The latest on Conference Realignment and Cal - Saturday the 19th

189,830 Views | 1043 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by annarborbear
ninetyfourbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

HateRed said:

How does anyone know, other than the ADs and presidents/chancellors whether there are enough votes for CAL/the dark side/SMU to get into the ACC? I hate all these conjectures from every one. Why are they voting if there are not enough votes? If there are not enough votes then they would probably just say that and that's that. I've been checking Sports Illustrated and news sources and so far haven't seen anything about any vote Thursday or Friday.
We don't know for sure. Everyone who is "reporting" (or speculating) is rooting for one outcome or the other.


Could be some of the people in the room leaking, or their office staff. Or people at ESPN who are likely closely involved.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

HateRed said:

How does anyone know, other than the ADs and presidents/chancellors whether there are enough votes for CAL/the dark side/SMU to get into the ACC? I hate all these conjectures from every one. Why are they voting if there are not enough votes? If there are not enough votes then they would probably just say that and that's that. I've been checking Sports Illustrated and news sources and so far haven't seen anything about any vote Thursday or Friday.


Nobody knows for sure, even the presidents. What is generally agreed is they are having discussions and will not all meet for a formal vote unless they think they have enough yes votes going in. They were going to meet which indicated they got at least 12 in straw polling. Then there was a shooting on the UNC campus and the meeting was postponed. So all indications are that they have the yes votes, but nothing is official until it is official.

The Cal insider types here and elsewhere also seem pretty confident that the votes are there. The delays have been about deciding how to split up the revenue and now the UNC shooting.
JimSox
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

HateRed said:

How does anyone know, other than the ADs and presidents/chancellors whether there are enough votes for CAL/the dark side/SMU to get into the ACC? I hate all these conjectures from every one. Why are they voting if there are not enough votes? If there are not enough votes then they would probably just say that and that's that. I've been checking Sports Illustrated and news sources and so far haven't seen anything about any vote Thursday or Friday.


Nobody knows for sure, even the presidents. What is generally agreed is they are having discussions and will not all meet for a formal vote unless they think they have enough yes votes going in. They were going to meet which indicated they got at least 12 in straw polling. Then there was a shooting on the UNC campus and the meeting was postponed. So all indications are that they have the yes votes, but nothing is official until it is official.


Well Andrea Adelson of ESPN says it's her understanding that nobody has flipped yet in favor of adding Cal, Stanford and SMU. How she came to this understanding she didn't say. I don't know who she is so I have no opinion on whether this is solid reporting based on actual info or not. But I don't like it. Isn't it possible that the ACC will hold a vote even if the vote is no? Because if it's clear they're never going to get the votes maybe it's time to get this weeks long saga over with.
I remain nervous.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wonder if hurricane Idalia, which is about to hit northern Florida and head north toward Georgia is going to result in further delays...
Dothechop2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They still wouldn't be talking about it if they didn't have the votes.
Cal_79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JimSox said:

calumnus said:

HateRed said:

How does anyone know, other than the ADs and presidents/chancellors whether there are enough votes for CAL/the dark side/SMU to get into the ACC? I hate all these conjectures from every one. Why are they voting if there are not enough votes? If there are not enough votes then they would probably just say that and that's that. I've been checking Sports Illustrated and news sources and so far haven't seen anything about any vote Thursday or Friday.


Nobody knows for sure, even the presidents. What is generally agreed is they are having discussions and will not all meet for a formal vote unless they think they have enough yes votes going in. They were going to meet which indicated they got at least 12 in straw polling. Then there was a shooting on the UNC campus and the meeting was postponed. So all indications are that they have the yes votes, but nothing is official until it is official.


Well Andrea Adelson of ESPN says it's her understanding that nobody has flipped yet in favor of adding Cal, Stanford and SMU. How she came to this understanding she didn't say. I don't know who she is so I have no opinion on whether this is solid reporting based on actual info or not. But I don't like it. Isn't it possible that the ACC will hold a vote even if the vote is no? Because if it's clear they're never going to get the votes maybe it's time to get this weeks long saga over with.
I remain nervous.
B-R-E-A-T-H-E... In through the nose, hold for 8 seconds, slowly out through the mouth... B-R-E-A-T-H-E
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dothechop2 said:

They still wouldn't be talking about it if they didn't have the votes.


Or at least think we can get the votes.
Oski87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JimSox said:

calumnus said:

HateRed said:

How does anyone know, other than the ADs and presidents/chancellors whether there are enough votes for CAL/the dark side/SMU to get into the ACC? I hate all these conjectures from every one. Why are they voting if there are not enough votes? If there are not enough votes then they would probably just say that and that's that. I've been checking Sports Illustrated and news sources and so far haven't seen anything about any vote Thursday or Friday.


Nobody knows for sure, even the presidents. What is generally agreed is they are having discussions and will not all meet for a formal vote unless they think they have enough yes votes going in. They were going to meet which indicated they got at least 12 in straw polling. Then there was a shooting on the UNC campus and the meeting was postponed. So all indications are that they have the yes votes, but nothing is official until it is official.


