/or interviews) & why he should be terminated immediately
StarsDoMatter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shocky1 said:

sebastapool & bear greg, ur both undervaluing the impact of knowlton's underfunding the revenue sports & further engaging the department in future lawsuits while building a bloated bureaucracy that won't cut sports/reduce expenses & that is borrowing money from the central campus while the bearinsider.com watches it all burn without calling him out

carol christ forgave the memorial stadium debt for several hundred million dollars, yeah she's a fan of title ix & she's successfully overseeing the #1 public ranked university in the world, it's not her full time job to save cal athletics

it's not christ's responsibility to lead the conference alignment charge, why then is she paying the worthless absentee bureaucrat athletic director who lives in colorado springs most of the year $1,300,000+?

but agreed it's acc or big 10 or bust, ima not gonna travel to every football game (and maybe the basketball program again someday if a return to the program is in the cards) unless it's big time sports...if my future fandom is 100% cal golf both collegiately & the pro tour then so be it, got zero interest in professional sports team

this myopic article should've been about why james arthur knowlton is the worst athletic director in the united states (and also the only one with out any social media presence and/or interviews) & why he should be terminated immediately


Carol:
"By virtue of his experience, values and personal attributes, Jim stood out among the other candidates in what was a large and talented pool of applicants," Christ said in the email. "He is an excellent communicator who thrives on challenges, and he shares my commitment to excellence, integrity and diversity. I am certain he will be the thought partner I sought, and the leader our campus needs to usher in a new era of excellence for Cal Athletics."

More Carol:
"I want to conclude with a note about my future here at Cal. Chancellor Christ and I have finalized an agreement that will allow me to remain as your athletic director through 2029. I am so grateful for the Chancellor's trust and confidence. I love our Cal family and the direction we are heading, and I am excited to spend the rest of my career here in Berkeley."

Great job Carol!
Shocky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jim is so big on diversity that his oldest son said on facebook that michelle obama looks like the predator

yeah the con artist fooled carol (who recognizes her mistake now) & is fooling the bearinsider.com
HKBear97!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

HKBear97! said:

BearGreg said:

StarsDoMatter said:

"Cal's NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal. The proof is obvious given the success that both Men's Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal"

You have to be kidding?!

Our transfer portal "success" is mediocre at best. Recruiting might the worst it's ever been.

We need to be honest with ourselves.
247 ranked Cal's Tranfer Class in 2023 15th nationally
On3 ranked the same transfer football clas 24th nationally

In basketball, On3 ranked Cal's basketball class 7th in the country
247 ranked the class 18th in the country


And yet the media picked Cal to finish near the bottom of the PAC-12 and most betting sites have us missing a bowl game yet again. When you look at what Cal has done in a vacuum, it seems like progress, but not when you take our competition into consideration.

Bottom line, the conferences and media companies have done the math and determined Cal adds little to no value.


ESPN would pay the ACC full shares for Cal and Stanford and is pushing the deal, offering to also cover travel expenses. It is 4 schools that are blocking that deal, not ESPN, presumably because they want an even better deal. Apple still wants to do a deal with us.
Fox is the one that seems determined to "refuse to deal" and may be claiming we bring no value. We don't know how the negotiations are going, we don't know if Fox has other motives.


Sources? Full share in the ACC? Why? And what deal is on the table from Apple exactly?
HateRed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Notice there is no reply to your question…
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HKBear97! said:

calumnus said:

HKBear97! said:

BearGreg said:

StarsDoMatter said:

"Cal's NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal. The proof is obvious given the success that both Men's Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal"

You have to be kidding?!

Our transfer portal "success" is mediocre at best. Recruiting might the worst it's ever been.

We need to be honest with ourselves.
247 ranked Cal's Tranfer Class in 2023 15th nationally
On3 ranked the same transfer football clas 24th nationally

In basketball, On3 ranked Cal's basketball class 7th in the country
247 ranked the class 18th in the country


And yet the media picked Cal to finish near the bottom of the PAC-12 and most betting sites have us missing a bowl game yet again. When you look at what Cal has done in a vacuum, it seems like progress, but not when you take our competition into consideration.

Bottom line, the conferences and media companies have done the math and determined Cal adds little to no value.


ESPN would pay the ACC full shares for Cal and Stanford and is pushing the deal, offering to also cover travel expenses. It is 4 schools that are blocking that deal, not ESPN, presumably because they want an even better deal. Apple still wants to do a deal with us.
Fox is the one that seems determined to "refuse to deal" and may be claiming we bring no value. We don't know how the negotiations are going, we don't know if Fox has other motives.


Sources? Full share in the ACC? Why? And what deal is on the table from Apple exactly?


Well it would be full share in the sense that the ACC will get as much money for Cal and Stanford as the other schools but Cal and Stanford won't see all of that. A good portion will go to keep others happy.
BarcaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HKBear97! said:

BearGreg said:

StarsDoMatter said:

"Cal's NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal. The proof is obvious given the success that both Men's Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal"

You have to be kidding?!

Our transfer portal "success" is mediocre at best. Recruiting might the worst it's ever been.

We need to be honest with ourselves.
247 ranked Cal's Tranfer Class in 2023 15th nationally
On3 ranked the same transfer football clas 24th nationally

In basketball, On3 ranked Cal's basketball class 7th in the country
247 ranked the class 18th in the country


And yet the media picked Cal to finish near the bottom of the PAC-12 and most betting sites have us missing a bowl game yet again. When you look at what Cal has done in a vacuum, it seems like progress, but not when you take our competition into consideration.

Bottom line, the conferences and media companies have done the math and determined Cal adds little to no value.
you're flat out confusing two completely separate entities. media and college presidents.

Entity 1: corporate media have done the math and know that the Bay Area is the #10 media market. UCLA and USC have ZERO pull in this area for media. no media company would be facepalmingly dunderheaded enough to leave out the #10 media market (which btw, in times of economic duress, that media market becomes a strong factor in societal cohesion, relevant insofar as the region clings more to entertainment during hard times, and those hard times are coming). there is a reason they are not pushing harder for it.

