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

207,234 Views | 1043 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by annarborbear
Plague of Crickets
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ducky23 • 12:14a, 8/20/23
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

How do you measure academic quality? Most rankings certainly don't. US News, for example, includes metrics such as graduate indebtedness, class size, faculty compensation, and alumni giving rate, none of which has an obvious connection to "academic quality", even if you could precisely define such an amorphous thing. It also includes academic reputation (20% of the ranking), which is a circular measure that preserves the status quo regardless of actual quality.

Since we're talking about research universities, probably the best measure of performance is money spent on research and development, which is a proxy for research output. This is the metric that research university presidents care most about. Here are the Big Ten and ACC schools in the top 50:

Big Ten
3. Michigan
8. Wisconsin
12. Ohio State
17. Maryland
22. Minnesota
30. Northwestern
37. Illinois
39. Michigan State
40. Indiana
41. Purdue
45. Rutgers
50. Iowa

ACC
11. Duke
13. UNC
20. Georgia Tech
48. Virginia

Cal and Stanford fit better in the Big Ten IMO. Not that it really matters since the Big Ten doesn't seem willing to take either.

FWIW, Washington is 5, UCLA is 6, Stanford is 9, USC is 28, Cal is 32 (no medical school), and Oregon is 149 (which is pretty abysmal even for a university without a med school, and is lower than all Big Ten and ACC schools except for Boston College).

Source: https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ducky23 • 12:19a, 8/20/23
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.
Yup, this is exactly it. Any port in a storm. We get to stay in a power conference while we try to get our s*** together and improve the revenue sports so we are a more attractive option in the next round. Same for Stanford.

I can also see reasons why, besides the travel and loss of historical rivals, the ACC would be a better arrangement than the Pac-12 was (by the end) anyway. No more Pac-12 Network; everything is on an ESPN affiliate, so exposure is not a problem. We get to play more often in east coast friendly time slots. There will be attractive marquee matchups in both football and basketball (assuming both sports are going). The opportunity will be there to show our stuff if the teams get better.
Reply Quote
5
Econ141
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 12:26a, 8/20/23
sycasey 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.
Yup, this is exactly it. Any port in a storm. We get to stay in a power conference while we try to get our s*** together and improve the revenue sports so we are a more attractive option in the next round. Same for Stanford.

I can also see reasons why, besides the travel and loss of historical rivals, the ACC would be a better arrangement than the Pac-12 was (by the end) anyway. No more Pac-12 Network; everything is on an ESPN affiliate, so exposure is not a problem. We get to play more often in east coast friendly time slots. There will be attractive marquee matchups in both football and basketball (assuming both sports are going). The opportunity will be there to show our stuff if the teams get better.



Makes you wonder why the two schools don't get together to promote college football more in the Bay Area.

I bet if Marshawn Lynch and Desean got on 106.1 and 94.9 and said come support your local team against Clemson/Miami - that would bring some eyeballs over.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
CrazyPaco
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Plague of Crickets • 3:09a, 8/20/23
Uh, you forgot #18 Pitt there with total R&D but what most academic administrators would focus more on is total federal obligations in R&D, because federal research grants are mostly competitively obtained compared to looking at total R&D expenditures.

There are several ACC schools that a fairly small privates that are really just more undergrad focused, like BC. So while research is important, no one is going to consider Arizona a more prestigious school than Princeton just because Arizona is in the top 50 of total R&D expenditures.

If you average the current US News rankings, which are also primarily an undergraduate focused ranking, the mean ranking of schools currently members of the ACC is 54.5, while the mean ranking of schools of the Big10 is 60.4. If you including future additions USC, UCLA, Washington, & Oregon to the B10, their mean ranking is 58.4.

Reply Quote
4
8 edits
MTbear22
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 4:50a, 8/20/23
dimitrig said:

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.
If the options are ACC, MWC, or AAC, which would you prefer?
Reply Quote
5
Rushinbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 5:50a, 8/20/23
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.


By rep, ACC slightly better. Duke, UVA, UNC, NCS, VT, GT vs NW, MI, IN, IL, WI, now yUCLA. In reality, you can get a great ed on either side. Perception gives ACC the call...and which grads get the best grad schools and jobs.
Reply Quote
2
scibear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:54a, 8/20/23
This is great news - I am curious whether Cal and Stanford will be able to park the non revenue sports in the WCC or other regional conference and just have football, basketball and maybe baseball travel.
Reply Quote
Rushinbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 6:07a, 8/20/23
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.
One good thing about the ACC vs BIG, winter away games would be much more comfortable.
Reply Quote
3
6956bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ducky23 • 6:09a, 8/20/23
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.
The ACC has some good programs but only Clemson is a true beast. FSU is coming back to life. After that a bunch of pretty good teams Pitt, UNC, Miami and a few others. But Cal should be able to recruit well enough to be competitive in this league.

