Sebastabear said:

---

Fire Starkey said:

---

you people need to stop believing everything you read. Smells like Oregon State planting a story to muck things up cause they are desperate to hold onto Cal/Furd for "THE NEW PAC12" featuring Panhandle State and NE Oregon A&M. In what universe does Furd do that move for free?

---

Yes. This "leak" is pure crap. Someone trying to derail a train that seems to be pulling out of the station without them on it.

---

Oooooh, interesting!

Sebastabear said:

---

Fire Starkey said:

---

you people need to stop believing everything you read. Smells like Oregon State planting a story to muck things up cause they are desperate to hold onto Cal/Furd for "THE NEW PAC12" featuring Panhandle State and NE Oregon A&M. In what universe does Furd do that move for free?

---

Yes. This "leak" is pure crap. Someone trying to derail a train that seems to be pulling out of the station without them on it.

---

Hope! What more can you say? We are all ears.

I guess I'm surprised if Oregon State or Washington State ever really thought Stanford or Cal would not be leaving without them. It was always a likely outcome of all this.

Safety in numbers, maybe?

What is really ridiculous in this journey to premier league soccer for CFB....soon the Big10 and SEC are going to start feeding on themselves. How long do you think those conferences are going to let Nebraska and Vandy slide? They are going to get weeded out. And others will follow.

MilleniaBear said:

---

What is really ridiculous in this journey to premier league soccer for CFB....soon the Big10 and SEC are going to start feeding on themselves. How long do you think those conferences are going to let Nebraska and Vandy slide? They are going to get weeded out. And others will follow.

---

How big can the Big12 get?

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.

---

Now that one conference has given us an iron-clad offer of absolutely nothing, we can take that anywhere, show them what we have, and they will be falling all over themselves to match it! B1G, SEC, MLB, NBA, EPL. doesn't matter... they will all match the offer (nothing!).

MilleniaBear said:

---

What is really ridiculous in this journey to premier league soccer for CFB....soon the Big10 and SEC are going to start feeding on themselves. How long do you think those conferences are going to let Nebraska and Vandy slide? They are going to get weeded out. And others will follow.

---

Eventually. But not right away. The Big Ten and SEC will eventually get really big, 24 or more, and then split into two conferences of 12 or more each. And some schools from each will not be happy in the split conference they end up in, while a few others will somehow end up with the biggest teams making the biggest money, and feel like they won the lottery.

BigDaddy said:

---

This isn't good. Cal does not have the resources to do what Stanford and SMU are proposing. Also indicates what many of us keep saying... Stanford sees Notre Dame as a partner. The Irish really want Stanford in the ACC for a variety of reasons, and Stanford looks ready to do it if they get the votes.

Also don't see this as some Stanford and Cal play like others do. The way this is presented, there was a meeting of the Pac-4 and Stanford informed the other 3 schools of their plans. If Stanford and Cal were tied into each other, Cal and Stanford would be presenting this to the other two.

---

That's exactly what is going on. I want to puke now when I think about the fact that we were told to eliminate the traditional Big Game date "for the good of the conference" so Stanford could play ND. Stanford couldn't have cared less about Cal or the Pac12. Then or now.

phyrux said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

This isn't good. Cal does not have the resources to do what Stanford and SMU are proposing. Also indicates what many of us keep saying... Stanford sees Notre Dame as a partner. The Irish really want Stanford in the ACC for a variety of reasons, and Stanford looks ready to do it if they get the votes.

Also don't see this as some Stanford and Cal play like others do. The way this is presented, there was a meeting of the Pac-4 and Stanford informed the other 3 schools of their plans. If Stanford and Cal were tied into each other, Cal and Stanford would be presenting this to the other two.

---

That's exactly what is going on. I want to puke now when I think about the fact that we were told to eliminate the traditional Big Game date "for the good of the conference" so Stanford could play ND. Stanford couldn't have cared less about Cal or the Pac12. Then or now.

---

Not sure that's fair. By all accounts, up until now, Stanford has been pushing for Cal along with themselves.

However, time has run out on securing a P4 invite and if Stanford has been told it's a hard no from the B1G and from the ACC-4, then Stanford may be using its financial resources to make one final Hail Mary attempt to avoid relegation to the MWC / AAC. Something Stanford is probably willing to pay a lot of money to avoid. And they'd be giving Cal a heads up so we can decide whether to make the same offer or not. That we all believe Cal can't / won't is not their fault. You can't blame Stanford for trying to not drown with us.

If the story is true that is. Which is hard to believe because you assume that the B1G would take Stanford for free in a heartbeat. Has Fox threatened to pay the B1G less if Stanford joins?

Question - since Stanford is reportedly asking for $0 in the first years of possible entry into the ACC. Since it is also reported that we are trying to be a package deal with them - are we also asking for $0 into the ACC? How is that going to work for us?