Entity 2: college presidents are trying to hoard as much of the wealth as possible, because they are converting universities into businesses. those college presidents are the ones giving the heisman stiff arm to whatever colleges they can. the giants of college football have been whining about sharing money with mid to low level schools for decades. this finally allows them to shift the distribution of money in a way that reflects their belief that they should keep it all and give scraps to everyone else that they can.

do you honestly think a mediocre Arizona (media market #71, population of 550k) and Arizona St. (media market #12, population 1.8 million) is better than Cal and Stanford in a media market #10, population of 7.8 million people? you didn't do the math, but entertainment companies have.

companies can do the math. college presidents can, too. the reason for keeping Cal and Stanford out has different reasons. if the Conferences were genuinely trying to get Cal and Stanford in, then the argument is self explanatory, all media companies can do the math, and we would already be in a different conference.

but...at this point, the media companies aren't forcing the conferences because they see the opportunity of hiding behind college presidents in order to low ball the price for the Bay Area media market and get it for pennies on the dollar. except for FOX, and their ulterior motive.

*i have said elsewhere that Cal is fighting a weird rightwing paranoia about being a communist haven when the university has never ever even remotely been leftist. Its uneducated alumns in the South and Midwest and East Coast who don't realize that California banned affirmative action almost 30 years ago. So, when folks bring up that FOX chopped off the B1G balls, that is literally why. Someone posted the Clemson forums and more than half of the gibberish in that forum is that rightwing delusional fantasy about Cal being a fountain of revolutionary antifa. FOX is literally trying to smash Cal, and oddly enough, Stanford is getting smacked for it as well, and all because a bunch of non-student hippies swarmed Cal's campus in the 60's leading to Reagan having tear gas dropped on their heads. Cal is not leftist, but we are intellectual snobs. i don't think the snobs is why we get slammed by schools on the other side of the country.

Sebastabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

sebastapool & bear greg, ur both undervaluing the impact of knowlton's underfunding the revenue sports
Literally what the hell? Did you read what I wrote? My entire rant was mostly devoted to the exact point that we have underfunded our revenue sports. I am the loudest and I would argue one of the most consistent voices for that position. I am pretty sure Jim Knowlton has a dartboard with my face on it. We only have the Caliber fund with money specifically ring fenced and only devoted to football because many of us raised holy hell about it. And then funded it.

If there was even the smallest chance this was unclear, WE HAVE CRIMINALLY UNDERFUNDED OUR REVENUE SPORTS AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE! Is that better?

But, as importantly, we have largely fixed this historical multi-decade problem thanks to our donors coming through in a big way over the last few years. As I wrote above. There is arguably no one else in the PAC 12 who closed the gap this way. Is this good? As one of the guys who has had to write these checks I would say no. It's actually a pretty long freaking way from being "good." But it's nevertheless true.

The current numbers (top half of the conference in football spending) speak for themselves. But you don't spend the money on day one and get results on day two. A lot of these investments took place last year and even in the first part of this year. We need to get a return on our investment soon, but these investments have nothing to do with what happened on the field in 2022 and before.

Hopefully our representatives are effectively getting the network executives and Big10 and ACC presidents to understand this.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks to BG and Sebasta for laying out what has been done to improve Cal's position in the college football landscape. It really does seem like the networks (Fox in particular) are missing out on where the potential value lies here.

Is there NO price point at which they would accept us and Stanford? Any way to raise additional TV money and bring it to them? It just seems nuts that with the other B1G schools clearly warm to the idea of having these schools as members that something can't be worked out.
bencgilmore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sebastabear said:

bearsandgiants said:

Sebastabear said:

I'll admit I've kind of drifted away from Growls and pulling up these responses . . . yikes guys. BG wrote a compelling and factual piece. And yet people respond saying our transfer portal ranking stinks and our NIL is a failure? Most of our talent transferred out? Seriously? Are you guys even following the program?

This isn't about why we are where we are. To be honest where we are is in a world of trouble and we have no one but ourselves (well no one except ourselves and Larry Scott and we're kind of responsible for him too) to blame. The fact that the flagship university of the largest and wealthiest state in the union is on the outside looking in as realignment madness unfolds is ridiculous. We underinvested in our revenue sports (particularly football) for decades and then were shocked that we stunk . . . for decades. We did this. We should be an absolute no brainer for this round of consolidation. And the one that is going to follow in a few years. But instead we are basically fighting for a lifeline to prove that we are finally (FINALLY!) willing to embrace and understand how the game has changed and can participate in modern college athletics.

The sad part of this timing is that things really have changed as BG notes The certificate program allowing us to retain our grad students and attract other talented athletes who want a grad certificate is a game changer. That's only a couple years old. The Caliber fund (which started in earnest last year) and which is adding millions each and every year to our football budget is a game changer. Our nutrition program has been completely revised. We have one of the best and most well funded NIL's in the (old) Pac. We have added housing, parking, academic support, recruiting resources, social media personnel, etc., etc. All to make football more competitive. And unfortunately all coming just a bit too late to show the results on the field for this round of realignment.

We need Fox and the Big and ESPN and the ACC to look at what we've done to prove we are serious about creating a truly competitive program. Should we have to ask them to squint to see our potential? Shouldn't we have been doing all of this stuff years ago when it became obvious we were falling behind. Absolutely. But unfortunately we didn't until recently.

And yet we ultimately did make changes and have every reason to be optimistic those will bear fruit. We just need a break here. And if we still stink in 5 years? Well they can (and probably should) leave us out then when football realignment reaches its inevitable apotheosis. But today Cal deserves a shot. We are fighting to get that.


This is a great post and I'm sorry if my post was misunderstood. I think we'll be very good this year, but I don't think basing it on our transfer rating makes a ton of sense. It was great, but we brought in 20 and lost 26, plus everyone who graduated, and our incoming class has some great talent, but it's not a top rated freshman class. That's all I was trying to point out. In spite of this, which given how bad our seasons have been, we still have a great team poised to surprise this year.

https://247sports.com/season/2023-football/transferportal/



All good and my apologies if my post came across as overly strident. I am just in full on ranting mode. Every time I have to rebut the (what I view as) insane suggestion that Cal can spend a couple years in some Frankenstein amalgamation with the mountain west, or the AAC, and then be reconsidered in the next round of consolidation.

