Shocky1 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

the monster gameplan for the cal athletic department:

there's gonna be significantly less revenues for the athletic department in the forseeable future & that's why knowlton's decision in fiscal year 2022 to borrow $11,000,000 (which he directed his staff to try to keep secret which necessitated multiple public records requests by me) wuz malpractice...apologists will argue that borrowing money from the central campus is a standard operating mechanism, these are not ordinary times & the "good ol' days" of collegiate athletics (for schools not already in the sec or big 10) are firmly in the rearview mirror

the financial reality for the cal athletic department is significantly less revenues in the future primarily from reduced acc media rights revenues & non football specific donations to the athletic department due to the growth of nil fundraising & the aging berkeley donor community which is not gaining any traction (building a pipeline) with younger future megadonors...the fake "light a hole in ur wallet" berkeley fundraising numbers are not dollars that are actually collected, got it?

so whether it be the con artist & his evil as **** confidante jennifer simon-o'neil (both of them got their days numbered in berkeley) continuing their bureaucratic wayward lack of vision or new leadership such as andrew mcgraw as the next (perhaps interim until adela de la torre hopefully comes on board in july of 2024) athletic director, cal will no longer be able to field 30+ teams (many of them underperforming for years) & will need to cut teams/reduce expenses

the next athletic director will need to quickly work within title ix constraints in revamping the currently bloated athletic department bureaucracy with the following teams in a new much more streamlined operation that focuses resources on football thereby facilitating the competition for championships in all remaining sports that will be competing in the west coast conference:

1. football
2. men's basketball
3. men's swimming & diving
4. men's water polo
5. men's golf
6. men's tennis
7. women's basketball
8. softball
9. women's soccer
10. women's swimming & diving
11. women's water polo
12. women's volleyball
13. women's golf
14. women's tennis
15. women's rowing
16. women's gymnastics

notes: baseball & both track and field/cross country programs would be terminated with current schollys honored thru graduation & the valuable land upon which evans field & edwards stadium r situated would be repurposed...men's soccer, women's lacrosse & women's field hockey would be shuttered...women's beach volleyball players would be offered roster spots with the failing women's volleyball program thru graduation...men's rugby, men's rowing & men's gymnastics would become club sports, fully expect jack clark to go nuclear on this necessary decision in his predictable myopic rage to defend his turf

a new dawn in berkeley with financial accountability#

---

monster gameplan:

the latest version of the donor mandated (in exchange for direct football funding) cost cutting of the knowlton/lowry financially undisciplined debt riddled spending is to the reduce the number of sport teams in berkeley from 28 to 22 & not the 16 monster endorsed number of teams as outlined above...furthermore, despite 53 counters (which is the key metric for title ix compliance) for rugby & 78 counters for men's rowing they would not become club sports at this time due to internal politics/pushback

the remaining 22 teams would send 4 teams (men's & women's swimming/diving & water polo) to the mountain pacific sports federation...of the other 18 teams football would charter flights for the 4-5 acc road games every season & the other 17 programs would compete in the acc & co charter flights with stanford for east coat travel

the wcc will likely not be a home for the non rev teams at this time but fully expect this still to happen as ncca conference rules are adjusted to the new financial realities for schools outside of the p2 (sec & big 10)

got it?

https://instagr.am/p/CEdiU-3AzZk

---

While SMU has agreed to take zero for 7 years, Cal & Stanford are expected to start at a 30% Tier 1 share (roughly $8-10M each).

The schools, joining in all spots, would sign the Grant-of-Rights thru 2036 & would earn a full share by the contract’s end.https://t.co/JBSAB4DG8g

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) August 23, 2023

acc update: the reality is that if cal is fortunate enough to receive an acc invitation (the other alternative is the end of football as we know it) it's gonna take a major financial hit, the other reports that calford wuz gonna receive near full shares wuz just wishful best scenario thinking

cal has minimal bargaining power in these negotiations & continued concessions have been necessary to get the flip vote(s)

that's why reducing expenses now needs to happen, knowlton's failure to take action is moving the department's finances into a deeper hole...that's why the last update here of 22 sports is not realistic, it needs to be trimmed to 16 as outlined in the 1st post here

and the plan to share charter planes with stanford wuz a dumb as **** plan for anybody who got access to a map, got it?...unlike the pac 12 the acc schools are generally speaking not closely situated to one another...miami is not a 20 minute bus ride away from tallahassee, jim

