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

202,419 Views | 1043 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by annarborbear
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 Bowlesman80 • 12:43p, 8/30/23
Bowlesman80 said:
"They are going to keep killing our program through incompetence and apathy. Got to fix that."

Or is it by design?

They were hoping to get rid of those mean, ole sports programs, all along.


I've honestly had this thought many times. Rather than this being some great scheme though, I think they are finding themselves in the perfect position to de-prioritize sports now. The pac-8 left them, and no other conference wants them even for dirt cheap. So now they can say "we tried as hard as we could" and wipe their hands off of sports all together. Even if we get in to the ACC, I have a feeling they are just going to waste the donor's money but not changing the approach to the program - the essentially will slow roll the death of the program. This is the dark world I live in.
Reply Quote
8
HateRed
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:00p, 8/30/23
Nothing coming out of any of the newsfeeds, so who knows when the ACC will schedule a vote. I hope it happens before the weekend.
Reply Quote
1
Bowlesman80
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 Econ141 • 1:08p, 8/30/23
Econ141 said:
Bowlesman80 said:
"They are going to keep killing our program through incompetence and apathy. Got to fix that."

Or is it by design?

They were hoping to get rid of those mean, ole sports programs, all along.


I've honestly had this thought many times. Rather than this being some great scheme though, I think they are finding themselves in the perfect position to de-prioritize sports now. The pac-8 left them, and no other conference wants them even for dirt cheap. So now they can say "we tried as hard as we could" and wipe their hands off of sports all together. Even if we get in to the ACC, I have a feeling they are just going to waste the donor's money but not changing the approach to the program - the essentially will slow roll the death of the program. This is the dark world I live in.
Yep. Sounds right.

These intellectual snobs of ours are sounding less like Nobels and more like Dr. Evil.

"Cal doesn't need popular sports, because we're geniuses.
Buuhuhuhahahahaha!"
"Just win, baby."
Reply Quote
2
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 Bowlesman80 • 1:12p, 8/30/23
Bowlesman80 said:
Econ141 said:
Bowlesman80 said:
"They are going to keep killing our program through incompetence and apathy. Got to fix that."

Or is it by design?

They were hoping to get rid of those mean, ole sports programs, all along.


I've honestly had this thought many times. Rather than this being some great scheme though, I think they are finding themselves in the perfect position to de-prioritize sports now. The pac-8 left them, and no other conference wants them even for dirt cheap. So now they can say "we tried as hard as we could" and wipe their hands off of sports all together. Even if we get in to the ACC, I have a feeling they are just going to waste the donor's money but not changing the approach to the program - the essentially will slow roll the death of the program. This is the dark world I live in.
Yep. Sounds right.

These intellectual snobs of ours are sounding less like Nobels and more like Dr. Evil.

"Cal doesn't need popular sports, because we're geniuses.
Buuhuhuhahahahaha!"


*Rests pinky fingers on corner of their mouths*

We will accept .... one million dollars to join the MWC, buahhhahahaha"
Reply Quote
3
golden sloth
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 philly1121 • 1:50p, 8/30/23
philly1121 said:
golden sloth said:
GoCal80 said:
golden sloth said:
GoCal80 said:
Here's a push for a new option, the GAG conference:


https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/ostler/article/cal-stanford-chasing-top-dollar-sell-saudis-18334302.php


I dont really appreciate that article. The snark entailed within is a contributing factor (albeit not a dominant one) to bay area people looking down on college football, which leads to lesser crowd involvement, which very well may kill Cal athletics.
It is satire and meant to shine a light on the current state of college football, which has devolved to the point where all that matters is money.


I get that its satire, but it also demeans and undermines support for Cal football at a time when Cal football and athletics needs all the help it can get.

And yes, I do believe casuals are going to read this article and support the team less. As for if the article's satire helps push college football towards not being about money, it wont.
Perhaps its more about calling out the fact that Cal can't seem to walk around and maneuver without stepping on our own d*ck. The public sees that and sees us, rightfully, as inept.

The Pac12 conference has blown up. Nuked. And we, along with our Bay Area "partner", are still on the dance floor when the music and lights have been turned off. That says alot about us, wouldn't you say? The article is satire and a hilarious read.


First, i know this is subjective and therefore not worth debating, but I dont consider the article 'hilarious', I felt the writer was trying too hard.

Second, I dont understand why Cal fans incessantly need to talk down on themselves or cheer the press whenever they undermine the program. I dont know how we are supposed to convince the rest of the bay to follow and support the program when we **** all over it at every opportunity.

Yes, school leadership is a problem, yes the program needs to win more, but self-debasing fans that spread nothing but negativity and self-hate are a problem as well. Energy is contagious, good and bad vibes spread. Nobody wants to join a bunch of self-hating, self-loathing people.

I'm bringing non-Cal alum friends to the Auburn game. When I asked them to come, I didnt immediately follow up by saying the admin is inept, the coach is outclassed, the players arent 5 stars, etc. I said, it's a nationally televised game, there is a good pre-game scene at the bars ahead of time, and there is a chance to get a little tipsy and yell and cheer and mingle with people from across the bay and from the southeast.

