golden sloth said:

---

calumnus said:

---

1. The minimum sports for ACC are Football, Men's and Women's Basketball and Women's Soccer. I think Cal and Stanford move most of the other (surviving) sports to a western regional conference.

2. Florida does not want Florida State in the SEC.

3. Wilner acts like the conferences call the shots. ESPN does not want Florida State in the SEC and they control the dollars.

4. Trying to leave the ACC to go to the Big 12 does not make sense. For one, they pay less. They just traded Texas and Oklahoma for Utah, Colorado, Arizona and Arizona State. They overlap territories and time zones with the B1G and SEC. They have less tradition as a conference. They seem to be on a weaker position than the ACC, though I guess if FSU and Clemson could magically join them it would top the balance the other way.

5. I think if the B1G could take an ACC team it would be Miami, not FSU or Clemson.

6. Once the expanded CFPs take hold there will be less pressure for Super Conferences. Clemson and Florida State will figure out that the ACC is a better path to consistent post season appearances and $$$.

7. Even if superconferences form, they (like all professional leagues do) will naturally split into regional divisions. The natural split is North, South, East and West.

8. UCLA will eventually play at Sofi, 10 minutes from campus on the 405 and much closer to its alumni base on the Westside. The Rose Bowl will likely be torn down and replaced with a housing development.

---

I think point 7 is the key. It just remains to be seen how they want to divide up the divisions. I could see the B1G placing Penn State, Rutgers, and
Maryland with three ACC teams like North Carolina, Virginia, and Miami or Georgia Tech.

And as we all know, they could build out their west coast division with two additional schools.

---

This is the argument for Cal and Stanford in the B1G: do they want further expansion to the west? If so, those are the clear answers.

smh said:

---

cut/paste, with some formatting issues (sorry)..

/****
Mailbag: Likelihood of a super league (or super teams), ACC sustainability, the CFP's future, WSU and OSU revenue sharing and more

The blue blood schools eventually will control the money in one form or another

By Bay Area News Group
UPDATED: August 16, 2024 at 10:31 a.m.

o When college football's so-called super league is complete with 32 or 38 teams, will it have unequal revenue sharing? @TerryTerry79
o Which 40 teams should be in the inevitable super league? @ProfCPE

This topic has enough meat to sustain an entire mailbag, but we'll address one slice of the issue here: The money.

Because the amount of money available is inexorably tied to the number of teams included. And vice versa.

As the Hotline explained late last year in our vision for the future of the Pac-12, the existing conference media contracts run into the 2030s and make the formation of a super league extremely unlikely this decade. Our target window is 2033, give or take a few years.

Even then, the super league might not materialize. The hurdles are significant in size and quantity.

However, you can count on this: In the absence of a super league, super teams will arise. The inevitable shift in distribution of media revenue will create one outcome or the other.

Here's why:
There's a finite amount of money available in the sports media ecosystem for college football. Granted, the amount available in the early 2030s will be substantially greater than the amount available now. But it won't be unlimited. It's never unlimited, because the networks whether it's ESPN and Fox or CBS and Warner or Amazon and Apple aren't just licensing college football. They must pay for the NFL and NBA, for the UFC and NASCAR, for the MLB and English Premier League.

Meanwhile, the cost of business in major college football will soar over the next six or eight years thanks to the revenue sharing deal with athletes it's expected to begin next year and all the standard industry expenses.

The insatiable lust for every last media dollar will continue across college sports.

Combine the soaring demand for cash with the limited supply of cash and the result is an increasingly efficient marketplace.

The media companies will only spend top dollar for the top brands for the college football programs that drive ratings.

We don't mean to pick on specific schools to illustrate the point but, well, we're going to pick on specific schools. Fox will pay top dollar for Michigan vs. Washington, for example, but not for Maryland vs. Purdue; ESPN will pay top dollar for Georgia vs. Oklahoma but not for Mississippi State vs. South Carolina.

Texas Tech vs. UCF? Nope.
Boston College vs. N.C. State? Nope.
Florida State vs. Penn State? Yes.

If a super league forms, it won't have 50 or 60 teams. There simply aren't 50 or 60 teams worth funding. We don't know the exact number, and it could change between now and the early 2030s, but 28 or 32 is our best guess. (Which is why the expanded College Football Playoff is effectively an audition for schools that have super league aspirations but, to this point, lack super league resumes.)

In our view, the economic landscape laid out above points to one of two outcomes:
The top football brands break away from their current conferences and create the super league. (Breaking off is easier, both politically and legally, than expelling second-tier schools from their current leagues.)
The power conference structure holds, but the blue bloods demand unequal revenue sharing models.
In other words, Fox and ESPN would tell the Big Ten and SEC, respectively: We'll pay X dollars per year for your broadcast rights, and you figure out how to divide those dollars.

That's essentially how it works now, except the schools are (reasonably) content with sharing media rights equally. By the 2030s, the blue bloods won't be content.

While a super league would not exist under this scenario, the unequal revenue distribution within conferences would create an immense disparity in resources it would be far greater than the current imbalance and lead to the rise of super teams.

Remember, folks: College sports is built on a stack of subsidies.
The top 16 or 20 football programs subsidize the rest of the Power Four schools.
The Power Four schools subsidize the rest of the FBS.
The FBS subsidizes the rest of Division I.
Division I subsidies the other NCAA divisions.
There are roughly 1,100 schools in the NCAA. True revenue-generating power lies with less than two percent.
We can't predict whether the two-percent schools will break away (the super-league scenario) or simply demand outsized portions of the dollars within the existing conference structure (the super-team scenario).
But given the economic pressures, those seem like the only possible outcomes.

When the College Football Playoff broadcast deal with ESPN expires, should the entire event be played on campus, except for the championship game? Jon Joseph

Put another way: Should the CFP fully embrace the NFL model?

As appealing as the concept is, we don't foresee that outcome materializing in the near term. It would require the sport to untether the playoff from the New Year's Six bowls that are deeply entrenched in the sport's culture (and its cash flow).

Logistical issues exist, as well: Would the sport's powerbrokers want to risk a series of games in cold-weather stadiums in late December and early January? Also, campuses are empty during the holidays. Would universities take on the operational task of staging massive events?

On each matter, we're skeptical.

One final point on the timing of any changes to the CFP: There are two seasons remaining on the current contract cycle; starting in the fall of 2026, the playoff has a $1.3 billion annual deal in place with ESPN … and nothing else.

The number of teams, the format, the access, the schedule, the sites all the critical logistics must be determined.

We cannot imagine such a radical change unfolding in such a short period of time. Which means any alterations to the neutral-site model would likely come in the early 2030s.

Is ACC membership sustainable for Stanford and Cal over the long term? Common sense says the ACC adds Oregon State and Washington State or the Bay Area schools join OSU/WSU in restocking the Pac-12. What do you see is most likely? @jlahaye76

It is absolutely not sustainable for the Olympic sports, and perhaps not for football, but common sense and realignment have proven to be mortal enemies.

Those are just two of several possible outcomes. We wouldn't be surprised if the status quo holds for eight or 10 years. Or if the ACC consolidates. Or if it dissolves altogether.

The lawsuits filed by Florida State and Clemson will, in our view, eventually lead to settlements allowing the rebels to exit the conference with reasonable penalties. North Carolina, a highly-coveted property, would follow them out the door.