Well Andrea Adelson of ESPN says it's her understanding that nobody has flipped yet in favor of adding Cal, Stanford and SMU. How she came to this understanding she didn't say. I don't know who she is so I have no opinion on whether this is solid reporting based on actual info or not. But I don't like it. Isn't it possible that the ACC will hold a vote even if the vote is no? Because if it's clear they're never going to get the votes maybe it's time to get this weeks long saga over with.
I remain nervous.
It is a good point that it is not over so appropriate to be nervous. However, the guys doing the spreadsheet work to figure out the budgets, who gets what for the additional revenue, etc - that is just the negotiations now. Even the guys at Clemson are saying it is all done, except for the small budget items about how much goes in this or that bucket. But of course no votes are flipped until they get those buckets in the right order.

The good news is that this is a revenue increase for the current schools. So - the vote is - do you want more money or less. They want more. But it is not about Cal and Stanford and SMU now. It is about Clemson and FSU and the Carolinas vs the rest about who gets the most of the new bucket of money. Not about if that bucket of money is there or not. I think they have all agreed they want the bucket of money.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oski87 said:

JimSox said:

calumnus said:

HateRed said:

How does anyone know, other than the ADs and presidents/chancellors whether there are enough votes for CAL/the dark side/SMU to get into the ACC? I hate all these conjectures from every one. Why are they voting if there are not enough votes? If there are not enough votes then they would probably just say that and that's that. I've been checking Sports Illustrated and news sources and so far haven't seen anything about any vote Thursday or Friday.


Nobody knows for sure, even the presidents. What is generally agreed is they are having discussions and will not all meet for a formal vote unless they think they have enough yes votes going in. They were going to meet which indicated they got at least 12 in straw polling. Then there was a shooting on the UNC campus and the meeting was postponed. So all indications are that they have the yes votes, but nothing is official until it is official.


Well Andrea Adelson of ESPN says it's her understanding that nobody has flipped yet in favor of adding Cal, Stanford and SMU. How she came to this understanding she didn't say. I don't know who she is so I have no opinion on whether this is solid reporting based on actual info or not. But I don't like it. Isn't it possible that the ACC will hold a vote even if the vote is no? Because if it's clear they're never going to get the votes maybe it's time to get this weeks long saga over with.
I remain nervous.
It is a good point that it is not over so appropriate to be nervous. However, the guys doing the spreadsheet work to figure out the budgets, who gets what for the additional revenue, etc - that is just the negotiations now. Even the guys at Clemson are saying it is all done, except for the small budget items about how much goes in this or that bucket. But of course no votes are flipped until they get those buckets in the right order.

The good news is that this is a revenue increase for the current schools. So - the vote is - do you want more money or less. They want more. But it is not about Cal and Stanford and SMU now. It is about Clemson and FSU and the Carolinas vs the rest about who gets the most of the new bucket of money. Not about if that bucket of money is there or not. I think they have all agreed they want the bucket of money.


They all want the bucket of money. Question is whether they can agree on how to divide it up, or whether some will be so unhappy about the division of the money that they blow up the deal.
Strykur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

Oski87 said:

JimSox said:

calumnus said:

HateRed said:

How does anyone know, other than the ADs and presidents/chancellors whether there are enough votes for CAL/the dark side/SMU to get into the ACC? I hate all these conjectures from every one. Why are they voting if there are not enough votes? If there are not enough votes then they would probably just say that and that's that. I've been checking Sports Illustrated and news sources and so far haven't seen anything about any vote Thursday or Friday.
Nobody knows for sure, even the presidents. What is generally agreed is they are having discussions and will not all meet for a formal vote unless they think they have enough yes votes going in. They were going to meet which indicated they got at least 12 in straw polling. Then there was a shooting on the UNC campus and the meeting was postponed. So all indications are that they have the yes votes, but nothing is official until it is official.
Well Andrea Adelson of ESPN says it's her understanding that nobody has flipped yet in favor of adding Cal, Stanford and SMU. How she came to this understanding she didn't say. I don't know who she is so I have no opinion on whether this is solid reporting based on actual info or not. But I don't like it. Isn't it possible that the ACC will hold a vote even if the vote is no? Because if it's clear they're never going to get the votes maybe it's time to get this weeks long saga over with.
I remain nervous.
It is a good point that it is not over so appropriate to be nervous. However, the guys doing the spreadsheet work to figure out the budgets, who gets what for the additional revenue, etc - that is just the negotiations now. Even the guys at Clemson are saying it is all done, except for the small budget items about how much goes in this or that bucket. But of course no votes are flipped until they get those buckets in the right order.