As part of the fanbase, that wants success, we have to sell the locals on supporting the team, not undermine it.

And yes, I feel my comment wandered off-topic a bit there.
Reply Quote
12
Golden One
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 Bowlesman80 • 1:51p, 8/30/23
Bowlesman80 said:
Welp, IMHO marginalizing athletics is the same as scheming.

And many of our "Public Ivy" rivals, such as Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma seem to make athletics both a priority and a complement to their academics. Trying to be Cal Tech is not going to make Berkeley better.

And if this is just the way things are going to be, then I, for one, am not going to continue mainlining hope.


Or continue to make contributions to the academic side.

Reply Quote
1
philly1121
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 • 1:54p, 8/30/23
CALiforniALUM said:
I agree that those Clemson articles or reports don't say a damn thing. If the reporter really had the story and wanted to be cited as they who broke said story they wouldn't be so beat around the bush about it with no clear statement of authority or source. This is just a fluff piece that has no substance.
I still think at the end of the week, the deal gets done. But if you're Clemson or FSU - you are milking this for all its worth. No deal to remain in the ACC is a good deal for them. We have to keep that in mind. So from their perspective - nothing is going to satisfy them. Over the course of, say, 6 years, they view themselves as losing out on between $300-500 million dollars by staying in the ACC. So, just by gaining $20-30 million tops in performance incentives or added ESPN monies - they're not going to be happy.

So I'm sure that they want everything geared towards them in terms of winning the ACC and CFP qualification. Its all a matter of sweetening the deal for them.
Reply Quote
2
sosheezy
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 philly1121 • 2:00p, 8/30/23
philly1121 said:
CALiforniALUM said:
I agree that those Clemson articles or reports don't say a damn thing. If the reporter really had the story and wanted to be cited as they who broke said story they wouldn't be so beat around the bush about it with no clear statement of authority or source. This is just a fluff piece that has no substance.
I still think at the end of the week, the deal gets done. But if you're Clemson or FSU - you are milking this for all its worth. No deal to remain in the ACC is a good deal for them. We have to keep that in mind. So from their perspective - nothing is going to satisfy them. Over the course of, say, 6 years, they view themselves as losing out on between $300-500 million dollars by staying in the ACC. So, just by gaining $20-30 million tops in performance incentives or added ESPN monies - they're not going to be happy.

So I'm sure that they want everything geared towards them in terms of winning the ACC and CFP qualification. Its all a matter of sweetening the deal for them.
I guess the question is - how much more (if any) gets squeezed from Cal/Stanford/SMU, or are those figures "set" and the real issue is simply purely how to reallocated the money. We've heard reports that from those funds, travel costs would get distributed to all members so they wouldn't have a net financial loss from traveling out west, but is there an equal flat $ number in additional? Say $2-5M each? Or does most if all go to top finishing teams. How much the conference champ get? Runner up? Do you tier things further? Or is TV ratings or viewership a metric to consider too in addition to achievement based reallocation.
Reply Quote
1
GMP
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 philly1121 • 2:31p, 8/30/23
philly1121 said:
CALiforniALUM said:
I agree that those Clemson articles or reports don't say a damn thing. If the reporter really had the story and wanted to be cited as they who broke said story they wouldn't be so beat around the bush about it with no clear statement of authority or source. This is just a fluff piece that has no substance.
I still think at the end of the week, the deal gets done. But if you're Clemson or FSU - you are milking this for all its worth. No deal to remain in the ACC is a good deal for them. We have to keep that in mind. So from their perspective - nothing is going to satisfy them. Over the course of, say, 6 years, they view themselves as losing out on between $300-500 million dollars by staying in the ACC. So, just by gaining $20-30 million tops in performance incentives or added ESPN monies - they're not going to be happy.

So I'm sure that they want everything geared towards them in terms of winning the ACC and CFP qualification. Its all a matter of sweetening the deal for them.

This isn't logical (which is not to say it's not true). Expansion or not, FSU and Clemson aren't getting out of the ACC anytime soon. They may think they are losing out on $300-500M a year over 6 years but (1) those numbers are far removed from reality even if they got out of the ACC; (2) they aren't getting out and this deal doesn't affect that reality either way. It would be like my toddler being mad I won't give her ten crackers and so turning her nose up at two crackers. Well, you're not getting ten crackers. Take two or get zero.

I find it very hard to believe that the leaders of Clemson and FSU have the logic of an 18-month old.
Reply Quote
6
cubzwin
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 philly1121 • 2:39p, 8/30/23
" But if you're Clemson or FSU - you are milking this for all its worth."
This is obviously their POV. They want to join the SEC. But the SEC didn't give them an invite so they are just gonna have to hang out with the ugly chicks until their dreamboat comes a calling.
Reply Quote
2
calumnus
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 • 2:47p, 8/30/23
dimitrig said:
Bowlesman80 said:
JimSox said:
Well now we've gone from hoping to blaming. Nice.
Welp, how do smart administrators get caught a day late and a Dollar short?