Notre Dame would be an occasional OOC game given their scheduling alliance with the ACC, but they are not a conference member for football. These ACC teams do not travel like the B1G teams. CMS could be a nice home advantage if the fans start to watch Cal football again.
Reply Quote
2
BearGreg
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wifeisafurd • 6:57a, 8/20/23
Staff
wifeisafurd 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 . . .
Is Calimony from UCLA a factor?
Absolutely, as is the elimination of sports
Reply Quote Next Staff
jdgaucho
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to scibear • 7:12a, 8/20/23
scibear said:
This is great news - I am curious whether Cal and Stanford will be able to park the non revenue sports in the WCC or other regional conference and just have football, basketball and maybe baseball travel.


Nope. Since the ACC sponsors most of those non revenue sports, they'd be going there as well.
Reply Quote
Shocky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:24a, 8/20/23
^^ 100% re: the elimination of sports

^ jd, ur stating inaccurate information is gonna raise ur malpractice coverage rates, cal non rev teams are heading to the west coast conference
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
WalterSobchak
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGreg • 7:27a, 8/20/23
I trust the argument is already being formed / made behind the scenes that the original Ucla payment discussions were based on the assumption that their departure would diminish the total value of the next Pac contract, not set into motion a series of events that would totally destroy the Pac and all value along with it. What Cal has faced has been far more severe than anything initially contemplated by the Regents and its lack of leverage is, at least in part, a direct result of Uclas conduct. In the scenario that actually unfolded the original $10M ceiling is too low and should be revised upward. Perhaps they should cover our travel increase, whatever that number turns out to be.
Please give to Cal Legends at https://calegends.com/calegendsdonate/donate-football/ and encourage everyone you know who loves Cal sports to do it too.

To be in the Top 1% of all NIL collectives we only need around 10% of alumni to give $300 per year. Please help spread the word. "If we don't broaden this base we're dead." - Sebastabear

Thanks for reading my sig! Please consider copying or adapting it and using it on all of your posts too. Go Bears!
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
RedlessWardrobe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:56a, 8/20/23
If this were to really happen I could see 8 to 10 ESPN conference games hosted by us and the Furd in the 7pm local time slot. Be ready for just as much or even more night football.
Reply Quote
4
DoubtfulBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to WalterSobchak • 8:00a, 8/20/23
WalterSobchak said:
I trust the argument is already being formed / made behind the scenes that the original Ucla payment discussions were based on the assumption that their departure would diminish the total value of the next Pac contract, not set into motion a series of events that would totally destroy the Pac and all value along with it. What Cal has faced has been far more severe than anything initially contemplated by the Regents and its lack of leverage is, at least in part, a direct result of Uclas conduct. In the scenario that actually unfolded the original $10M ceiling is too low and should be revised upward. Perhaps they should cover our travel increase, whatever that number turns out to be.
The Calimony equation has fundamentally changed since the Regents meeting in December. It's one thing to mandate a cash transfusion between a team in a strong conference for one in a weaker one. It's another thing when one team is about to flatline and the Regents need to decide between keeping two uncompetitive teams vs. letting the weaker one collapse so that at least one team remains healthy.
Reply Quote
3
CALiforniALUM
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DoubtfulBear • 8:54a, 8/20/23
DoubtfulBear said:
WalterSobchak said:
I trust the argument is already being formed / made behind the scenes that the original Ucla payment discussions were based on the assumption that their departure would diminish the total value of the next Pac contract, not set into motion a series of events that would totally destroy the Pac and all value along with it. What Cal has faced has been far more severe than anything initially contemplated by the Regents and its lack of leverage is, at least in part, a direct result of Uclas conduct. In the scenario that actually unfolded the original $10M ceiling is too low and should be revised upward. Perhaps they should cover our travel increase, whatever that number turns out to be.
The Calimony equation has fundamentally changed since the Regents meeting in December. It's one thing to mandate a cash transfusion between a team in a strong conference for one in a weaker one. It's another thing when one team is about to flatline and the Regents need to decide between keeping two uncompetitive teams vs. letting the weaker one collapse so that at least one team remains healthy.


