tequila4kapp said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

This is the only recent reporting on this I've found. Not exactly reputable...

11 teams will likely join Pac-12 expansion after the dissolution of AAC in hopes of paying NO exit fees: Reports

(Sportskeeda)

Quote:

---

According to the latest reports, the Pac-12 expansion is reaching the closing stage. The conference is finalizing an agreement to absorb the American Athletic Conference into its fold, ensuring the safety of the Pac-12 in the college sports landscape after months of chaos.

In what has been a tough but progressive negotiation between the two parties over the last week, the AAC will dissolve without its team incurring exit fees. The Pac-12 will subsequently extend invitations to 11 current ACC schools to become full members of the league.

The Pac-12 expansion marks the dawn of a new era for the Power Five conference following a lengthy period of uncertainties. Many analysts and observers in the world of college athletics had predicted the death of the league. However, it appears to be sailing towards safety.

---

---

I haven't seen the money, but this is nowhere near a power conference, nor is it a continuation of the Pac-12. It is a pile of dog *****

---

It is. And it says so much that so many people on this board are seemingly okay with it. Exhibit A to why we have such ****ty leadership…they fit perfectly for who we collectively are

---

Who on this board is OK with it?

---

Define "OK"

The B1G says they are done adding teams for 2024. At this point, take them at their word. The ACC almost voted us into a - frankly not great-for-us travel situation in a more palatable conference. The key word is "almost." Those four "no" votes won't flip for reasons that have little or nothing to do with Cal and Stanford.

We're not going to drop football. Cal owes over half a billion dollars CMS. Panoramic Hill settlement prevents us from using it for much else until at least 2025 from what has been posted here.

There are no good options. We can debate forever about what the best of the bad options is, but Cal is going to select a bad option. I accept that. Am I "OK" with it? No - I just know it is what it is at this point.

---

The Regents own the debt if there's no football, not Cal.

Face hard realities: this AAC or the Mt West nonsense do not work, the numbers don't pencil out. We cannot drop below P4 and remain economically viable. There's no point in wasting energy considering such matters.

And that's just the money part. There will be a mass exodus to the portal. The team won't be the team any longer. Since we will be Go5 their replacements will be 2 Star Mt West type guys. And with that our slippage into mid level crap Mt West type level of football becomes entrenched. We could go on and on, but the point should be obvious: these ideas are complete non-starters.

---

Nobody likes this idea. We should absolutely keep pushing hard for B1G or ACC through November (and beyond).

The question is, what do we do if that doesn't work out? Do we take the best option left, even though it kinda sucks, or do we fold up shop? My preference would be to take the best available option. Maybe we could even look good at that level for a year or two and then get "unrelegated". If not, maybe we recalibrate everything and live with reduced athletics. Pretty much nobody likes this option, but ...

Big C said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

This is the only recent reporting on this I've found. Not exactly reputable...

11 teams will likely join Pac-12 expansion after the dissolution of AAC in hopes of paying NO exit fees: Reports

(Sportskeeda)

Quote:

---

According to the latest reports, the Pac-12 expansion is reaching the closing stage. The conference is finalizing an agreement to absorb the American Athletic Conference into its fold, ensuring the safety of the Pac-12 in the college sports landscape after months of chaos.

In what has been a tough but progressive negotiation between the two parties over the last week, the AAC will dissolve without its team incurring exit fees. The Pac-12 will subsequently extend invitations to 11 current ACC schools to become full members of the league.

The Pac-12 expansion marks the dawn of a new era for the Power Five conference following a lengthy period of uncertainties. Many analysts and observers in the world of college athletics had predicted the death of the league. However, it appears to be sailing towards safety.

---

---

I haven't seen the money, but this is nowhere near a power conference, nor is it a continuation of the Pac-12. It is a pile of dog *****

---

It is. And it says so much that so many people on this board are seemingly okay with it. Exhibit A to why we have such ****ty leadership…they fit perfectly for who we collectively are

---

Who on this board is OK with it?

---

Define "OK"

The B1G says they are done adding teams for 2024. At this point, take them at their word. The ACC almost voted us into a - frankly not great-for-us travel situation in a more palatable conference. The key word is "almost." Those four "no" votes won't flip for reasons that have little or nothing to do with Cal and Stanford.

