oski003 said:

---

oskithepimp said:

---

FRIDAY UPDATE - LITTLE CHANGE
1. Stanford/Cal/SMU continue to lobby the ACC for membership. They need 12 votes to get in. All three are willing to forgo media payouts for an unknown number of years.
2. Stanford/Cal/OSU/WSU met yesterday to share the groups thoughts on the future.…

— Jim Williams (@JWMediaDC) August 18, 2023

I can't see the rumor of us giving up revenue being true, but it's on the internet so it has to be, right?!

---

I paid the guy to tweet this because I was tired of Econ141 constantly saying Cal wasn't doing anything.

---

I stand corrected.

What's funny is that Knowlton didn't want to reduce ticket prices because he didn't want Cal to be viewed as non-premium or something like that. Now he's okay letting us join a conference for free?!?! Something stinks and it's Knowlton.

baytobreakers said:

---

By my interpretation this is how the math works.
ESPN ACC contract adds new schools pro rata (Big 12 had this). I think the rate is $30M-40M. Let's say it's $40M for a round #.

By adding 3 schools, Stanford, Cal, and SMU. ESPN throws in $120M/year.
Last week it was expected SMU would forgo 100% and Stanford and Cal would forgo 30%.

If SMU and Stanford are now saying they could forgo all or nearly all of that for a number of years, the ACC can choose to re-distribute $80M among the existing schools to increase their payouts and cover travel costs.

If Cal forgoes 50%, we free up another $20M for redistribution.

So now $100M is available to go to the 15 existing schools = $6-7M / year each through 2036 --- or for as long as Stanford, SMU, and Cal are forgoing their full share. SMU signaled they might do it 5-7 years.

That may be enough to flip some (e.g. UNC, NCSU) votes to add some geographic-misfit mediocre football schools. But the risk is by adding more schools, you make it harder to disband the conference by majority vote which FSU and Clemson (+Maybe others) want to do.

-----

Big Ten -- does not have pro rata agreement. So while ESPN will automatically pony up new $ for new ACC adds, Fox will not. They'd have to value the new schools.

If Stanford comes in at $0 for the first few years and Cal comes in at $20M, there is no excess to redistribute to existing members. And when the entire deal goes up for renegotiation in 2030, the pie needs to grow, or Cal and Stanford are going to cut into the distributions of the existing teams.

This is how Fox's willingness to throw new $ out means they running that conference. The B10 Presidents want Cal & Stanford, but Fox needs to signal the pie will keep growing. Coming in for free/reduced cost helps in the short term, but may not solve the long term dynamic.

---

I think this is probably correct. But it also means that Fox is not willing to shell out any new money for the B1G until the next round of realignment. And that means that if they were not willing to accept us and Stanford on a free, then there's no way they would do it in the next round when FSU, Clemson and/or UNC could potentially be available.

Someone at Fox or some valuation committee must be absolutely dead set against us, Stanford joining the league because they're basically saying, "we aren't ponying up. You (B1G presidents) want them? Fine. You foot the bill and give up a piece of your own end."

Rumor mill keeps churning.

Sounds like there will be more than just the college football playoff meetings going on between the Big Ten and the network partners.

— Big Ten information. College football fan (@Genetics56) August 18, 2023

Just a random 0.02 rant.

I don't like the "will join for no money requested." Stanford is one of the world's most respected research and academic institutions in the world. They, like Harvard and other Ivy schools did decades ago, need to decide if they want to compete in the…

— Big Ten information. College football fan (@Genetics56) August 18, 2023

(I have no idea if this guy is credible or not.)

oskithepimp said:

---

FRIDAY UPDATE - LITTLE CHANGE
1. Stanford/Cal/SMU continue to lobby the ACC for membership. They need 12 votes to get in. All three are willing to forgo media payouts for an unknown number of years.
2. Stanford/Cal/OSU/WSU met yesterday to share the groups thoughts on the future.…

— Jim Williams (@JWMediaDC) August 18, 2023

I can't see the rumor of us giving up revenue being true, but it's on the internet so it has to be, right?!

---

If true and Cal gives up the revenue it may be good finally.

It would mean that the chancellor agrees that not being in a P4 conference with zero dollars will cost a heck of a lot more to the university as a whole than being in one with no revenue. Think lost academic prestige and more importantly donations.

It would also mean that they secured some key major donations to stay alive for now. Probably not 30 million but with Ucla money maybe they're close.