Bottom line if we don't get in now we won't have the resources to ever compete again. Our donations which are a disproportionate amount of our budget already, aregoing to go to zero. Our collective will collapse. And we will be trying to operate as a flagship public school on a mountain west media budget. It's a joke. Big Ten or ACC or bust. I'd rather shut it down now than pretend like one of these other options are viable.

On the who is fighting question posed above, there are a lot of Cal alums with significant media and government influence. I know of a number of people who are furiously lobbying some of the key decision makers behind the scenes. But ultimately, this is Carol Christ's show. She is going to deserve the lion share of the credit or the blame, depending on how this shakes out.


Get it out dude. If we can be a sounding board to keep you sane, I'll happily do it. Gotta be with each other now, if ever

I suppose the AD would probably suggest you do none of those things, but we are here for you go bears
MrGPAC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sebastabear said:

I'll admit I've kind of drifted away from Growls and pulling up these responses . . . yikes guys. BG wrote a compelling and factual piece. And yet people respond saying our transfer portal ranking stinks and our NIL is a failure? Most of our talent transferred out? Seriously? Are you guys even following the program?

This isn't about why we are where we are. To be honest where we are is in a world of trouble and we have no one but ourselves (well no one except ourselves and Larry Scott and we're kind of responsible for him too) to blame. The fact that the flagship university of the largest and wealthiest state in the union is on the outside looking in as realignment madness unfolds is ridiculous. We underinvested in our revenue sports (particularly football) for decades and then were shocked that we stunk . . . for decades. We did this. We should be an absolute no brainer for this round of consolidation. And the one that is going to follow in a few years. But instead we are basically fighting for a lifeline to prove that we are finally (FINALLY!) willing to embrace and understand how the game has changed and can participate in modern college athletics.

The sad part of this timing is that things really have changed as BG notes The certificate program allowing us to retain our grad students and attract other talented athletes who want a grad certificate is a game changer. That's only a couple years old. The Caliber fund (which started in earnest last year) and which is adding millions each and every year to our football budget is a game changer. Our nutrition program has been completely revised. We have one of the best and most well funded NIL's in the (old) Pac. We have added housing, parking, academic support, recruiting resources, social media personnel, etc., etc. All to make football more competitive. And unfortunately all coming just a bit too late to show the results on the field for this round of realignment.

We need Fox and the Big and ESPN and the ACC to look at what we've done to prove we are serious about creating a truly competitive program. Should we have to ask them to squint to see our potential? Shouldn't we have been doing all of this stuff years ago when it became obvious we were falling behind. Absolutely. But unfortunately we didn't until recently.

And yet we ultimately did make changes and have every reason to be optimistic those will bear fruit. We just need a break here. And if we still stink in 5 years? Well they can (and probably should) leave us out then when football realignment reaches its inevitable apotheosis. But today Cal deserves a shot. We are fighting to get that.

Sebastabear,

You have done a wonderful job of not only showing what we are doing to try to improve the product on the field, but spearheading those very efforts. I dream of having the means to do half of what you have done for the program someday.

The problem is, this is not about the quality of the product on the field. Colorado won one game last year and they got a home. Stanford has been to how many significant bowl games the past decade and they are on the outside looking in.

This is about fans. This is about marketability. This is about proving that we will not only draw fans to the stadium, but eyeballs to the tvs (and to their advertisements). What are we doing to address this? To show Fox that letting us go would be a huge mistake. The presidents already want us. We don't have to convince them. We have to convince the people making the money decisions.

We are given a unique opportunity in literally all of the pro sport teams abandoning the east bay at the same time. Near the Oakland Coliseum we should put advertisements on every billboard with messages promising that we won't leave them for Las Vegas. Saying we would be honored to have them come out and route for the Bears. California's team. Their team.

Marshawn Lynch should be all over Oaklands billboards. Jason Kidd should be all over San Francisco. Aaron Rodgers all over Butte. Put Goff all over Marin / the north bay. If we wanna be bold put DeSean Jackson all over Long Beach. Put Jaylen Brown all over Berkeley.

And for gods sake get rid of the what do you see commercials. Spend some money and get something that reaches out to everyone in the state of California. And air them outside game times.

And if you really want to score bonus points....partner with every bar you can reach out to in northern California and get Cal games on their tvs. If we're relegated to the pac12 network and the bar doesn't get it hook them up with a firetv stick and a sling tv subscription.

We keep saying we're a sleeping giant. Lets prove it. Most people are going to lump Cal and Stanford together. Stanford has succeeded recently...and drew pitiful attendance and didn't draw ratings to match their success. We have to show them we aren't Stanford. We're more valuable. Lets show that to them.

Apologies for the rambling...I'm just frustrated at the situation and want to see action...and so far we are getting nothing but prayers of a bail out without any confirmation that our Chancellor / AD are even interested.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MrGPAC said:

The problem is, this is not about the quality of the product on the field. Colorado won one game last year and they got a home. Stanford has been to how many significant bowl games the past decade and they are on the outside looking in.

This is about fans. This is about marketability. This is about proving that we will not only draw fans to the stadium, but eyeballs to the tvs (and to their advertisements). What are we doing to address this? To show Fox that letting us go would be a huge mistake. The presidents already want us. We don't have to convince them. We have to convince the people making the money decisions.

The thing is that Cal and Stanford's TV viewership isn't even that bad. As has been noted, even in a year when both teams stunk we were still in the middle of the pack among P5 football teams. We'd be above average in the ACC. The refusal to look beyond very recent history is befuddling.
Cal84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
>Sources? Full share in the ACC? Why? And what deal is on the table from Apple exactly?

The reported Apple deal was worth $20 million per school per yr. with some upside if streaming results were better than expected. That number would presumably be lower now if the Pac-4 added 6-8 MWAC/AAC schools. The P12's existing (last year) contract was worth about $30 million per school per yr. So you can see why the schools left for the B12 or partial share B1G - it was better than taking a pay cut to stay in the P12.

By way of comparison, the ESPN deal that the P12 rejected was worth $30 million per school per yr. The P12 countered with a $50 million figure and ESPN walked. Pretty damning evidence of over confidence/incompetence by P12 bigwigs. A full share at ACC would be about $30 million per school per yr., but with much higher travel costs. The MWC's TV contract is about $5 million per school per year, which gives you an idea of how much downside there is when dropping down to the G5 level.
HKBear97!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BearGreg said:

StarsDoMatter said:

"Cal's NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal. The proof is obvious given the success that both Men's Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal"

You have to be kidding?!