At that point, the remaining ACC schools could attempt to bolster the conference via expansion. The Beavers and Cougars would be distinct possibilities; same with Memphis and South Florida.

Or they could eschew expansion and stick with 14.

Or several schools could peel off and join the Big 12.

There are myriad scenarios involving ACC survival and extinction, just as there were for the Pac-12 after USC and UCLA announced their departures on June 30, 2022.

One key difference: The ACC has better leadership.

All this chatter about Florida State and Clemson joining the Big 12: With the large ACC exit fee, does this even pencil out? At worst, the ACC and Big 12 are peers. @WebGuy223

On the surface, it doesn't make sense for Clemson and Florida State to pay large exit fees, only to join a peer conference. Why file lawsuits if the process doesn't lead to membership in the Big Ten or SEC?

However, if the Big 12 were to accept an infusion of private capital and dangle that capital in front of the Tigers and Seminoles, the scenario starts to take shape … if the other Big 12 schools accept an unequal distribution of dollars.

We're skeptical. In fact, the Hotline is skeptical of any reports suggesting the Big Ten and SEC aren't interested in FSU and Clemson. That's a convenient stance when the schools aren't available and any hint of interest could lead to a tortious interference lawsuit.

If the Seminoles and Tigers ever become available, everything changes for the conferences and their network partners.

Bottom line: Anything is possible, from a super league to the reformation of the Pac-12 with Cal and Stanford to Clemson and FSU joining the Big 12 to scenarios we haven't even mentioned.

The college football canvas is blank.

Do Washington State and Oregon State hold sway over bowl selections, perhaps giving them better options? Or are they at the whim of the committee? @Moneyline_Ray

They do not.

The agreement reached between the Pac-12's bowl partners, the conference and the departed schools removes subjectivity or favoritism.

As we reported last month, the pecking order will be determined by overal record, not conference record.
In the event of ties, the same criteria used in the past including head-to-head results and previous participation in the bowl game will determine which teams go where.

What's the approximate number of fans in Los Angeles that know and care UCLA was picked to finish 15th in the 18-team Big Ten? @WorkishFromHome

Ah, yes. You're referring to the Cleveland.com poll, which serves as the de facto Big Ten preseason survey because the conference itself does not release a preseason poll.

The Bruins were 15th, one spot behind Northwestern and one above Michigan State. (That same poll slotted Oregon in second, USC in sixth and Washington in 10th.)

We are both curious about and wary of the attendance figures in the Rose Bowl this season. A fair number of Big Ten alumni live in Southern California, which could prop up the crowd sizes for Indiana, Minnesota and Iowa.

How many UCLA fans will be motivated to attend those games? No more than would have paid to see Arizona, Utah and Cal.

The true test of interest will come in 2026-27, when the newness of Big Ten life has worn off.

Unless Ohio State, Michigan or Penn State are coming to town, the bar is low.

Oregon State and Washington State say they want to compete at the highest level. Doesn't that include revenue sharing at the full amount, approximately $21 million per year? Shouldn't they use their "war chest" for that instead of rebuilding the conference with select teams? @NayeJones2009

The revenue-sharing piece of the House v NCAA settlement features a permissive cap, meaning schools can decide if they want to share the maximum.

Our hunch is that most, if not every school in the Power Four conferences will hit the $21 million cap while most, if not every school in the Group of Five will offer significantly less.

Yes, the Beavers and Cougars should do whatever necessary to keep up with the Power Four, especially considering they are hoping to join the Power Four eventually.

Exactly how the two athletic departments use the $250 million (roughly) available from the demise of the Pac-12 depends, to an extent, on the funding support they receive from central campus.

Also, they don't have immediate access to the entire amount.

One last point: Both schools have time.

Once the settlement is approved by the presiding judge, Claudia Wilken, there assuredly will be legal challenges because of the Title IX component.

It could be another year, or more, before all the elements of the revenue-sharing model are in place and the Beavers and Cougars must commit real dollars.

---

There is some great stuff from Wilner and the folks asking questions in here (thanks for posting) that we could end-up debating for an eternity.

Let's start off with the ACC:

Not so reported is FSU and Clemson have taken some legal hits in North Carolina courts. They decided
the only court that has jurisdiction over FSU, Clemson, and the ACC and thus "the only court that can assure a consistent, uniform interpretation of the Grant of Rights Agreements and the ACC's Constitution and Bylaws", is a North Carolina court. All the contracts Clemson and FSU have apparently (I say apparently, because the GORs are not public documents, but the NC courts decisions touch on what they say) are under North Caroline law and venue for disputes is in North Carolina. Moreover, the North Carolina courts concluded any argument to dismiss the North Carolina suit on "sovereign immunity" grounds are groundless because Clemson and FSU, both public schools, "waived" immunity and other claims by engaging in commercial activities, rather than governmental activities, in North Carolina, and continue to do so by attending ACC meetings, participating in sports, etc. The litigation, which has been consolidated into one case is headed to the NC Supreme Court, but the decisions have had a chilling impact on the Florida and South Carolin lawsuits.

Now Greg Swain (how did this guy become the oracle on conference realignment?) reports that Clemson and FSU will give notice, but not leave the ACC for several years, whatever that means, and that 6 other ACC teams are talking to the Big 12 for "defensive purposes". I guess Clemson and FSU are sayig we are on the market and therefore you can negotiate without illegal interfering with the ACC contact and we have a number of years to negotiate a more reasonable buy-out. Looking at this from 50,000 feet above, it doesn't seem the ACC is too stable, but will be around long enough to provide Cal sufficient time to up its game. But who really knows? Im skeptical also and I think Jon's response is dead on.

The part that I like best is where Wilner sounds off about what is in essence that revenues that the top tier power 4 programs generate in essence subsidizes weaker programs, lower divisions, etc. Jon might as well said the stacked subsidies also subsidize non-revenue sports that run deficits and in particular non-revenue women's sports. (Women's basketball probably is on its way to become at least revenue neutral). With a chunk of the revenues from football programs headed to players, there is a big delta in money that is not going to be available for the subsidized in the not distance future. This naturally brings to bear the question as to how the subsidized will react? I think Jon really states the issue correctly:

"We can't predict whether the two-percent schools will break away (the super-league scenario) or simply demand outsized portions of the dollars within the existing conference structure (the super-team scenario). But given the economic pressures, those seem like the only possible outcomes." One other outcome is legislation which basically allows a somewhat competitive structure to stay in place (allowing caps on player payments, anti-trust exemption, collective bargaining agreement, etc.)

In any event, a good thread with a lot to discuss. College sports as we know them are changing a lot, and I hope Cal administrators are up to adapting to all these changes.

socaltownie said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Athletics is such a large part of the college equation for Power Conferene schools, every CEO and AD of a power conference school is putting in overtime with all the changes in the landscape of college sports. If not, ....

---

The interesting thing is that (for the CEO) it really shouldn't be. Here are just four of the the "existential" crisises that actually go WAY in front of what the AD is doing (though I understand that the Chronical of Higher Ed is an acquired taste)....

1) Demographic cliff. Colleges are about done with dealing with babyboom kids and now face an enrollment lull until their grandkids become college age. This is particularly pronounced outside of the sunbelt and is particularly concerning for all but the flagships. There are a number of "power conference" schools that face that, including in our new conference schools like NC State and Clemson.

