ninetyfourbear said:

---

We schedule FCS opponents every few years with only three OOC games. Is that because it is difficult for us to schedule teams? Will it get worse with four OOC games and we have to schedule one every year?

---

I think its both, Cal wants to be able to schedule a one-off fcs team to bolster their record, have the additional home game, and with the west spread out like it is, it's harder to find good, local mid-major programs to play.

A couple of other scheduling comments. I hope with the reduced number of conference games every other year, Cal can schedule an additional home game most years. The best teams play at home 8 times a year, hopefully Cal can play at least 7 home games most of the time.

Finally, let's never ever play at Arizona ever again. It has nothing to do with the school or anything involving realignment. It has everything to do with managing to always find a way to underperform and lose to bad Arizona football teams.

Cal smu stanford in

Clemson fsu out (likely 2026)

stech81 said:

---

hope this works

Sources: ACC presidents to meet on conference expansion on Monday night (yahoo.com)

And good luck

---

Has anybody heard how quickly the reduced shares are restored?

accprisoner said:

---

Cal smu stanford in

Clemson fsu out (likely 2026)

---

How? Buying their way out? They'd have to pay an exit fee north of $100M and still owe all new conference revenue through 2036 to pay back to the ACC.

golden sloth said:

---

stech81 said:

---

hope this works

Sources: ACC presidents to meet on conference expansion on Monday night (yahoo.com)

And good luck

---

Has anybody heard how quickly the reduced shares are restored?

---

this was in the article above.

The significant reduction of shares from Cal, Stanford and SMU is not permanent. The schools would see shares escalate over the course of the grant-of-rights, a binding agreement running through 2036 that they are required to sign. Also, the three schools will receive non-TV distribution annually from the league, including evenly distributed monies from the CFP and NCAA tournament as well as the additional revenue from the incentive pool.

Fire Starkey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

I was reading this article:

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-acc-presidents-to-meet-on-conference-expansion-on-monday-night-173527541.html

Perhaps I missed this earlier. If this is correct, we are only going to receive $8 million in the first year with the possibility of an escalation in forthcoming years? And we have to sign the GoR which locks us in until 2036?

---

yep, you've got it

---

This arrangement is not viable without consistent and sizable Calimony moving forward, correct?

stech81 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

stech81 said:

---

hope this works

Sources: ACC presidents to meet on conference expansion on Monday night (yahoo.com)

And good luck

---

Has anybody heard how quickly the reduced shares are restored?

---

this was in the article above.

The significant reduction of shares from Cal, Stanford and SMU is not permanent. The schools would see shares escalate over the course of the grant-of-rights, a binding agreement running through 2036 that they are required to sign. Also, the three schools will receive non-TV distribution annually from the league, including evenly distributed monies from the CFP and NCAA tournament as well as the additional revenue from the incentive pool.

---

I saw that, I'm just more curious if the fee structure looks something like:
2024 - 30%
2025 - 40%
2026 - 50%
2027 - 60%
2028 - 70%
2028 - 80%
2029 - 90%
2030 - 100%

Or if it is quicker or slower.

golden sloth said:

---

stech81 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

stech81 said:

---

hope this works

Sources: ACC presidents to meet on conference expansion on Monday night (yahoo.com)

And good luck

---

Has anybody heard how quickly the reduced shares are restored?

---

this was in the article above.

The significant reduction of shares from Cal, Stanford and SMU is not permanent. The schools would see shares escalate over the course of the grant-of-rights, a binding agreement running through 2036 that they are required to sign. Also, the three schools will receive non-TV distribution annually from the league, including evenly distributed monies from the CFP and NCAA tournament as well as the additional revenue from the incentive pool.

---

I saw that, I'm just more curious if the fee structure looks something like:
2024 - 30%
2025 - 40%
2026 - 50%
2027 - 60%
2028 - 70%
2028 - 80%
2029 - 90%
2030 - 100%

Or if it is quicker or slower.

---

I've seen it slower, from Dellenger's reporting, that Cal/Stanford's ramp is through 2036, while SMU's is through 2030? But it never addresses if the 30% only applies to Tier 1 or includes ACCNetwork $.

Cabin14 said:

---

Fire Starkey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

I was reading this article:

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-acc-presidents-to-meet-on-conference-expansion-on-monday-night-173527541.html

Perhaps I missed this earlier. If this is correct, we are only going to receive $8 million in the first year with the possibility of an escalation in forthcoming years? And we have to sign the GoR which locks us in until 2036?

---

yep, you've got it

---

This arrangement is not viable without consistent and sizable Calimony moving forward, correct?