The big and the sec will be 16 teams each, MAXIMUM. The media money will NOT be shared with fellow development league businesses which don't attract viewers. The two relegation leagues will have to get what they can from smaller side deals, and many individual businesses will spend lavishly, hopeful of promotion.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

The big and the sec will be 16 teams each, MAXIMUM. The media money will NOT be shared with fellow development league businesses which don't attract viewers. The two relegation leagues will have to get what they can from smaller side deals, and many individual businesses will spend lavishly, hopeful of promotion.

---

B1G is already at 18 and waiting for the ACC to break to take 2-6 teams. I think FOX is balking at making Cal & Stanford teams 19 & 20 right now (and therefore longterm), vs waiting longer and maybe taking them and 23 & 24, if they choose to expand that big and if there are spots left. Big IFs for sure.

philly1121 said:

---

Question - since Stanford is reportedly asking for $0 in the first years of possible entry into the ACC. Since it is also reported that we are trying to be a package deal with them - are we also asking for $0 into the ACC? How is that going to work for us?

---

Yeah, thinking about that piece makes me think this report isn't totally true. At that point it becomes a no-brainer for the B1G to take them.

Let's just hope, if we are given a lifeline by the ACC or B1G, the administration goes all in. This isn't the end of realignment for Cal, we will be fighting this again in the next round but it's critical to improve our standing in football or we are right back here again with less options than we think we have now.

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Question - since Stanford is reportedly asking for $0 in the first years of possible entry into the ACC. Since it is also reported that we are trying to be a package deal with them - are we also asking for $0 into the ACC? How is that going to work for us?

---

Yeah, thinking about that piece makes me think this report isn't totally true. At that point it becomes a no-brainer for the B1G to take them.

---

Granted. However, has anyone confirmed that we, indeed, are also asking for $0 entry into the ACC? CalStrong's postings that the university will not accept anything less than market value seem to suggest that we can't do a $0 entry into the ACC or B1G for that matter. What is our official line here?

I don't think we are accepting $0. The reports I've seen on that aren't from as credible a source as the AP.

Still think this could make sense for the ACC. Stanford and possibly SMU giving back most of their allotted share to the other ACC schools -- at least for some time -- and Cal giving up some could be enough to swing a few votes.

The ACC and B10 dynamics are different.
In the ACC, the media deal is not the issue; the schools that want to keep their options open to leave are. ACC - ESPN adds team pro rata -- so if the new teams give some of that back, it benefits the rest (and covers the additional travel costs).

In the B10, the media deal is the issue --there is no pro rata school add like the ESPN deals with ACC & Big 12; the schools would vote for Cal and Stanford. Fox would have to come up with new money to add Cal and Stanford. Even if Stanford says they join for free, eventually they'd take a cut of the total package when it's renegotiated --- that may start to cut into existing school shares if the overall pie doesn't increase. In any case, though, coming in for free/dramatically reduced costs for the near term gets you closer to a solution that could work for all parties.

Ok. Well I guess what I'm asking is - if stanford and SMU come in for $0 share initially or for x number of years, and we do not - where is the pull for the ACC to add us?

philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Question - since Stanford is reportedly asking for $0 in the first years of possible entry into the ACC. Since it is also reported that we are trying to be a package deal with them - are we also asking for $0 into the ACC? How is that going to work for us?

---

Yeah, thinking about that piece makes me think this report isn't totally true. At that point it becomes a no-brainer for the B1G to take them.

---

Granted. However, has anyone confirmed that we, indeed, are also asking for $0 entry into the ACC? CalStrong's postings that the university will not accept anything less than market value seem to suggest that we can't do a $0 entry into the ACC or B1G for that matter. What is our official line here?

---

I don't think Cal has been confirmed as offering $0 share at all. I think one guy on Twitter has suggested it, but that's it. The SMU and now Stanford possible $0 offers have been reported in a few places.

philly1121 said:

---

Ok. Well I guess what I'm asking is - if stanford and SMU come in for $0 share initially or for x number of years, and we do not - where is the pull for the ACC to add us?

---

..and the flip side question: if the principal reason that the MWC or AAC + PAC 4 deals are bad for Cal because the revenue would hardly cover expenses, why is this deal -- with great schools, I grant -- for short media money and high travel expenses better? And we would be locked in until 2036.

philly1121 said:

---

Ok. Well I guess what I'm asking is - if stanford and SMU come in for $0 share initially or for x number of years, and we do not - where is the pull for the ACC to add us?

---

Travel partner for Stanford makes the logistics easier, and it seems like Stanford doesn't want to move without Cal.

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?!

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?!

---

Why the hell wouldn't the B1G swoop the two schools up for free?!? This is all mind boggling. Surely we don't have negative value? Right?

Econ141 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?!

---

Why the hell wouldn't the B1G swoop the two schools up for free?!? This is all mind boggling. Surely we don't have negative value? Right?

---

Completely agree. Cal and Furd are desperate to join the Atlantic Coast Conference for nothing. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

SoFlaBear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Ok. Well I guess what I'm asking is - if stanford and SMU come in for $0 share initially or for x number of years, and we do not - where is the pull for the ACC to add us?