2) Legacy costs/unfunded benefits. Retiree healthcare and pensions are really the thing that keeps University Presidents up at night as, like the US, our retirement system isn't set up for people living into their 90s (and beyond). Most universities (cal included) have large unfunded liabilities. Unlike the feds, they can't print money.

3) Tenure and the labor system. No university president I know is happy with the current two (very) tiered labor system but really no one has a clue on how to reform it or make it work without a huge amount of blood on the table. It really isn't the tenure guarantee - it is a model of elevating research productivity over teaching productivity in an era of fierce competition over enrollment _AND_ (see below) a demand from students of their degree having real workforce relevance. It is also the case that we know we have vastly overproduced phDs and yet the modern power schools (this is almost exclusively an R1 problem) require graduate labor to operate - even though the prospects for these students is bleak.

4) Questions about the value of Higher Ed. The old model is under severe criticism but lots of legacy players (both in and outside of Higher ed) are protective of the current 180 credit hour; 4 years to finish model. Efforts to try to tweak it have met strong resistance. But consumers (if not (yet) employers) are strongly questioning the value of that old model. Universities feel caught between a rock and a hard place - with consumers asking for alternatives but employers/accreditors/philanthropy still wedded to the old way.

We really forget ) that Cal athletics really isn't the main job of the chancellor. Really visible one. One that dominants the way that popular press covers Higher Ed. But really a lot more important to cal over the long term is how, for example, to think about alternative models for granting credit hours (micro credentials? Competency models?) and how to navigate that through the bureaucracy of higher ed. Those are the topics that lead issues of the Chronical (not the one in the Bay area but the one higher ed leaders read).

One of the reasons I have advocated for "ivy league lite" is that I want Lyons to figure out the above because it really is the most important thing for the system to get right (and also reflects, I think, a modern student body that is a lot less focused on the happenings on the football field and a lot more on getting a job).

---

Let's talk about the role of college administrators and the role of athletics.

Per NCAA regulations, all colleges and universities programs belonging to Division I must be "self-supporting." In contrast, colleges in Divisions II and III have no such obligation or expectation. Maybe I should repeat that since only 22 programs in NCAA Division I showed a surplus. And while big-time college football may be good at generating revenues, with the current arms race football also is good at generating expenses, and it is only going to get worse now that players will be paid. Almost all schools receive substantial funding from school campus funds and/or student fees. Cal is a bit weird since there have high student fees which are not utilized for sports, but has a somewhat high transfer from campus (actually Chancellor discretionary funds last I heard). Also, it should be understood that athletic department deficits to some degree are incredibly overstated by accounting that doesn't credit the athletic department for funding room and board for athletes. So for example, at a school like Stanford, athletics is funding around 1 out of 8 undergrad spots.

That means serious concerns about the business model for the present and future of college sports. Add the overlay that institutions and their athletics departments are required to fund athletic scholarships and teams for women in compliance with NCAA and conference guidelines under Title 9. Using women's sports as a convenient place to cut expenses probably would put the athletics department out of compliance with Title IX. This then would put the entire university's federal funding in jeopardy. Women's sports are notorious for running up deficits, but many men's non-revenue sports also operate at deficits. One way to cover a portion of these deficits is through mandatory student fees which to my shock provide more than half of the income for annual athletics department operating budgets (a lot of this in non-Division One teams).

If university presidents like Carol Christ are torn over trends in big-time college sports, many trustees do not seem to have hesitation or reservation about the growth and power of college sports. (And Carol had legitimate concerns). On balance, recent developments lead to the reality that at least at most Division 1 schools, intercollegiate athletics are central to the school's mission, branding, fundraising and character, and are in fact part of the amenities these colleges provide to students and alums.

What amenities are you providing to attract students? This is becoming more an issue as the demographic cliff hits, and colleges have over expanded. When a school is successful in revenue sports, it helps the school's reputation, attracting prospective students, corporate sponsorships, and alum donations. Even success in non-revenue may attract donations Athletics has become a very valuable part of donations, enrollment and branding.

Let's not forget that college athletics, primarily in basketball and football, offers the ultimate platform to engage with students, alumni and other people within the university community. If you're going to raise money, then people have to know who you are. The average alum, student or person doesn't get to meet the college president or other fundraisers, and so athletic events provides that opportunity to create an introduction and for people to become acquainted. I remember naively saying to CC "thanks for coming." She laughed and said "Well, it's my job, and I like it." You're not getting the same large crowds to campus for a seminar.

There nevertheless appears to be an understanding that changes in college athletics now may end up force a closer look the scope of athletics program at many schools. The campus budgetary pressures are real at many state schools, and athletics spending will not slow down with players being paid. Then again I would also point out that almost all flagship state schools are involved in Division 1 play and a substantial portion are in a Power conference. There is a financial reason for that. So much so that these school Presidents spend a disproportionate amount of their time on athletics. Let's face it, Power 4 conference sports are a huge industry that needs managing. To be continued.

socaltownie said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

WIAF writes (and lots of Shock as well)

"That is not say Cal doesn't still isn't in trouble, but that Cal is in the same trouble as many other schools. The biggest delta is the $20 million plus in revenues will need to be used to fund school NIL payments every year. The answer tor most schools, will be to cut non-revenue sports that run deficits."



I guess the problem that I have with this is that it doesn't feel like this gets you to 20M. Maybe to 5 to 7 but with a ton of blood left on the field and a huge time suck dealing with vocal (and well positioned) givers that care about particular sports or other political considerations that are really hard nuts to crack. (happy to elaborate).

IMHO (as someone who just wrote a 24K+ check I am feeling the pain but it is the right thing to do) - the students need to be asked to pony up like they do at most other non p4 UCs to see if _THEY_ value this. And if they don't then we have to seriously ask about the university running a long standing structural deficit to carry out an activity that is for the benefit of the hobbyist alumni.

Here is information about the:

UCSD student fee.(https://summersession.ucsd.edu/tuition/tuition.html#Current-UC-San-Diego-Students--). $167 a quarter= 501 a year)

UCSB ($102.09 - called "facilities fee" (https://registrar.sa.ucsb.edu/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2023-2024cbf-fix.pdf?sfvrsn=4d7ea946_2)

UCI (https://www.reg.uci.edu/fees/2023-2024/undergrad_23.html) Campus Sprit Fees.

Someone else with more time can add in Davis and UCR and see if they can find anything from UCLA (who I don't believe imposes a fee).

Now it would be a lift but if Cal were able to pass an undergrad referendum equal to the UCSD number - 17.5 million in new money.

Now the likely result is that the referendum flames out tremendously. But I have come to the conclusion that this is OK> The University should be about the students. And if they don't value Bear athletic success to invest at the same level as the Tritons then maybe we should stop trying to get the dead corpse off the table.

While I am sure that Seb is going to chime in that this is made up - (https://www.si.com/college/oregon/news/oregon-ducks-ohio-state-buckeyes-nil-budgets-revealed-unfair-advantage-nebraska-college-football-big-ten) the programs that are committed to wining have NIL annual budgets at 23 million. That amount of fundraising boggles the mind. And yet that is what it _currently_ takes to compete with the big boys. It also boggles the mind why we can't have a rational discussion about alternative paths forward without retreating into sad arguments about stadium debts or being "relevant".

PS. (Shameless plug). For those that want an alternative place to support students for whom you probably can continue to "cheer" consider supporting SEED (https://seedscholars.berkeley.edu/program). I am frankly going to say that those kids are closer to the actual mission of the university and deserve just as much support (or more) than guys that can throw a mean down field block,.