1. Incompetence
2. Scheming
3. Both of the above

Hope is never a plan to rely upon.

Priorities.

As someone who always has more on my plate than I will ever complete, I know what it must be like for them.

You have to prioritize.

Cal does not prioritize athletics. That's not incompetence or scheming. It's just not what the institution thinks is important.

It sucks if you are a sports fan, but Cal isn't catering to that demographic.



Jim Knowlton is paid $1.3 million a year to prioritize Cal athletics.

The fact that we were not able to even field cheerleaders last year points to his extreme incompetence.

His criminal mishandling of the McKeever abuse complaints, instead rewarding her with a $5 million contract then spending $2 million to only confirm the swimmers and their parents were telling the truth and now more $millions in investigations and expensive litigation.

The hiring and extension of Mark Fox, who every year chased off more talent than he brought in until we finally went 3-30, worst record in Cal history, worst in the entire country, while scoring the fewest points in the entire country (out of more than 330 teams). While the athletics department parroted his excuses….

His bungling of our COVID response.

Giving a coach with a losing record after 5 years a 6 year extension with $30 million guaranteed….

When USC and UCLA left for the B1G a year ago, not doing everything possible to get us into the conference with them or informing his boss of what was coming, putting the very existence of our athletics department at risk.

All while officially living in Colorado Springs so he doesn't have to pay California taxes on the $ millions he receives from California tax payers.

So yes, we are left in the hands of Carol Christ, who has ton of things on her hands, but when it comes to athletics only needed to hire a competent AD. Instead she hired an AD who is a retired career Army officer with only 3 years at a Federally funded military academy, and zero experience in fundraising, marketing or managing big time football or basketball and a horrible fit for Berkeley in the NIL era and this critical time in the history of college sports.

Then even after he proved how incompetent he is and what a bad fit he is, with Cal setting records for losses in all three revenue sports, Carol Christ gave him an unprecedented 8 year extension until 2029.

And now here we are, begging to get into the ACC for 30% of what ESPN will pay for us with the consequences of not getting in the demise of our program.
Reply Quote
13
2 edits
JimSox
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 GMP • 3:04p, 8/30/23
GMP said:
philly1121 said:
CALiforniALUM said:
I agree that those Clemson articles or reports don't say a damn thing. If the reporter really had the story and wanted to be cited as they who broke said story they wouldn't be so beat around the bush about it with no clear statement of authority or source. This is just a fluff piece that has no substance.
I still think at the end of the week, the deal gets done. But if you're Clemson or FSU - you are milking this for all its worth. No deal to remain in the ACC is a good deal for them. We have to keep that in mind. So from their perspective - nothing is going to satisfy them. Over the course of, say, 6 years, they view themselves as losing out on between $300-500 million dollars by staying in the ACC. So, just by gaining $20-30 million tops in performance incentives or added ESPN monies - they're not going to be happy.

So I'm sure that they want everything geared towards them in terms of winning the ACC and CFP qualification. Its all a matter of sweetening the deal for them.

This isn't logical (which is not to say it's not true). Expansion or not, FSU and Clemson aren't getting out of the ACC anytime soon. They may think they are losing out on $300-500M a year over 6 years but (1) those numbers are far removed from reality even if they got out of the ACC; (2) they aren't getting out and this deal doesn't affect that reality either way. It would be like my toddler being mad I won't give her ten crackers and so turning her nose up at two crackers. Well, you're not getting ten crackers. Take two or get zero.

I find it very hard to believe that the leaders of Clemson and FSU have the logic of an 18-month old.


Yes but they could get out of the deal if they get a majority of the conference to dissolve it. That's right, isn't it? And adding Calford and SMU adds three more votes against that. Unless the three agree to give up their votes. But they wouldn't do that if they thought they'd be back in the same soup in a year or two. P4 security is what we're looking for. So if there were 13 votes for on Monday why are there not 13 votes now? Or maybe they really want to convince Clemson and FSU to go along so it's unanimous and for appearance sake is all kumbayah. And they can't be convinced. In the absence of any good, solid, detailed reporting it's all very, very murky. Good, solid, detailed reporting has been missing this entire frustrating time.
Reply Quote
1
calumnus
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 JimSox • 3:10p, 8/30/23
JimSox said:
GMP said:
philly1121 said:
CALiforniALUM said:
I agree that those Clemson articles or reports don't say a damn thing. If the reporter really had the story and wanted to be cited as they who broke said story they wouldn't be so beat around the bush about it with no clear statement of authority or source. This is just a fluff piece that has no substance.
I still think at the end of the week, the deal gets done. But if you're Clemson or FSU - you are milking this for all its worth. No deal to remain in the ACC is a good deal for them. We have to keep that in mind. So from their perspective - nothing is going to satisfy them. Over the course of, say, 6 years, they view themselves as losing out on between $300-500 million dollars by staying in the ACC. So, just by gaining $20-30 million tops in performance incentives or added ESPN monies - they're not going to be happy.