The good news is that this is a revenue increase for the current schools. So - the vote is - do you want more money or less. They want more. But it is not about Cal and Stanford and SMU now. It is about Clemson and FSU and the Carolinas vs the rest about who gets the most of the new bucket of money. Not about if that bucket of money is there or not. I think they have all agreed they want the bucket of money.
They all want the bucket of money. Question is whether they can agree on how to divide it up, or whether some will be so unhappy about the division of the money that they blow up the deal.
Even if FSU or Clemson complain, there will be blowback from the rest of the conference against other parties who kill the deal because a lot of those schools may be out in the wilderness during the next realignment cycle and want to solidify the ACC while they still can.
JimSox
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

Oski87 said:

JimSox said:

calumnus said:

HateRed said:

How does anyone know, other than the ADs and presidents/chancellors whether there are enough votes for CAL/the dark side/SMU to get into the ACC? I hate all these conjectures from every one. Why are they voting if there are not enough votes? If there are not enough votes then they would probably just say that and that's that. I've been checking Sports Illustrated and news sources and so far haven't seen anything about any vote Thursday or Friday.


Nobody knows for sure, even the presidents. What is generally agreed is they are having discussions and will not all meet for a formal vote unless they think they have enough yes votes going in. They were going to meet which indicated they got at least 12 in straw polling. Then there was a shooting on the UNC campus and the meeting was postponed. So all indications are that they have the yes votes, but nothing is official until it is official.


Well Andrea Adelson of ESPN says it's her understanding that nobody has flipped yet in favor of adding Cal, Stanford and SMU. How she came to this understanding she didn't say. I don't know who she is so I have no opinion on whether this is solid reporting based on actual info or not. But I don't like it. Isn't it possible that the ACC will hold a vote even if the vote is no? Because if it's clear they're never going to get the votes maybe it's time to get this weeks long saga over with.
I remain nervous.
It is a good point that it is not over so appropriate to be nervous. However, the guys doing the spreadsheet work to figure out the budgets, who gets what for the additional revenue, etc - that is just the negotiations now. Even the guys at Clemson are saying it is all done, except for the small budget items about how much goes in this or that bucket. But of course no votes are flipped until they get those buckets in the right order.

The good news is that this is a revenue increase for the current schools. So - the vote is - do you want more money or less. They want more. But it is not about Cal and Stanford and SMU now. It is about Clemson and FSU and the Carolinas vs the rest about who gets the most of the new bucket of money. Not about if that bucket of money is there or not. I think they have all agreed they want the bucket of money.


They all want the bucket of money. Question is whether they can agree on how to divide it up, or whether some will be so unhappy about the division of the money that they blow up the deal.


SD and 87 both make good points. Thanks. Oh and, 79, I tried the breathing thing, but I remain nervous!
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Strykur said:

BearSD said:

Oski87 said:

JimSox said:

calumnus said:

HateRed said:

How does anyone know, other than the ADs and presidents/chancellors whether there are enough votes for CAL/the dark side/SMU to get into the ACC? I hate all these conjectures from every one. Why are they voting if there are not enough votes? If there are not enough votes then they would probably just say that and that's that. I've been checking Sports Illustrated and news sources and so far haven't seen anything about any vote Thursday or Friday.
Nobody knows for sure, even the presidents. What is generally agreed is they are having discussions and will not all meet for a formal vote unless they think they have enough yes votes going in. They were going to meet which indicated they got at least 12 in straw polling. Then there was a shooting on the UNC campus and the meeting was postponed. So all indications are that they have the yes votes, but nothing is official until it is official.
Well Andrea Adelson of ESPN says it's her understanding that nobody has flipped yet in favor of adding Cal, Stanford and SMU. How she came to this understanding she didn't say. I don't know who she is so I have no opinion on whether this is solid reporting based on actual info or not. But I don't like it. Isn't it possible that the ACC will hold a vote even if the vote is no? Because if it's clear they're never going to get the votes maybe it's time to get this weeks long saga over with.
I remain nervous.
It is a good point that it is not over so appropriate to be nervous. However, the guys doing the spreadsheet work to figure out the budgets, who gets what for the additional revenue, etc - that is just the negotiations now. Even the guys at Clemson are saying it is all done, except for the small budget items about how much goes in this or that bucket. But of course no votes are flipped until they get those buckets in the right order.

The good news is that this is a revenue increase for the current schools. So - the vote is - do you want more money or less. They want more. But it is not about Cal and Stanford and SMU now. It is about Clemson and FSU and the Carolinas vs the rest about who gets the most of the new bucket of money. Not about if that bucket of money is there or not. I think they have all agreed they want the bucket of money.
They all want the bucket of money. Question is whether they can agree on how to divide it up, or whether some will be so unhappy about the division of the money that they blow up the deal.
Even if FSU or Clemson complain, there will be blowback from the rest of the conference against other parties who kill the deal because a lot of those schools may be out in the wilderness during the next realignment cycle and want to solidify the ACC while they still can.


