Probably not the best question for the free board but does anyone know what Carol and Jim actually did the past several months?

Did they really try to make a case to the B1G? I don't think they did - hard to see why B1G wouldn't have taken us and Stanford for 9mm with an added stipulation around performance (e.g. .500 record by next media rights or you're out)

Did Jim really try to entertain the idea of the MWC? Hard to believe he would want to shut down his beloved Olympic sports with no Football.

When they said they aren't "sitting on the sidelines", was that true? I have a hard time believing it.

I ask because if they are trying, I am all for supporting the NIL. If they are not. I can't justify it - they are a huge drag on that investment. I would rather wait for a new chancellor and AD.

Also, if we don't have enough to fire Wilcox, do we have enough to fire Knowlton? I get that maybe Carol is sleeping with Jim and therefore doesn't want to fire him. But maybe the next Chancellor if it is fiscally feasible?

At this point, I am 30 years invested in Cal football and basketball. I have loved every single frustrating season except for the last 5-6 years where it seems we are no longer even trying. I need to either give it up or have some trust that Cal is trying to get it right. Cal the administration/institution as I know the NIL collective itself is legit and well run. But they are handicapped by this administration and current coaches.

Econ141 said:

---

Did they really try to make a case to the B1G? I don't think they did - hard to see why B1G wouldn't have taken us and Stanford for 9mm with an added stipulation around performance (e.g. .500 record by next media rights or you're out)

Did Jim really try to entertain the idea of the MWC? Hard to believe he would want to shut down his beloved Olympic sports with no Football.

When they said they aren't "sitting on the sidelines", was that true? I have a hard time believing it.

---

The B1G presidents wanted us and the Trees but no network money was available, the B1G was not open to further expansion at all until Washington said no to the Apple PAC-12 offer and thus the B1G then scrambled for Oregon and Washington to come in for reduced shares.

Knowlton essentially dragged Furd into a meeting with the Mountain West to possibly initiate a merger but Furd was never going to go along with it and for Knowlton to think otherwise is a testament to his idiocy.

Our ACC membership was due to a confluence of many unique factors, the ND president being an alum of the Graduate Theological Union, Michael Drake the UC president being a Tree, same with Jack Swarbrick having gone to law school there, Bush 43 and Condoleeza Rice lobbying behind the scenes for us and SMU to come in at reduced shares so the rest of the conference would have more money for the existing members, we just happened to be part of a packaged deal that others were pushing for, Christ and Knowlton played a minimal part in that coming together.

Strykur said:

---

Knowlton essentially dragged Furd into a meeting with the Mountain West to possibly initiate a merger but Furd was never going to go along with it and for Knowlton to think otherwise is a testament to his idiocy.

---

Econ141 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Did they really try to make a case to the B1G? I don't think they did - hard to see why B1G wouldn't have taken us and Stanford for 9mm with an added stipulation around performance (e.g. .500 record by next media rights or you're out)

Did Jim really try to entertain the idea of the MWC? Hard to believe he would want to shut down his beloved Olympic sports with no Football.

When they said they aren't "sitting on the sidelines", was that true? I have a hard time believing it.

---

The B1G presidents wanted us and the Trees but no network money was available, the B1G was not open to further expansion at all until Washington said no to the Apple PAC-12 offer and thus the B1G then scrambled for Oregon and Washington to come in for reduced shares.

Knowlton essentially dragged Furd into a meeting with the Mountain West to possibly initiate a merger but Furd was never going to go along with it and for Knowlton to think otherwise is a testament to his idiocy.

Our ACC membership was due to a confluence of many unique factors, the ND president being an alum of the Graduate Theological Union, Michael Drake the UC president being a Tree, same with Jack Swarbrick having gone to law school there, Bush 43 and Condoleeza Rice lobbying behind the scenes for us and SMU to come in at reduced shares so the rest of the conference would have more money for the existing members, we just happened to be part of a packaged deal that others were pushing for, Christ and Knowlton played a minimal part in that coming together.

---

Thank God for Stanford. And Carol allowing that foot to even go down that path speaks volumes about her.

I get that the B1G presidents wanted us, I should have said why Fox didn't want us for 9mm with the rest going to the other schools. It ain't much but still seems like a steal.

---

The party that really instigated the ACC to expand was Notre Dame, they did not want a program on their schedule regularly since the late 80s to fall out of the Power 5, and all of the associations going back to Palo Alto then being impacted as well, while fortuitous for us the Domers caused a lot of grumbling in the ACC for having the power to effectively direct conference affairs despite being a non-football member and effectively drove the ACC to close the deal and vote us in.