So I'm sure that they want everything geared towards them in terms of winning the ACC and CFP qualification. Its all a matter of sweetening the deal for them.

This isn't logical (which is not to say it's not true). Expansion or not, FSU and Clemson aren't getting out of the ACC anytime soon. They may think they are losing out on $300-500M a year over 6 years but (1) those numbers are far removed from reality even if they got out of the ACC; (2) they aren't getting out and this deal doesn't affect that reality either way. It would be like my toddler being mad I won't give her ten crackers and so turning her nose up at two crackers. Well, you're not getting ten crackers. Take two or get zero.

I find it very hard to believe that the leaders of Clemson and FSU have the logic of an 18-month old.


Yes but they could get out of the deal if they get a majority of the conference to dissolve it. That's right, isn't it? And adding Calford and SMU adds three more votes against that. Unless the three agree to give up their votes. But they wouldn't do that if they thought they'd be back in the same soup in a year or two. P4 security is what we're looking for. So if there were 13 votes for on Monday why are there not 13 votes now? Or maybe they really want to convince Clemson and FSU to go along so it's unanimous and for appearance sake is all kumbayah. And they can't be convinced. In the absence of any good, solid, detailed reporting it's all very, very murky. Good, solid, detailed reporting has been missing this entire frustrating time.


Someone needs to get to the holdouts to let them know that Cal and Stanford could possibly be votes for dissolution of the GORs if the B1G has a spot for us or we have an opportunity to renegotiate our low ACC payout. Admitting us helps them in the short run and possbly in the long run too.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
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 calumnus • 3:17p, 8/30/23
calumnus said:
dimitrig said:
Bowlesman80 said:
JimSox said:
Well now we've gone from hoping to blaming. Nice.
Welp, how do smart administrators get caught a day late and a Dollar short?

1. Incompetence
2. Scheming
3. Both of the above

Hope is never a plan to rely upon.

Priorities.

As someone who always has more on my plate than I will ever complete, I know what it must be like for them.

You have to prioritize.

Cal does not prioritize athletics. That's not incompetence or scheming. It's just not what the institution thinks is important.

It sucks if you are a sports fan, but Cal isn't catering to that demographic.



Jim Knowlton is paid $1.3 million a year to prioritize Cal athletics.

The fact that we were not able to even field cheerleaders last year points to his extreme incompetence.

His criminal mishandling of the McKeever abuse complaints, instead rewarding her with a $5 million contract then spending $2 million to only confirm the swimmers and their parents were telling the truth and now more $millions in investigations and expensive litigation.

The hiring and extension of Mark Fox, who every year chased off more talent than he brought in until we finally went 3-30, worst record in Cal history, worst in the entire country, while scoring the fewest points in the entire country (out of more than 330 teams). While the athletics department parroted his excuses….

His bungling of our COVID response.

Giving a coach with a losing record after 5 years a 6 year extension with $30 million guaranteed….

When USC and UCLA left for the B1G a year ago, not doing everything possible to get us into the conference with them or informing his boss of what was coming, putting the very existence of our athletics department at risk.

All while officially living in Colorado Springs so he doesn't have to pay California taxes on the $ millions he receives from California tax payers.

So yes, we are left in the hands of Carol Christ, who has ton of things on her hands, but when it comes to athletics only needed to hire a competent AD. Instead she hired an AD who is a retired career Army officer with only 3 years at a Federally funded military academy, and zero experience in fundraising, marketing or managing big time football or basketball and a horrible fit for Berkeley in the NIL era and this critical time in the history of college sports.

Then even after he proved how incompetent he is and what a bad fit he is, with Cal setting records for losses in all three revenue sports, Carol Christ gave him an unprecedented 8 year extension until 2029.

And now here we are, begging to get into the ACC for 30% of what ESPN will pay for us with the consequences of not getting in the demise of our program.

Don't forget CC who rewarded the above incompetence and negligence with an extension.
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 JimSox • 3:36p, 8/30/23
JimSox said:
GMP said:
philly1121 said:
CALiforniALUM said:
I agree that those Clemson articles or reports don't say a damn thing. If the reporter really had the story and wanted to be cited as they who broke said story they wouldn't be so beat around the bush about it with no clear statement of authority or source. This is just a fluff piece that has no substance.
I still think at the end of the week, the deal gets done. But if you're Clemson or FSU - you are milking this for all its worth. No deal to remain in the ACC is a good deal for them. We have to keep that in mind. So from their perspective - nothing is going to satisfy them. Over the course of, say, 6 years, they view themselves as losing out on between $300-500 million dollars by staying in the ACC. So, just by gaining $20-30 million tops in performance incentives or added ESPN monies - they're not going to be happy.

So I'm sure that they want everything geared towards them in terms of winning the ACC and CFP qualification. Its all a matter of sweetening the deal for them.

This isn't logical (which is not to say it's not true). Expansion or not, FSU and Clemson aren't getting out of the ACC anytime soon. They may think they are losing out on $300-500M a year over 6 years but (1) those numbers are far removed from reality even if they got out of the ACC; (2) they aren't getting out and this deal doesn't affect that reality either way. It would be like my toddler being mad I won't give her ten crackers and so turning her nose up at two crackers. Well, you're not getting ten crackers. Take two or get zero.