We're not going to drop football. Cal owes over half a billion dollars CMS. Panoramic Hill settlement prevents us from using it for much else until at least 2025 from what has been posted here.

There are no good options. We can debate forever about what the best of the bad options is, but Cal is going to select a bad option. I accept that. Am I "OK" with it? No - I just know it is what it is at this point.

---

The Regents own the debt if there's no football, not Cal.

Face hard realities: this AAC or the Mt West nonsense do not work, the numbers don't pencil out. We cannot drop below P4 and remain economically viable. There's no point in wasting energy considering such matters.

And that's just the money part. There will be a mass exodus to the portal. The team won't be the team any longer. Since we will be Go5 their replacements will be 2 Star Mt West type guys. And with that our slippage into mid level crap Mt West type level of football becomes entrenched. We could go on and on, but the point should be obvious: these ideas are complete non-starters.

---

Nobody likes this idea. We should absolutely keep pushing hard for B1G or ACC through November (and beyond).

The question is, what do we do if that doesn't work out? Do we take the best option left, even though it kinda sucks, or do we fold up shop? My preference would be to take the best available option. Maybe we could even look good at that level for a year or two and then get "unrelegated". If not, maybe we recalibrate everything and live with reduced athletics. Pretty much nobody likes this option, but ...

---

I know people's pride says we should just not play football vs. being in a MWC-class conference, but I think if it's under the PAC branding we can at least try to make it work.

The pre-2023 Big-12 was essentially cast-offs and G5 teams which managed to improve people's perceptions through their performance on the field. In the worst-case scenario that should be what an expanded conference tries to do also.

Because, yeah, realistically I just don't think we can drop football altogether without domino effects which impact the campus in many other ways.

Big C said:

---

Nobody likes this idea. We should absolutely keep pushing hard for B1G or ACC through November (and beyond).

The question is, what do we do if that doesn't work out? Do we take the best option left, even though it kinda sucks, or do we fold up shop? My preference would be to take the best available option. Maybe we could even look good at that level for a year or two and then get "unrelegated". If not, maybe we recalibrate everything and live with reduced athletics. Pretty much nobody likes this option, but ...

---

As you point out, the situation is fluid. If the ACC falls apart along the lines of the PAC (and that's been widely speculated), this PAC/AAC/some of the MWC conference being discussed could suddenly end up with 8 more very good quality teams. All of the conferences could go away in 5 years and this whole thing becomes a pro-league with college affiliations.

Let's make the best of the bad situation and see what happens.

tequila4kapp said:

---

The Regents own the debt if there's no football, not Cal.

Face hard realities

---

OK. Reality. The regents do own the debt, and they don't like looking like fools in Sacramento. So they are going to insist that Cal produce a return on that investment -- not in order to recover the money as much as to not look like they backed spending half a billion dollars on a stadium that was only used for a little over 10 years and still has 90 years worth of payments. Cutting football would not be a good look -- especially if there is some league with some media deal.

In the short run, they'd rather see Cal make a bad media deal in the hopes that someday they can get a better one (some one else posted about the Big 12 rebuilding very much along this line).

I heard some outlets reporting the revamped Pac-18 would net $280 million for 18 schools, which works out $15.5 million.

That is better than the Mountain West or AAC, and there are no details about revenue distribution, but would still be catastrophic to the athletic department. Meanwhile, although the West isnt all that bad of a conference, the reputational hit of playing that revamped conference is also quite pronounced.

SoFlaBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

The Regents own the debt if there's no football, not Cal.

Face hard realities

---

OK. Reality. The regents do own the debt, and they don't like looking like fools in Sacramento. So they are going to insist that Cal produce a return on that investment -- not in order to recover the money as much as to not look like they backed spending half a billion dollars on a stadium that was only used for a little over 10 years and still has 90 years worth of payments. Cutting football would not be a good look -- especially if there is some league with some media deal.

In the short run, they'd rather see Cal make a bad media deal in the hopes that someday they can get a better one (some one else posted about the Big 12 rebuilding very much along this line).