---

Tier 1 and tier 2 rights both collect money. Cal is only receiving a reduced share for the Tier 1 rights. And hopefully, the three additions substantially increase the value of the tier 2 rights through the ACC network carriage fees.

But I also, expect Cal to receive a loan from the conference to cover expenses early on, that they will then pay back in later years. This happened to UW and Oregon with B1G and Colorado and Utah when they joined the P10.

Shocky1 said:

---

golden sloth, philly & sycasey, plz explain how future games with usc & ucla are gonna happen if they refuse to schedule them, ok?

there's zero upside for them, the 2023 season is the end of the road amigos

---

There's a point to that.
Losing to us was a tipping point for the "fire Helton" mantra. Playing us, they gain little by winning and lose big by losing.
UCLA could be coerced by the Regents, though.

Negotiated buyout if they vote yes on expansion. Litigation if they vote no.

sosheezy said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

stech81 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

stech81 said:

---

hope this works

Sources: ACC presidents to meet on conference expansion on Monday night (yahoo.com)

And good luck

---

Has anybody heard how quickly the reduced shares are restored?

---

this was in the article above.

The significant reduction of shares from Cal, Stanford and SMU is not permanent. The schools would see shares escalate over the course of the grant-of-rights, a binding agreement running through 2036 that they are required to sign. Also, the three schools will receive non-TV distribution annually from the league, including evenly distributed monies from the CFP and NCAA tournament as well as the additional revenue from the incentive pool.

---

I saw that, I'm just more curious if the fee structure looks something like:
2024 - 30%
2025 - 40%
2026 - 50%
2027 - 60%
2028 - 70%
2028 - 80%
2029 - 90%
2030 - 100%

Or if it is quicker or slower.

---

I've seen it slower, from Dellenger's reporting, that Cal/Stanford's ramp is through 2036, while SMU's is through 2030? But it never addresses if the 30% only applies to Tier 1 or includes ACCNetwork $.

---

Yes, Tier 2/3 TV rights is something I've been confused about. Not sure how that works in the ACC. Maybe it's all just one payout from ESPN since they are owners of all of it?

Active shooter in Chapel Hill. I would understand if UNC's president is busy tonite.

sycasey said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

stech81 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

stech81 said:

---

hope this works

Sources: ACC presidents to meet on conference expansion on Monday night (yahoo.com)

And good luck

---

Has anybody heard how quickly the reduced shares are restored?

---

this was in the article above.

The significant reduction of shares from Cal, Stanford and SMU is not permanent. The schools would see shares escalate over the course of the grant-of-rights, a binding agreement running through 2036 that they are required to sign. Also, the three schools will receive non-TV distribution annually from the league, including evenly distributed monies from the CFP and NCAA tournament as well as the additional revenue from the incentive pool.

---

I saw that, I'm just more curious if the fee structure looks something like:
2024 - 30%
2025 - 40%
2026 - 50%
2027 - 60%
2028 - 70%
2028 - 80%
2029 - 90%
2030 - 100%

Or if it is quicker or slower.

---

I've seen it slower, from Dellenger's reporting, that Cal/Stanford's ramp is through 2036, while SMU's is through 2030? But it never addresses if the 30% only applies to Tier 1 or includes ACCNetwork $.

---

Yes, Tier 2/3 TV rights is something I've been confused about. Not sure how that works in the ACC. Maybe it's all just one payout from ESPN since they are owners of all of it?

---

I not sure how the Revenue works cause we get money from ESPN for the ACC Network not sure how much. because of taxes what you can look up is 2 years behind

sycasey said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

stech81 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

stech81 said:

---

hope this works

Sources: ACC presidents to meet on conference expansion on Monday night (yahoo.com)

And good luck

---

Has anybody heard how quickly the reduced shares are restored?

---

this was in the article above.

The significant reduction of shares from Cal, Stanford and SMU is not permanent. The schools would see shares escalate over the course of the grant-of-rights, a binding agreement running through 2036 that they are required to sign. Also, the three schools will receive non-TV distribution annually from the league, including evenly distributed monies from the CFP and NCAA tournament as well as the additional revenue from the incentive pool.

---

I saw that, I'm just more curious if the fee structure looks something like:
2024 - 30%
2025 - 40%
2026 - 50%
2027 - 60%
2028 - 70%
2028 - 80%
2029 - 90%
2030 - 100%

Or if it is quicker or slower.

---

I've seen it slower, from Dellenger's reporting, that Cal/Stanford's ramp is through 2036, while SMU's is through 2030? But it never addresses if the 30% only applies to Tier 1 or includes ACCNetwork $.