I find it very hard to believe that the leaders of Clemson and FSU have the logic of an 18-month old.


Yes but they could get out of the deal if they get a majority of the conference to dissolve it. That's right, isn't it? And adding Calford and SMU adds three more votes against that. Unless the three agree to give up their votes. But they wouldn't do that if they thought they'd be back in the same soup in a year or two. P4 security is what we're looking for. So if there were 13 votes for on Monday why are there not 13 votes now? Or maybe they really want to convince Clemson and FSU to go along so it's unanimous and for appearance sake is all kumbayah. And they can't be convinced. In the absence of any good, solid, detailed reporting it's all very, very murky. Good, solid, detailed reporting has been missing this entire frustrating time.

And as with all things realignment it will remain murky because no one has any incentive to provide details to the press.
Reply Quote
1
Big Dog
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 calumnus • 4:11p, 8/30/23
small nit: he definitely subject to income taxes in the state of California, as his salary is California sourced-income.
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
Alkiadt
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 Big Dog • 4:22p, 8/30/23
Big Dog said:
small nit: he definitely subject to income taxes in the state of California, as his salary is California sourced-income.


Exactly.
Reply Quote
calumnus
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 Big Dog • 4:25p, 8/30/23
Big Dog said:
small nit: he definitely subject to income taxes in the state of California, as his salary is California sourced-income.


Ok, I don't know. Then why does he go to the trouble of maintaining Colorado Springs as his official residence?

I have income sourced from several states and countries but have always paid taxes in the state of my official residence. Isn't that why so many corporations are located in Delaware?
Reply Quote
1
wifeisafurd
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 Alkiadt • 4:26p, 8/30/23
Alkiadt said:
Big Dog said:
small nit: he definitely subject to income taxes in the state of California, as his salary is California sourced-income.


Exactly.
not so exactly. Depends on some factors. If he sitting outside the state doing Zoom meeting, etc. and he truly is a non-resident (which I question given the AD's responsibilities), it is taxable to the other state.Nonresidents Working Remotely for California BusinessManes Lawhttp://www.calresidencytaxattorney.com nonresident...
Reply Quote
2
BearSD
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:27p, 8/30/23
Some non-news from today's meeting on the College Football Playoff, at which no decisions were made about the future format of the 12-team playoff, because…
Quote:
No major decisions were made on Wednesday, though, because the group is still waiting to see what happens to the four remaining Pac-12 teams -- Cal, Stanford, Washington State and Oregon State. The ACC is expected to decide soon on potentially adding Cal, Stanford and SMU.

ACC commissioner Jim Phillips was expected to join them in-person, but told ESPN he didn't because of travel issues in Charlotte, North Carolina, caused by Hurricane Idalia. He participated in the five-hour meeting by Zoom and didn't provide the room any update on possible conference expansion, according to CFP executive director Bill Hancock.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38293624/cfp-says-no-format-changes-dust-settles-realignment
Reply Quote
1
JimSox
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 BearSD • 4:48p, 8/30/23
BearSD said:
Some non-news from today's meeting on the College Football Playoff, at which no decisions were made about the future format of the 12-team playoff, because…
Quote:
No major decisions were made on Wednesday, though, because the group is still waiting to see what happens to the four remaining Pac-12 teams -- Cal, Stanford, Washington State and Oregon State. The ACC is expected to decide soon on potentially adding Cal, Stanford and SMU.

ACC commissioner Jim Phillips was expected to join them in-person, but told ESPN he didn't because of travel issues in Charlotte, North Carolina, caused by Hurricane Idalia. He participated in the five-hour meeting by Zoom and didn't provide the room any update on possible conference expansion, according to CFP executive director Bill Hancock.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38293624/cfp-says-no-format-changes-dust-settles-realignment
Well at least that isn't BAD news. (Although it's not good either, which is par for the course during this whole saga.)
Reply Quote
1
calumnus
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 BearSD • 5:07p, 8/30/23
BearSD said:
Some non-news from today's meeting on the College Football Playoff, at which no decisions were made about the future format of the 12-team playoff, because…
Quote:
No major decisions were made on Wednesday, though, because the group is still waiting to see what happens to the four remaining Pac-12 teams -- Cal, Stanford, Washington State and Oregon State. The ACC is expected to decide soon on potentially adding Cal, Stanford and SMU.