I dont know what the definition of 'solidify' is, but even if Cal, Stanford and SMU join, I still think the ACC goes through the BIG-XII experience of losing it's best properties (texas, texas am, oklahoma) and is reshaped into a second tier conference squarely behind the B1G and SEC, but squarely ahead of the mid-majors. And I think this happens by the end of the decade.
Sactowndog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ferCALgm2 said:

Bowlesman80 said:

Born (late 50s) and raised in Modesto.
Lived there, mostly, through 2011; saw the town go through some changes:

1. 30K to 300+K population
2. Stores closed on Sundays and open late only Thursdays to mostly 7 days a week, with some 24/7.
3. People waving to strangers to menacing looks, now
4. Crime practically zero to record crimes against persons and property

The Bay Area does not send its best. Understandably, many of the new neighbors are lower income escaping inner city crime in the Bay Area, hoping their children get away from the influences of gangs, except, too often, they bring the gang life with them. Our town was not perfect before, maybe just more manageable being smaller. Yes, the air quality is bad, but owing to a thermal layer holding the polluted air in and a good share of the bad air seeps right over the Altamont from the Bay Area, which seems to honestly believe it has no part in California's pollutions problems, since the air there is clean. One could probably hear the same story about Livermore Valley, Santa Clara Valley, Napa Valley, and more, but I am just throwing out my own experience. I used to enjoy San Francisco, too, ten times more when it it was much smaller. I think the density of population is the core problem and makes people feel confined like zoo animals.

Anyway. Snottin' on the Valley is more symptomatic of urban hubris than any else. Trash talk, pure and simple. And not all Cal Bears come from the high and mighty urban jungle, so we do not become a house divided, I would ask our fellow Bears not to throw batteries at the Valley. LOL


I think all this piling against the Valley is because of that Fresno St fan that kept posting repeatedly about how UC Berkeley is to blame for all Fresno State's academics problems and in extension Valley's financial problems. He wouldn't stop and everyone grew tired of him quick.


The posts I have posted have been largely factual. You call UCLA your little brother and yet conversely don't want to take ownership of the UC lobbying against the Cal States. Anyone who has been around this state is well aware the Bay Area runs it. It sure as hell isn't UC Santa Cruz leading those efforts. You may support that position like CalStrong which is fine.

There has been anti valley comments (and especially anti Fresno) long before I posted on this board. I have responded to people grouping Fresno with San Jose State and UNR. Both schools struggle with small fan bases, stadiums issues and low TV exposure. If a merge occurs they may not make the cut. Fresno led the league in attendance and has the second best TV numbers. I may not particularly like Cal but I don't compare you to WSU. It would be disrespectful. But with some exceptions it's mostly disrespect flowing from Cal fans.

And yes Cal fans had bad moments at Fresno. I can also say many Fresno fans left Candlestick early due to rude and demeaning comments from Cal fans. I can assure the poor behavior goes both ways. Those problems are not present when Fresno travels to UCLA or USC. Only Cal.
HateRed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Geez, leave the valley garbage alone and focus on the topic; getting into the ACC. I was raised in Tulare north of Bakersfield and south of Fresno. But, I won't engage on valley stuff. I'm interested in CAL and getting onto the ACC.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

Strykur said:

BearSD said:

Oski87 said:

JimSox said:

calumnus said:

HateRed said:

How does anyone know, other than the ADs and presidents/chancellors whether there are enough votes for CAL/the dark side/SMU to get into the ACC? I hate all these conjectures from every one. Why are they voting if there are not enough votes? If there are not enough votes then they would probably just say that and that's that. I've been checking Sports Illustrated and news sources and so far haven't seen anything about any vote Thursday or Friday.
Nobody knows for sure, even the presidents. What is generally agreed is they are having discussions and will not all meet for a formal vote unless they think they have enough yes votes going in. They were going to meet which indicated they got at least 12 in straw polling. Then there was a shooting on the UNC campus and the meeting was postponed. So all indications are that they have the yes votes, but nothing is official until it is official.
Well Andrea Adelson of ESPN says it's her understanding that nobody has flipped yet in favor of adding Cal, Stanford and SMU. How she came to this understanding she didn't say. I don't know who she is so I have no opinion on whether this is solid reporting based on actual info or not. But I don't like it. Isn't it possible that the ACC will hold a vote even if the vote is no? Because if it's clear they're never going to get the votes maybe it's time to get this weeks long saga over with.
I remain nervous.
It is a good point that it is not over so appropriate to be nervous. However, the guys doing the spreadsheet work to figure out the budgets, who gets what for the additional revenue, etc - that is just the negotiations now. Even the guys at Clemson are saying it is all done, except for the small budget items about how much goes in this or that bucket. But of course no votes are flipped until they get those buckets in the right order.

The good news is that this is a revenue increase for the current schools. So - the vote is - do you want more money or less. They want more. But it is not about Cal and Stanford and SMU now. It is about Clemson and FSU and the Carolinas vs the rest about who gets the most of the new bucket of money. Not about if that bucket of money is there or not. I think they have all agreed they want the bucket of money.
They all want the bucket of money. Question is whether they can agree on how to divide it up, or whether some will be so unhappy about the division of the money that they blow up the deal.
Even if FSU or Clemson complain, there will be blowback from the rest of the conference against other parties who kill the deal because a lot of those schools may be out in the wilderness during the next realignment cycle and want to solidify the ACC while they still can.


I dont know what the definition of 'solidify' is, but even if Cal, Stanford and SMU join, I still think the ACC goes through the BIG-XII experience of losing it's best properties (texas, texas am, oklahoma) and is reshaped into a second tier conference squarely behind the B1G and SEC, but squarely ahead of the mid-majors. And I think this happens by the end of the decade.