---

Yes, Tier 2/3 TV rights is something I've been confused about. Not sure how that works in the ACC. Maybe it's all just one payout from ESPN since they are owners of all of it?

---

.

I'm with you on the Tier 2/3 rights as those are key. The Tier 1 share (plus travel costs) won't be enough to cover the current AD expenses, so some significant changes will(should) be made. The Tier 2/3 share might soften the blow.

sosheezy said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

Cal smu stanford in

Clemson fsu out (likely 2026)

---

How? Buying their way out? They'd have to pay an exit fee north of $100M and still owe all new conference revenue through 2036 to pay back to the ACC.

---

Yes. or challenging the legality of the GoR. Something they are already exploring. That's why I think that when the media deal for the B1G expires in 2029/30, that's when FSU, Clemson, NC, NC State jump. If they're gonna go, that's when its gonna happen.

Though concerning that we have to sign the GoR, i'm less worried about that aspect of it since i don't see the ACC lasting the full term of the GoR. Rather, how are we going to survive on $8 million per season? If we miraculously go 8-4 or 9-3 in our first season of ACC play, do we receive the performance incentives? Because from that article it also seems like we are not going to be compensated for increased travel expenses either.

This seems to be a very high cost for staying relevant. Something has to be cut or our next two football and basketball seasons need to be the best in 30 years.

calumnus said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

calalum, jarmond got no intention of ever scheduling cal again in football, he's saying the right things now because of the specter of calimony

wut cal (or ucla fans want unless their last name is wasserman) is 100% irrelevant in today's college football biz

there is zero upside for ucla financially, allowing cal to compete recruiting wise in so cal or automatic wins to ensure bruins bowl eligibility by scheduling cal

it's an end of an era...period

---

You are talking in a lot of absolutes which is typically dangerous. A couple of points:

1. The LA schools have to schedule someone with their home dates.
2. The LA schools probably probably don't want to add another cross-country trip to their teams current travel load, so a West coast opponent makes sense.
3. Let's be honest, the LA schools don't fear Cal or Stanford in recruiting or on the field. Stanford no longer has Harbaugh and recruits nationally anyway. UCLA was literally able to buy two of our best underclassmen, and USC targets the 5 star players not who Cal targets. This lack of fear will only be exacerbated by the pending income gap.
4. Cal still has a large alumni base in SoCal and therefore travels better to LA than most other schools they could schedule.
5. Both the alumni and the networks would welcome these games, as they are fan favorites and historically draw good ratings. They are the two most important elements.

And again, I am more promoting the idea of playing UCLA every year, not USC.

---

FUcla. I don't give two poops about what UCLA or USC want or need.

What is best for Cal? That is all that mattters.

In football, it is 100% obviously best for Cal to not play out of conference games with UCLA or USC annually (if ever). Cal has forever followed the A/B/C model for scheduling out of conference games. UCLA and USC are both "A" level - Cal is much better finding other types of games such as the recent matchups with SEC teams. And depending on how ACC scheduling works out, maybe you just drop the A team.

If Cal wants to play in So Cal, schedule SDSU (which is an alternate A-/B+ type of game).

And in terms of what USC/UCLA alumni value, I think that they've made things pretty clear on that front. Both schools (and their alumni) led the charge to blow up the Pac. And the economics of those types of games (TV ratings and ticket sales) are far worse than you're suggesting - if they were strong we'd still have the Pac12 or Cal would be in the B1G. The networks didn't find those matchups at all compelling. And have you been to the empty Rose Bowl where UCLA plays Cal and pretty much every other team? USC will sell out if they're good regardless of who they play. Ticket sales are irrelevant.

Again - F those schools. We don't want or need them. And F Oregon and UW too. Nothing to be gained in playing them in football either. And for the record, I don't put Utah, Colorado, ASU or AZ in the same category.

And to be clear, I do feel a bit differently about basketball because there are many more out of conference games. But Cal is going to have a TON of big time matchups in the ACC - no need to schedule USC/UCLA unless you really want to.

---

ACC is 8 games so we will have 4 OOC games. I think A-B-B-B/C makes sense. It depends on our ACC schedule. Other than UC Davis, I'd rather stop playing FCS teams, at least stop playing them every year.

If we can get a series with Notre Dame as part of the ACC and play them every year, then they are the A. Otherwise I strongly believe playing an LA school is in our interest if the payout is good. The SEC and ACC OOC games were good when we were in the PAC-12. Once we are in the ACC, we really don't want to add more cross country travel than we will already have if a West Coast A team that will draw big crowds is available.