And what does this say to the other teams that are threatened now or at the next reorganization of conferences? It means TV contracts are likely headed lower.

And finally it would hopefully mean that Cal will start cutting non revenue sports or at least demanding they all have to start individual fund raising that would cover their costs to be part of the department or they get kicked to club status. That's my take.

Sorry duplicate post.

SadbutTrue999 said:

---

bipolarbear said:

---

Hmm…will going to the ACC or wherever for 'free' increase our Calimony from UCLA?

---

I continue to doubt the calimony will ever happen (it was much more a gentleman's agreement than any kind of binding contract), but.. if it did... you'd assume we'd get near the max if we're, well, playing for free.

$10M from UCLA is still probably better than the MWC and probably comparable to any hybrid Pac4/MWC/AAC mashup. Certainly not teneble long term, but maybe Cal could swing that for a few years until renegotiation.

---

Agreed. I would be shocked if Calimony actually happens. Stuff like that just never materializes for Cal.

calumnus said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

What continues to boggle my mind is that if the story were true that Stanford is willing to take a greatly reduced media rights payout, why would the B1G just sit back and allow the ACC to sail in and plant a flag on the west coast for essentially nothing?

I know both Cal and Stanford don't make the grade on eyeballs, but don't the following factors hold some sway with B1G / FOX?

(1) Bay Area market -- I know, not a college football watching market, but still the 7th or 8th largest TV media market in the country
(2) B1G presidents would love to add Stanford and Berkeley -- both globally recognized as top-10 research universities. Adding Stanford and Berkeley would given the B1G "academic bragging rights" over all other FBS conferences, and would highlight the B1G as the brainier version of the SEC
(3) Stanford has stunk in football for the past 4 years, but prior to that Harbaugh/Shaw had those Cardinal teams averaging 9+ wins per season and went to 3 Rose Bowls in 4 years; there is recent proof that Stanford can compete in football
(4) Would allow for the so-called "West Coast Pod" that would lessen B1G travel expenses; FOX doesn't care about preserving rivalries, but the lower travel has to be a consideration with a 6-team western pod
(5) Ucla would seemingly be in favor if the addition lowered its "Calimony" payments
(6) Notre Dame is the big fish in the longer run; while ND cherishes its independence, in the long game, a truly national B1G with an academic cohort of Stanford, Cal, Northwestern, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, et al would be seemingly attractive to Notre Dame
(7) There are absolutely tons of B1G alums living in the Bay Area. Cal and Stanford home attendance would not suffer given the B1G alumni bases out here, and surely some of us nitwits who have been paying for the Pac 12 Network will be willing to shell out $$ to add the B1G sports package instead.

I know TV rules all, but this still amazes me that the B1G wouldn't take a cut-rate deal on Furd and us.

---

We are developing leverage. Now that we (Stanford and Cal by default) have offered to accept zero from the ACC, we are in a great position to offer to pay the B1G to let us in. We can give them our Calimony payment.

---

Let's not forget that the Calimony payment gets readjusted every year. Since UCLA has screwed us by jumping ship and destroying the PAC12 I favor a BIG jump in the Calimony payments

GivemTheAxe said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

What continues to boggle my mind is that if the story were true that Stanford is willing to take a greatly reduced media rights payout, why would the B1G just sit back and allow the ACC to sail in and plant a flag on the west coast for essentially nothing?

I know both Cal and Stanford don't make the grade on eyeballs, but don't the following factors hold some sway with B1G / FOX?

(1) Bay Area market -- I know, not a college football watching market, but still the 7th or 8th largest TV media market in the country
(2) B1G presidents would love to add Stanford and Berkeley -- both globally recognized as top-10 research universities. Adding Stanford and Berkeley would given the B1G "academic bragging rights" over all other FBS conferences, and would highlight the B1G as the brainier version of the SEC
(3) Stanford has stunk in football for the past 4 years, but prior to that Harbaugh/Shaw had those Cardinal teams averaging 9+ wins per season and went to 3 Rose Bowls in 4 years; there is recent proof that Stanford can compete in football
(4) Would allow for the so-called "West Coast Pod" that would lessen B1G travel expenses; FOX doesn't care about preserving rivalries, but the lower travel has to be a consideration with a 6-team western pod
(5) Ucla would seemingly be in favor if the addition lowered its "Calimony" payments
(6) Notre Dame is the big fish in the longer run; while ND cherishes its independence, in the long game, a truly national B1G with an academic cohort of Stanford, Cal, Northwestern, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, et al would be seemingly attractive to Notre Dame
(7) There are absolutely tons of B1G alums living in the Bay Area. Cal and Stanford home attendance would not suffer given the B1G alumni bases out here, and surely some of us nitwits who have been paying for the Pac 12 Network will be willing to shell out $$ to add the B1G sports package instead.