Except I don't know how UCLA could be healthy if they have been operating in the red.
Reply Quote
2
Sactowndog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Shocky1 • 9:31a, 8/20/23
Shocky1 said:
^^ 100% re: the elimination of sports

^ jd, ur stating inaccurate information is gonna raise ur malpractice coverage rates, cal non rev teams are heading to the west coast conference


It will be interesting how the WCC coaches respond. I know the water polo coaches left the MPSF because Cal used their influence and money to expand their roster beyond what the private schools could afford. I doubt they would be happy to see Cal with unequal revenue and a history of tilting the playing field joining the conference for non-revenue sports.
Reply Quote
91Cal
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sactowndog • 9:53a, 8/20/23
Sactowndog said:
Shocky1 said:
^^ 100% re: the elimination of sports

^ jd, ur stating inaccurate information is gonna raise ur malpractice coverage rates, cal non rev teams are heading to the west coast conference


It will be interesting how the WCC coaches respond. I know the water polo coaches left the MPSF because Cal used their influence and money to expand their roster beyond what the private schools could afford. I doubt they would be happy to see Cal with unequal revenue and a history of tilting the playing field joining the conference for non-revenue sports.

Stop
Reply Quote
12
MTbear22
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sactowndog • 10:21a, 8/20/23
Sactowndog said:
Shocky1 said:
^^ 100% re: the elimination of sports

^ jd, ur stating inaccurate information is gonna raise ur malpractice coverage rates, cal non rev teams are heading to the west coast conference


It will be interesting how the WCC coaches respond. I know the water polo coaches left the MPSF because Cal used their influence and money to expand their roster beyond what the private schools could afford. I doubt they would be happy to see Cal with unequal revenue and a history of tilting the playing field joining the conference for non-revenue sports.
You need a new hobby
Reply Quote
19
Sactowndog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 91Cal • 10:22a, 8/20/23
91Cal said:
Sactowndog said:
Shocky1 said:
^^ 100% re: the elimination of sports

^ jd, ur stating inaccurate information is gonna raise ur malpractice coverage rates, cal non rev teams are heading to the west coast conference


It will be interesting how the WCC coaches respond. I know the water polo coaches left the MPSF because Cal used their influence and money to expand their roster beyond what the private schools could afford. I doubt they would be happy to see Cal with unequal revenue and a history of tilting the playing field joining the conference for non-revenue sports.

Stop


Just giving you facts. Look at the creation of the GCC as a Water Polo only conference and look who drove it.
Reply Quote
juarezbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 91Cal • 10:35a, 8/20/23
91Cal said:
Sactowndog said:
Shocky1 said:
^^ 100% re: the elimination of sports

^ jd, ur stating inaccurate information is gonna raise ur malpractice coverage rates, cal non rev teams are heading to the west coast conference


It will be interesting how the WCC coaches respond. I know the water polo coaches left the MPSF because Cal used their influence and money to expand their roster beyond what the private schools could afford. I doubt they would be happy to see Cal with unequal revenue and a history of tilting the playing field joining the conference for non-revenue sports.

Stop


I think they'll remain in the MPSF with Furd, UCLA, and SC.
Reply Quote
1
Shocky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:40a, 8/20/23
^ agreed mpsf & wcc are the most likely non rev homes
Reply Quote
CAL4LIFE
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGreg • 11:31a, 8/20/23
BearGreg said:
wifeisafurd 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 . . .
Is Calimony from UCLA a factor?
Absolutely, as is the elimination of sports
A start but not nearly good enough. I don't disagree that the IAD is too big and that certain sports need to go. What those sports are w/ title IX considerations in tow is going to be tricky. I know for a fact that there are enough donors willing to dig in and endow their sport of choice as long as the IAD doesn't put their greedy little hands on their funding efforts - a current problem at Cal.

Also, cutting sports, while great for general optics, doesn't really address the biggest issues which are...
  • Regents that hire ****ty Chancellors
  • Chancellors who hire ****ty AD's
  • AD's who turn into Jim Knowlton
  • Lack of financial priority for Cal Football
  • Lack of stewardship for the athlete & student experience
  • Bloated administration w/ associate AD's who offer nothing
  • Alums that don't leverage their donations for better outcomes
  • Lack of business savvy and execution
  • Event and Facilities Management myopia
  • Basic marketing failures
  • And not having the balls or political gamesmanship to claim eminent domain and tell the nimbies to shove it.