USC comes to Memorial Stadium on October 28. Are the "Hell No" people going to boycott that game?

This is what I personally want for OOC going forward:
A Notre Dame/USC/UCLA
B San Diego State
B OSU/WSU/UW/Oregon
B Hawaii

With SMU and Stanford that gives us 6 "western" opponents every year with regular trips to Texas, SoCal and Hawaii for recruiting. Our other 6 games are with East Coast opponents. By maintaining ties with the original PAC-8 we retain some tradition and leave a possibility for a future B1G West Coast pod with us in it if the ACC collapses.

---

You have three ranked teams as "B"s?

From others more in the know, numerous Cal sports are on the chopping block. Donors are stepping in to fill the temporary-ish loss of revenue to fund the remaining sports. My guess is most of that goes to fund football and basketball as most of the non-revenue sports that will survive are the self-funded sports.

Big Dog said:

---

Active shooter in Chapel Hill. I would understand if UNC's president is busy tonite.

---

Thoughts and prayers.
Looks specific to a lab.

nikeykid said:

---

too much smoke now not to happen.

but i still have this feeling of dread because nothing good ever happens to our program.

---

"Because Cal."
Let's let that albatross around our necks die on Cal admin's wrap-around porch.
Hence forward, avante Bears.
Win or die!

Fire Starkey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

I was reading this article:

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-acc-presidents-to-meet-on-conference-expansion-on-monday-night-173527541.html

Perhaps I missed this earlier. If this is correct, we are only going to receive $8 million in the first year with the possibility of an escalation in forthcoming years? And we have to sign the GoR which locks us in until 2036?

---

yep, you've got it

---

Basically, kiss goodbye any chance of a Big Ten invite until the next round of media negotiations in 2030.

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

Cal smu stanford in

Clemson fsu out (likely 2026)

---

How? Buying their way out? They'd have to pay an exit fee north of $100M and still owe all new conference revenue through 2036 to pay back to the ACC.

---

Yes. or challenging the legality of the GoR. Something they are already exploring. That's why I think that when the media deal for the B1G expires in 2029/30, that's when FSU, Clemson, NC, NC State jump. If they're gonna go, that's when its gonna happen.

Though concerning that we have to sign the GoR, i'm less worried about that aspect of it since i don't see the ACC lasting the full term of the GoR. Rather, how are we going to survive on $8 million per season? If we miraculously go 8-4 or 9-3 in our first season of ACC play, do we receive the performance incentives? Because from that article it also seems like we are not going to be compensated for increased travel expenses either.

This seems to be a very high cost for staying relevant. Something has to be cut or our next two football and basketball seasons need to be the best in 30 years.

---

Again, keep in mind that $8 million is the estimate of the initial Tier 1 media payment (which will ramp up over time, though unclear how quickly). It's not the total conference payout. Cal will definitely need to cut back if this deal is finalized but it's not as drastic as that.

---

I guess I'm trying to figure out where the rest of any money would come from. If its not performance incentive and we aren't getting any money for travel - where does it come from and how much is it?

sosheezy said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

Cal smu stanford in

Clemson fsu out (likely 2026)

---

How? Buying their way out? They'd have to pay an exit fee north of $100M and still owe all new conference revenue through 2036 to pay back to the ACC.

---

Right now I think it would be an exit fee of $60 million + payouts for every year not in the ACC (2036 being 13 seasons away) so 13 x ~40 + 60 = ~$600 million.

Strykur said:

---

Fire Starkey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

I was reading this article:

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-acc-presidents-to-meet-on-conference-expansion-on-monday-night-173527541.html

Perhaps I missed this earlier. If this is correct, we are only going to receive $8 million in the first year with the possibility of an escalation in forthcoming years? And we have to sign the GoR which locks us in until 2036?

---

yep, you've got it

---

Basically, kiss goodbye any chance of a Big Ten invite until the next round of media negotiations in 2030.

---

that was already a given, no? I think the ACC falls apart in 2030/1 sometime around then and the GOR becomes irrelevant. if a Big 10 invite is coming, that is when it'll happen anyway

Update for @sfchronicle @SportingGreenSF: ACC presidents will vote tonight, and Cal is expected to gain admission to the conference in all ACC sports. (I believe Stanford and SMU will also be admitted.)

— Michael Silver (@MikeSilver) August 28, 2023

LFG TONIGHT IS THE NIGHT !!

Fire Starkey said:

---

Strykur said:

---

Fire Starkey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

I was reading this article:

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-acc-presidents-to-meet-on-conference-expansion-on-monday-night-173527541.html

Perhaps I missed this earlier. If this is correct, we are only going to receive $8 million in the first year with the possibility of an escalation in forthcoming years? And we have to sign the GoR which locks us in until 2036?