---

Asking students from low income families and taking financial aid to subsidize a scholarship for men's rowing or women's gymnastics is a complete non-starter. If I'm on financial aid, I'd be pissed that I had to pay for someone else's education. The kids are already in enough debt when they leave school, let's not increase that burden.

---

I get that. But your counterparts at UCI, UCSD and Davis _are_ doing that.

---

Doesnt; the Blue & Gold scholarship cover tuition AND campus fees for low income students? (yes, this is a cost shift back to campus, but at least students from low income families would not be hurt by an increase in campus fees)

Okay, University presidents juggle a lot of hard issues these days, and answer to what seems like hundreds of different constituencies. And if you are in a large state flagship school, the President likely needs to find the wherewithal to stay integrally involved in the business of college athletics given all the changes in college sports. It is strange that many who know little about the sports business, or business in general, are the ones making the key sports business decisions affecting their institutions, conferences, athletes and fans.

The take away probably should be they are so far removed from what's actually happening in athletics that they are not prepared to lead in this area, but that doesn't stop them. This was all so evident during the downfall of the Pac-12. After hiring Larry Scott, who had no experience in college sports and left the conference on life support, they again went "outside the box" and hired another Commissioner with no experience in college athletics to the Pac's ultimate demise. The remaining presidents blindly following the new Commissioner deciding at that time not to expand; to having a vastly overinflated sense of the Pac-12's "value" in the media marketplace; to allow the Commissioner to speak to the press time and again (and also allowing certain school Presidents to do the same), often predicting when a media rights deal would come and what the annual value would be, which truly undermined their own negotiations. No doubt needless updates or predictions during the process is not how prospective media partners think media negotiations work, especially when the comments demonstrated a lack of understanding of the media market, particularly what non-linear careers were looking for. And maybe it should have never arrived at that point. The other presidents of the Pac-12 refused to try to work through issues SC and Oregon were concerned about.

But today it broader than the just the Pac. The Presidents blame the NCAA when a policy doesn't work, when it's the presidents who have established the governance model. They want Congress to pass antitrust exemptions (how has that worked?), or they will punt an issue down the road because they don't want to deal with it or have no plan to deal with it because they don't like it, such as with pay for play, and chaos ensues. And they also have no problem betraying one another in order to survive conference realignment.


But with all the changes happening today, the general lack of public comment and outreach by presidents at universities that offer big-time sports programs is curious to say the least. The presidents relied on Commissioners, but when they now are competing against programs in their own conference for survival in the next round on conference realignment, is that really a good idea? You can't put athletics on auto-pilot, no matter how successful your program appears to be. Like it or not, athletics weighs heavily on the reputation and financial status of a flagship state university.

Presidents now serve an average term of 5.7 years, down from 8.5 years in 2004, and way down if you go further back. And according to a survey by the organization you quoted, more than half of the presidents surveyed said they planned to step down within the next five years. So you expect short term, crises mode thought here. Those "big" lofty issues you raised are going to be the next President's problem. The next crises up as students return and the election occurs is to navigate a pretty politically complex environment on campus for protests on antisemitism, free speech, LGBTQ+ rights or whatever entitled students don't like, as well as the anticipated push back from politicians, donor-alums, and other stakeholders that have forced college Presidents to resign their jobs recently. And then football also returns front and center.

Presidents are being hired more and more with a business skill-set or competency to manage entrepreneurial units such as athletics, medical centers, research labs, etc. That probably is a good thing, but it does have consequences. This is antidotal, but ADs also are now being integrated more into the decision-making of not only athletics, but also academic areas of the university. Athletic directors probably were not fully utilized in decades past because of the dependency on conference commissioners. Also, someone has to implement whatever the college President decides. So a President needs to stay on top of this, because if it doesn't work out, it is the President who respond to donors, a board of trustees member, or even some student rant that goes viral on the internet. You can't entertain donors and influencers while they cheer for something you spend almost no time or energy on, without negative consequences. Some thoughts on Cal and Ivy Light to come when time permits.

Shocky1 said:

---

cnhth, ur dumb azz financial commentary suggests ur neither a haas biz ad grad who can decipher/analyze complex financial statements or a bro of wall street

luckily for berkeley rich lyons is both of those things

and that's ok, this is a judgment free safe zone for the financially illiterate

---

I doubt Lyons being a Haas grad and a wall street wiz will lead him to solve this huge athletic department deficit issue, certainly not in any short time period. I'm looking forward to readinbg what, if anything, he comes up with.

WIAF -

57% of the incoming class identifies as female (while women are of course football fans it has, traditionally, been a sport most obsessed over by men)

29% are first gen students which by definition means they have no family connection to college football.

More than 65% of degrees awarded in 2023 were in STEM fields. Of COURSE EECS students can be football fans but I would submit that their time and focus are often elsewhere.

One thing that many of this page refuse to lean into is that today's Cal is NOT their CAL. Its students are decidedly different from those in the 70s and 80s.

Finally, I would also submit that the most successful "campus builder" at the moment in the system is Kholsa - decidedly NOT a "business" guy, a fundraiser who frankly blows away Christ, who is on track to build an amazing amount of student housing and who operates at a non-football school.

*PS. Many of the non-first gen students are kiddos of parents holding at least one undergrad degree from overseas universities..

PPS. Interest and participation in California HS football is in decline. SLowed from the freefall of the 1990s but still WELLL off peak.

lol

"Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy has had enough of the distractions that go along with this new era of college football.
There's so much to navigate now with the transfer portal and name, image and likeness deals, and Gundy has drawn the line, turning the Cowboys' focus to their Aug. 31 opener at home against South Dakota State.
"The good news is, the next five months we can just play football," Gundy said last week. "There's no negotiating now. The portal's over. All the negotiation's history. Now we're playing football.
"The business side of what we do now -- we have to have those conversations with [the players]. 'Tell your agent to quit calling us and asking for more money. It's non-negotiable now. It'll start again in December. So now we're able to direct ourselves just in football, and that part is fun.""

In a later update…

"The school announced Tuesday that the Cowboys will sport QR codes on their helmets linking to a donation page for the school's NIL fund, believed to be a first in college football.

The QR codes on the back of each helmet will be 1.5 square inches. The school said that while the codes won't be visible from the stands on game day, fans watching during television broadcasts will be able to capture them on their phones. Oklahoma State believes this will help raise the team's NIL value throughout the year."

socaltownie said:

---

WIAF -

57% of the incoming class identifies as female (while women are of course football fans it has, traditionally, been a sport most obsessed over by men)



29% are first gen students which by definition means they have no family connection to college football.

More than 65% of degrees awarded in 2023 were in STEM fields. Of COURSE EECS students can be football fans but I would submit that their time and focus are often elsewhere.

One thing that many of this page refuse to lean into is that today's Cal is NOT their CAL. Its students are decidedly different from those in the 70s and 80s.

Finally, I would also submit that the most successful "campus builder" at the moment in the system is Kholsa - decidedly NOT a "business" guy, a fundraiser who frankly blows away Christ, who is on track to build an amazing amount of student housing and who operates at a non-football school.

*PS. Many of the non-first gen students are kiddos of parents holding at least one undergrad degree from overseas universities..