Our transfer portal "success" is mediocre at best. Recruiting might the worst it's ever been.

We need to be honest with ourselves.
247 ranked Cal's Tranfer Class in 2023 15th nationally
On3 ranked the same transfer football clas 24th nationally

In basketball, On3 ranked Cal's basketball class 7th in the country
247 ranked the class 18th in the country


And yet the media picked Cal to finish near the bottom of the PAC-12 and most betting sites have us missing a bowl game yet again. When you look at what Cal has done in a vacuum, it seems like progress, but not when you take our competition into consideration.

Bottom line, the conferences and media companies have done the math and determined Cal adds little to no value.
you're flat out confusing two completely separate entities. media and college presidents.

Entity 1: corporate media have done the math and know that the Bay Area is the #10 media market. UCLA and USC have ZERO pull in this area for media. no media company would be facepalmingly dunderheaded enough to leave out the #10 media market (which btw, in times of economic duress, that media market becomes a strong factor in societal cohesion, relevant insofar as the region clings more to entertainment during hard times, and those hard times are coming). there is a reason they are not pushing harder for it.

Entity 2: college presidents are trying to hoard as much of the wealth as possible, because they are converting universities into businesses. those college presidents are the ones giving the heisman stiff arm to whatever colleges they can. the giants of college football have been whining about sharing money with mid to low level schools for decades. this finally allows them to shift the distribution of money in a way that reflects their belief that they should keep it all and give scraps to everyone else that they can.

do you honestly think a mediocre Arizona (media market #71, population of 550k) and Arizona St. (media market #12, population 1.8 million) is better than Cal and Stanford in a media market #10, population of 7.8 million people? you didn't do the math, but entertainment companies have.

companies can do the math. college presidents can, too. the reason for keeping Cal and Stanford out has different reasons. if the Conferences were genuinely trying to get Cal and Stanford in, then the argument is self explanatory, all media companies can do the math, and we would already be in a different conference.

but...at this point, the media companies aren't forcing the conferences because they see the opportunity of hiding behind college presidents in order to low ball the price for the Bay Area media market and get it for pennies on the dollar. except for FOX, and their ulterior motive.

*i have said elsewhere that Cal is fighting a weird rightwing paranoia about being a communist haven when the university has never ever even remotely been leftist. Its uneducated alumns in the South and Midwest and East Coast who don't realize that California banned affirmative action almost 30 years ago. So, when folks bring up that FOX chopped off the B1G balls, that is literally why. Someone posted the Clemson forums and more than half of the gibberish in that forum is that rightwing delusional fantasy about Cal being a fountain of revolutionary antifa. FOX is literally trying to smash Cal, and oddly enough, Stanford is getting smacked for it as well, and all because a bunch of non-student hippies swarmed Cal's campus in the 60's leading to Reagan having tear gas dropped on their heads. Cal is not leftist, but we are intellectual snobs. i don't think the snobs is why we get slammed by schools on the other side of the country.




Won't comment on all the conspiracy theories being thrown around here, however I question the argument about the Bay Area media market. Yes, it's the number ten media market but that doesn't translate into people actually watching and paying attention to Cal and Stanford games. The viewership isn't reflective of the size of the market. As for the Colorado and Arizona schools, my assumption is their respective leadership was much more aggressive in seeking a path out of the PAC-12 and they may be viewed as more likely to support and build respectable programs going forward with the increase in media revenue. Small markets with higher potential essentially.
HKBear97!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal84 said:

>Sources? Full share in the ACC? Why? And what deal is on the table from Apple exactly?

The reported Apple deal was worth $20 million per school per yr. with some upside if streaming results were better than expected. That number would presumably be lower now if the Pac-4 added 6-8 MWAC/AAC schools. The P12's existing (last year) contract was worth about $30 million per school per yr. So you can see why the schools left for the B12 or partial share B1G - it was better than taking a pay cut to stay in the P12.

By way of comparison, the ESPN deal that the P12 rejected was worth $30 million per school per yr. The P12 countered with a $50 million figure and ESPN walked. Pretty damning evidence of over confidence/incompetence by P12 bigwigs. A full share at ACC would be about $30 million per school per yr., but with much higher travel costs. The MWC's TV contract is about $5 million per school per year, which gives you an idea of how much downside there is when dropping down to the G5 level.



Yes, I have seen all of those figures reported. However, it is absolutely not clear what Apple is willing to offer now and for what? I highly doubt the numbers remain the same replacing schools with high viewership like Oregon with schools like SDSU. And that completely ignores if a new PAC conference can even add attractive options to the league.

The fact ESPN walked from a deal before Oregon, UW, Utah, etc. left is pretty telling. That's also why I question why the ACC would be offering us full share when they have no need to do so - it doesn't appear that Cal has a lot of attractive offers right now.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Econ141 said:

HKBear97! said:

calumnus said:

HKBear97! said:

BearGreg said:

StarsDoMatter said:

"Cal's NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal. The proof is obvious given the success that both Men's Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal"

You have to be kidding?!

Our transfer portal "success" is mediocre at best. Recruiting might the worst it's ever been.

We need to be honest with ourselves.
247 ranked Cal's Tranfer Class in 2023 15th nationally
On3 ranked the same transfer football clas 24th nationally

In basketball, On3 ranked Cal's basketball class 7th in the country
247 ranked the class 18th in the country


And yet the media picked Cal to finish near the bottom of the PAC-12 and most betting sites have us missing a bowl game yet again. When you look at what Cal has done in a vacuum, it seems like progress, but not when you take our competition into consideration.

Bottom line, the conferences and media companies have done the math and determined Cal adds little to no value.


ESPN would pay the ACC full shares for Cal and Stanford and is pushing the deal, offering to also cover travel expenses. It is 4 schools that are blocking that deal, not ESPN, presumably because they want an even better deal. Apple still wants to do a deal with us.
Fox is the one that seems determined to "refuse to deal" and may be claiming we bring no value. We don't know how the negotiations are going, we don't know if Fox has other motives.


Sources? Full share in the ACC? Why? And what deal is on the table from Apple exactly?