Lastly, athletic facilities and housing need to be prioritized. Cal is way behind on this and it needs a focused capital planning group with a forward thinking mission statement that puts athletes in the best position to win on and off the field.

Involving former athletes who have experienced Cal can help focus in on these issues.

This is a seminal moment for Cal Athletics. Clean it up for good this time or meet relegation forever.
Reply Quote
13
3 edits
berserkeley
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sactowndog • 11:44a, 8/20/23
Sactowndog said:
91Cal said:
Sactowndog said:
Shocky1 said:
^^ 100% re: the elimination of sports

^ jd, ur stating inaccurate information is gonna raise ur malpractice coverage rates, cal non rev teams are heading to the west coast conference


It will be interesting how the WCC coaches respond. I know the water polo coaches left the MPSF because Cal used their influence and money to expand their roster beyond what the private schools could afford. I doubt they would be happy to see Cal with unequal revenue and a history of tilting the playing field joining the conference for non-revenue sports.

Stop


Just giving you facts. Look at the creation of the GCC as a Water Polo only conference and look who drove it.


Sure, it was about Cal and not all 4 MPSF teams. Besides, the MPSF isn't going anywhere.
Reply Quote
1
BearSD
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jdgaucho • 11:44a, 8/20/23
jdgaucho said:
scibear said:
This is great news - I am curious whether Cal and Stanford will be able to park the non revenue sports in the WCC or other regional conference and just have football, basketball and maybe baseball travel.

Nope. Since the ACC sponsors most of those non revenue sports, they'd be going there as well.
Unless football is the only sport going to the ACC, then most of the other sports have to go along. I think there's a minimum number of sports that each team has to play in the same conference where their basketball teams play.
Reply Quote
1
CALiforniALUM
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CAL4LIFE • 6:32p, 8/20/23
CAL4LIFE said:
BearGreg said:
wifeisafurd 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 . . .
Is Calimony from UCLA a factor?
Absolutely, as is the elimination of sports
A start but not nearly good enough. I don't disagree that the IAD is too big and that certain sports need to go. What those sports are w/ title IX considerations in tow is going to be tricky. I know for a fact that there are enough donors willing to dig in and endow their sport of choice as long as the IAD doesn't put their greedy little hands on their funding efforts - a current problem at Cal.

Also, cutting sports, while great for general optics, doesn't really address the biggest issues which are...
  • Regents that hire ****ty Chancellors
  • Chancellors who hire ****ty AD's
  • AD's who turn into Jim Knowlton
  • Lack of financial priority for Cal Football
  • Lack of stewardship for the athlete & student experience
  • Bloated administration w/ associate AD's who offer nothing
  • Alums that don't leverage their donations for better outcomes
  • Lack of business savvy and execution
  • Event and Facilities Management myopia
  • Basic marketing failures
  • And not having the balls or political gamesmanship to claim imminent domain and tell the nimbies to shove it.

Lastly, athletic facilities and housing need to be prioritized. Cal is way behind on this and it needs a focused capital planning group with a forward thinking mission statement that puts athletes in the best position to win on and off the field.

Involving former athletes who have experienced Cal can help focus in on these issues.

This is a seminal moment for Cal Athletics. Clean it up for good this time or meet relegation forever.



cal4Life can you dig into this point a bit more?

"Alums that don't leverage their donations for better outcomes"

In particular can you suggest how a small donor should best leverage their donations? I suspect your answer will start with give to the NIL fund, but that will only be as effective as the Administration and its management of the Athletic Department. Zero confidence that the NIL fund will be effective if the administration doesn't get its own shiit in order. Were you thinking of something else?
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CALiforniALUM • 7:18p, 8/20/23
CALiforniALUM said:
CAL4LIFE said:
BearGreg said:
wifeisafurd 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 . . .
Is Calimony from UCLA a factor?
Absolutely, as is the elimination of sports
A start but not nearly good enough. I don't disagree that the IAD is too big and that certain sports need to go. What those sports are w/ title IX considerations in tow is going to be tricky. I know for a fact that there are enough donors willing to dig in and endow their sport of choice as long as the IAD doesn't put their greedy little hands on their funding efforts - a current problem at Cal.