PPS. Interest and participation in California HS football is in decline. SLowed from the freefall of the 1990s but still WELLL off peak.

---

I admit college is way different that when I went to school, just look at the cost and clearly more students are STEM majors. You seem to be suggesting because there is a greater student diversity in the student body, college athletics will suffer. think your statistics miss the mark, and behind your comments are some atent sterotypes:

Women; I agree that men statistically are more avid football fans. Men and women have essentially the same level of casual interest in college football if you go to Statista. The disconnect, especially with students, is that you don't have to be an avid fan to attend games or follow college sports, given the social aspects surrounding say college football. So some results from a Learfield Study:

1) women represent 42% of the overall college sports fan base, and they are sports fans, not simply women's sports fans.
2) women wear more team branded apparel
3) female college sports fans have a median age of 48.8 a full five years younger than their male counterparts
4) 43% of the average TV audience watching college football are women.
5) Co-watching televised and streamed sporting events was far and away the most frequently observed behavior outpacing sports wagering, for example, by a nearly 9-to-1 margin (wagering is a male thing).

https://www.learfield.com/fanreport/

Next time you go to a Cal game, spend some time looking around the stadium.. Bet you find that half those attending are women, and at least at Cal games there are a lot of old fans when you look at the alum side of the field. Cal has particular issues with fan attendance, and you might be better off addressing those. Start with
fans don't like losing or they don't like watching their team university lose.

Ist Generation (1G): The number you cite is when the term "first-generation college student," is defined as an undergraduate whose parents do not have a bachelor's degree. I'm assuming this is not aimed at 1G black students who are way more likely to watch games. And of course you must not be talking about the athletes themselves because 12% of white student-athletes and 26% of student-athletes from a racial/ethnic minority group report being 1G college students per the NCAA. The biggest problem is that the percentage of first generation students attending four year schools has dropped over time. In 1960, only 7% of the US population had any college degree (4 or 2 year college) it is not surprise that expanding enrollments meant a huge number of 1G white and black students during the 1960s through 1980s (I assume your remark about "not their Cal" was aimed at students from this era) and in fact the percentage of 1G students from those ethnic groups have fallen significantly. Maybe you're concerned about the ethnic background of those current 1G students? I will just let the Asian and Hispanic posters respond to this misbegotten notion. Cal is not the only schools to see these demographic changes. Yet somehow ESPN is reporting TV viewership has gone-up in the last five years and well, you can read the article:

College football is booming, after all the hand-wringing, thanks to NIL ...The New York Timeshttps://www.nytimes.com athletic 2023/10/13 colle...

Again, I think you might want to address Cal specific issues when it comes to game attendance and eyeballs watching Cal games. Stuff that matters in conference realignment.

I didn't really track the comparison of the UCSD vs former Cal chancellors. UCSD's endowment is $1.6 Billion and Cal's is $6.8 billion. And UCSD has a medical school. Both schools make a big deal about big dollar pledges and don't collect anything near what they claim the pledges levels to be. Somebody else can argue about Khosla vs Christ, I don't care.

PS: So what?

PPS: Yes, so CA football participation has trailed off, because participation in certain areas in California, such as the Bay Area, has lead to an overall slow decline in participation statewide. It is down also national, though, even that trend is more nuanced, which gets into blue vs red states, soccer vs football, etc. Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with being a college football fan for example. I know people that moved their sons away from playing football who regularly go to football games, as do their kids. Again, like it or not, college football is still thriving, and the talent pool seems pretty solid, regardless of narrative some people want to move forward. The only question I have is well it be thriving at Cal?

The absurd number of STEM majors on this board can respond to your reference.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Again, like it or not, college football is still thriving, and the talent pool seems pretty solid, regardless of narrative some people want to move forward. The only question I have is well it be thriving at Cal?

---

USC doesn't have anything to worry about. The long term trend is that college football will thrive for Big Ten and SEC teams and, sooner rather than later, teams that don't make it into those two conferences will not be considered "major college football" teams. ESPN and the broadcast networks will be wall-to-wall SEC and Big Ten on Saturdays, and everything else will be on the CW or streaming services.

Even fans who now attend in person will absorb the major/minor branding and act accordingly. Teams that don't make it into one of the "Big Two" will sooner or later have about as much luck selling football tickets and securing large donations as MWC teams do.

For fans whose primary focus is college football, and whose team is currently outside the SEC and Big Ten, the next few years are about positioning to get into one of those two conferences. Everything else ought to be a means to that end.

BearSD said:

---

ESPN and the broadcast networks will be wall-to-wall SEC and Big Ten on Saturdays, and everything else will be on the CW or streaming services.

---

I'm not sure there's actually enough content for them to do that. ESPN is trying to fill multiple networks and a streaming service. I think that keeps the "second tier" around in some form for a while. The Mountain West still gets games on Fox and CBS!

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

ESPN and the broadcast networks will be wall-to-wall SEC and Big Ten on Saturdays, and everything else will be on the CW or streaming services.

---

I'm not sure there's actually enough content for them to do that. ESPN is trying to fill multiple networks and a streaming service. I think that keeps the "second tier" around in some form for a while. The Mountain West still gets games on Fox and CBS!

---

Less than ten years from now, maybe by fall 2030, that second tier will be much closer to the MWC than to the Big Ten and SEC.

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

ESPN and the broadcast networks will be wall-to-wall SEC and Big Ten on Saturdays, and everything else will be on the CW or streaming services.

---

I'm not sure there's actually enough content for them to do that. ESPN is trying to fill multiple networks and a streaming service. I think that keeps the "second tier" around in some form for a while. The Mountain West still gets games on Fox and CBS!

---

Less than ten years from now, maybe by fall 2030, that second tier will be much closer to the MWC than to the Big Ten and SEC.

---

So . . . still being shown on major networks, then?

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

ESPN and the broadcast networks will be wall-to-wall SEC and Big Ten on Saturdays, and everything else will be on the CW or streaming services.

---

I'm not sure there's actually enough content for them to do that. ESPN is trying to fill multiple networks and a streaming service. I think that keeps the "second tier" around in some form for a while. The Mountain West still gets games on Fox and CBS!

---

Less than ten years from now, maybe by fall 2030, that second tier will be much closer to the MWC than to the Big Ten and SEC.

---

So . . . still being shown on major networks, then?

---

That is impressively rosy spin on your part. Kind of like the WSU and OSU folks who insist they are still in a power conference today.

The MWC has no conference games on major networks this season. Four games with an ex-Pac team playing an MWC team, and the Navy vs Air Force game. That's it.

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

ESPN and the broadcast networks will be wall-to-wall SEC and Big Ten on Saturdays, and everything else will be on the CW or streaming services.

---

I'm not sure there's actually enough content for them to do that. ESPN is trying to fill multiple networks and a streaming service. I think that keeps the "second tier" around in some form for a while. The Mountain West still gets games on Fox and CBS!

---

Less than ten years from now, maybe by fall 2030, that second tier will be much closer to the MWC than to the Big Ten and SEC.

---

So . . . still being shown on major networks, then?

---

That is impressively rosy spin on your part. Kind of like the WSU and OSU folks who insist they are still in a power conference today.

The MWC has no conference games on major networks this season. Four games with an ex-Pac team playing an MWC team, and the Navy vs Air Force game. That's it.

---

Hold on, I didn't say anything about being a power conference, that's something you jumped to. My original point was about TV coverage. I think there would still be enough slots on the TV schedule that the "second tier" conferences will still be seen on the major networks (on ESPN at least).