Well it would be full share in the sense that the ACC will get as much money for Cal and Stanford as the other schools but Cal and Stanford won't see all of that. A good portion will go to keep others happy.


Exactly, but it still means ESPN is willing to pay for us.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HKBear97! said:

Cal84 said:

>Sources? Full share in the ACC? Why? And what deal is on the table from Apple exactly?

The reported Apple deal was worth $20 million per school per yr. with some upside if streaming results were better than expected. That number would presumably be lower now if the Pac-4 added 6-8 MWAC/AAC schools. The P12's existing (last year) contract was worth about $30 million per school per yr. So you can see why the schools left for the B12 or partial share B1G - it was better than taking a pay cut to stay in the P12.

By way of comparison, the ESPN deal that the P12 rejected was worth $30 million per school per yr. The P12 countered with a $50 million figure and ESPN walked. Pretty damning evidence of over confidence/incompetence by P12 bigwigs. A full share at ACC would be about $30 million per school per yr., but with much higher travel costs. The MWC's TV contract is about $5 million per school per year, which gives you an idea of how much downside there is when dropping down to the G5 level.



Yes, I have seen all of those figures reported. However, it is absolutely not clear what Apple is willing to offer now and for what? I highly doubt the numbers remain the same replacing schools with high viewership like Oregon with schools like SDSU. And that completely ignores if a new PAC conference can even add attractive options to the league.

The fact ESPN walked from a deal before Oregon, UW, Utah, etc. left is pretty telling. That's also why I question why the ACC would be offering us full share when they have no need to do so - it doesn't appear that Cal has a lot of attractive offers right now.


ESPN would pay full ACC shares for adding Cal and Stanford to the ACC, plus travel expenses. However the ACC would only give us 65% and split the rest among the existing members.
kal kommie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

As Chancellor Christ, AD Jim Knowlton, and their advisors burn up the phone and zoom lines between now and Friday, the fulcrum of their efforts will be focused on convincing the media experts who are currently unconvinced that Cal and Stanford will add significant revenue heft to their TV deals.
Shouldn't they be burning up the phone and zoom lines connecting with officials from Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St and USC? The officials of those schools will have a much better chance of persuading the networks that giving Cal and Stanford some cut rate is worth having them in the B1G.
BarcaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BearGreg said:

StarsDoMatter said:

"Cal's NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal. The proof is obvious given the success that both Men's Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal"

You have to be kidding?!

Our transfer portal "success" is mediocre at best. Recruiting might the worst it's ever been.

We need to be honest with ourselves.
247 ranked Cal's Tranfer Class in 2023 15th nationally
On3 ranked the same transfer football clas 24th nationally

In basketball, On3 ranked Cal's basketball class 7th in the country
247 ranked the class 18th in the country


And yet the media picked Cal to finish near the bottom of the PAC-12 and most betting sites have us missing a bowl game yet again. When you look at what Cal has done in a vacuum, it seems like progress, but not when you take our competition into consideration.

Bottom line, the conferences and media companies have done the math and determined Cal adds little to no value.
you're flat out confusing two completely separate entities. media and college presidents.

Entity 1: corporate media have done the math and know that the Bay Area is the #10 media market. UCLA and USC have ZERO pull in this area for media. no media company would be facepalmingly dunderheaded enough to leave out the #10 media market (which btw, in times of economic duress, that media market becomes a strong factor in societal cohesion, relevant insofar as the region clings more to entertainment during hard times, and those hard times are coming). there is a reason they are not pushing harder for it.

Entity 2: college presidents are trying to hoard as much of the wealth as possible, because they are converting universities into businesses. those college presidents are the ones giving the heisman stiff arm to whatever colleges they can. the giants of college football have been whining about sharing money with mid to low level schools for decades. this finally allows them to shift the distribution of money in a way that reflects their belief that they should keep it all and give scraps to everyone else that they can.

do you honestly think a mediocre Arizona (media market #71, population of 550k) and Arizona St. (media market #12, population 1.8 million) is better than Cal and Stanford in a media market #10, population of 7.8 million people? you didn't do the math, but entertainment companies have.

companies can do the math. college presidents can, too. the reason for keeping Cal and Stanford out has different reasons. if the Conferences were genuinely trying to get Cal and Stanford in, then the argument is self explanatory, all media companies can do the math, and we would already be in a different conference.

but...at this point, the media companies aren't forcing the conferences because they see the opportunity of hiding behind college presidents in order to low ball the price for the Bay Area media market and get it for pennies on the dollar. except for FOX, and their ulterior motive.

*i have said elsewhere that Cal is fighting a weird rightwing paranoia about being a communist haven when the university has never ever even remotely been leftist. Its uneducated alumns in the South and Midwest and East Coast who don't realize that California banned affirmative action almost 30 years ago. So, when folks bring up that FOX chopped off the B1G balls, that is literally why. Someone posted the Clemson forums and more than half of the gibberish in that forum is that rightwing delusional fantasy about Cal being a fountain of revolutionary antifa. FOX is literally trying to smash Cal, and oddly enough, Stanford is getting smacked for it as well, and all because a bunch of non-student hippies swarmed Cal's campus in the 60's leading to Reagan having tear gas dropped on their heads. Cal is not leftist, but we are intellectual snobs. i don't think the snobs is why we get slammed by schools on the other side of the country.




Won't comment on all the conspiracy theories being thrown around here, however I question the argument about the Bay Area media market. Yes, it's the number ten media market but that doesn't translate into people actually watching and paying attention to Cal and Stanford games. The viewership isn't reflective of the size of the market. As for the Colorado and Arizona schools, my assumption is their respective leadership was much more aggressive in seeking a path out of the PAC-12 and they may be viewed as more likely to support and build respectable programs going forward with the increase in media revenue. Small markets with higher potential essentially.
nothing conspiratorial at all. this is data that is out there. multiple published sources have cited all this in one way or another. You have high hopes for what Colorado and Arizona schools can pull, i think them being brought into the B12 was more about cheaply bringing in schools that could boost them without increasing costs of travel. the TV model doesn't bode well for them.

you do bring up something I have spoken about elsewhere. TV viewership.
this isn't the Midwest or the South, the number of people watching TV is plummeting, Keep in mind this is California, not the rest of the country, and the following data is national, our percentages skew even lower.