ACC commissioner Jim Phillips was expected to join them in-person, but told ESPN he didn't because of travel issues in Charlotte, North Carolina, caused by Hurricane Idalia. He participated in the five-hour meeting by Zoom and didn't provide the room any update on possible conference expansion, according to CFP executive director Bill Hancock.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38293624/cfp-says-no-format-changes-dust-settles-realignment


It does reaffirm that the PAC-4 has some value with a position in the CFP that can likely be preserved (for awhile anyway) if we do not get into the ACC as members for 2024. It improves our BATNA or at least doesn't burn our bridge. If a majority of the ACC will support a scheduling alliance with the PAC-4, sponsored by ESPN, that can be our fallback position.
Reply Quote
2
MTbear22
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:09p, 8/30/23
Reply Quote
6
JimSox
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 BearSD • 5:22p, 8/30/23
BearSD said:
Some non-news from today's meeting on the College Football Playoff, at which no decisions were made about the future format of the 12-team playoff, because…
Quote:
No major decisions were made on Wednesday, though, because the group is still waiting to see what happens to the four remaining Pac-12 teams -- Cal, Stanford, Washington State and Oregon State. The ACC is expected to decide soon on potentially adding Cal, Stanford and SMU.

ACC commissioner Jim Phillips was expected to join them in-person, but told ESPN he didn't because of travel issues in Charlotte, North Carolina, caused by Hurricane Idalia. He participated in the five-hour meeting by Zoom and didn't provide the room any update on possible conference expansion, according to CFP executive director Bill Hancock.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38293624/cfp-says-no-format-changes-dust-settles-realignment
"To the matter of conference realignment, we're going to have to wait and see," (College Football Playoff Executive Director Bill) Hancock said. "We're going to have to wait until the dust settles before making any decisions about how that might affect CFP. The fact is, we just don't know yet. No one knows how conference realignment is going to wind up, and it would just be premature to make any decisions about it."

No one knows...? You're telling us!!
Reply Quote
1
GMP
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 JimSox • 5:23p, 8/30/23
JimSox said:
GMP said:
philly1121 said:
CALiforniALUM said:
I agree that those Clemson articles or reports don't say a damn thing. If the reporter really had the story and wanted to be cited as they who broke said story they wouldn't be so beat around the bush about it with no clear statement of authority or source. This is just a fluff piece that has no substance.
I still think at the end of the week, the deal gets done. But if you're Clemson or FSU - you are milking this for all its worth. No deal to remain in the ACC is a good deal for them. We have to keep that in mind. So from their perspective - nothing is going to satisfy them. Over the course of, say, 6 years, they view themselves as losing out on between $300-500 million dollars by staying in the ACC. So, just by gaining $20-30 million tops in performance incentives or added ESPN monies - they're not going to be happy.

So I'm sure that they want everything geared towards them in terms of winning the ACC and CFP qualification. Its all a matter of sweetening the deal for them.

This isn't logical (which is not to say it's not true). Expansion or not, FSU and Clemson aren't getting out of the ACC anytime soon. They may think they are losing out on $300-500M a year over 6 years but (1) those numbers are far removed from reality even if they got out of the ACC; (2) they aren't getting out and this deal doesn't affect that reality either way. It would be like my toddler being mad I won't give her ten crackers and so turning her nose up at two crackers. Well, you're not getting ten crackers. Take two or get zero.

I find it very hard to believe that the leaders of Clemson and FSU have the logic of an 18-month old.


Yes but they could get out of the deal if they get a majority of the conference to dissolve it. That's right, isn't it? And adding Calford and SMU adds three more votes against that. Unless the three agree to give up their votes. But they wouldn't do that if they thought they'd be back in the same soup in a year or two. P4 security is what we're looking for. So if there were 13 votes for on Monday why are there not 13 votes now? Or maybe they really want to convince Clemson and FSU to go along so it's unanimous and for appearance sake is all kumbayah. And they can't be convinced. In the absence of any good, solid, detailed reporting it's all very, very murky. Good, solid, detailed reporting has been missing this entire frustrating time.


That's true, but (and this is all speculation) they are not close to enough votes to disslove as is. And why would they be? Most of the teams in the ACC will be Left Behind in the next Reckoning. If those schools vote to dissolve the ACC, they are going to be left without a viable alternative and with a lot less revenue with whatever they do find.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
bearsandgiants
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:30p, 8/30/23
Kickoff for the ACC is tomorrow on ESPN. If they don't vote CalSmuFord in, the story will be about how the conference can't get its **** together instead of a few hours of prime time free press singing the praises of the new league and all of the exciting new storylines. I have to think this gets done tomorrow.
Reply Quote
4
philly1121
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 GMP • 5:37p, 8/30/23
GMP said:
philly1121 said:
CALiforniALUM said:
I agree that those Clemson articles or reports don't say a damn thing. If the reporter really had the story and wanted to be cited as they who broke said story they wouldn't be so beat around the bush about it with no clear statement of authority or source. This is just a fluff piece that has no substance.
I still think at the end of the week, the deal gets done. But if you're Clemson or FSU - you are milking this for all its worth. No deal to remain in the ACC is a good deal for them. We have to keep that in mind. So from their perspective - nothing is going to satisfy them. Over the course of, say, 6 years, they view themselves as losing out on between $300-500 million dollars by staying in the ACC. So, just by gaining $20-30 million tops in performance incentives or added ESPN monies - they're not going to be happy.

So I'm sure that they want everything geared towards them in terms of winning the ACC and CFP qualification. Its all a matter of sweetening the deal for them.