---

yep, you've got it

---

Basically, kiss goodbye any chance of a Big Ten invite until the next round of media negotiations in 2030.

---

that was already a given, no? I think the ACC falls apart in 2030/1 sometime around then and the GOR becomes irrelevant. if a Big 10 invite is coming, that is when it'll happen anyway

---

It won't fall apart if somehow FSU and Clemson are able to exit by 2026 and the rest of the programs are incentivized to keep it going as long as ESPN is willing to pay

philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

Cal smu stanford in

Clemson fsu out (likely 2026)

---

How? Buying their way out? They'd have to pay an exit fee north of $100M and still owe all new conference revenue through 2036 to pay back to the ACC.

---

Yes. or challenging the legality of the GoR. Something they are already exploring. That's why I think that when the media deal for the B1G expires in 2029/30, that's when FSU, Clemson, NC, NC State jump. If they're gonna go, that's when its gonna happen.

Though concerning that we have to sign the GoR, i'm less worried about that aspect of it since i don't see the ACC lasting the full term of the GoR. Rather, how are we going to survive on $8 million per season? If we miraculously go 8-4 or 9-3 in our first season of ACC play, do we receive the performance incentives? Because from that article it also seems like we are not going to be compensated for increased travel expenses either.

This seems to be a very high cost for staying relevant. Something has to be cut or our next two football and basketball seasons need to be the best in 30 years.

---

Again, keep in mind that $8 million is the estimate of the initial Tier 1 media payment (which will ramp up over time, though unclear how quickly). It's not the total conference payout. Cal will definitely need to cut back if this deal is finalized but it's not as drastic as that.

---

I guess I'm trying to figure out where the rest of any money would come from. If its not performance incentive and we aren't getting any money for travel - where does it come from and how much is it?

---

Yes, where does the money come from? I guess through cutbacks in sports and additional "direct institutional support," but is that sustainable?

nikeykid said:

---

Update for @sfchronicle @SportingGreenSF: ACC presidents will vote tonight, and Cal is expected to gain admission to the conference in all ACC sports. (I believe Stanford and SMU will also be admitted.)

— Michael Silver (@MikeSilver) August 28, 2023

LFG TONIGHT IS THE NIGHT !!

---

If we get another "meeting canceled, didn't have the votes" I think I might lose my mind.

PaulCali said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

Cal smu stanford in

Clemson fsu out (likely 2026)

---

How? Buying their way out? They'd have to pay an exit fee north of $100M and still owe all new conference revenue through 2036 to pay back to the ACC.

---

Yes. or challenging the legality of the GoR. Something they are already exploring. That's why I think that when the media deal for the B1G expires in 2029/30, that's when FSU, Clemson, NC, NC State jump. If they're gonna go, that's when its gonna happen.

Though concerning that we have to sign the GoR, i'm less worried about that aspect of it since i don't see the ACC lasting the full term of the GoR. Rather, how are we going to survive on $8 million per season? If we miraculously go 8-4 or 9-3 in our first season of ACC play, do we receive the performance incentives? Because from that article it also seems like we are not going to be compensated for increased travel expenses either.

This seems to be a very high cost for staying relevant. Something has to be cut or our next two football and basketball seasons need to be the best in 30 years.

---

Again, keep in mind that $8 million is the estimate of the initial Tier 1 media payment (which will ramp up over time, though unclear how quickly). It's not the total conference payout. Cal will definitely need to cut back if this deal is finalized but it's not as drastic as that.

---

I guess I'm trying to figure out where the rest of any money would come from. If its not performance incentive and we aren't getting any money for travel - where does it come from and how much is it?

---

Yes, where does the money come from? I guess through cutbacks in sports and additional "direct institutional support," but is that sustainable?

---

I say we get Knowlton to chip in out of his own pocket!

JimSox said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Update for @sfchronicle @SportingGreenSF: ACC presidents will vote tonight, and Cal is expected to gain admission to the conference in all ACC sports. (I believe Stanford and SMU will also be admitted.)

— Michael Silver (@MikeSilver) August 28, 2023

LFG TONIGHT IS THE NIGHT !!

---

If we get another "meeting canceleddidn't have the votes" I think I might lose my mind.

---

Tonight’s ACC meeting has been postponed following the on-campus shooting at UNC today, per source. https://t.co/n2LgD3nivy

— Nicole Auerbach (@NicoleAuerbach) August 28, 2023