Also, cutting sports, while great for general optics, doesn't really address the biggest issues which are...
  • Regents that hire ****ty Chancellors
  • Chancellors who hire ****ty AD's
  • AD's who turn into Jim Knowlton
  • Lack of financial priority for Cal Football
  • Lack of stewardship for the athlete & student experience
  • Bloated administration w/ associate AD's who offer nothing
  • Alums that don't leverage their donations for better outcomes
  • Lack of business savvy and execution
  • Event and Facilities Management myopia
  • Basic marketing failures
  • And not having the balls or political gamesmanship to claim imminent domain and tell the nimbies to shove it.

Lastly, athletic facilities and housing need to be prioritized. Cal is way behind on this and it needs a focused capital planning group with a forward thinking mission statement that puts athletes in the best position to win on and off the field.

Involving former athletes who have experienced Cal can help focus in on these issues.

This is a seminal moment for Cal Athletics. Clean it up for good this time or meet relegation forever.



cal4Life can you dig into this point a bit more?

"Alums that don't leverage their donations for better outcomes"

In particular can you suggest how a small donor should best leverage their donations? I suspect your answer will start with give to the NIL fund, but that will only be as effective as the Administration and its management of the Athletic Department. Zero confidence that the NIL fund will be effective if the administration doesn't get its own shiit in order. Were you thinking of something else?

The NIL fund is privately run and outside the control of the AD. You are safe to donate to them.
Reply Quote
9
CalBearinLA
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CALiforniALUM • 9:23p, 8/20/23
CALiforniALUM said:
CAL4LIFE said:
BearGreg said:
wifeisafurd 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 . . .
Is Calimony from UCLA a factor?
Absolutely, as is the elimination of sports
A start but not nearly good enough. I don't disagree that the IAD is too big and that certain sports need to go. What those sports are w/ title IX considerations in tow is going to be tricky. I know for a fact that there are enough donors willing to dig in and endow their sport of choice as long as the IAD doesn't put their greedy little hands on their funding efforts - a current problem at Cal.

Also, cutting sports, while great for general optics, doesn't really address the biggest issues which are...
  • Regents that hire ****ty Chancellors
  • Chancellors who hire ****ty AD's
  • AD's who turn into Jim Knowlton
  • Lack of financial priority for Cal Football
  • Lack of stewardship for the athlete & student experience
  • Bloated administration w/ associate AD's who offer nothing
  • Alums that don't leverage their donations for better outcomes
  • Lack of business savvy and execution
  • Event and Facilities Management myopia
  • Basic marketing failures
  • And not having the balls or political gamesmanship to claim imminent domain and tell the nimbies to shove it.

Lastly, athletic facilities and housing need to be prioritized. Cal is way behind on this and it needs a focused capital planning group with a forward thinking mission statement that puts athletes in the best position to win on and off the field.

Involving former athletes who have experienced Cal can help focus in on these issues.

This is a seminal moment for Cal Athletics. Clean it up for good this time or meet relegation forever.



cal4Life can you dig into this point a bit more?

"Alums that don't leverage their donations for better outcomes"

In particular can you suggest how a small donor should best leverage their donations? I suspect your answer will start with give to the NIL fund, but that will only be as effective as the Administration and its management of the Athletic Department. Zero confidence that the NIL fund will be effective if the administration doesn't get its own shiit in order. Were you thinking of something else?
This is not correct.
Reply Quote
1
91Cal
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to berserkeley • 10:40p, 8/20/23
berserkeley said:
Sactowndog said:
91Cal said:
Sactowndog said:
Shocky1 said:
^^ 100% re: the elimination of sports

^ jd, ur stating inaccurate information is gonna raise ur malpractice coverage rates, cal non rev teams are heading to the west coast conference


It will be interesting how the WCC coaches respond. I know the water polo coaches left the MPSF because Cal used their influence and money to expand their roster beyond what the private schools could afford. I doubt they would be happy to see Cal with unequal revenue and a history of tilting the playing field joining the conference for non-revenue sports.

Stop


Just giving you facts. Look at the creation of the GCC as a Water Polo only conference and look who drove it.


Sure, it was about Cal and not all 4 MPSF teams. Besides, the MPSF isn't going anywhere.

The previous MPSF schools left to have a better chance at post season play and this was choreographed with expanding the men's field. All good things for the sport at the collegiate level. That's it. Now, please stop.
Reply Quote
2
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ducky23 • 1:55a, 8/21/23
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.


Who even is the ACC these days???
Reply Quote
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGreg • 2:24a, 8/21/23
BearGreg said:


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 . . .