I know TV rules all, but this still amazes me that the B1G wouldn't take a cut-rate deal on Furd and us.

---

We are developing leverage. Now that we (Stanford and Cal by default) have offered to accept zero from the ACC, we are in a great position to offer to pay the B1G to let us in. We can give them our Calimony payment.

---

Let's not forget that the Calimony payment gets readjusted every year. Since UCLA has screwed us by jumping ship and destroying the PAC12 I favor a BIG jump in the Calimony payments

---

Adjusting zero still yields zero. I'm skeptical of ever seeing any real cash. UCLA has a $100m deficit to make up first.

Big Dog said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

What continues to boggle my mind is that if the story were true that Stanford is willing to take a greatly reduced media rights payout, why would the B1G just sit back and allow the ACC to sail in and plant a flag on the west coast for essentially nothing?

I know both Cal and Stanford don't make the grade on eyeballs, but don't the following factors hold some sway with B1G / FOX?

(1) Bay Area market -- I know, not a college football watching market, but still the 7th or 8th largest TV media market in the country
(2) B1G presidents would love to add Stanford and Berkeley -- both globally recognized as top-10 research universities. Adding Stanford and Berkeley would given the B1G "academic bragging rights" over all other FBS conferences, and would highlight the B1G as the brainier version of the SEC
(3) Stanford has stunk in football for the past 4 years, but prior to that Harbaugh/Shaw had those Cardinal teams averaging 9+ wins per season and went to 3 Rose Bowls in 4 years; there is recent proof that Stanford can compete in football
(4) Would allow for the so-called "West Coast Pod" that would lessen B1G travel expenses; FOX doesn't care about preserving rivalries, but the lower travel has to be a consideration with a 6-team western pod
(5) Ucla would seemingly be in favor if the addition lowered its "Calimony" payments
(6) Notre Dame is the big fish in the longer run; while ND cherishes its independence, in the long game, a truly national B1G with an academic cohort of Stanford, Cal, Northwestern, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, et al would be seemingly attractive to Notre Dame
(7) There are absolutely tons of B1G alums living in the Bay Area. Cal and Stanford home attendance would not suffer given the B1G alumni bases out here, and surely some of us nitwits who have been paying for the Pac 12 Network will be willing to shell out $$ to add the B1G sports package instead.

I know TV rules all, but this still amazes me that the B1G wouldn't take a cut-rate deal on Furd and us.

---

We are developing leverage. Now that we (Stanford and Cal by default) have offered to accept zero from the ACC, we are in a great position to offer to pay the B1G to let us in. We can give them our Calimony payment.

---

Let's not forget that the Calimony payment gets readjusted every year. Since UCLA has screwed us by jumping ship and destroying the PAC12 I favor a BIG jump in the Calimony payments

---

Adjusting zero still yields zero. I'm skeptical of ever seeing any real cash. UCLA has a $100m deficit to make up first.

---

IMO, if Cal ever receives Calimony, the funds will come from the regents and not from UCLA's athletic department.

BC Calfan said:

---

SadbutTrue999 said:

---

bipolarbear said:

---

Hmm…will going to the ACC or wherever for 'free' increase our Calimony from UCLA?

---

I continue to doubt the calimony will ever happen (it was much more a gentleman's agreement than any kind of binding contract), but.. if it did... you'd assume we'd get near the max if we're, well, playing for free.

$10M from UCLA is still probably better than the MWC and probably comparable to any hybrid Pac4/MWC/AAC mashup. Certainly not teneble long term, but maybe Cal could swing that for a few years until renegotiation.

---

Agreed. I would be shocked if Calimony actually happens. Stuff like that just never materializes for Cal.

---

UCLA is already on the hook for Calimony. IIRC The starting number has already been set. The number can be increased upwards by the regents as required
each year.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

SadbutTrue999 said:

---

bipolarbear said:

---

Hmm…will going to the ACC or wherever for 'free' increase our Calimony from UCLA?