Agreed. And I think if Cal can get through this and get to that point we will be fine no matter what as long as we have good coaching and can keep the NIL flowing.
Bowlesman80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Welp, that's interesting, but Coit Tower used to be the highest building, so I guess the working, commuting population adds to the congestion.
"Just win, baby."
Bowlesman80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sactowndog said:

ferCALgm2 said:

Bowlesman80 said:

Born (late 50s) and raised in Modesto.
Lived there, mostly, through 2011; saw the town go through some changes:

1. 30K to 300+K population
2. Stores closed on Sundays and open late only Thursdays to mostly 7 days a week, with some 24/7.
3. People waving to strangers to menacing looks, now
4. Crime practically zero to record crimes against persons and property

The Bay Area does not send its best. Understandably, many of the new neighbors are lower income escaping inner city crime in the Bay Area, hoping their children get away from the influences of gangs, except, too often, they bring the gang life with them. Our town was not perfect before, maybe just more manageable being smaller. Yes, the air quality is bad, but owing to a thermal layer holding the polluted air in and a good share of the bad air seeps right over the Altamont from the Bay Area, which seems to honestly believe it has no part in California's pollutions problems, since the air there is clean. One could probably hear the same story about Livermore Valley, Santa Clara Valley, Napa Valley, and more, but I am just throwing out my own experience. I used to enjoy San Francisco, too, ten times more when it it was much smaller. I think the density of population is the core problem and makes people feel confined like zoo animals.

Anyway. Snottin' on the Valley is more symptomatic of urban hubris than any else. Trash talk, pure and simple. And not all Cal Bears come from the high and mighty urban jungle, so we do not become a house divided, I would ask our fellow Bears not to throw batteries at the Valley. LOL


I think all this piling against the Valley is because of that Fresno St fan that kept posting repeatedly about how UC Berkeley is to blame for all Fresno State's academics problems and in extension Valley's financial problems. He wouldn't stop and everyone grew tired of him quick.


The posts I have posted have been largely factual. You call UCLA your little brother and yet conversely don't want to take ownership of the UC lobbying against the Cal States. Anyone who has been around this state is well aware the Bay Area runs it. It sure as hell isn't UC Santa Cruz leading those efforts. You may support that position like CalStrong which is fine.

There has been anti valley comments (and especially anti Fresno) long before I posted on this board. I have responded to people grouping Fresno with San Jose State and UNR. Both schools struggle with small fan bases, stadiums issues and low TV exposure. If a merge occurs they may not make the cut. Fresno led the league in attendance and has the second best TV numbers. I may not particularly like Cal but I don't compare you to WSU. It would be disrespectful. But with some exceptions it's mostly disrespect flowing from Cal fans.

And yes Cal fans had bad moments at Fresno. I can also say many Fresno fans left Candlestick early due to rude and demeaning comments from Cal fans. I can assure the poor behavior goes both ways. Those problems are not present when Fresno travels to UCLA or USC. Only Cal.
This is the first I have ever heard of $C being civil. Are you sure it was $C?
You know, what others are saying is valid. On a thread specifically about Cal's new conference talks you seem determined to hijack the thread and make it about CSUF. Here's a fact about the State's college and university systems, each have different missions. Community colleges are the most inclusive and offer opportunities to the greatest spectrum of students. Next comes the Cal States, which are supposed be a next-step, four year commuter school, with some graduate education possibilities; by design there should be one, usually, within 30 minutes of most Californians. Finally, there are there are the U.C. campuses with the most exclusive, competitive admissions standards and the highest level of graduate level research and education. That's it; no conspiracy, just design. I remember when they were finding a site for U.C. Merced; the criteria was more complicated than Cal States, including proximity to an international airport (oddly enough, FAT was the airport that qualified the Merced site). Football culture, minus asshat fan behavior, is a celebration of one's school spirit.

Fresno is not in any danger of being relegated; Cal is. That's what's on our minds especially on this thread. You're coming across as needy, so what gives? You don't seem to have a dog in this hunt, but maybe start another thread expressing your concerns. But, as for research and the essential focus of each tier of the California public college system, that's all by design, with, I believe, the Cal Polys being the top level Cal States.
"Just win, baby."
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

On one of the many threads, somebody posted yesterday that there is a saying, "time kills deals". Wouldn't that be something if they were all set to vote us in yesterday, then end up taking a day or two (or three) off because of the shooting and during that time, whoever got convinced to vote for us gets cold feet and deal's off.