This isn't logical (which is not to say it's not true). Expansion or not, FSU and Clemson aren't getting out of the ACC anytime soon. They may think they are losing out on $300-500M a year over 6 years but (1) those numbers are far removed from reality even if they got out of the ACC; (2) they aren't getting out and this deal doesn't affect that reality either way. It would be like my toddler being mad I won't give her ten crackers and so turning her nose up at two crackers. Well, you're not getting ten crackers. Take two or get zero.

I find it very hard to believe that the leaders of Clemson and FSU have the logic of an 18-month old.
No I'm not saying they're losing $300-500 mil per year. I'm saying cumulative - over 6 years. $300 million per year is ludicrous. No one is saying that including FSU and Clemson. As for your other points:

1. Its not far removed at all. After 2029, the B1G deal gets renegotiated. For the SEC I believe its 2033. You don't think they could be hitting $65-70 million per team by that point? Performance incentives are likely not included in that number. It could easily hit $300 million per the length of the deal for the top 3-5 teams in the B1G or SEC.

2. The toddler analogy is probably spot on. But that doesn't mean a 13 year old willful teen can't emancipate him/herself from their parents - with a good lawyer. I would say I would be the most surprised person in the world if the GoR for the ACC lasted until 2036. There is NO.WAY.
Reply Quote
2
Shocky1
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 calumnus • 5:39p, 8/30/23
calumnus said:
Big Dog said:
small nit: he definitely subject to income taxes in the state of California, as his salary is California sourced-income.


Ok, I don't know. Then why does he go to the trouble of maintaining Colorado Springs as his official residence?

I have income sourced from several states and countries but have always paid taxes in the state of my official residence. Isn't that why so many corporations are located in Delaware?
knowlton hates berkeley, that's why he lives in colorado springs

he had NEVER been to california prior to his interview
Reply Quote
5
concernedparent
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 JimSox • 6:14p, 8/30/23
JimSox said:
GMP said:
philly1121 said:
CALiforniALUM said:
I agree that those Clemson articles or reports don't say a damn thing. If the reporter really had the story and wanted to be cited as they who broke said story they wouldn't be so beat around the bush about it with no clear statement of authority or source. This is just a fluff piece that has no substance.
I still think at the end of the week, the deal gets done. But if you're Clemson or FSU - you are milking this for all its worth. No deal to remain in the ACC is a good deal for them. We have to keep that in mind. So from their perspective - nothing is going to satisfy them. Over the course of, say, 6 years, they view themselves as losing out on between $300-500 million dollars by staying in the ACC. So, just by gaining $20-30 million tops in performance incentives or added ESPN monies - they're not going to be happy.

So I'm sure that they want everything geared towards them in terms of winning the ACC and CFP qualification. Its all a matter of sweetening the deal for them.

This isn't logical (which is not to say it's not true). Expansion or not, FSU and Clemson aren't getting out of the ACC anytime soon. They may think they are losing out on $300-500M a year over 6 years but (1) those numbers are far removed from reality even if they got out of the ACC; (2) they aren't getting out and this deal doesn't affect that reality either way. It would be like my toddler being mad I won't give her ten crackers and so turning her nose up at two crackers. Well, you're not getting ten crackers. Take two or get zero.

I find it very hard to believe that the leaders of Clemson and FSU have the logic of an 18-month old.


Yes but they could get out of the deal if they get a majority of the conference to dissolve it. That's right, isn't it? And adding Calford and SMU adds three more votes against that. Unless the three agree to give up their votes. But they wouldn't do that if they thought they'd be back in the same soup in a year or two. P4 security is what we're looking for. So if there were 13 votes for on Monday why are there not 13 votes now? Or maybe they really want to convince Clemson and FSU to go along so it's unanimous and for appearance sake is all kumbayah. And they can't be convinced. In the absence of any good, solid, detailed reporting it's all very, very murky. Good, solid, detailed reporting has been missing this entire frustrating time.
How much of a factor is the vote really? There are what, 3ish schools that would have a better landing place if the conference dissolved? If Oregon and Washington had to take partial shares to get into the Big 10 there really isn't that much hope for the average ACC school.
Reply Quote
2
Bowlesman80
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 Econ141 • 7:02p, 8/30/23
"*Rests pinky fingers on corner of their mouths*

We will accept .... one million dollars to join the MWC, buahhhahahaha""

And incentives for winning of $50K.
"Just win, baby."
Reply Quote
1
GMP
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 • 7:13p, 8/30/23
Shocky1 said:
calumnus said:
Big Dog said:
small nit: he definitely subject to income taxes in the state of California, as his salary is California sourced-income.


Ok, I don't know. Then why does he go to the trouble of maintaining Colorado Springs as his official residence?

I have income sourced from several states and countries but have always paid taxes in the state of my official residence. Isn't that why so many corporations are located in Delaware?
knowlton hates berkeley, that's why he lives in colorado springs

he had NEVER been to california prior to his interview


I get that the politics here are not for everyone but anyone who hates California is an absolute moron (and a ****** bag if they who refuse to visit, when they have the means, and are as old as Knowlton was).
Reply Quote
2
calumnus
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 • 7:13p, 8/30/23
Shocky1 said:
calumnus said:
Big Dog said:
small nit: he definitely subject to income taxes in the state of California, as his salary is California sourced-income.