Pro rata shares aside, the financial and logistical problem for the B1G is how to manage a conference beyond 18 members for football, while the B1G could have added us and the Trees for nothing, navigating the complexities of a 20+ member league was not something they were wanting to take on without a lot more support and the Big-12 has the same issue, they are not interested in taking in the Beavs and the Cougs because they do not want to expand further (beyond 16) with the current media framework.

Econ141 said:

---

Probably not the best question for the free board but does anyone know what Carol and Jim actually did the past several months?

Did they really try to make a case to the B1G? I don't think they did - hard to see why B1G wouldn't have taken us and Stanford for 9mm with an added stipulation around performance (e.g. .500 record by next media rights or you're out)

Did Jim really try to entertain the idea of the MWC? Hard to believe he would want to shut down his beloved Olympic sports with no Football.

When they said they aren't "sitting on the sidelines", was that true? I have a hard time believing it.

I ask because if they are trying, I am all for supporting the NIL. If they are not. I can't justify it - they are a huge drag on that investment. I would rather wait for a new chancellor and AD.

Also, if we don't have enough to fire Wilcox, do we have enough to fire Knowlton? I get that maybe Carol is sleeping with Jim and therefore doesn't want to fire him. But maybe the next Chancellor if it is fiscally feasible?

At this point, I am 30 years invested in Cal football and basketball. I have loved every single frustrating season except for the last 5-6 years where it seems we are no longer even trying. I need to either give it up or have some trust that Cal is trying to get it right. Cal the administration/institution as I know the NIL collective itself is legit and well run. But they are handicapped by this administration and current coaches.

---

Short version (and based on my more limited knowledge) is that Calford made a big effort to three (yes three) other conferences. The Bi1G Presidents generally were receptive (SC's may not have been). But the TV money was not there, and the B1G programs were not going to take a huge diminution in their TV revenue by adding two new teams essentially without any new TV revenue. Fox essentially vetoed Calford. But everyone was on the phone and the two schools thought they had more leverage (especially with the TV market) combined.

The Pac 7 (not Colorado, Udub and Oregon) made an approach through Commissioner George to the Big 12. The Arizonas and Utah had been engaged in prior negotiations. I'm told the Big 12 Commissioner did give it serious consideration, but in the end of the day, he was told by his Presidents we can only absorb 4 new teams at this time. Sometimes later in the negotiations with the ACC, Calford supposedly made another overture to the Big 12 directly, and possibly with the loud support of one of the prior 4 Pac teams joining the B1G and even with the support of the Commissioner and prior Pac teams the vote was still no (actually not now) by the college Presidents. A lot of this supposedly was the concern about fit, scheduling/travel, media framework and laci of commitment to revenue sports.

The successful ACC negotiations of Calford, the Cal folks were much more low key, working with the President of the ACC state schools, using relationships, common alums and certain Regents who had relationships. I note it all came down to North Carolina State. Notre Dame was very helpful as well. I admittedly don't know huge specifics and candidly a lot of this is not based on what Cal people (who played their cards much closer) told me, but rather the Furd folks and those of another school.

Edit: the comment about Furd never going to the MWC is accurate. I will say that the Cal and Furd ADs wee hugely instrumental in keeping Calford together and coordinating the Calford efforts.

Edit 2: since I guess this is raising concern, the visit to the MWC was a courtesy to MWC interest, and the rationale was this was plan C in case all else failed. I get the reasoning actually.

Econ141 said:

---

Probably not the best question for the free board but does anyone know what Carol and Jim actually did the past several months?

Did they really try to make a case to the B1G? I don't think they did - hard to see why B1G wouldn't have taken us and Stanford for 9mm with an added stipulation around performance (e.g. .500 record by next media rights or you're out)

Did Jim really try to entertain the idea of the MWC? Hard to believe he would want to shut down his beloved Olympic sports with no Football.

When they said they aren't "sitting on the sidelines", was that true? I have a hard time believing it.

I ask because if they are trying, I am all for supporting the NIL. If they are not. I can't justify it - they are a huge drag on that investment. I would rather wait for a new chancellor and AD.

Also, if we don't have enough to fire Wilcox, do we have enough to fire Knowlton? I get that maybe Carol is sleeping with Jim and therefore doesn't want to fire him. But maybe the next Chancellor if it is fiscally feasible?

At this point, I am 30 years invested in Cal football and basketball. I have loved every single frustrating season except for the last 5-6 years where it seems we are no longer even trying. I need to either give it up or have some trust that Cal is trying to get it right. Cal the administration/institution as I know the NIL collective itself is legit and well run. But they are handicapped by this administration and current coaches.