Who follows the archaic (not meant as an insult) model of watching sports? it's basically the Boomer generation, like 50% watch cable TV. Gen X mirrors that with folks over 50, but those below that start breaking dramatically with that archaic model upon which all these contracts are built.

Between 19-25% of Millenials and Gen Z watch cable TV, rest are streaming. Younger they get the less cable TV they watch. I'm on the younger part of Gen X and since graduating I know almost nobody that watches sports using Cable TV. They don't subscribe. Younger folks stream. Not only do we stream, but almost nobody pays for subscriptions. It's folks using VPN's or TOR browser to stream illegally. Hate to break it to y'all, but that is the reality for sports moving forward. They haven't figured out a revenue model to offset this.

There is no brand allegiance, no morality notions that will ever break this trend. I think this is particular to East Coast and West Coast, for now, where youth demographics and tech knowledge reigns supreme. FOX, NBC, CBS are massively overpaying, because I said earlier, those percentages are national percentages.

Apple knows this, and this is the analytics behind why Apple came in with a very realistic offer of market value at around 20 million. Disney also knows this which is why ESPN isn't putting up FOX money. LA has the same problem. ignoring the joke of Neilsen ratings and turning to Adobe analytics...the Arizona schools and Colorado are a embarrasingly bad and make ZERO sense. Calford both average 850k per week, double that of the Arizona schools and triple that of Colorado. USC (2 million per week), UCLA (1.59 million)

USC will get the turnout for Buck Eyes, but empty stadiums for Minnesota, Rutgers, and Maryland... why? because the NFL finally returned to LA, and that means the non-alumn fair weather fans dropped them and went to the Rams, and for Raiders fans being in Las Vegas is better than Oakland, so they are setting aside their money for Vegas trips. LA market has same youth issues as we do. None of this is unknown by the media execs, and if it is, then they have serious issues of incompetence.

What are the reasons that people speculate for why FOX won't let the B1G add Calford?

If they know this data then they massively overpaid for the LA market, and it doesn't really make sense over the next decade, but with the current situation FOX could get the #10 market on the cheap. and we can boost numbers quickly in ways that LA really can't. refer to others pointing out that Bay Area lost two pro sports teams. Calford have been having middling years and our Adobe analytics for TV show it, which means we get significant boosts if we play the majority of the B1G teams.

The only ACC teams with better numbers than Calford are? Clemson, Notre Dame, FSU, and NC State. UNC is right between Cal (857k) and Stanford (847). the rest are below us. Washington State, btw, averages 907k.

so... why would FOX, given the data, go after NC State and UNC, after they get Clemson and FSU to join the Big 10, but not Cal and Stanford? We have way better potential for ratings increases than either UNC or NC State. so...either multiple sources are lying and FOX doesn't have ulterior motives, or...you are wrong? The data all points to that you are flat out wrong.


calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shocky1 said:

jim is so big on diversity that his oldest son said on facebook that michelle obama looks like the predator

yeah the con artist fooled carol (who recognizes her mistake now) & is fooling the bearinsider.com


The problem is Carol Christ was fooled by someone who 1) does not come across anything like she said in that intro and 2) views on diversity and politics were easily Googled, making it clear he was a bad fit for Cal, 3) In his brief stint at AFA had no background in fundraising, hiring or firing coaches, sports marketing or big time football or basketball 4), Christ believed he was really offered the Northwestern job without verifying with Northwestern and as a result gave him a 9 year extension without ever requiring that he not continue to live on a Colorado Springs….. and Carol Christ is the one dealing with conference and media types who can run circles around a simpleton like Jim Knowlton.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kal kommie said:

Quote:

As Chancellor Christ, AD Jim Knowlton, and their advisors burn up the phone and zoom lines between now and Friday, the fulcrum of their efforts will be focused on convincing the media experts who are currently unconvinced that Cal and Stanford will add significant revenue heft to their TV deals.
Shouldn't they be burning up the phone and zoom lines connecting with officials from Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St and USC? The officials of those schools will have a much better chance of persuading the networks that giving Cal and Stanford some cut rate is worth having them in the B1G.


They should have been doing that for the last 10 months, once USC and UCLA gave notice. The efforts to block UCLA or get Calimony would have been better spent partnering with UCLA, USC and Stanford and negotiating with the B2G for us to get in too.
CAL4LIFE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Shocky1 said:

jim is so big on diversity that his oldest son said on facebook that michelle obama looks like the predator

yeah the con artist fooled carol (who recognizes her mistake now) & is fooling the bearinsider.com


The problem is Carol Christ was fooled by someone who 1) does not come across anything like she said in that intro and 2) views on diversity and politics were easily Googled, making it clear he was a bad fit for Cal, 3) In his brief stint at AFA had no background in fundraising, hiring or firing coaches, sports marketing or big time football or basketball 4), Christ believed he was really offered the Northwestern job without verifying with Northwestern and as a result gave him a 9 year extension without ever requiring that he not continue to live on a Colorado Springs….. and Carol Christ is the one dealing with conference and media types who can run circles around a simpleton like Jim Knowlton.
So if a simpleton can get over on lauded upper crest academics, not once but twice, what does that say about the leadership at Cal Berkeley and those inner circle alums that wield all the money and industry influence?

I mean, look, it's great to have money but if it's not used to leverage the 180 that is/was so desperately needed decades ago then what's the point.

The only reason a Jim Knowlton exists is because Cal isn't savvy enough to know better.





kal kommie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

kal kommie said:

Quote:

As Chancellor Christ, AD Jim Knowlton, and their advisors burn up the phone and zoom lines between now and Friday, the fulcrum of their efforts will be focused on convincing the media experts who are currently unconvinced that Cal and Stanford will add significant revenue heft to their TV deals.
Shouldn't they be burning up the phone and zoom lines connecting with officials from Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St and USC? The officials of those schools will have a much better chance of persuading the networks that giving Cal and Stanford some cut rate is worth having them in the B1G.
They should have been doing that for the last 10 months, once USC and UCLA gave notice. The efforts to block UCLA or get Calimony would have been better spent partnering with UCLA, USC and Stanford and negotiating with the B2G for us to get in too.
Yes they should have but as you say they did other things with their time and attention so now they have to put all effort into persuading the B1G powers to approve.