lastly it's also not financially feasible for cal's non revenue sports teams (other than the one's joining the mountain pacific sports federation) to travel to the east coast...at the end of the day only football and both men's & women's basketball programs should be joining the acc

knowlton & his confidante in crime jennifer simon-o'neil need to be terminated as quickly as possible, his continued financial irresponsibility makes him the wrong person to navigate the department thru the upcoming tumultuous times, the con artist's solution to this mess would be to just borrow more money...appoint andrew mcgraw as the interim athletic director & beth tafolla-voetsch in charge of women's sports until such time that frontrunner adela de la torre is announced as the next chancellor of berkeley in june of 2024

my 1st post in this thread continues to stand as the most accurate & likely outcome re: conference alignment courses of action...football and men's & women's basketball invitations to the acc, the majority of the other teams to the west coast conference & cal sport teams reduced from the current 28 to 16

---

Post deleted.

The ACC will never live to see 2036.

philly1121 said:

---

The ACC will never live to see 2036.

---

Agreed, I was being facetious. Ramping up to "full share by the end of the (ACC) contract" (2036) is not like the deal Oregon and UW got with the B1G, where they will be full members in just a few years.

I do think signing away our GORs until 2036 is an issue for consideration. I am excited about the ACC, but what if a year from now the B1G realizes we would be great additions to the West Coast pod? I wonder if we can get a reduced exit fee? How strongly does the ACC feel about this?

Otherwise, ACC would be great as long as it lasts. I am ready to celebrate.

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

The ACC will never live to see 2036.

---

Agreed, I was being facetious. Ramping up to "full share by the end of the (ACC) contract" (2036) is not like the deal Oregon and UW got with the B1G, where they will be full members in just a few years.

I do think signing away our GORs until 2036 is an issue for consideration. I am excited about the ACC, but what if a year from now the B1G realizes we would be great additions to the West Coast pod? I wonder if we can get a reduced exit fee? How strongly does the ACC feel about this?

Otherwise, ACC would be great as long as it lasts. I am ready to celebrate.

---

Yup. And though I would also say it's likely that the ACC breaks up before the end of their GOR, I wouldn't put it at 100% chance. The media environment is changing quickly and there could be stuff we can't see ahead.

philly1121 said:

---

The ACC will never live to see 2036.

---

Disagree. If these additions happen, then the ACC will have 17 full members. There's no scenario in which enough of those 17 schools would find their way into the SEC or Big Ten to leave the ACC with too few to continue.

With all the reports, this has to be contemplated: will the ACC ditch the "Atlantic" title and just go by "ACC"? Or American Coastal Conference? Lol

All Coast conference

Dothechop2 said:

---

All Coast conference

---

When I was pushing for a PAC-10 ACC merger I wanted Pacific Atlantic Coast Confetence or PACC. I'm not sure two Pacific members can make that happen.

philly1121 said:

---

The ACC will never live to see 2036.

---

The fact that it's the top basketball conference provides it with some basic stability.

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

The ACC will never live to see 2036.

---

Agreed, I was being facetious. Ramping up to "full share by the end of the (ACC) contract" (2036) is not like the deal Oregon and UW got with the B1G, where they will be full members in just a few years.

I do think signing away our GORs until 2036 is an issue for consideration. I am excited about the ACC, but what if a year from now the B1G realizes we would be great additions to the West Coast pod? I wonder if we can get a reduced exit fee? How strongly does the ACC feel about this?

Otherwise, ACC would be great as long as it lasts. I am ready to celebrate.

---

The B1G isn't happening any time soon. And if it was, the ACC would definitely not grant a reduced exit fee.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

While SMU has agreed to take zero for 7 years, Cal & Stanford are expected to start at a 30% Tier 1 share (roughly $8-10M each).

The schools, joining in all spots, would sign the Grant-of-Rights thru 2036 & would earn a full share by the contract’s end.https://t.co/JBSAB4DG8g

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) August 23, 2023

---

$8 to 10 million each? Wow, really not worth much, are we?

Wilner ran an article where he worked with an "expert in sports media valuation" that ran scenarios of joining with various Mountain West schools that got to around $10 million per school, without the cross-country travel involved. If it's truly $8 to 10 million, does the ACC make sense?