---

What did Carol and Jim actually do the last few months? Hmm. Good question. I'm gonna give this my best shot. Here goes:

1. Contributed to starkly opposed political causes that are equally contributing to the destruction of the western world.

2. Bought new Teslas while either condemning Elon Musk or championing him without knowing the first thing that he stands for (does anyone? does he?).

3. Ate lots of meals at Michelin starred restaurants that were on you.

4. Laughed a lot.

5. Said nasty things about you and people like you.

6. Slept like babies.

7. Did heavy duty tax planning with a cadre of accountants and attorneys.

8. Spent not one waking moment thinking about Cal athletics - past, present or future. (Yes, those few missives and images projected to the public are the work of AI)

I concede some of this is guesswork on my part. For instance, they might have bought new Rivians rather than Teslas, rough and tumble folks that they are.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Probably not the best question for the free board but does anyone know what Carol and Jim actually did the past several months?

Did they really try to make a case to the B1G? I don't think they did - hard to see why B1G wouldn't have taken us and Stanford for 9mm with an added stipulation around performance (e.g. .500 record by next media rights or you're out)

Did Jim really try to entertain the idea of the MWC? Hard to believe he would want to shut down his beloved Olympic sports with no Football.

When they said they aren't "sitting on the sidelines", was that true? I have a hard time believing it.

I ask because if they are trying, I am all for supporting the NIL. If they are not. I can't justify it - they are a huge drag on that investment. I would rather wait for a new chancellor and AD.

Also, if we don't have enough to fire Wilcox, do we have enough to fire Knowlton? I get that maybe Carol is sleeping with Jim and therefore doesn't want to fire him. But maybe the next Chancellor if it is fiscally feasible?

At this point, I am 30 years invested in Cal football and basketball. I have loved every single frustrating season except for the last 5-6 years where it seems we are no longer even trying. I need to either give it up or have some trust that Cal is trying to get it right. Cal the administration/institution as I know the NIL collective itself is legit and well run. But they are handicapped by this administration and current coaches.

---

Short version (and based on my more limited knowledge) is that Calford made a big effort to three (yes three) other conferences. The Bi1G Presidents generally were receptive (SC's may not have been). But the TV money was not there, and the B1G programs were not going to take a huge diminution in their TV revenue by adding two new teams essentially without any new TV revenue. Fox essentially vetoed Calford. But everyone was on the phone and the two schools thought they had more leverage (especially with the TV market) combined.

The Pac 7 (not Colorado, Udub and Oregon) made an approach through Commissioner George to the Big 12. The Arizonas and Utah had been engaged in prior negotiations. I'm told the Big 12 Commissioner did give it serious consideration, but in the end of the day, he was told by his Presidents we can only absorb 4 new teams at this time. Sometimes later in the negotiations with the ACC, Calford supposedly made another overture to the Big 12 directly, and possibly with the loud support of one of the prior 4 Pac teams joining the B1G and even with the support of the Commissioner and prior Pac teams the vote was still no (actually not now) by the college Presidents. A lot of this supposedly was the concern about fit, scheduling/travel, media framework and laci of commitment to revenue sports.

The successful ACC negotiations of Calford, the Cal folks were much more low key, working with the President of the ACC state schools, using relationships, common alums and certain Regents who had relationships. I note it all came down to North Carolina State. Notre Dame was very helpful as well. I admittedly don't know huge specifics and candidly a lot of this is not based on what Cal people (who played their cards much closer) told me, but rather the Furd folks and those of another school.

Edit: the comment about Furd never going to the MWC is accurate. I will say that the Cal and Furd ADs wee hugely instrumental in keeping Calford together and coordinating the Calford efforts.

Edit 2: since I guess this is raising concern, the visit to the MWC was a courtesy to MWC interest, and the rationale was this was plan C in case all else failed. I get the reasoning actually.

---

So basically, we was in the right place, at the wrong time. Them's the breaks.

---

That is a very charitable interpretation. Cal was for a variety of reasons linked with Furd. Calford wanted to keep the Pac 9 or Pac 10 together. In retrospect a questionable strategy. They went along with the TV valuation and the continuing promises of the Commissioner, which at least Colorado was smart enough to understand were bogus. Colorado comes out of this smelling like a rose, and Calford looks naive. The Arizonas were smart enough to negotiate with a Plan B Big 12, and Utah being a good program and a geographic fit, got lucky. Someone can tell us if Calford ever did backdoor negations with the B1G like Oregon and Udub - I honestly don't know (the when did they do it question raised above). Utah went to the B1G with Calford to ask for admission and was similarly told not now, and I think was surprised by that result.