As to the MWC: not counting the conference championship game, it got at least one conference game on a major network (Fox or CBS) each of the last four seasons (plus several other non-conference matchups like the ones you cited). 2024 is a bit of an anomaly in that regard.

https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2020r
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2021
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2022
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2023

And that's for a league that is, at best, a third-tier conference. I contend that a second-tier league like the ACC or Big 12 would do better than that. That's not to say the SEC and B1G won't dominate; they will. I just think your idea that all other conferences will be completely pushed off the major networks is a hugely pessimistic view.

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

ESPN and the broadcast networks will be wall-to-wall SEC and Big Ten on Saturdays, and everything else will be on the CW or streaming services.

---

I'm not sure there's actually enough content for them to do that. ESPN is trying to fill multiple networks and a streaming service. I think that keeps the "second tier" around in some form for a while. The Mountain West still gets games on Fox and CBS!

---

Less than ten years from now, maybe by fall 2030, that second tier will be much closer to the MWC than to the Big Ten and SEC.

---

So . . . still being shown on major networks, then?

---

That is impressively rosy spin on your part. Kind of like the WSU and OSU folks who insist they are still in a power conference today.

The MWC has no conference games on major networks this season. Four games with an ex-Pac team playing an MWC team, and the Navy vs Air Force game. That's it.

---

Hold on, I didn't say anything about being a power conference, that's something you jumped to. My original point was about TV coverage. I think there would still be enough slots on the TV schedule that the "second tier" conferences will still be seen on the major networks (on ESPN at least).

As to the MWC: not counting the conference championship game, it got at least one conference game on a major network (Fox or CBS) each of the last four seasons (plus several other non-conference matchups like the ones you cited). 2024 is a bit of an anomaly in that regard.

https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2020r
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2021
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2022
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2023

And that's for a league that is, at best, a third-tier conference. I contend that a second-tier league like the ACC or Big 12 would do better than that. That's not to say the SEC and B1G won't dominate; they will. I just think your idea that all other conferences will be completely pushed off the major networks is a hugely pessimistic view.

---

The ACC and (possibly) the Big 12 will lose their most TV-valuable teams by fall 2030. That will put them much closer to the MWC than they are today.

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

ESPN and the broadcast networks will be wall-to-wall SEC and Big Ten on Saturdays, and everything else will be on the CW or streaming services.

---

I'm not sure there's actually enough content for them to do that. ESPN is trying to fill multiple networks and a streaming service. I think that keeps the "second tier" around in some form for a while. The Mountain West still gets games on Fox and CBS!

---

Less than ten years from now, maybe by fall 2030, that second tier will be much closer to the MWC than to the Big Ten and SEC.

---

So . . . still being shown on major networks, then?

---

That is impressively rosy spin on your part. Kind of like the WSU and OSU folks who insist they are still in a power conference today.

The MWC has no conference games on major networks this season. Four games with an ex-Pac team playing an MWC team, and the Navy vs Air Force game. That's it.

---

Hold on, I didn't say anything about being a power conference, that's something you jumped to. My original point was about TV coverage. I think there would still be enough slots on the TV schedule that the "second tier" conferences will still be seen on the major networks (on ESPN at least).

As to the MWC: not counting the conference championship game, it got at least one conference game on a major network (Fox or CBS) each of the last four seasons (plus several other non-conference matchups like the ones you cited). 2024 is a bit of an anomaly in that regard.

https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2020r
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2021
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2022
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2023

And that's for a league that is, at best, a third-tier conference. I contend that a second-tier league like the ACC or Big 12 would do better than that. That's not to say the SEC and B1G won't dominate; they will. I just think your idea that all other conferences will be completely pushed off the major networks is a hugely pessimistic view.

---

The ACC and (possibly) the Big 12 will lose their most TV-valuable teams by fall 2030. That will put them much closer to the MWC than they are today.

---

The Big 12 already lost their most valuable TV teams, only their TV contract doesnt reflect that, yet. If they weren't able to prey on the wounded carcass that was the Pac-12 they'd be a glorified G5 conference.

I'm tired of the lie that is the Big Twelve is strong, it's not. Their conference footprint consists of either flagship schools in small markets or schools in big markets that no one cares about.

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

ESPN and the broadcast networks will be wall-to-wall SEC and Big Ten on Saturdays, and everything else will be on the CW or streaming services.

---

I'm not sure there's actually enough content for them to do that. ESPN is trying to fill multiple networks and a streaming service. I think that keeps the "second tier" around in some form for a while. The Mountain West still gets games on Fox and CBS!

---

Less than ten years from now, maybe by fall 2030, that second tier will be much closer to the MWC than to the Big Ten and SEC.

---

So . . . still being shown on major networks, then?

---

That is impressively rosy spin on your part. Kind of like the WSU and OSU folks who insist they are still in a power conference today.

The MWC has no conference games on major networks this season. Four games with an ex-Pac team playing an MWC team, and the Navy vs Air Force game. That's it.

---

Hold on, I didn't say anything about being a power conference, that's something you jumped to. My original point was about TV coverage. I think there would still be enough slots on the TV schedule that the "second tier" conferences will still be seen on the major networks (on ESPN at least).

As to the MWC: not counting the conference championship game, it got at least one conference game on a major network (Fox or CBS) each of the last four seasons (plus several other non-conference matchups like the ones you cited). 2024 is a bit of an anomaly in that regard.

https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2020r
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2021
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2022
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2023

And that's for a league that is, at best, a third-tier conference. I contend that a second-tier league like the ACC or Big 12 would do better than that. That's not to say the SEC and B1G won't dominate; they will. I just think your idea that all other conferences will be completely pushed off the major networks is a hugely pessimistic view.

---

The ACC and (possibly) the Big 12 will lose their most TV-valuable teams by fall 2030. That will put them much closer to the MWC than they are today.

---

Sure, very possibly. I just don't think that means they'll be thrown out of decent TV coverage.

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

ESPN and the broadcast networks will be wall-to-wall SEC and Big Ten on Saturdays, and everything else will be on the CW or streaming services.

---

I'm not sure there's actually enough content for them to do that. ESPN is trying to fill multiple networks and a streaming service. I think that keeps the "second tier" around in some form for a while. The Mountain West still gets games on Fox and CBS!

---

Less than ten years from now, maybe by fall 2030, that second tier will be much closer to the MWC than to the Big Ten and SEC.

---

So . . . still being shown on major networks, then?

---

That is impressively rosy spin on your part. Kind of like the WSU and OSU folks who insist they are still in a power conference today.

The MWC has no conference games on major networks this season. Four games with an ex-Pac team playing an MWC team, and the Navy vs Air Force game. That's it.

---

Hold on, I didn't say anything about being a power conference, that's something you jumped to. My original point was about TV coverage. I think there would still be enough slots on the TV schedule that the "second tier" conferences will still be seen on the major networks (on ESPN at least).

As to the MWC: not counting the conference championship game, it got at least one conference game on a major network (Fox or CBS) each of the last four seasons (plus several other non-conference matchups like the ones you cited). 2024 is a bit of an anomaly in that regard.

https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2020r
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2021
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2022
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2023

And that's for a league that is, at best, a third-tier conference. I contend that a second-tier league like the ACC or Big 12 would do better than that. That's not to say the SEC and B1G won't dominate; they will. I just think your idea that all other conferences will be completely pushed off the major networks is a hugely pessimistic view.