---

I continue to doubt the calimony will ever happen (it was much more a gentleman's agreement than any kind of binding contract), but.. if it did... you'd assume we'd get near the max if we're, well, playing for free.

$10M from UCLA is still probably better than the MWC and probably comparable to any hybrid Pac4/MWC/AAC mashup. Certainly not teneble long term, but maybe Cal could swing that for a few years until renegotiation.

---

Agreed. I would be shocked if Calimony actually happens. Stuff like that just never materializes for Cal.

---

UCLA is already on the hook for Calimony. IIRC The starting number has already been set. The number can be increased upwards by the regents as required
each year.

---

Never heard of a number being set - proof?

GivemTheAxe said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

SadbutTrue999 said:

---

bipolarbear said:

---

Hmm…will going to the ACC or wherever for 'free' increase our Calimony from UCLA?

---

I continue to doubt the calimony will ever happen (it was much more a gentleman's agreement than any kind of binding contract), but.. if it did... you'd assume we'd get near the max if we're, well, playing for free.

$10M from UCLA is still probably better than the MWC and probably comparable to any hybrid Pac4/MWC/AAC mashup. Certainly not teneble long term, but maybe Cal could swing that for a few years until renegotiation.

---

Agreed. I would be shocked if Calimony actually happens. Stuff like that just never materializes for Cal.

---

UCLA is already on the hook for Calimony. IIRC The starting number has already been set. The number can be increased upwards by the regents as required
each year.

---

in concept, yes, but I haven't seen any written Resolutions that were passed that contained an actual number .

I'd also think that if Cal drops down the G5 level, the Regents might change their minds on the Calimomy. Why throw good money after bad? I assume that Cal would only get the Calimomy in the event Cal plays in a relevant conference.

berserkeley said:

---

I'd also think that if Cal drops down the G5 level, the Regents might change their minds on the Calimomy. Why throw good money after bad? I assume that Cal would only get the Calimomy in the event Cal plays in a relevant conference.

---

Calimony won't much matter if we drop to G5 as the Regents will be on the hook for millions of existing coaching contracts as well as the CMS debt.

Econ141 said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

SadbutTrue999 said:

---

bipolarbear said:

---

Hmm…will going to the ACC or wherever for 'free' increase our Calimony from UCLA?

---

I continue to doubt the calimony will ever happen (it was much more a gentleman's agreement than any kind of binding contract), but.. if it did... you'd assume we'd get near the max if we're, well, playing for free.

$10M from UCLA is still probably better than the MWC and probably comparable to any hybrid Pac4/MWC/AAC mashup. Certainly not teneble long term, but maybe Cal could swing that for a few years until renegotiation.

---

Agreed. I would be shocked if Calimony actually happens. Stuff like that just never materializes for Cal.

---

UCLA is already on the hook for Calimony. IIRC The starting number has already been set. The number can be increased upwards by the regents as required
each year.

---

Never heard of a number being set - proof?

---

While I don't have "proof" the figure of $2-10M was reported by CBS in 2022

"UCLA will also have to pay the University of California at Berkeley between $2 million and $10 million because of how the move will affect the Cal athletic program."

SoFlaBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

SadbutTrue999 said:

---

bipolarbear said:

---

Hmm…will going to the ACC or wherever for 'free' increase our Calimony from UCLA?

---

I continue to doubt the calimony will ever happen (it was much more a gentleman's agreement than any kind of binding contract), but.. if it did... you'd assume we'd get near the max if we're, well, playing for free.

$10M from UCLA is still probably better than the MWC and probably comparable to any hybrid Pac4/MWC/AAC mashup. Certainly not teneble long term, but maybe Cal could swing that for a few years until renegotiation.

---

Agreed. I would be shocked if Calimony actually happens. Stuff like that just never materializes for Cal.

---

UCLA is already on the hook for Calimony. IIRC The starting number has already been set. The number can be increased upwards by the regents as required
each year.

---

Never heard of a number being set - proof?

---

While I don't have "proof" the figure of $2-10M was reported by CBS in 2022

"UCLA will also have to pay the University of California at Berkeley between $2 million and $10 million because of how the move will affect the Cal athletic program."

---

yes, I read that too, but I gather that those were discussions, not official policy, which is, 'we'll see" in 2025 (for 2024).

