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

207,155 Views | 1043 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by annarborbear
BearGreg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Optimism is growing.

Tuesday the 22nd looms as the day when the ACC may make an official vote

The economics are continuing to be negotiated. However, the Tweets and rumors that Stanford or anyone else will be taking no revenue are patently false. That's not to say that Cal and Stanford will get an equal share in year one as the discussion of what that number will be is likely what's holding up the proceedings at this point. When that is finalized, expect to it be far closer to an equal share than zero. And very likely a plan to get to equality in the not-too-distant future (similar to the UCLA, USC, UW, and OU deals with the B10).

Meanwhile, Cal will continue to have internal discussions about its forward-looking budget which at this point almost certainly requires material cuts to the existing supported sports programs.

Cal Athletics like all FBS schools utilizes football revenue (which for many years now has predominately come from media rights) to support a rich and diverse set of sports. Football is also the lynchpin of broader alumni outreach and academic donor support. In a potential future inside the ACC, it becomes imperative IMO for the University to ensure that Cal Football is well funded in order to be competitive such that it can continue to be the cash cow that supports the rest of the Athletic department. That funding is going to have to come from the University, the UCLA stipend, as well as donors.

More to come . . .
CALiforniALUM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for the update!
UrsineMaximus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for the update. What is the timeline for the removal of Knowlton, any progress on that front?

Is SMU still being considered by the ACC? If so, is SMU's offer of no share still on the table?
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I really apologize if this has already been answered. But IF cal gets an invite to the ACC, will it be for football only? Football/basketball only? Or all sports? Or has it not been determined yet?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm also curious if the Big Ten have had any talks/interest in picking up Cal or Stanford? Or are they completely out of the picture at this point?
berserkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So I should stop obsessively checking for updates until Tuesday?
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

I'm also curious if the Big Ten have had any talks/interest in picking up Cal or Stanford? Or are they completely out of the picture at this point?


This is the biggest and most important question
Red Coyote
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The BIG is in competition with the SEC for eyeballs. The SEC has Bama, GA, LSU, FLA, Tenn, and now they've added Texas and Oklahoma. They have many many big games. The BIG has Ohio St. Michigan and Penn St. and now USC. These teams can only be combo'd so many ways to produce ratings. And to top it off the PST time zone doesn't help.

I think the BIG would love to add Stanford and Cal as institutions. But if they can't deliver bigtime eyeballs, then they are dilutive.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Red Coyote said:

The BIG is in competition with the SEC for eyeballs. The SEC has Bama, GA, LSU, FLA, Tenn, and now they've added Texas and Oklahoma. They have many many big games. The BIG has Ohio St. Michigan and Penn St. and now USC. These teams can only be combo'd so many ways to produce ratings. And to top it off the PST time zone doesn't help.

I think the BIG would love to add Stanford and Cal as institutions. But if they can't deliver bigtime eyeballs, then they are dilutive.

That's been their argument so far. But I can see a scenario where if ESPN is about to get the Bay Area schools, Fox might step in and try to box them out of the west coast. They kind of did that with Oregon/Washington to keep Apple out.
BearGreg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
sycasey said:

I'm also curious if the Big Ten have had any talks/interest in picking up Cal or Stanford? Or are they completely out of the picture at this point?
The B10 is no longer involved. Almost certainly the gap in $$'s is too great.
BearGreg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
berserkeley said:

So I should stop obsessively checking for updates until Tuesday?
I think things are going to work out okay so feel free to sleep more soundly until Tuesday
75bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for the update, BearGreg.

It's nice to hear some optimism to balance out the negativity of a lot of the BI posts over the past week.
Red Coyote
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Red Coyote said:

The BIG is in competition with the SEC for eyeballs. The SEC has Bama, GA, LSU, FLA, Tenn, and now they've added Texas and Oklahoma. They have many many big games. The BIG has Ohio St. Michigan and Penn St. and now USC. These teams can only be combo'd so many ways to produce ratings. And to top it off the PST time zone doesn't help.