Ok, I don't know. Then why does he go to the trouble of maintaining Colorado Springs as his official residence?

I have income sourced from several states and countries but have always paid taxes in the state of my official residence. Isn't that why so many corporations are located in Delaware?
knowlton hates berkeley, that's why he lives in colorado springs

he had NEVER been to california prior to his interview


Berkeley is a horrible fit for him and he is a horrible fit for Berkeley. On top of not being qualified and not having the requisite knowledge and skill set. It was obvious to everyone except Carol Christ. Then he performed horribly and she gave him the 8 year extension. What a disaster. As I said when he was hired, we will be lucky if we still have a program when they are done, and I was not joking. It is just more eminent now.
Reply Quote
10
3 edits
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 calumnus • 7:20p, 8/30/23
calumnus said:
Shocky1 said:
calumnus said:
Big Dog said:
small nit: he definitely subject to income taxes in the state of California, as his salary is California sourced-income.


Ok, I don't know. Then why does he go to the trouble of maintaining Colorado Springs as his official residence?

I have income sourced from several states and countries but have always paid taxes in the state of my official residence. Isn't that why so many corporations are located in Delaware?
knowlton hates berkeley, that's why he lives in colorado springs

he had NEVER been to california prior to his interview


Berkeley is a horrible fit for him and he is a horrible fit for Berkeley. On top of not being qualified and not having the requisite knowledge and skill set. It was obvious to everyone except Carol Christ. Then he performed bask and she game him the 8 year extension. What a disaster. As I said when he was hired, we will be lucky if we still have a program when they are done, and I was not joking. It is just more eminent now.


Why can't we get rid of him? She must still like him because she is slow rolling that investigation.
Reply Quote
7
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 philly1121 • 7:24p, 8/30/23
philly1121 said:
GMP said:
philly1121 said:
CALiforniALUM said:
I agree that those Clemson articles or reports don't say a damn thing. If the reporter really had the story and wanted to be cited as they who broke said story they wouldn't be so beat around the bush about it with no clear statement of authority or source. This is just a fluff piece that has no substance.
I still think at the end of the week, the deal gets done. But if you're Clemson or FSU - you are milking this for all its worth. No deal to remain in the ACC is a good deal for them. We have to keep that in mind. So from their perspective - nothing is going to satisfy them. Over the course of, say, 6 years, they view themselves as losing out on between $300-500 million dollars by staying in the ACC. So, just by gaining $20-30 million tops in performance incentives or added ESPN monies - they're not going to be happy.

So I'm sure that they want everything geared towards them in terms of winning the ACC and CFP qualification. Its all a matter of sweetening the deal for them.

This isn't logical (which is not to say it's not true). Expansion or not, FSU and Clemson aren't getting out of the ACC anytime soon. They may think they are losing out on $300-500M a year over 6 years but (1) those numbers are far removed from reality even if they got out of the ACC; (2) they aren't getting out and this deal doesn't affect that reality either way. It would be like my toddler being mad I won't give her ten crackers and so turning her nose up at two crackers. Well, you're not getting ten crackers. Take two or get zero.

I find it very hard to believe that the leaders of Clemson and FSU have the logic of an 18-month old.
No I'm not saying they're losing $300-500 mil per year. I'm saying cumulative - over 6 years. $300 million per year is ludicrous. No one is saying that including FSU and Clemson. As for your other points:

1. Its not far removed at all. After 2029, the B1G deal gets renegotiated. For the SEC I believe its 2033. You don't think they could be hitting $65-70 million per team by that point? Performance incentives are likely not included in that number. It could easily hit $300 million per the length of the deal for the top 3-5 teams in the B1G or SEC.

2. The toddler analogy is probably spot on. But that doesn't mean a 13 year old willful teen can't emancipate him/herself from their parents - with a good lawyer. I would say I would be the most surprised person in the world if the GoR for the ACC lasted until 2036. There is NO.WAY.

Don't the buyouts get smaller the fewer years that are left on the contract? So yeah, at some point the buyout would be small enough for them to leave if they wanted to.
Reply Quote
1
gobears15
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 wifeisafurd • 7:26p, 8/30/23
wifeisafurd said:
Alkiadt said:
Big Dog said:
small nit: he definitely subject to income taxes in the state of California, as his salary is California sourced-income.


Exactly.
not so exactly. Depends on some factors. If he sitting outside the state doing Zoom meeting, etc. and he truly is a non-resident (which I question given the AD's responsibilities), it is taxable to the other state.Nonresidents Working Remotely for California BusinessManes Lawhttp://www.calresidencytaxattorney.com nonresident...
That's correct. Assuming he has to spend a decent chunk of time working on-site, he still owes CA income tax on income earned while physically in CA. He would determine the percentage of his workdays performed in CA, and pay CA income tax on that percentage of his total income.
Reply Quote
1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.