---

..and the flip side question: if the principal reason that the MWC or AAC + PAC 4 deals are bad for Cal because the revenue would hardly cover expenses, why is this deal -- with great schools, I grant -- for short media money and high travel expenses better? And are we would be locked in until 2036.

---

The thinking right now is that you need to maintain your "Power" status at all costs, because the realignment games are not over and if you're G5 when they start again you're really screwed. So any way into a remaining power conference is what's needed right now.

As to the 2036 commitment . . . the thinking is that when more realignment happens it will be because the ACC is breaking up (maybe Clemson and FSU finally buy their way out and cause a cascade). So if you're in the ACC at that point you will be free from that GOR anyway.

How about Cal to the B1G and Stanford to the ACC? Maybe Nike or Adidas will eventually finance Oregon State to the B1G given their connections to the state of Oregon? A Cal-Stanford package is not guaranteed here. I can see a scenario where the ACC stays together after adding ND plus schools in CA and TX. ND is going to have to poop or get off the pot soon. They won't be able to stay independent forever in this environment.

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

I think he is an idiot without "real" sources.

Because would REAL sources disclose this? I mean would you tell the BWM dealer when you walk in that you WANT to pay10K over sticker?

It is all speculation (at least about Cal). SMU/Furd maybe different as there COULD be an attention hogging alum from those schools wanting to tell a reporter about being a "savior".

sycasey said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Ok. Well I guess what I'm asking is - if stanford and SMU come in for $0 share initially or for x number of years, and we do not - where is the pull for the ACC to add us?

---

..and the flip side question: if the principal reason that the MWC or AAC + PAC 4 deals are bad for Cal because the revenue would hardly cover expenses, why is this deal -- with great schools, I grant -- for short media money and high travel expenses better? And are we would be locked in until 2036.

---

The thinking right now is that you need to maintain your "Power" status at all costs, because the realignment games are not over and if you're G5 when they start again you're really screwed. So any way into a remaining power conference is what's needed right now.

As to the 2036 commitment . . . the thinking is that when more realignment happens it will be because the ACC is breaking up (maybe Clemson and FSU finally buy their way out and cause a cascade). So if you're in the ACC at that point you will be free from that GOR anyway.

---

Exactly. The B1G and SEC are done expanding until the ACC teams become available. So for Cal and Stanford, signing onto the 2036 GOR either guarantees a respactable P4 conference home until 2036 or until the next round of B1G expansion.

More and more hilarious by the minute. So, the sum total of the rumors is:

• A month ago, Cal thought their TV rights were worth $50 million/year
• Two weeks ago, Cal thought they were worth $20 million/year
• Today, Cal thinks they're worth nothing

Cal's biggest missed opportunity was not hiring John Fisher as the AD. He has underinvested in the A's for years and yet they're worth . . . maybe 8x what he paid? Cal has underinvested for years, and they're worth . . . apparently nothing.

berserkeley said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Ok. Well I guess what I'm asking is - if stanford and SMU come in for $0 share initially or for x number of years, and we do not - where is the pull for the ACC to add us?

---

..and the flip side question: if the principal reason that the MWC or AAC + PAC 4 deals are bad for Cal because the revenue would hardly cover expenses, why is this deal -- with great schools, I grant -- for short media money and high travel expenses better? And are we would be locked in until 2036.

---

The thinking right now is that you need to maintain your "Power" status at all costs, because the realignment games are not over and if you're G5 when they start again you're really screwed. So any way into a remaining power conference is what's needed right now.

As to the 2036 commitment . . . the thinking is that when more realignment happens it will be because the ACC is breaking up (maybe Clemson and FSU finally buy their way out and cause a cascade). So if you're in the ACC at that point you will be free from that GOR anyway.

---

Exactly. The B1G and SEC are done expanding until the ACC teams become available. So for Cal and Stanford, signing onto the 2036 GOR either guarantees a respactable P4 conference home until 2036 or until the next round of B1G expansion.

---

the ACC GOR wont last past 2030 IMO. Here are the end dates on the current deals with the primary partners

Big 10 2030 Fox
Big 12 2031 ESPN
SEC 2034 ESPN
ACC 2036 ESPN

The Big10 will drive the next round of realignment sometime in 2028 or 29 to take effect after the 2030 season. By then, buyouts on GORs will be significantly smaller and depending on the position ESPN is in, they may want to do things differently, consolidate, etc. I still believe Fox will run the Big10 with 20-24 teams and ESPN will run the SEC with 20-24 teams. Everyone else gets a small deal as time slot filler

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.

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.

The MWC commissioner (Gloria Navarez) was a Cal grad (possibly both undergrad and law) and seems like she knows her s***. And worked at Cal and clearly knows the ins and outs (she was on the 365 sports CFB youtube show yesterday, and its worth a listen).

Its an actual crime against society that she was not hired as our commish

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.