I think the BIG would love to add Stanford and Cal as institutions. But if they can't deliver bigtime eyeballs, then they are dilutive.

That's been their argument so far. But I can see a scenario where if ESPN is about to get the Bay Area schools, Fox might step in and try to box them out of the west coast. They kind of did that with Oregon/Washington to keep Apple out.
I think someone's going to take you because the media players want one less conference. They don't want the Pac reformulating.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Red Coyote said:

sycasey said:

Red Coyote said:

The BIG is in competition with the SEC for eyeballs. The SEC has Bama, GA, LSU, FLA, Tenn, and now they've added Texas and Oklahoma. They have many many big games. The BIG has Ohio St. Michigan and Penn St. and now USC. These teams can only be combo'd so many ways to produce ratings. And to top it off the PST time zone doesn't help.

I think the BIG would love to add Stanford and Cal as institutions. But if they can't deliver bigtime eyeballs, then they are dilutive.

That's been their argument so far. But I can see a scenario where if ESPN is about to get the Bay Area schools, Fox might step in and try to box them out of the west coast. They kind of did that with Oregon/Washington to keep Apple out.
I think someone's going to take you because the media players want one less conference. They don't want the Pac reformulating.

Per this thread, seems like it's the ACC. Surprised the B1G isn't making a better offer, but if the ACC is the best one then we'll take it.
Red Coyote
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Red Coyote said:

sycasey said:

Red Coyote said:

The BIG is in competition with the SEC for eyeballs. The SEC has Bama, GA, LSU, FLA, Tenn, and now they've added Texas and Oklahoma. They have many many big games. The BIG has Ohio St. Michigan and Penn St. and now USC. These teams can only be combo'd so many ways to produce ratings. And to top it off the PST time zone doesn't help.

I think the BIG would love to add Stanford and Cal as institutions. But if they can't deliver bigtime eyeballs, then they are dilutive.

That's been their argument so far. But I can see a scenario where if ESPN is about to get the Bay Area schools, Fox might step in and try to box them out of the west coast. They kind of did that with Oregon/Washington to keep Apple out.
I think someone's going to take you because the media players want one less conference. They don't want the Pac reformulating.

Per this thread, seems like it's the ACC. Surprised the B1G isn't making a better offer, but if the ACC is the best one then we'll take it.
My belief is you end up in the BIG. I don't think the ACC has the votes. Could be the B12 but then what to do with OSU/WSU?
joe amos yaks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Do these talks include OSu and WSu? And SMu?
"Those who say don't know, and those who know don't say." - LT
philly1121
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No its just us and Stanford
glb78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I like the optimism!

We need some, that's for sure.

Thank you Bear Greg.
joe amos yaks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fitting . . . first, abandoned by a majority of the PAC in 2023;
then OSu makes it to the college football playoffs in 2024.
Go Beavs and go Cougs!

xPAC 12 leadership sucked. $uSC always sucked. Ucla and 4-corners suck; uDub and uO deserve what they get.
"Those who say don't know, and those who know don't say." - LT
CarmelBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks Bear Greg. My biggest question at this point - assuming good news on Tuesday - is will the Knowlton issue be decided on an expedited basis? He is clearly sidelined (and that's a good thing) but he needs to be shown the door. Forthwith.
berserkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGreg said:

sycasey said:

I'm also curious if the Big Ten have had any talks/interest in picking up Cal or Stanford? Or are they completely out of the picture at this point?
The B10 is no longer involved. Almost certainly the gap in $$'s is too great.


What I don't understand about the B1G is if the B1G Presidents truly want Stanford and Cal, but the money isn't there, then why don't the Regents just say that UCLA will forgo part of its share to pay for Cal's share? It would cost the B1G absolutely nothing. And the Regents already voted to give Cal part of UCLA's share anyway.

I mean, the ACC is the better deal for the Regents so I understand the focus there first.
sonofabear51
How long do you want to ignore this user?