We should still be able to get USC and UCLA to lobby for us. Reduced travel time, more games in CA late autumn weather, their students and alumni get to keep their annual Bay Area weekender, UCLA would be relieved of the Calimony -- all positive things for them with no negatives I can think of.
DoubtfulBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Shocky1 said:

jim is so big on diversity that his oldest son said on facebook that michelle obama looks like the predator

yeah the con artist fooled carol (who recognizes her mistake now) & is fooling the bearinsider.com


Christ believed he was really offered the Northwestern job without verifying with Northwestern and as a result gave him a 9 year extension without ever requiring that he not continue to live on a Colorado Springs….. and Carol Christ is the one dealing with conference and media types who can run circles around a simpleton like Jim Knowlton.
It's a pity he didn't actually get the Northwestern offer. Would love to see how he makes their sexual abuse scandal even worse by trying to cover it up.
bearsandgiants
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Shocky1 said:

jim is so big on diversity that his oldest son said on facebook that michelle obama looks like the predator

yeah the con artist fooled carol (who recognizes her mistake now) & is fooling the bearinsider.com


The problem is Carol Christ was fooled by someone who 1) does not come across anything like she said in that intro and 2) views on diversity and politics were easily Googled, making it clear he was a bad fit for Cal, 3) In his brief stint at AFA had no background in fundraising, hiring or firing coaches, sports marketing or big time football or basketball 4), Christ believed he was really offered the Northwestern job without verifying with Northwestern and as a result gave him a 9 year extension without ever requiring that he not continue to live on a Colorado Springs….. and Carol Christ is the one dealing with conference and media types who can run circles around a simpleton like Jim Knowlton.
Is there evidence that he lied about receiving and offer from Northwestern?
Shocky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
yes, a longtime & highly respected golf friend of mine who belongs to chicago golf club (115 members, the top club in the midwest) & has served as a northwestern trustee directly told me that knowlton lied about receiving an offer, apparently once the con artist got the $1,300,000+ salary extension thru 2029 from christ he removed his name from consideration from the nw process which wuz not necessary because he wuzn't gonna get hired anyways
bearsandgiants
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shocky1 said:

yes, a longtime & highly respected golf friend of mine who belongs to chicago golf club (115 members, the top club in the midwest) & has served as a northwestern trustee directly told me that knowlton lied about receiving an offer, apparently once the con artist got the $1,300,000+ salary extension thru 2029 from christ he removed his name from consideration from the nw process which wuz not necessary because he wuzn't gonna get hired anyways


I would say that if true, that's further grounds for termination with cause, if ignoring the repeated verbal assault of swimmers wasn't already enough.
HKBear97!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BearGreg said:

StarsDoMatter said:

"Cal's NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal. The proof is obvious given the success that both Men's Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal"

You have to be kidding?!

Our transfer portal "success" is mediocre at best. Recruiting might the worst it's ever been.

We need to be honest with ourselves.
247 ranked Cal's Tranfer Class in 2023 15th nationally
On3 ranked the same transfer football clas 24th nationally

In basketball, On3 ranked Cal's basketball class 7th in the country
247 ranked the class 18th in the country


And yet the media picked Cal to finish near the bottom of the PAC-12 and most betting sites have us missing a bowl game yet again. When you look at what Cal has done in a vacuum, it seems like progress, but not when you take our competition into consideration.

Bottom line, the conferences and media companies have done the math and determined Cal adds little to no value.
you're flat out confusing two completely separate entities. media and college presidents.

Entity 1: corporate media have done the math and know that the Bay Area is the #10 media market. UCLA and USC have ZERO pull in this area for media. no media company would be facepalmingly dunderheaded enough to leave out the #10 media market (which btw, in times of economic duress, that media market becomes a strong factor in societal cohesion, relevant insofar as the region clings more to entertainment during hard times, and those hard times are coming). there is a reason they are not pushing harder for it.

Entity 2: college presidents are trying to hoard as much of the wealth as possible, because they are converting universities into businesses. those college presidents are the ones giving the heisman stiff arm to whatever colleges they can. the giants of college football have been whining about sharing money with mid to low level schools for decades. this finally allows them to shift the distribution of money in a way that reflects their belief that they should keep it all and give scraps to everyone else that they can.

do you honestly think a mediocre Arizona (media market #71, population of 550k) and Arizona St. (media market #12, population 1.8 million) is better than Cal and Stanford in a media market #10, population of 7.8 million people? you didn't do the math, but entertainment companies have.

companies can do the math. college presidents can, too. the reason for keeping Cal and Stanford out has different reasons. if the Conferences were genuinely trying to get Cal and Stanford in, then the argument is self explanatory, all media companies can do the math, and we would already be in a different conference.

but...at this point, the media companies aren't forcing the conferences because they see the opportunity of hiding behind college presidents in order to low ball the price for the Bay Area media market and get it for pennies on the dollar. except for FOX, and their ulterior motive.

*i have said elsewhere that Cal is fighting a weird rightwing paranoia about being a communist haven when the university has never ever even remotely been leftist. Its uneducated alumns in the South and Midwest and East Coast who don't realize that California banned affirmative action almost 30 years ago. So, when folks bring up that FOX chopped off the B1G balls, that is literally why. Someone posted the Clemson forums and more than half of the gibberish in that forum is that rightwing delusional fantasy about Cal being a fountain of revolutionary antifa. FOX is literally trying to smash Cal, and oddly enough, Stanford is getting smacked for it as well, and all because a bunch of non-student hippies swarmed Cal's campus in the 60's leading to Reagan having tear gas dropped on their heads. Cal is not leftist, but we are intellectual snobs. i don't think the snobs is why we get slammed by schools on the other side of the country.




Won't comment on all the conspiracy theories being thrown around here, however I question the argument about the Bay Area media market. Yes, it's the number ten media market but that doesn't translate into people actually watching and paying attention to Cal and Stanford games. The viewership isn't reflective of the size of the market. As for the Colorado and Arizona schools, my assumption is their respective leadership was much more aggressive in seeking a path out of the PAC-12 and they may be viewed as more likely to support and build respectable programs going forward with the increase in media revenue. Small markets with higher potential essentially.
nothing conspiratorial at all. this is data that is out there. multiple published sources have cited all this in one way or another. You have high hopes for what Colorado and Arizona schools can pull, i think them being brought into the B12 was more about cheaply bringing in schools that could boost them without increasing costs of travel. the TV model doesn't bode well for them.

you do bring up something I have spoken about elsewhere. TV viewership.
this isn't the Midwest or the South, the number of people watching TV is plummeting, Keep in mind this is California, not the rest of the country, and the following data is national, our percentages skew even lower.