---

The ACC and (possibly) the Big 12 will lose their most TV-valuable teams by fall 2030. That will put them much closer to the MWC than they are today.

---

Sure, very possibly. I just don't think that means they'll be thrown out of decent TV coverage.

---

It used to be 3 over air broadcast TV networks only then cable (or later satellite) with ESPN followed by Fox Sports then ESPN2, ESPNU, FoxSports2(?) and now CW….
The number of outlets is only increasing and so content is king.

I fully expect ESPN to renew under the option on their ACC contract when the time comes making this whole discussion moot.

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

ESPN and the broadcast networks will be wall-to-wall SEC and Big Ten on Saturdays, and everything else will be on the CW or streaming services.

---

I'm not sure there's actually enough content for them to do that. ESPN is trying to fill multiple networks and a streaming service. I think that keeps the "second tier" around in some form for a while. The Mountain West still gets games on Fox and CBS!

---

Less than ten years from now, maybe by fall 2030, that second tier will be much closer to the MWC than to the Big Ten and SEC.

---

So . . . still being shown on major networks, then?

---

That is impressively rosy spin on your part. Kind of like the WSU and OSU folks who insist they are still in a power conference today.

The MWC has no conference games on major networks this season. Four games with an ex-Pac team playing an MWC team, and the Navy vs Air Force game. That's it.

---

Hold on, I didn't say anything about being a power conference, that's something you jumped to. My original point was about TV coverage. I think there would still be enough slots on the TV schedule that the "second tier" conferences will still be seen on the major networks (on ESPN at least).

As to the MWC: not counting the conference championship game, it got at least one conference game on a major network (Fox or CBS) each of the last four seasons (plus several other non-conference matchups like the ones you cited). 2024 is a bit of an anomaly in that regard.

https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2020r
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2021
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2022
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/MWC/2023

And that's for a league that is, at best, a third-tier conference. I contend that a second-tier league like the ACC or Big 12 would do better than that. That's not to say the SEC and B1G won't dominate; they will. I just think your idea that all other conferences will be completely pushed off the major networks is a hugely pessimistic view.

---

The ACC and (possibly) the Big 12 will lose their most TV-valuable teams by fall 2030. That will put them much closer to the MWC than they are today.

---

Sure, very possibly. I just don't think that means they'll be thrown out of decent TV coverage.

---

It used to be 3 over air broadcast TV networks only then cable (or later satellite) with ESPN followed by Fox Sports then ESPN2, ESPNU, FoxSports2(?) and now CW….
The number of outlets is only increasing and so content is king.

I fully expect ESPN to renew under the option on their ACC contract when the time comes making this whole discussion moot.

---

If you go back to the middle of the Tedford years at Cal (not that long ago), back then only three of the broadcast networks showed college football, and among them you had NBC that only carried Notre Dame, CBS that only carried one SEC game a week (plus the Army-Navy game at the end of the season), and then ABC for everyone else. Fox didn't carry any college football on the main channel, just on the regional FSN outlets. Even when we were a nationally ranked team, we would sometimes have games left off of TV entirely.

Things are very different now. Every network carries multiple games on Saturday, and sometimes on Friday or Sunday or Monday too. The CW has joined the fray. ESPN still has multiple networks they'd like to fill up with games. Fox has FS1 and FS2. CBS Sports Network covers a full slate. Three conferences have their own networks (programmed by Fox or ESPN) that need content. No FBS game gets left off TV and/or streaming anymore. Even most of the FCS games tend to get picked up on local TV or some streaming outlet now.

Given this environment, I think there is still a desire from the networks to show even second-tier college football. The second tier conferences wouldn't get as much money for it, but they would get something and the games would be on TV.

Rather than all of these words it would be great if someone summarized Cal athletics last financial statement to attempt to provide 1) the basics of last year's deficit and 2) what changes can/should be made to stem the flow of any losses. In that manner those familar with those issues can make some knowledgeable comments about them to suggest how they might be eliminated over time.

Gobears49 said:

---

Rather than all of these words it would be great if someone summarized Cal athletics last financial statement to attempt to provide 1) the basics of last year's deficit and 2) what changes can/should be made to stem the flow of any losses. In that manner those familar with those issues can make some knowledgeable comments about them to suggest how they might be eliminated over time.

---

Maybe you could spend your Joe Starkey statue money to pay someone to write that article!

calumnus said:

---

1. The minimum sports for ACC are Football, Men's and Women's Basketball and Women's Soccer. I think Cal and Stanford move most of the other (surviving) sports to a western regional conference.

2. Florida does not want Florida State in the SEC.

3. Wilner acts like the conferences call the shots. ESPN does not want Florida State in the SEC and they control the dollars.

4. Trying to leave the ACC to go to the Big 12 does not make sense. For one, they pay less. They just traded Texas and Oklahoma for Utah, Colorado, Arizona and Arizona State. They overlap territories and time zones with the B1G and SEC. They have less tradition as a conference. They seem to be on a weaker position than the ACC, though I guess if FSU and Clemson could magically join them it would top the balance the other way.

5. I think if the B1G could take an ACC team it would be Miami, not FSU or Clemson.

6. Once the expanded CFPs take hold there will be less pressure for Super Conferences. Clemson and Florida State will figure out that the ACC is a better path to consistent post season appearances and $$$.

7. Even if superconferences form, they (like all professional leagues do) will naturally split into regional divisions. The natural split is North, South, East and West.

8. UCLA will eventually play at Sofi, 10 minutes from campus on the 405 and much closer to its alumni base on the Westside. The Rose Bowl will likely be torn down and replaced with a housing development.

---

Man, I would kill to live in a world where it only took 10 minutes to go from UCLA to SoFi.

Gobears49 said:

---

Rather than all of these words it would be great if someone summarized Cal athletics last financial statement to attempt to provide 1) the basics of last year's deficit and 2) what changes can/should be made to stem the flow of any losses. In that manner those familar with those issues can make some knowledgeable comments about them to suggest how they might be eliminated over time.

---

Sounds like a good project for you. Let us know what you find.

sketchy9 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

1. The minimum sports for ACC are Football, Men's and Women's Basketball and Women's Soccer. I think Cal and Stanford move most of the other (surviving) sports to a western regional conference.

2. Florida does not want Florida State in the SEC.

3. Wilner acts like the conferences call the shots. ESPN does not want Florida State in the SEC and they control the dollars.

4. Trying to leave the ACC to go to the Big 12 does not make sense. For one, they pay less. They just traded Texas and Oklahoma for Utah, Colorado, Arizona and Arizona State. They overlap territories and time zones with the B1G and SEC. They have less tradition as a conference. They seem to be on a weaker position than the ACC, though I guess if FSU and Clemson could magically join them it would top the balance the other way.

5. I think if the B1G could take an ACC team it would be Miami, not FSU or Clemson.

6. Once the expanded CFPs take hold there will be less pressure for Super Conferences. Clemson and Florida State will figure out that the ACC is a better path to consistent post season appearances and $$$.

7. Even if superconferences form, they (like all professional leagues do) will naturally split into regional divisions. The natural split is North, South, East and West.

8. UCLA will eventually play at Sofi, 10 minutes from campus on the 405 and much closer to its alumni base on the Westside. The Rose Bowl will likely be torn down and replaced with a housing development.