Here's the article from Wilner - https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2023-08-14/pac-12-hotline-what-might-a-super-mountain-west-or-reconfigured-pac-12-both-with-sdsu-be-worth

---

Since when has Wilner ever made sense? We may have a bird in the hand, should we let it go for a bird in the bush? Let's also not forget what the differences are for recruiting, donations, and coach retention if we are in the ACC vs the MWC. Not even comparable. Lastly, this move to the ACC is not forever and allows us the best chance to improve our product on the field before the next phase of realignment. However, make no bones about it, cross country travel may be more of the reality moving forward than not.

---

He makes sense because the basic economics of our move puts us at a disadvantage. If we're only going to earn $8-10 million then cuts will need to be made. And if we join the ACC, expenses will go up. So from a pure economic sense, the deal is a loss leader. We are only making it so we can stay "relevant". Now - I get that. I agree that the ACC is more high profile than the MWC. But its gonna come at a cost.

As far as others who think that the ACC will last until 2036. Uh, no. To FSU and Clemson - they feel they are losing $30 million plus per season rather than gaining $10-15 million by adding us. They're losing money either way.

The B1G media deal expires in 2029/30. That's the lifespan of the ACC.

philly1121 said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

While SMU has agreed to take zero for 7 years, Cal & Stanford are expected to start at a 30% Tier 1 share (roughly $8-10M each).

The schools, joining in all spots, would sign the Grant-of-Rights thru 2036 & would earn a full share by the contract’s end.https://t.co/JBSAB4DG8g

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) August 23, 2023

---

$8 to 10 million each? Wow, really not worth much, are we?

Wilner ran an article where he worked with an "expert in sports media valuation" that ran scenarios of joining with various Mountain West schools that got to around $10 million per school, without the cross-country travel involved. If it's truly $8 to 10 million, does the ACC make sense?

Here's the article from Wilner - https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2023-08-14/pac-12-hotline-what-might-a-super-mountain-west-or-reconfigured-pac-12-both-with-sdsu-be-worth

---

Since when has Wilner ever made sense? We may have a bird in the hand, should we let it go for a bird in the bush? Let's also not forget what the differences are for recruiting, donations, and coach retention if we are in the ACC vs the MWC. Not even comparable. Lastly, this move to the ACC is not forever and allows us the best chance to improve our product on the field before the next phase of realignment. However, make no bones about it, cross country travel may be more of the reality moving forward than not.

---

He makes sense because the basic economics of our move puts us at a disadvantage. If we're only going to earn $8-10 million then cuts will need to be made. And if we join the ACC, expenses will go up. So from a pure economic sense, the deal is a loss leader. We are only making it so we can stay "relevant". Now - I get that. I agree that the ACC is more high profile than the MWC. But its gonna come at a cost.

As far as others who think that the ACC will last until 2036. Uh, no. To FSU and Clemson - they feel they are losing $30 million plus per season rather than gaining $10-15 million by adding us. They're losing money either way.

The B1G media deal expires in 2029/30. That's the lifespan of the ACC.

---

Big question is will ESPN go bankrupt before 2029? I think they made a 3 billion profit on ~ 14 billion in revenue last year. That does not mean they are worth 30-60 billion (10-20x earning range) because their cable sub are trending down. Lose 25% of subs, and they might be at the break even point, without a total paradigm shift in revenue generation(ie direct to consumer). And they will probably lose 25% of subs in 4 years, if the current cord cutting rate continues. I'm not even sure they will want to put down huge bucks for the CFB playoff in 2026 if their direct to consumer revenue model isn't hashed out.

Cal88 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

The ACC will never live to see 2036.

---

The fact that it's the top basketball conference provides it with some basic stability.

---

Is it, though?

I think the B1G and Big 12 have surpassed it the past couple of years. You still have the Duke and UNC brands, and UVA...but Louisville and 'Cuse being down of late has really hurt the perception.

Yeah, I mean, that's the trade off right? We stay in a P5 to maintain visibility and donor support. But cuts are looming and expenses go up.

Cabin14 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

The ACC will never live to see 2036.

---

The fact that it's the top basketball conference provides it with some basic stability.

---

Is it, though?

I think the B1G and Big 12 have surpassed it the past couple of years. You still have the Duke and UNC brands, and UVA...but Louisville and 'Cuse being down of late has really hurt the perception.

---

I think the Big XII is clearly the best basketball conference right now and has been for several years. And now they're adding Houston and Cincy.

ColoradoBear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

While SMU has agreed to take zero for 7 years, Cal & Stanford are expected to start at a 30% Tier 1 share (roughly $8-10M each).