Wow, I must be a long-time Cal fan to think of something like that!
HateRed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jesus f***king Christ!! Give it up!!!! You sound like ****ing moronic…
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

Strykur said:

BearSD said:

Oski87 said:

JimSox said:

calumnus said:

HateRed said:

How does anyone know, other than the ADs and presidents/chancellors whether there are enough votes for CAL/the dark side/SMU to get into the ACC? I hate all these conjectures from every one. Why are they voting if there are not enough votes? If there are not enough votes then they would probably just say that and that's that. I've been checking Sports Illustrated and news sources and so far haven't seen anything about any vote Thursday or Friday.
Nobody knows for sure, even the presidents. What is generally agreed is they are having discussions and will not all meet for a formal vote unless they think they have enough yes votes going in. They were going to meet which indicated they got at least 12 in straw polling. Then there was a shooting on the UNC campus and the meeting was postponed. So all indications are that they have the yes votes, but nothing is official until it is official.
Well Andrea Adelson of ESPN says it's her understanding that nobody has flipped yet in favor of adding Cal, Stanford and SMU. How she came to this understanding she didn't say. I don't know who she is so I have no opinion on whether this is solid reporting based on actual info or not. But I don't like it. Isn't it possible that the ACC will hold a vote even if the vote is no? Because if it's clear they're never going to get the votes maybe it's time to get this weeks long saga over with.
I remain nervous.
It is a good point that it is not over so appropriate to be nervous. However, the guys doing the spreadsheet work to figure out the budgets, who gets what for the additional revenue, etc - that is just the negotiations now. Even the guys at Clemson are saying it is all done, except for the small budget items about how much goes in this or that bucket. But of course no votes are flipped until they get those buckets in the right order.

The good news is that this is a revenue increase for the current schools. So - the vote is - do you want more money or less. They want more. But it is not about Cal and Stanford and SMU now. It is about Clemson and FSU and the Carolinas vs the rest about who gets the most of the new bucket of money. Not about if that bucket of money is there or not. I think they have all agreed they want the bucket of money.
They all want the bucket of money. Question is whether they can agree on how to divide it up, or whether some will be so unhappy about the division of the money that they blow up the deal.
Even if FSU or Clemson complain, there will be blowback from the rest of the conference against other parties who kill the deal because a lot of those schools may be out in the wilderness during the next realignment cycle and want to solidify the ACC while they still can.


I dont know what the definition of 'solidify' is, but even if Cal, Stanford and SMU join, I still think the ACC goes through the BIG-XII experience of losing it's best properties (texas, texas am, oklahoma) and is reshaped into a second tier conference squarely behind the B1G and SEC, but squarely ahead of the mid-majors. And I think this happens by the end of the decade.

Cal and Stanford being in the second tier of conferences seems about right for now.
Bowlesman80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HateRed said:

Jesus f***king Christ!! Give it up!!!! You sound like ****ing moronic…
It's not clear to whom you are replying.
Cheers.
"Just win, baby."
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:


Agreed. And I think if Cal can get through this and get to that point we will be fine no matter what as long as we have good coaching and can keep the NIL flowing.
Good coaching. Therein lies our biggest problem.
HateRed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Are you that stupid???
berserkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Prior to conference realignment, virtually all of the complaining about Fresno State on this board has been about the abysmal fan experience suffered at Fresno State.

Since conference realignment, yes, Cal fans have looked down on joining a conference with Fresno State. In part because of the horrible fan experience. In part because of academics. In part because of location / potential for TV money. And in part because of football pedigree.

The fact is that Cal partnering with Fresno State doesn't elevate Fresno State; it lowers Cal. And that's because neither team is good enough. So don't take it so personally. We know we're not a great football program and that's part of why we cannot afford to take a step down.

And, yes, Fresno State is closer to the Boise States and SDSUs than the SJSUs, Nevadas, and UNLVs. The Cal fans who suggest otherwise are just wrong.

But you have made numerous categorically false statements on this board.

Newsom has not blocked the CSUs from granting PhDs. He recently signed a bill allowing CSUs to grant independent PhDs in Public Health.

The Central Valley is not underrepresented by public universities granting PhDs in STEM fields. If anything, LA County is underrepresented.

Being an R2 Doctoral University has not held back Fresno State from a Big XII invite; the Big XII has invited 2 such universities.

And the Regents are not the puppets of Cal / Bay Area. Your "proof" of this was a very public scenario in which the Rgenets did not do what Cal asked.

And that's just some of the ridiculous statements you've made.
Bowlesman80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HateRed said:

Are you that stupid???
Not appreciating your insults, then.
Even if the poster seems to be trolling.
Berserkeley did a perfect job of describing the issues with reasonable language and avoiding ad hominem snark.
Yeah, everybody's concerned about the conference issue.
A sideshow won't hurt anything.
Especially considering there are no new facts to fret over.
And probably won't be for weeks to come.
In fact, why don't we fret over this Saturday and the new season.
Go Bears!
"Just win, baby."
HateRed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ok, then this is for you: the dark side just got its ass kicked by Florida in women's volleyball 3-0 .
Bowlesman80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HateRed said:

Ok, then this is for you: the dark side just got its ass kicked by Florida in women's volleyball 3-0 .
"Good, good."