He can go play hockey in Colorado Springs all day long and not be bothered with Cal Football.
Fire yesterday, get it done.
Start Slowly and taper off
maxer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CarmelBear said:

Thanks Bear Greg. My biggest question at this point - assuming good news on Tuesday - is will the Knowlton issue be decided on an expedited basis? He is clearly sidelined (and that's a good thing) but he needs to be shown the door. Forthwith.
I can't see a scenario in which they aren't going to let Chancellor Christ's replacement pick the new AD.
Shocky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
maxer, terminate the con artist & name andrew mcgraw the interim athletic director
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Red Coyote said:

sycasey said:

Red Coyote said:

sycasey said:

Red Coyote said:

The BIG is in competition with the SEC for eyeballs. The SEC has Bama, GA, LSU, FLA, Tenn, and now they've added Texas and Oklahoma. They have many many big games. The BIG has Ohio St. Michigan and Penn St. and now USC. These teams can only be combo'd so many ways to produce ratings. And to top it off the PST time zone doesn't help.

I think the BIG would love to add Stanford and Cal as institutions. But if they can't deliver bigtime eyeballs, then they are dilutive.

That's been their argument so far. But I can see a scenario where if ESPN is about to get the Bay Area schools, Fox might step in and try to box them out of the west coast. They kind of did that with Oregon/Washington to keep Apple out.
I think someone's going to take you because the media players want one less conference. They don't want the Pac reformulating.

Per this thread, seems like it's the ACC. Surprised the B1G isn't making a better offer, but if the ACC is the best one then we'll take it.
My belief is you end up in the BIG. I don't think the ACC has the votes. Could be the B12 but then what to do with OSU/WSU?
My original belief was that B1G was most likely, but if the ACC is offering more money and the B1G will not come up then what can you do? Seems like people "in the know" believe that the ACC is getting close to yes

WSU's own president stated today that if the Pac-X doesn't stay together they are likely going to the Mountain West or American. Sucks, but they don't have options unless the B12 suddenly becomes more generous.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?

So we would be going from the conference with the worst media deal to the conference with the next worst media deal.

How long before the ACC implodes?

Florida State quarterback Drew Weatherford who is on the FSU board of trustees said:

"Do we want to play games moving forward, or do we want to compete?"

"I've thought about this a lot as an ex-player, as now board of trustee member, and the simple fact is the cost of playing at the highest level is outpacing the ACC's ability to compete on a regular basis," he went on to add. "For me, it's not if we leave [the ACC], it's how and when."

Of course, we're Cal so we know the answer to his rhetorical question.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


JimSox
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Glad to hear the optimism. But it's not a done deal until it's a done deal. I remain nervous.
HKBear97!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGreg said:

Optimism is growing.

Tuesday the 22nd looms as the day when the ACC may make an official vote

The economics are continuing to be negotiated. However, the Tweets and rumors that Stanford or anyone else will be taking no revenue are patently false. That's not to say that Cal and Stanford will get an equal share in year one as the discussion of what that number will be is likely what's holding up the proceedings at this point. When that is finalized, expect to it be far closer to an equal share than zero. And very likely a plan to get to equality in the not-too-distant future (similar to the UCLA, USC, UW, and OU deals with the B10).

Meanwhile, Cal will continue to have internal discussions about its forward-looking budget which at this point almost certainly requires material cuts to the existing supported sports programs.

Cal Athletics like all FBS schools utilizes football revenue (which for many years now has predominately come from media rights) to support a rich and diverse set of sports. Football is also the lynchpin of broader alumni outreach and academic donor support. In a potential future inside the ACC, it becomes imperative IMO for the University to ensure that Cal Football is well funded in order to be competitive such that it can continue to be the cash cow that supports the rest of the Athletic department. That funding is going to have to come from the University, the UCLA stipend, as well as donors.

More to come . . .


Hmm, don't see this reported anywhere else. Color me skeptical….
ducky23
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.