What is this UCLA stipend you mention?
Reply Quote
Anon378
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:09a, 8/21/23
We'll see if ACC really does happen, but can you imagine Duke vs Cal in Haas
Reply Quote
7
CALiforniALUM
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CalBearinLA • 4:15a, 8/21/23
CalBearinLA said:
CALiforniALUM said:
CAL4LIFE said:
BearGreg said:
wifeisafurd 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 . . .
Is Calimony from UCLA a factor?
Absolutely, as is the elimination of sports
A start but not nearly good enough. I don't disagree that the IAD is too big and that certain sports need to go. What those sports are w/ title IX considerations in tow is going to be tricky. I know for a fact that there are enough donors willing to dig in and endow their sport of choice as long as the IAD doesn't put their greedy little hands on their funding efforts - a current problem at Cal.

Also, cutting sports, while great for general optics, doesn't really address the biggest issues which are...
  • Regents that hire ****ty Chancellors
  • Chancellors who hire ****ty AD's
  • AD's who turn into Jim Knowlton
  • Lack of financial priority for Cal Football
  • Lack of stewardship for the athlete & student experience
  • Bloated administration w/ associate AD's who offer nothing
  • Alums that don't leverage their donations for better outcomes
  • Lack of business savvy and execution
  • Event and Facilities Management myopia
  • Basic marketing failures
  • And not having the balls or political gamesmanship to claim imminent domain and tell the nimbies to shove it.

Lastly, athletic facilities and housing need to be prioritized. Cal is way behind on this and it needs a focused capital planning group with a forward thinking mission statement that puts athletes in the best position to win on and off the field.

Involving former athletes who have experienced Cal can help focus in on these issues.

This is a seminal moment for Cal Athletics. Clean it up for good this time or meet relegation forever.



cal4Life can you dig into this point a bit more?

"Alums that don't leverage their donations for better outcomes"

In particular can you suggest how a small donor should best leverage their donations? I suspect your answer will start with give to the NIL fund, but that will only be as effective as the Administration and its management of the Athletic Department. Zero confidence that the NIL fund will be effective if the administration doesn't get its own shiit in order. Were you thinking of something else?
This is not correct.


How is that not correct? If the administration fails to keep Cal legitimate by ensuring our place in a Power conference then the privately funded and managed NIL is dead in the water for a multitude of reasons. Least of which is that current athletes would head to the door and we are not likely to sustain any donations or athletes worthy of NIL if the administration decides we are best suited to play in a MWC level league. My earlier point is that the school administration and NIL Collective are dependent on each other. One won't be successful without the other. So my question still stands, what kind of signal can the collective send to small donors to instill confidence that the administration isn't going to be as inept as it has fior many decades. This entire situation of late has confirmed my suspicions that most everything that ails Cal sports is based with the administration and not the coaches, players, and fans. The coaches, players, and fans are t symptoms of the problem.
Reply Quote
Sactowndog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 91Cal • 7:01a, 8/21/23
91Cal said:
berserkeley said:
Sactowndog said:
91Cal said:
Sactowndog said:
Shocky1 said:
^^ 100% re: the elimination of sports

^ jd, ur stating inaccurate information is gonna raise ur malpractice coverage rates, cal non rev teams are heading to the west coast conference


It will be interesting how the WCC coaches respond. I know the water polo coaches left the MPSF because Cal used their influence and money to expand their roster beyond what the private schools could afford. I doubt they would be happy to see Cal with unequal revenue and a history of tilting the playing field joining the conference for non-revenue sports.

Stop


Just giving you facts. Look at the creation of the GCC as a Water Polo only conference and look who drove it.


Sure, it was about Cal and not all 4 MPSF teams. Besides, the MPSF isn't going anywhere.

The previous MPSF schools left to have a better chance at post season play and this was choreographed with expanding the men's field. All good things for the sport at the collegiate level. That's it. Now, please stop.


An easier path because Cal was fielding a roster twice the size of the WCC/Big West teams. Unlimited roster sizes at a subset of wealthy schools is not good for the sport.
Reply Quote
BearGreg
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 7:18a, 8/21/23
Staff
concordtom said:
BearGreg said:


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 . . .


What is this UCLA stipend you mention?
Regents create a "Berkeley Tax" for UCLA

"The Pac-12's upcoming deal will likely pale in comparison, so much so that the regents voted to have UCLA pay Cal, the system's remaining Pac-12 member, a "Berkeley tax" of $2 million to $10 million per year to offset what the school will lose in a Pac-12 without its Los Angeles schools."
Reply Quote Next Staff
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.