GivemTheAxe said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

SadbutTrue999 said:

---

bipolarbear said:

---

Hmm…will going to the ACC or wherever for 'free' increase our Calimony from UCLA?

---

I continue to doubt the calimony will ever happen (it was much more a gentleman's agreement than any kind of binding contract), but.. if it did... you'd assume we'd get near the max if we're, well, playing for free.

$10M from UCLA is still probably better than the MWC and probably comparable to any hybrid Pac4/MWC/AAC mashup. Certainly not teneble long term, but maybe Cal could swing that for a few years until renegotiation.

---

Agreed. I would be shocked if Calimony actually happens. Stuff like that just never materializes for Cal.

---

UCLA is already on the hook for Calimony. IIRC The starting number has already been set. The number can be increased upwards by the regents as required
each year.

---

To my knowledge, it was never confirmed officially that the payment would be annual. Just media speculation. And I'm also of thought that even a one time payment won't be made. The whole thing seems vague and wishy washy, and the current Cal admin has not shown any teeth to pursue such matters.

PtownBear1 said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

SadbutTrue999 said:

---

bipolarbear said:

---

Hmm…will going to the ACC or wherever for 'free' increase our Calimony from UCLA?

---

I continue to doubt the calimony will ever happen (it was much more a gentleman's agreement than any kind of binding contract), but.. if it did... you'd assume we'd get near the max if we're, well, playing for free.

$10M from UCLA is still probably better than the MWC and probably comparable to any hybrid Pac4/MWC/AAC mashup. Certainly not teneble long term, but maybe Cal could swing that for a few years until renegotiation.

---

Agreed. I would be shocked if Calimony actually happens. Stuff like that just never materializes for Cal.

---

UCLA is already on the hook for Calimony. IIRC The starting number has already been set. The number can be increased upwards by the regents as required
each year.

---

To my knowledge, it was never confirmed officially that the payment would be annual. Just media speculation. And I'm also of thought that even a one time payment won't be made. The whole thing seems vague and wishy washy, and the current Cal admin has not shown any teeth to pursue such matters.

---

of course its vague and wishy washy; it worked to get the Cal folks off of their backs and kick the can down teh road a few years. How many folks on BI have already spent that money?

They needed damages before they could set a number. They needed a number for with and without UCLA which the pac commissioner was working on. At this point we now know the pac commissioner was very involved with the regents decision making in general.

The belief at the time was that with UCLA we would get 1-10 million more per year than without.

At this point the variables have all changed drastically and it will have to be completely revisited once the dust settles.

MrGPAC said:

---

They needed damages before they could set a number. They needed a number for with and without UCLA which the pac commissioner was working on. At this point we now know the pac commissioner was very involved with the regents decision making in general.

The belief at the time was that with UCLA we would get 1-10 million more per year than without.

At this point the variables have all changed drastically and it will have to be completely revisited once the dust settles.

---

Exactly. They were looking at the payout per school of "PAC-11 with LA" vs "PAC-10 without LA" so if we would have gotten $25 million per school with UCLA (but no USC) and Kliavkoff negotiated $20 million for the 10 without UCLA, our payment from UCLA is $5 million.

Kliavkoff wanted to keep schools in the conference that he is paid $millions to run. He wanted the Regents to force UCLA to stay. Having Cal and Stanford jump to the B1G too would have been a disaster for him. The PAC could have been negotiating a merger with the ACC (or even B1G) when we had decent pod, but that was not in Kliavkoff's interest.

That is why allowing Kliavkoff to carry our water at the Regents meeting was such a mistake. He was not advocated for Cal, he was advocating for himself. Cal needed to lay out its own strategy. Hitching our wagon to him was a big mistake. We needed to be at the Regents pushing for a West Coast pod of California schools in the B1G. For the good of Cal and UCLA.

calumnus said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

They needed damages before they could set a number. They needed a number for with and without UCLA which the pac commissioner was working on. At this point we now know the pac commissioner was very involved with the regents decision making in general.

The belief at the time was that with UCLA we would get 1-10 million more per year than without.

At this point the variables have all changed drastically and it will have to be completely revisited once the dust settles.

---

Exactly. They were looking at the payout per school of "PAC-11 with LA" vs "PAC-10 without LA" so if we would have gotten $25 million per school with UCLA (but no USC) and Kliavkoff negotiated $20 million for the 10 without UCLA, our payment from UCLA is $5 million.