The schools, joining in all spots, would sign the Grant-of-Rights thru 2036 & would earn a full share by the contract’s end.https://t.co/JBSAB4DG8g

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) August 23, 2023

---

$8 to 10 million each? Wow, really not worth much, are we?

Wilner ran an article where he worked with an "expert in sports media valuation" that ran scenarios of joining with various Mountain West schools that got to around $10 million per school, without the cross-country travel involved. If it's truly $8 to 10 million, does the ACC make sense?

Here's the article from Wilner - https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2023-08-14/pac-12-hotline-what-might-a-super-mountain-west-or-reconfigured-pac-12-both-with-sdsu-be-worth

---

Since when has Wilner ever made sense? We may have a bird in the hand, should we let it go for a bird in the bush? Let's also not forget what the differences are for recruiting, donations, and coach retention if we are in the ACC vs the MWC. Not even comparable. Lastly, this move to the ACC is not forever and allows us the best chance to improve our product on the field before the next phase of realignment. However, make no bones about it, cross country travel may be more of the reality moving forward than not.

---

He makes sense because the basic economics of our move puts us at a disadvantage. If we're only going to earn $8-10 million then cuts will need to be made. And if we join the ACC, expenses will go up. So from a pure economic sense, the deal is a loss leader. We are only making it so we can stay "relevant". Now - I get that. I agree that the ACC is more high profile than the MWC. But its gonna come at a cost.

As far as others who think that the ACC will last until 2036. Uh, no. To FSU and Clemson - they feel they are losing $30 million plus per season rather than gaining $10-15 million by adding us. They're losing money either way.

The B1G media deal expires in 2029/30. That's the lifespan of the ACC.

---

Big question is will ESPN go bankrupt before 2029? I think they made a 3 billion profit on ~ 14 billion in revenue last year. That does not mean they are worth 30-60 billion (10-20x earning range) because their cable sub are trending down. Lose 25% of subs, and they might be at the break even point, without a total paradigm shift in revenue generation(ie direct to consumer). And they will probably lose 25% of subs in 4 years, if the current cord cutting rate continues. I'm not even sure they will want to put down huge bucks for the CFB playoff in 2026 if their direct to consumer revenue model isn't hashed out.

---

I think Apple is waiting for ESPN's value to nosedive and will swoop in and buy it on the cheap.

sycasey said:

---

I would caution against judging the media deal strictly on the "30% of Tier 1 rights" figure quoted above.

1. Could be that article is wrong. Remember there were outlets reporting that Stanford was taking zero payout.
2. There are more than Tier 1 media rights paid out in the ACC. We would need to know the full package before judging how much of a financial hit it is.

---

I agree - the reporting is skewed towards how the new teams discounts pay the other teams - somewhat understandably as their yes votes are kinda dependent on their satisfaction to a pay bump opportunities (among other factors as Conference stability into the future, CA recruiting, GOR vote factions), but definitely not coming from a what do Cal/Stanford/SMU receive perspective. The reporting on Oregon and Washington didn't only mention their Tier 1 rights, it just said 50% of total media. Pretty lame journalism because it leads to skewed commentary on it.

sycasey said:

---

I would caution against judging the media deal strictly on the "30% of Tier 1 rights" figure quoted above.

1. Could be that article is wrong. Remember there were outlets reporting that Stanford was taking zero payout.
2. There are more than Tier 1 media rights paid out in the ACC. We would need to know the full package before judging how much of a financial hit it is.

---

ACC made about $9m /per outside television rights in 2021-22 (tourney credits and bowl payouts). If it's based off tier 1 rights ($24m), then the ACCN share (of around $7m) is not included in the withholding. So that would be around $23m based on 2022 numbers. And then the unknown playoff windfall.

JeepCSC said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I would caution against judging the media deal strictly on the "30% of Tier 1 rights" figure quoted above.

1. Could be that article is wrong. Remember there were outlets reporting that Stanford was taking zero payout.
2. There are more than Tier 1 media rights paid out in the ACC. We would need to know the full package before judging how much of a financial hit it is.

---

ACC made about $9m /per outside television rights in 2021-22 (tourney credits and bowl payouts). If it's based off tier 1 rights ($24m), then the ACCN share (of around $7m) is not included in the withholding. So that would be around $23m based on 2022 numbers. And then the unknown playoff windfall.

---

I think this is right on. Add in the Calimony and you get close to what we are getting today. And as it goes forward, over time this will be more than our current. I do not believe that the percentages as of today are until the end of the full deal.