Who follows the archaic (not meant as an insult) model of watching sports? it's basically the Boomer generation, like 50% watch cable TV. Gen X mirrors that with folks over 50, but those below that start breaking dramatically with that archaic model upon which all these contracts are built.

Between 19-25% of Millenials and Gen Z watch cable TV, rest are streaming. Younger they get the less cable TV they watch. I'm on the younger part of Gen X and since graduating I know almost nobody that watches sports using Cable TV. They don't subscribe. Younger folks stream. Not only do we stream, but almost nobody pays for subscriptions. It's folks using VPN's or TOR browser to stream illegally. Hate to break it to y'all, but that is the reality for sports moving forward. They haven't figured out a revenue model to offset this.

There is no brand allegiance, no morality notions that will ever break this trend. I think this is particular to East Coast and West Coast, for now, where youth demographics and tech knowledge reigns supreme. FOX, NBC, CBS are massively overpaying, because I said earlier, those percentages are national percentages.

Apple knows this, and this is the analytics behind why Apple came in with a very realistic offer of market value at around 20 million. Disney also knows this which is why ESPN isn't putting up FOX money. LA has the same problem. ignoring the joke of Neilsen ratings and turning to Adobe analytics...the Arizona schools and Colorado are a embarrasingly bad and make ZERO sense. Calford both average 850k per week, double that of the Arizona schools and triple that of Colorado. USC (2 million per week), UCLA (1.59 million)

USC will get the turnout for Buck Eyes, but empty stadiums for Minnesota, Rutgers, and Maryland... why? because the NFL finally returned to LA, and that means the non-alumn fair weather fans dropped them and went to the Rams, and for Raiders fans being in Las Vegas is better than Oakland, so they are setting aside their money for Vegas trips. LA market has same youth issues as we do. None of this is unknown by the media execs, and if it is, then they have serious issues of incompetence.

What are the reasons that people speculate for why FOX won't let the B1G add Calford?

If they know this data then they massively overpaid for the LA market, and it doesn't really make sense over the next decade, but with the current situation FOX could get the #10 market on the cheap. and we can boost numbers quickly in ways that LA really can't. refer to others pointing out that Bay Area lost two pro sports teams. Calford have been having middling years and our Adobe analytics for TV show it, which means we get significant boosts if we play the majority of the B1G teams.

The only ACC teams with better numbers than Calford are? Clemson, Notre Dame, FSU, and NC State. UNC is right between Cal (857k) and Stanford (847). the rest are below us. Washington State, btw, averages 907k.

so... why would FOX, given the data, go after NC State and UNC, after they get Clemson and FSU to join the Big 10, but not Cal and Stanford? We have way better potential for ratings increases than either UNC or NC State. so...either multiple sources are lying and FOX doesn't have ulterior motives, or...you are wrong? The data all points to that you are flat out wrong.





So Fox sports has a political agenda against Cal, that's the gist of your argument?
WalterSobchak
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

HKBear97! said:

Cal84 said:

>Sources? Full share in the ACC? Why? And what deal is on the table from Apple exactly?

The reported Apple deal was worth $20 million per school per yr. with some upside if streaming results were better than expected. That number would presumably be lower now if the Pac-4 added 6-8 MWAC/AAC schools. The P12's existing (last year) contract was worth about $30 million per school per yr. So you can see why the schools left for the B12 or partial share B1G - it was better than taking a pay cut to stay in the P12.

By way of comparison, the ESPN deal that the P12 rejected was worth $30 million per school per yr. The P12 countered with a $50 million figure and ESPN walked. Pretty damning evidence of over confidence/incompetence by P12 bigwigs. A full share at ACC would be about $30 million per school per yr., but with much higher travel costs. The MWC's TV contract is about $5 million per school per year, which gives you an idea of how much downside there is when dropping down to the G5 level.



Yes, I have seen all of those figures reported. However, it is absolutely not clear what Apple is willing to offer now and for what? I highly doubt the numbers remain the same replacing schools with high viewership like Oregon with schools like SDSU. And that completely ignores if a new PAC conference can even add attractive options to the league.

The fact ESPN walked from a deal before Oregon, UW, Utah, etc. left is pretty telling. That's also why I question why the ACC would be offering us full share when they have no need to do so - it doesn't appear that Cal has a lot of attractive offers right now.


ESPN would pay full ACC shares for adding Cal and Stanford to the ACC, plus travel expenses. However the ACC would only give us 65% and split the rest among the existing members.


If this deal really exists they need to take it. I don't think it does. Same goes for 65% of ORWA deal with B1G. Add Ucla money and we'd be just below them. I don't think that deal exists either, but I'm curious what Greg meant by "they are not willing to offer anything even remotely in the neighborhood of what Oregon and UW have been committed. " That implies there is a number for Cal to the B1G. What is it? While the Regents didn't set a number, they did set a range. We also have much more power and influence in that body than with outside entities. The most important thing right now is to preserve goodwill by association. Worry about the rest later. If we become Indiana or Rutgers, at least we'll have company to partner with when the ejection round comes. Right now there are no viable partners, but later there will be. We just can't be first. Were only dead if we're first.
Please give to Cal Legends at https://calegends.com/calegendsdonate/donate-football/ and encourage everyone you know who loves Cal sports to do it too.

To be in the Top 1% of all NIL collectives we only need around 10% of alumni to give $300 per year. Please help spread the word. "If we don't broaden this base we're dead." - Sebastabear

Thanks for reading my sig! Please consider copying or adapting it and using it on all of your posts too. Go Bears!
UrsineMaximus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
6956bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
UrsineMaximus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
6956bear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
zactly, it is all about the mulla and these prezs aren't letting go.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
6956bear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
Yup, seems to me that Cal and Stanford need to either convince the Fox Sports people that they are a better investment than currently assumed or find some media cash elsewhere and bring it in.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.