Kliavkoff wanted to keep schools in the conference that he is paid $millions to run. He wanted the Regents to force UCLA to stay. Having Cal and Stanford jump to the B1G too would have been a disaster for him. The PAC could have been negotiating a merger with the ACC (or even B1G) when we had decent pod, but that was not in Kliavkoff's interest.

That is why allowing Kliavkoff to carry our water at the Regents meeting was such a mistake. He was not advocated for Cal, he was advocating for himself. Cal needed to lay out its own strategy. Hitching our wagon to him was a big mistake. We needed to be at the Regents pushing for a West Coast pod of California schools in the B1G. For the good of Cal and UCLA.

---

Kliavkoff was advocating for PAC, but so was Christ as evidenced in all her communications over the last year. It's not like Kliavkoff went rogue against Cal's wishes, we were the ones championing preserving the PAC vs. thinking of our future and trying to get into B1G like UW and UO were.

calumnus said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

They needed damages before they could set a number. They needed a number for with and without UCLA which the pac commissioner was working on. At this point we now know the pac commissioner was very involved with the regents decision making in general.

The belief at the time was that with UCLA we would get 1-10 million more per year than without.

At this point the variables have all changed drastically and it will have to be completely revisited once the dust settles.

---

Exactly. They were looking at the payout per school of "PAC-11 with LA" vs "PAC-10 without LA" so if we would have gotten $25 million per school with UCLA (but no USC) and Kliavkoff negotiated $20 million for the 10 without UCLA, our payment from UCLA is $5 million.

Kliavkoff wanted to keep schools in the conference that he is paid $millions to run. He wanted the Regents to force UCLA to stay. Having Cal and Stanford jump to the B1G too would have been a disaster for him. The PAC could have been negotiating a merger with the ACC (or even B1G) when we had decent pod, but that was not in Kliavkoff's interest.

That is why allowing Kliavkoff to carry our water at the Regents meeting was such a mistake. He was not advocated for Cal, he was advocating for himself. Cal needed to lay out its own strategy. Hitching our wagon to him was a big mistake. We needed to be at the Regents pushing for a West Coast pod of California schools in the B1G. For the good of Cal and UCLA.

---

You're forgetting about what value UCLA brought to any new media deal. USC was estimated to have brought around 30% of the value of any new media deal. UCLA was only about 9%. In short, they didn't bring that much. Based on this, any UCLA tax would be around $2.2 million.

philly1121 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

They needed damages before they could set a number. They needed a number for with and without UCLA which the pac commissioner was working on. At this point we now know the pac commissioner was very involved with the regents decision making in general.

The belief at the time was that with UCLA we would get 1-10 million more per year than without.

At this point the variables have all changed drastically and it will have to be completely revisited once the dust settles.

---

Exactly. They were looking at the payout per school of "PAC-11 with LA" vs "PAC-10 without LA" so if we would have gotten $25 million per school with UCLA (but no USC) and Kliavkoff negotiated $20 million for the 10 without UCLA, our payment from UCLA is $5 million.

Kliavkoff wanted to keep schools in the conference that he is paid $millions to run. He wanted the Regents to force UCLA to stay. Having Cal and Stanford jump to the B1G too would have been a disaster for him. The PAC could have been negotiating a merger with the ACC (or even B1G) when we had decent pod, but that was not in Kliavkoff's interest.

That is why allowing Kliavkoff to carry our water at the Regents meeting was such a mistake. He was not advocated for Cal, he was advocating for himself. Cal needed to lay out its own strategy. Hitching our wagon to him was a big mistake. We needed to be at the Regents pushing for a West Coast pod of California schools in the B1G. For the good of Cal and UCLA.

---

You're forgetting about what value UCLA brought to any new media deal. USC was estimated to have brought around 30% of the value of any new media deal. UCLA was only about 9%. In short, they didn't bring that much. Based on this, any UCLA tax would be around $2.2 million.

---

We are just guessing, but I took that into account guessing we were worth $35 million per school with USC and UCLA, $25 million per school with UCLA only and $20 million without. Kliavkoff saw holding onto UCLA as maintaining LA in the footprint. He would have probably added SDSU and claimed "So Cal."

But yeah, people have mentioned "$2 million to $10 million." We agree the amount contemplated was not significant. It is just obvious everyone was assuming Cal and everyone else would just stay in the pac-10. We should have used our political capital to try to effect a better result for both schools instead of acting like crabs in a bucket.