-Darth Sidious

BTW- Still not clear to whom you may be replying.
"Just win, baby."
MTbear22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sactowndog said:

ferCALgm2 said:

Bowlesman80 said:

Born (late 50s) and raised in Modesto.
Lived there, mostly, through 2011; saw the town go through some changes:

1. 30K to 300+K population
2. Stores closed on Sundays and open late only Thursdays to mostly 7 days a week, with some 24/7.
3. People waving to strangers to menacing looks, now
4. Crime practically zero to record crimes against persons and property

The Bay Area does not send its best. Understandably, many of the new neighbors are lower income escaping inner city crime in the Bay Area, hoping their children get away from the influences of gangs, except, too often, they bring the gang life with them. Our town was not perfect before, maybe just more manageable being smaller. Yes, the air quality is bad, but owing to a thermal layer holding the polluted air in and a good share of the bad air seeps right over the Altamont from the Bay Area, which seems to honestly believe it has no part in California's pollutions problems, since the air there is clean. One could probably hear the same story about Livermore Valley, Santa Clara Valley, Napa Valley, and more, but I am just throwing out my own experience. I used to enjoy San Francisco, too, ten times more when it it was much smaller. I think the density of population is the core problem and makes people feel confined like zoo animals.

Anyway. Snottin' on the Valley is more symptomatic of urban hubris than any else. Trash talk, pure and simple. And not all Cal Bears come from the high and mighty urban jungle, so we do not become a house divided, I would ask our fellow Bears not to throw batteries at the Valley. LOL


I think all this piling against the Valley is because of that Fresno St fan that kept posting repeatedly about how UC Berkeley is to blame for all Fresno State's academics problems and in extension Valley's financial problems. He wouldn't stop and everyone grew tired of him quick.

don't want to take ownership of the UC lobbying against the Cal States.

Like you don't want to "take ownership" of the Cal states lobbying against community colleges and the thousands of poor, first generation, and minority students that enroll at them? Do alumni of those CCs join your FSU board just to perpetually whine? Probably not - they either have actual lives or they're smart enough to understand that doing so would be a complete and utter waste of time, accomplishing nothing for the "cause." And hell, if anything you're doing nothing but driving even fewer people to support your plight.
MTbear22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berserkeley said:

Prior to conference realignment, virtually all of the complaining about Fresno State on this board has been about the abysmal fan experience suffered at Fresno State.

Since conference realignment, yes, Cal fans have looked down on joining a conference with Fresno State. In part because of the horrible fan experience. In part because of academics. In part because of location / potential for TV money. And in part because of football pedigree.

The fact is that Cal partnering with Fresno State doesn't elevate Fresno State; it lowers Cal. And that's because neither team is good enough. So don't take it so personally. We know we're not a great football program and that's part of why we cannot afford to take a step down.

And, yes, Fresno State is closer to the Boise States and SDSUs than the SJSUs, Nevadas, and UNLVs. The Cal fans who suggest otherwise are just wrong.

But you have made numerous categorically false statements on this board.

Newsom has not blocked the CSUs from granting PhDs. He recently signed a bill allowing CSUs to grant independent PhDs in Public Health.

The Central Valley is not underrepresented by public universities granting PhDs in STEM fields. If anything, LA County is underrepresented.

Being an R2 Doctoral University has not held back Fresno State from a Big XII invite; the Big XII has invited 2 such universities.

And the Regents are not the puppets of Cal / Bay Area. Your "proof" of this was a very public scenario in which the Rgenets did not do what Cal asked.

And that's just some of the ridiculous statements you've made.

+1. This guy has no clue what he's talking about but seems to think that if he types it angrily enough he's "making a difference."
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've tried very hard to stay out of this conversation, but it's clear a lot of you who did not make the Fresno trip have very little idea how truly frightening it was. I'm not going to go into detail because that's been done on this board countless times over the years. But I'll just say I've never been more afraid for my physical safety due to my race then after the Fresno state game. Probably because I've never been stalked by people in trucks yelling racial slurs at me. And throwing things at me. And mine was not at all an isolated incident. There is a reason that multiple donors went to the ADs office after the game and said in no uncertain terms that their donations would be cutoff if we ever scheduled an away game with Fresno state ever again.

I've been to 20+ away games in my life, I've never experienced anything in the same universe as to what I experienced in Fresno
Bowlesman80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

I've tried very hard to stay out of this conversation, but it's clear a lot of you who did not make the Fresno trip have very little idea how truly frightening it was. I'm not going to go into detail because that's been done on this board countless times over the years. But I'll just say I've never been more afraid for my physical safety due to my race then after the Fresno state game. Probably because I've never been stalked by people in trucks yelling racial slurs at me. And throwing things at me. And mine was not at all an isolated incident. There is a reason that multiple donors went to the ADs office after the game and said in no uncertain terms that their donations would be cutoff if we ever scheduled an away game with Fresno state ever again.

I've been to 20+ away games in my life, I've never experienced anything in the same universe as to what I experienced in Fresno
Wow. Sorry to hear this.
"Just win, baby."
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

I've tried very hard to stay out of this conversation, but it's clear a lot of you who did not make the Fresno trip have very little idea how truly frightening it was. I'm not going to go into detail because that's been done on this board countless times over the years. But I'll just say I've never been more afraid for my physical safety due to my race then after the Fresno state game. Probably because I've never been stalked by people in trucks yelling racial slurs at me. And throwing things at me. And mine was not at all an isolated incident. There is a reason that multiple donors went to the ADs office after the game and said in no uncertain terms that their donations would be cutoff if we ever scheduled an away game with Fresno state ever again.