---

I don't disagree with this. But it is an awful look. UCLA - Big1G; Other UCs largely in Big West and with mostly themselves and prestigious academic schools like Cal Poly (there are a few duds like CSU Bak); and then the First UC in a league with Tulane and North Texas.

socaltownie said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

The Regents own the debt if there's no football, not Cal.

Face hard realities

---

OK. Reality. The regents do own the debt, and they don't like looking like fools in Sacramento. So they are going to insist that Cal produce a return on that investment -- not in order to recover the money as much as to not look like they backed spending half a billion dollars on a stadium that was only used for a little over 10 years and still has 90 years worth of payments. Cutting football would not be a good look -- especially if there is some league with some media deal.

In the short run, they'd rather see Cal make a bad media deal in the hopes that someday they can get a better one (some one else posted about the Big 12 rebuilding very much along this line).

---

I don't disagree with this. But it is an awful look. UCLA - Big1G; Other UCs largely in Big West and with mostly themselves and prestigious academic schools like Cal Poly (there are a few duds like CSU Bak); and then the First UC in a league with Tulane and North Texas.

---

It's already an awful look - every other realignment move has been the flagship state school ditching the inferior little brother. California is the only state where little bro usurps big bro at the adult table. We either barely survive or call it quits, either way we lost a ton of respect nationally.

SoFlaBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

The Regents own the debt if there's no football, not Cal.

Face hard realities

---

OK. Reality. The regents do own the debt, and they don't like looking like fools in Sacramento. So they are going to insist that Cal produce a return on that investment -- not in order to recover the money as much as to not look like they backed spending half a billion dollars on a stadium that was only used for a little over 10 years and still has 90 years worth of payments. Cutting football would not be a good look -- especially if there is some league with some media deal.

In the short run, they'd rather see Cal make a bad media deal in the hopes that someday they can get a better one (some one else posted about the Big 12 rebuilding very much along this line).

---

I say So what? The state pays less and less. The regents let UCLA go, which set this in motion.

We won't generate enough revenue to pay off the stadium debt. We won't generate enough revenue to pay the other 29 sport's scholarships. There is going to be a substantial amount of looking foolish to go around if we don't land in a P4. I personally couldn't care less about the Regent's feelings

SoFlaBear said:

---

OK. Reality. The regents do own the debt, and they don't like looking like fools in Sacramento. So they are going to insist that Cal produce a return on that investment -- not in order to recover the money as much as to not look like they backed spending half a billion dollars on a stadium that was only used for a little over 10 years and still has 90 years worth of payments.

---

maybe they should make UCLA play their home games there. They don't have a stadium. Charge them for the stadium rental. They don't seem to mind travel. Win win.

tequila4kapp said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

The Regents own the debt if there's no football, not Cal.

Face hard realities

---

OK. Reality. The regents do own the debt, and they don't like looking like fools in Sacramento. So they are going to insist that Cal produce a return on that investment -- not in order to recover the money as much as to not look like they backed spending half a billion dollars on a stadium that was only used for a little over 10 years and still has 90 years worth of payments. Cutting football would not be a good look -- especially if there is some league with some media deal.

In the short run, they'd rather see Cal make a bad media deal in the hopes that someday they can get a better one (some one else posted about the Big 12 rebuilding very much along this line).

---

I say So what? The state pays less and less. The regents let UCLA go, which set this in motion.

We won't generate enough revenue to pay off the stadium debt. We won't generate enough revenue to pay the other 29 sport's scholarships. There is going to be a substantial amount of looking foolish to go around if we don't land in a P4. I personally couldn't care less about the Regent's feelings

---

We agree 100% that UCLA set this in motion, and the Regents bear blame for allowing that. "Calimony" between 1-10M of the 75M UCLA is set to receive is art of the deal. That needs to be reopened and set at 15-20M based on the reality of the damage they caused. With that amount, and a very preliminary guesstimate of annual yield of 10-15M on the prospective AAC/PAC merger, we'd be about where we'd have ended up if the Apple deal has been done somewhere between 25 - 35M. Not great, but probably in the neighborhood of what we get from the B1G. And if UCLA doesn't like that, then they can put some ass into persuading the B1G to absorb the rest of the PAC and call it a merger. It won't happen, of course.