DoubtfulBear said:

---

I am wrong because reality is only 10% better than the worst possible outcome?

---

If you repeatedly predicted the worst outcome, yes.

sycasey said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

I am wrong because reality is only 10% better than the worst possible outcome?

---

If you repeatedly predicted the worst outcome, yes.

---

Let me use an analogy since you are so stubborn to accept the facts.

Let's say I told you that in this job market there's no chance you will find a job at a decent company. You end up finding a job at a company that used to be decent but is now running low on cash and is a 3 hour commute each way to get to, without the option to work remote. Oh and by the way, you are only getting 30% of the base salary, which is already a fraction of the salary that other, more prestigous companies nearby pay.

Technically you are correct that you found a job, but if you ask anyone, it's hardly a job worth taking and you may have been better of taking a local job at a lower tier firm.

DoubtfulBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

I am wrong because reality is only 10% better than the worst possible outcome?

---

If you repeatedly predicted the worst outcome, yes.

---

Let me use an analogy since you are so stubborn to accept the facts.

Let's say I told you that in this job market there's no chance you will find a job at a decent company. You end up finding a job at a company that used to be decent but is now running low on cash and is a 3 hour commute each way to get to, without the option to work remote. Oh and by the way, you are only getting 30% of the base salary, which is already a fraction of the salary that other, more prestigous companies nearby pay.

Technically you are correct that you found a job, but if you ask anyone, it's hardly a job worth taking and you may have been better of taking a local job at a lower tier firm.

---

So many words typed just to talk around a wrong prediction.

Texas State is 62. Cal is 70.

They seem to have gotten the better deal out of the Spavital swap.

Cal Strong! said:

---

Texas State is 62. Cal is 70.

They seem to have gotten the better deal out of the Spavital swap.

---

Perhaps he built the foundation, similar to Sonny here?

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Texas State is 62. Cal is 70.

They seem to have gotten the better deal out of the Spavital swap.

---

Perhaps he built the foundation, similar to Sonny here?

---

His prediction may/could have been wrong. Not sure on what he actually wrote. But is the outcome all that dissimilar to what we're going into in 2024? A conference that may reduce in size, at minimum or may collapse?

Meantime, we will be traveling across the country at a substantially reduced share for how many years? Do we even have voting rights? I think the Hail Mary pass that was thrown to save the program was caught. But we were throwing out of the back of our own endzone and the ball was caught at the 50. And so to "save" the non-revenue programs, some of which will likely be eliminated anyway, we go East for program relevancy. Let's see if it works out.

philly1121 said:

---

His prediction may/could have been wrong. Not sure on what he actually wrote. But is the outcome all that dissimilar to what we're going into in 2024? A conference that may reduce in size, at minimum or may collapse?

---

The Pac-12 will cease to exist in 2024. So given that, yes, it's very dissimilar.

Well, here's some good news, apparently the tree protesters have given up..
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/us/10tree.html?hp

Eh that sentence of mine was confusing. Though the ACC lifespan is probably going to last 5 more years than the Pac. What I was alluding to was that we are going across the country at 30% share until 2036. But staying home in a reformed Pac/MWC was the only slightly more onerous alternative. If one considers it onerous. We will be cutting programs either way. The difference is relevancy - which is the only thing we're clinging to anymore.

Don't bother arguing with sycasey. He's a loser that thinks moral victories are the same as actual victories.

philly1121 said:

---

Eh that sentence of mine was confusing. Though the ACC lifespan is probably going to last 5 more years than the Pac. What I was alluding to was that we are going across the country at 30% share until 2036. But staying home in a reformed Pac/MWC was the only slightly more onerous alternative. If one considers it onerous. We will be cutting programs either way. The difference is relevancy - which is the only thing we're clinging to anymore.

---

Not quite right; it's 30% share for the first 7 years. So assuming the ACC is still around, that's until 2030.

And yes, when you add it all up it's still more money than we'd get in the MWC or any remaining West Coast league. Probably about double. So I still say it's pretty different.

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Don't bother arguing with sycasey. He's a loser that thinks moral victories are the same as actual victories.

---

Wow. You may want to go for a walk or something.

chazzed said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Don't bother arguing with sycasey. He's a loser that thinks moral victories are the same as actual victories.

---

Wow. You may want to go for a walk or something.

---

Some people get really angry with me for trying to be accurate about things. I wonder why.

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Eh that sentence of mine was confusing. Though the ACC lifespan is probably going to last 5 more years than the Pac. What I was alluding to was that we are going across the country at 30% share until 2036. But staying home in a reformed Pac/MWC was the only slightly more onerous alternative. If one considers it onerous. We will be cutting programs either way. The difference is relevancy - which is the only thing we're clinging to anymore.

---

Not quite right; it's 30% share for the first 7 years. So assuming the ACC is still around, that's until 2030.

And yes, when you add it all up it's still more money than we'd get in the MWC or any remaining West Coast league. Probably about double. So I still say it's pretty different.

---

Ok, 30% for first 7 years. And as you wrote, assuming the ACC is still around.

So basically - $20 million. Possibly a little more. And we keep additional money for NCAA tourney, bowl games, CFP distribution and performance initiatives. So that's roughly $10-15 more than what the MWC currently brings in?

I don't know man. On balance it keeps us playing. But we are so far away from being successful to have any possible distribution of a bowl payout or performance incentives. And yet, our travel costs go up not just for football but for every sport that's going to the ACC.

The ACC is going to be reduced in size in 2029. There is no way that a Clemson, FSU, UNC or NC State are going to pass up a B1G invite. And if its not the B1G in 2029, its the SEC in 2034. No amount of money will stop any of these teams or UVA from moving. Again, Doubtful and Bobo may be off on where things end. But they're right that things will come to an end eventually in the ACC. Anyways....

philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Eh that sentence of mine was confusing. Though the ACC lifespan is probably going to last 5 more years than the Pac. What I was alluding to was that we are going across the country at 30% share until 2036. But staying home in a reformed Pac/MWC was the only slightly more onerous alternative. If one considers it onerous. We will be cutting programs either way. The difference is relevancy - which is the only thing we're clinging to anymore.

---

Not quite right; it's 30% share for the first 7 years. So assuming the ACC is still around, that's until 2030.

And yes, when you add it all up it's still more money than we'd get in the MWC or any remaining West Coast league. Probably about double. So I still say it's pretty different.

---

Ok, 30% for first 7 years. And as you wrote, assuming the ACC is still around.

So basically - $20 million. Possibly a little more. And we keep additional money for NCAA tourney, bowl games, CFP distribution and performance initiatives. So that's roughly $10-15 more than what the MWC currently brings in?

I don't know man. On balance it keeps us playing. But we are so far away from being successful to have any possible distribution of a bowl payout or performance incentives. And yet, our travel costs go up not just for football but for every sport that's going to the ACC.

The ACC is going to be reduced in size in 2029. There is no way that a Clemson, FSU, UNC or NC State are going to pass up a B1G invite. And if its not the B1G in 2029, it's the SEC in 2034. No amount of money will stop any of these teams or UVA from moving. Again, Doubtful and Bobo may be off on where things end. But they're right that things will come to an end eventually in the ACC. Anyways....

---

I would say it's quite likely that at least Clemson, FSU, and UNC leave the ACC at some point. But I would also say that six years is a long time and a lot can change by then, especially given the current media environment. So I'm also not going to act like it's 100% certain. Cal has to take the best option in the meantime.