I've been to 20+ away games in my life, I've never experienced anything in the same universe as to what I experienced in Fresno


I was there I had the same experience. I too am a dark Latino. I thought the hatred was aimed at me because I was all decked out in Blue and Gold. But your experience may require me to rethink my conclusions

I was so ticked off since Fresno won the game. I have heard of poor losers. But here Fresno fans were poor winners

FYI. I spent three years of High School in Fresno. But that was in the 1960's when Fresno was a much smaller city
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

ducky23 said:

In my mind, the move to the ACC is always going to be a temp thing (until the ACC implodes or whatever other realignment thing happens).

But I assume the plan is that the ACC at least gives us a P4 home for the time being. And in the short term, we all need to up our game (we can't just rely on sebastabear and a few others to carry the load) and Cal needs to start winning. To the point where when the next realignment comes up, we have a little more leverage

Until then, the ACC is a fine home. It's a better academic conference than the BIG, it gives us a better chance to succeed and the road trips are way better.


Sure but out of the frying pan and into the fire? We need to lean on getting into the B1G and use the ACC as leverage.

This is a tangent but why do you think the ACC is a better academic conference? I have not given it much thought but they seem the same if not the B1G slightly better - and that was before adding UCLA, Washington, and USC.




Agree. The current realignment will last only for a few years and there will be a new realignment around 2030
But the B10/Fox may rue the day they let the ACC into the California recruiting and viewing market when they might have locked up the entire West Coast on the cheap
Sactowndog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berserkeley said:

Prior to conference realignment, virtually all of the complaining about Fresno State on this board has been about the abysmal fan experience suffered at Fresno State.

Since conference realignment, yes, Cal fans have looked down on joining a conference with Fresno State. In part because of the horrible fan experience. In part because of academics. In part because of location / potential for TV money. And in part because of football pedigree.

The fact is that Cal partnering with Fresno State doesn't elevate Fresno State; it lowers Cal. And that's because neither team is good enough. So don't take it so personally. We know we're not a great football program and that's part of why we cannot afford to take a step down.

And, yes, Fresno State is closer to the Boise States and SDSUs than the SJSUs, Nevadas, and UNLVs. The Cal fans who suggest otherwise are just wrong.

But you have made numerous categorically false statements on this board.

Newsom has not blocked the CSUs from granting PhDs. He recently signed a bill allowing CSUs to grant independent PhDs in Public Health.

The Central Valley is not underrepresented by public universities granting PhDs in STEM fields. If anything, LA County is underrepresented.

Being an R2 Doctoral University has not held back Fresno State from a Big XII invite; the Big XII has invited 2 such universities.

And the Regents are not the puppets of Cal / Bay Area. Your "proof" of this was a very public scenario in which the Rgenets did not do what Cal asked.

And that's just some of the ridiculous statements you've made.


While I don't agreee with your points I'm also not inclined to discuss it further as Cal clearly is focused on the ACC and hopefully will get in.

My response in this thread was to the 2 for 1 suggestion for Cal and Fresno and why that likely wouldn't work. If you would like to explain why it would please feel free.

Some of the posts above highlight the Cal side, if you go to the Fresno board you will hear plenty of pretty bad Cal stuff about Cal fan behavior.
Sactowndog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

ducky23 said:

I've tried very hard to stay out of this conversation, but it's clear a lot of you who did not make the Fresno trip have very little idea how truly frightening it was. I'm not going to go into detail because that's been done on this board countless times over the years. But I'll just say I've never been more afraid for my physical safety due to my race then after the Fresno state game. Probably because I've never been stalked by people in trucks yelling racial slurs at me. And throwing things at me. And mine was not at all an isolated incident. There is a reason that multiple donors went to the ADs office after the game and said in no uncertain terms that their donations would be cutoff if we ever scheduled an away game with Fresno state ever again.

I've been to 20+ away games in my life, I've never experienced anything in the same universe as to what I experienced in Fresno


I was there I had the same experience. I too am a dark Latino. I thought the hatred was aimed at me because I was all decked out in Blue and Gold. But your experience may require me to rethink my conclusions

I was so ticked off since Fresno won the game. I have heard of poor losers. But here Fresno fans were poor winners

FYI. I spent three years of High School in Fresno. But that was in the 1960's when Fresno was a much smaller city


It wasn't that you were Latino. Fresno has a huge Latino fan base and will be the first to broadcast in Spanish.

The answer is pretty simple. No fan base is as arrogant and demeaning in their comments as Cal fans. Conversely no fan base has as big a chip on their shoulder as Fresno State. When you mix the two it is like dropping a match in Kerosene. Let's just say both sides bring out the worst in each other.

Conversely, if they did play, and they won't, it would have pretty good ratings as the emotions as you can see are palpable.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.