---

Man, I would kill to live in a world where it only took 10 minutes to go from UCLA to SoFi.

---

Yeah, it *might* take only 10 minutes to get from UCLA to the Getty Center, but to SoFi... no.

calumnus said:

---

8. UCLA will eventually play at Sofi, 10 minutes from campus on the 405 and much closer to its alumni base on the Westside. The Rose Bowl will likely be torn down and replaced with a housing development.

---

UCLA has a lease at the Rose Bowl through 2042. SoFi will be well aged by then.

golden sloth said:

---

The Big 12 already lost their most valuable TV teams, only their TV contract doesnt reflect that, yet. If they weren't able to prey on the wounded carcass that was the Pac-12 they'd be a glorified G5 conference.

I'm tired of the lie that is the Big Twelve is strong, it's not. Their conference footprint consists of either flagship schools in small markets or schools in big markets that no one cares about.

---

Is that you George Kliavkoff?

What matters is the number of eyeballs watching games and your conference network. I'm assuming you don't; want to talk about the Pac 12 network. But Cal and Furd currently have low ratings and interest regardless of the Bay Area market size which is why their application to the B1G was turned down. Fox thought their value was around $2 million a piece, and presumably you can figure the rest of that out. That fuzzy thinking is why ESPN refused to negotiate with the Pac 10 because of their inflated value of worth.

The comment about the Big 12 TV contract makes no sense, given that the Big 12's new contract before the Pac bust-up and when George was touting a huge media contract way above what the Big 12 record. And after it was known that Texas and Okie would not be a party to the contract. It was only when George asked the Pac 9/10 CEOs to agree to the illusory Apple contract which could be canceled by Apple every year and offered far less guaranteed money than any other power conference contracts that the Pac went under. George presented that Apple contract, the Pac exploded, and the "wounded carcasses" went to the B1G and Big 12, where whatever those teams were worth from a TV standpoint, net some schools taking reduced media shares, was sufficient for the conference to gain acceptance. BTW, you do realize the Calford also tried to be admitted to the not "strong" Big 12, don't you? Viewers per game in 2023 by conference were: B1G, SEC, Big 12, Pac 12 and ACC per SportsMediaWatch. If the Big 12 isn't strong, then *** were/ are the Pac 12 and ACC, sub-glorified G5 conferences?

Cal lucked out because it found a conference with a TV contract that provided a fixed level of extra money per team, regardless of who was the team. It is not going to be that lucky on the next round of consolidation. It is pretty clear the Big 12 is not the next conference to face realignment. It is the ACC.

To show the ignorance of the flagship schools in small markets comment, look at the SEC locations: Mississippi State, Auburn, Gainesville, Athens, Lexington, Columbia and Columibia, Oxford, Tuscaloosa, Fayetteville, Norman, etc. The only possible exceptions are Vandy in Nashville and Texas in Austin, assuming you consider Nashville and Austin major media markets.

BearSD said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

1. The minimum sports for ACC are Football, Men's and Women's Basketball and Women's Soccer. I think Cal and Stanford move most of the other (surviving) sports to a western regional conference.

2. Florida does not want Florida State in the SEC.

3. Wilner acts like the conferences call the shots. ESPN does not want Florida State in the SEC and they control the dollars.

4. Trying to leave the ACC to go to the Big 12 does not make sense. For one, they pay less. They just traded Texas and Oklahoma for Utah, Colorado, Arizona and Arizona State. They overlap territories and time zones with the B1G and SEC. They have less tradition as a conference. They seem to be on a weaker position than the ACC, though I guess if FSU and Clemson could magically join them it would top the balance the other way.

5. I think if the B1G could take an ACC team it would be Miami, not FSU or Clemson.

6. Once the expanded CFPs take hold there will be less pressure for Super Conferences. Clemson and Florida State will figure out that the ACC is a better path to consistent post season appearances and $$$.

7. Even if superconferences form, they (like all professional leagues do) will naturally split into regional divisions. The natural split is North, South, East and West.

8. UCLA will eventually play at Sofi, 10 minutes from campus on the 405 and much closer to its alumni base on the Westside. The Rose Bowl will likely be torn down and replaced with a housing development.

---

Man, I would kill to live in a world where it only took 10 minutes to go from UCLA to SoFi.

---

Yeah, it *might* take only 10 minutes to get from UCLA to the Getty Center, but to SoFi... no.

---

It takes longer than 10 minutes to get from the UCLA campus to Wilshire. But I will grant that it's easier to get to SoFi than the Rose Bowl.

calumnus said:

---

1. The minimum sports for ACC are Football, Men's and Women's Basketball and Women's Soccer. I think Cal and Stanford move most of the other (surviving) sports to a western regional conference.

2. Florida does not want Florida State in the SEC.

3. Wilner acts like the conferences call the shots. ESPN does not want Florida State in the SEC and they control the dollars.

4. Trying to leave the ACC to go to the Big 12 does not make sense. For one, they pay less. They just traded Texas and Oklahoma for Utah, Colorado, Arizona and Arizona State. They overlap territories and time zones with the B1G and SEC. They have less tradition as a conference. They seem to be on a weaker position than the ACC, though I guess if FSU and Clemson could magically join them it would top the balance the other way.

5. I think if the B1G could take an ACC team it would be Miami, not FSU or Clemson.

6. Once the expanded CFPs take hold there will be less pressure for Super Conferences. Clemson and Florida State will figure out that the ACC is a better path to consistent post season appearances and $$$.

7. Even if superconferences form, they (like all professional leagues do) will naturally split into regional divisions. The natural split is North, South, East and West.

8. UCLA will eventually play at Sofi, 10 minutes from campus on the 405 and much closer to its alumni base on the Westside. The Rose Bowl will likely be torn down and replaced with a housing development.

---

2. What Florida wants doesn't matter. We didn't want texas in the SEC either. Now anyone else that wants to bring an in-state team in to compete, is open to do so

4. This is true. I've long argued that the ACC is better than the Big 12. The current Big 12 is basically the new AAC or old CUSA. There's nothing interesting there. Its a safe conference because NONE of their teams are wanted by the Big 2.

5. I disagree with Miami being the first choice. North Carolina is both the SEC and Big 10's first choice. For academics, athletics, and the rapidly increasing population demographics of the state. Virginia might even be 2nd. But UNC, UVA and Miami are the 3 that the Big 10 would want. Florida State is 4th. I'm not sure what real market Clemson has. Outside of incredible recent success they don't have a whole lot going for them.

6. I strongly agree with this point this CFP is going to change the game completely. Just on the financials alone, Wilner and most of Bearinsider aren't really counting on bowl revenue and/or NCAA tournament revenue. Maybe even going to the college world series in baseball/softball might be lucrative. There's no reason why Cal can't merely make these season ending playoffs/bowls. But even outside the money, the playoff access will add viability to the "other 2" and even G5 conferences. Lurking in the background, FCS teams are rushing into the FBS. Because suddenly teams like Delaware stumbling into a 12-0 means they'll play in front on 60 million eyeballs instead of near zero in the irrelevant FCS playoffs.

8. I agree that UCLA will eventually move to Sofi. But no until the 2028-29 season. The Rose bowl will be at least partially maintained for the 2028 Olympics. The 28-29 season is a LONG time away. They need to win to keep people interested; just like Cal.