I'm not including ucla et al cause if you do that, then you can presumably add furd/cal to the ACC and it would cancel them out.

But let's just compare the top half

Duke
Notre Dame (If they get to vote, they count)
Virginia
UNC
GT
BC

Northwestern
Michigan
Wisconsin
Rutgers
Illinois
Um Maryland I guess?

Not even close
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGreg said:

Optimism is growing.

Tuesday the 22nd looms as the day when the ACC may make an official vote

The economics are continuing to be negotiated. However, the Tweets and rumors that Stanford or anyone else will be taking no revenue are patently false. That's not to say that Cal and Stanford will get an equal share in year one as the discussion of what that number will be is likely what's holding up the proceedings at this point. When that is finalized, expect to it be far closer to an equal share than zero. And very likely a plan to get to equality in the not-too-distant future (similar to the UCLA, USC, UW, and OU deals with the B10).

Meanwhile, Cal will continue to have internal discussions about its forward-looking budget which at this point almost certainly requires material cuts to the existing supported sports programs.

Cal Athletics like all FBS schools utilizes football revenue (which for many years now has predominately come from media rights) to support a rich and diverse set of sports. Football is also the lynchpin of broader alumni outreach and academic donor support. In a potential future inside the ACC, it becomes imperative IMO for the University to ensure that Cal Football is well funded in order to be competitive such that it can continue to be the cash cow that supports the rest of the Athletic department. That funding is going to have to come from the University, the UCLA stipend, as well as donors.

More to come . . .
Is Calimony from UCLA a factor?
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HKBear97! said:

BearGreg said:

Optimism is growing.

Tuesday the 22nd looms as the day when the ACC may make an official vote

The economics are continuing to be negotiated. However, the Tweets and rumors that Stanford or anyone else will be taking no revenue are patently false. That's not to say that Cal and Stanford will get an equal share in year one as the discussion of what that number will be is likely what's holding up the proceedings at this point. When that is finalized, expect to it be far closer to an equal share than zero. And very likely a plan to get to equality in the not-too-distant future (similar to the UCLA, USC, UW, and OU deals with the B10).

Meanwhile, Cal will continue to have internal discussions about its forward-looking budget which at this point almost certainly requires material cuts to the existing supported sports programs.

Cal Athletics like all FBS schools utilizes football revenue (which for many years now has predominately come from media rights) to support a rich and diverse set of sports. Football is also the lynchpin of broader alumni outreach and academic donor support. In a potential future inside the ACC, it becomes imperative IMO for the University to ensure that Cal Football is well funded in order to be competitive such that it can continue to be the cash cow that supports the rest of the Athletic department. That funding is going to have to come from the University, the UCLA stipend, as well as donors.

More to come . . .

Hmm, don't see this reported anywhere else. Color me skeptical….

Given all the mis-information, speculation and rumors out there it's reasonable to be skeptical, but there are people on this board who are getting their info from inside the program, not from some twitter hack

The insiders here have shared info on both the insider board and public board but can speak more freely on the insider board because there are fewer trolls

What they say has more credibility for me than anything short of an official announcement from a university or conference
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

I really apologize if this has already been answered. But IF cal gets an invite to the ACC, will it be for football only? Football/basketball only? Or all sports? Or has it not been determined yet?
Current ACC rules would require basketball both genders and soccer or women's volleyball to be included..
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

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.





I'm not including ucla et al cause if you do that, then you can presumably add furd/cal to the ACC and it would cancel them out.

But let's just compare the top half

Duke
Notre Dame (If they get to vote, they count)
Virginia
UNC
GT
BC

Northwestern
Michigan
Wisconsin
Rutgers
Illinois
Um Maryland I guess?

Not even close



Well you do have to count UCLA, USC, and Washington because they are part of the conference.

You can't count Cal and Stanford as part of what makes the ACC attractive academically because if we went to the B1G we would be added to their tally. You have to look exclusive of Cal and Stanford.

That said, both conferences are actually academically superior to the former Pac-12.


 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.