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

They needed damages before they could set a number. They needed a number for with and without UCLA which the pac commissioner was working on. At this point we now know the pac commissioner was very involved with the regents decision making in general.

The belief at the time was that with UCLA we would get 1-10 million more per year than without.

At this point the variables have all changed drastically and it will have to be completely revisited once the dust settles.

---

Exactly. They were looking at the payout per school of "PAC-11 with LA" vs "PAC-10 without LA" so if we would have gotten $25 million per school with UCLA (but no USC) and Kliavkoff negotiated $20 million for the 10 without UCLA, our payment from UCLA is $5 million.

Kliavkoff wanted to keep schools in the conference that he is paid $millions to run. He wanted the Regents to force UCLA to stay. Having Cal and Stanford jump to the B1G too would have been a disaster for him. The PAC could have been negotiating a merger with the ACC (or even B1G) when we had decent pod, but that was not in Kliavkoff's interest.

That is why allowing Kliavkoff to carry our water at the Regents meeting was such a mistake. He was not advocated for Cal, he was advocating for himself. Cal needed to lay out its own strategy. Hitching our wagon to him was a big mistake. We needed to be at the Regents pushing for a West Coast pod of California schools in the B1G. For the good of Cal and UCLA.

---

You're forgetting about what value UCLA brought to any new media deal. USC was estimated to have brought around 30% of the value of any new media deal. UCLA was only about 9%. In short, they didn't bring that much. Based on this, any UCLA tax would be around $2.2 million.

---

We are just guessing, but I took that into account guessing we were worth $35 million per school with USC and UCLA, $25 million per school with UCLA only and $20 million without. Kliavkoff saw holding onto UCLA as maintaining LA in the footprint. He would have probably added SDSU and claimed "So Cal."

But yeah, people have mentioned "$2 million to $10 million." We agree the amount contemplated was not significant. It is just obvious everyone was assuming Cal and everyone else would just stay in the pac-10. We should have used our political capital to try to effect a better result for both schools instead of acting like crabs in a bucket.

---

Need forward thinking and "cares about football" leadership for that of course.

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

They needed damages before they could set a number. They needed a number for with and without UCLA which the pac commissioner was working on. At this point we now know the pac commissioner was very involved with the regents decision making in general.

The belief at the time was that with UCLA we would get 1-10 million more per year than without.

At this point the variables have all changed drastically and it will have to be completely revisited once the dust settles.

---

Exactly. They were looking at the payout per school of "PAC-11 with LA" vs "PAC-10 without LA" so if we would have gotten $25 million per school with UCLA (but no USC) and Kliavkoff negotiated $20 million for the 10 without UCLA, our payment from UCLA is $5 million.

Kliavkoff wanted to keep schools in the conference that he is paid $millions to run. He wanted the Regents to force UCLA to stay. Having Cal and Stanford jump to the B1G too would have been a disaster for him. The PAC could have been negotiating a merger with the ACC (or even B1G) when we had decent pod, but that was not in Kliavkoff's interest.

That is why allowing Kliavkoff to carry our water at the Regents meeting was such a mistake. He was not advocated for Cal, he was advocating for himself. Cal needed to lay out its own strategy. Hitching our wagon to him was a big mistake. We needed to be at the Regents pushing for a West Coast pod of California schools in the B1G. For the good of Cal and UCLA.

---

You're forgetting about what value UCLA brought to any new media deal. USC was estimated to have brought around 30% of the value of any new media deal. UCLA was only about 9%. In short, they didn't bring that much. Based on this, any UCLA tax would be around $2.2 million.

---

We are just guessing, but I took that into account guessing we were worth $35 million per school with USC and UCLA, $25 million per school with UCLA only and $20 million without. Kliavkoff saw holding onto UCLA as maintaining LA in the footprint. He would have probably added SDSU and claimed "So Cal."

But yeah, people have mentioned "$2 million to $10 million." We agree the amount contemplated was not significant. It is just obvious everyone was assuming Cal and everyone else would just stay in the pac-10. We should have used our political capital to try to effect a better result for both schools instead of acting like crabs in a bucket.

---

Need forward thinking and "cares about football" leadership for that of course.

---

And more than "cares" someone who understands the dynamics of what is happening on the college sports (football) landscape, conference consolidation, CFP expansion, and especially the media market.