The ACC folks will take some of the money from the discount and give it to all of the schools for travel assistance, and some of the money and put it in a pot based either on a full share of the remaining schools or split it up based on TV performance, ranking, etc. That is to get the votes is my guess.

I think the playoff money would be huge, especially if there are two or more teams from the ACC. That will be heavily skewed to the big dogs but frankly everyone will get some of that - that could be an extra 5 million or more per school, and perhaps 20 or 30 million to the playoff participants. So that 9 million may be closer to 14 million after the playoff expansion.

Why are you even hypothesizing CAL's take in the ACC?Why don't we get in first and let the dice roll where it rolls. Nothing we can do except wait. It's sounding more likely that we get an invite to the ACC. Right now, that's all I want.

calumnus said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

Cabin14 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

The ACC will never live to see 2036.

---

The fact that it's the top basketball conference provides it with some basic stability.

---

Is it, though?

I think the B1G and Big 12 have surpassed it the past couple of years. You still have the Duke and UNC brands, and UVA...but Louisville and 'Cuse being down of late has really hurt the perception.

---

I think the Big XII is clearly the best basketball conference right now and has been for several years. And now they're adding Houston and Cincy.

---

And Arizona

---

You're right, that's quite the brain fart on my end. That's a helluva basketball league.

HateRed said:

---

Why are you even hypothesizing CAL's take in the ACC?Why don't we get in first and let the dice roll where it rolls. Nothing we can do except wait. It's sounding more likely that we get an invite to the ACC. Right now, that's all I want.

---

This

JimSox said:

---

HateRed said:

---

Why are you even hypothesizing CAL's take in the ACC?Why don't we get in first and let the dice roll where it rolls. Nothing we can do except wait. It's sounding more likely that we get an invite to the ACC. Right now, that's all I want.

---

This

---

New to the interwebz?

91Cal said:

---

JimSox said:

---

HateRed said:

---

Why are you even hypothesizing CAL's take in the ACC?Why don't we get in first and let the dice roll where it rolls. Nothing we can do except wait. It's sounding more likely that we get an invite to the ACC. Right now, that's all I want.

---

This

---

New to the interwebz?

---

Right? In the absence of concrete information there is speculation. If people don't want to participate or even see it, maybe try staying away and waiting for Christ's official announcement in your inbox instead of coming here to shush people? I get that people are stressed. Hopefully we hear something soon.

philly1121 said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

While SMU has agreed to take zero for 7 years, Cal & Stanford are expected to start at a 30% Tier 1 share (roughly $8-10M each).

The schools, joining in all spots, would sign the Grant-of-Rights thru 2036 & would earn a full share by the contract’s end.https://t.co/JBSAB4DG8g

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) August 23, 2023

---

$8 to 10 million each? Wow, really not worth much, are we?

Wilner ran an article where he worked with an "expert in sports media valuation" that ran scenarios of joining with various Mountain West schools that got to around $10 million per school, without the cross-country travel involved. If it's truly $8 to 10 million, does the ACC make sense?

Here's the article from Wilner - https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2023-08-14/pac-12-hotline-what-might-a-super-mountain-west-or-reconfigured-pac-12-both-with-sdsu-be-worth

---

Since when has Wilner ever made sense? We may have a bird in the hand, should we let it go for a bird in the bush? Let's also not forget what the differences are for recruiting, donations, and coach retention if we are in the ACC vs the MWC. Not even comparable. Lastly, this move to the ACC is not forever and allows us the best chance to improve our product on the field before the next phase of realignment. However, make no bones about it, cross country travel may be more of the reality moving forward than not.

---

He makes sense because the basic economics of our move puts us at a disadvantage. If we're only going to earn $8-10 million then cuts will need to be made. And if we join the ACC, expenses will go up. So from a pure economic sense, the deal is a loss leader. We are only making it so we can stay "relevant". Now - I get that. I agree that the ACC is more high profile than the MWC. But its gonna come at a cost.

As far as others who think that the ACC will last until 2036. Uh, no. To FSU and Clemson - they feel they are losing $30 million plus per season rather than gaining $10-15 million by adding us. They're losing money either way.

The B1G media deal expires in 2029/30. That's the lifespan of the ACC.

---

Think of it this way. All those years of neglect are coming back to roost. It is kind of like having a variable loan rate and being caught in an inflationary environment. I'm sure the administration has been squirreling away money for this very day.

You're idea is DOA, friend.

Who cares???? The PAC-12 has two of the top four universities in the world!