^ +1000

BearSD said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

I dunno man. For all the money I've spent, saying my degree is geared towards accounting in Florida, Sweden and the Caymen Islands. I don't think they're telling me the truth.

Here's some questions that perhaps you, wiaf or calumnus can answer:

Does Lyons have a good strategic parntership with Knowlton? If not, will he seek to replace him?

Its only been a little over a months since Lyons officially took over. I wonder how the Athletic Dept. budget looks to his eyes.

---

Lyons is the CEO of a very large and very elite university with an annual budget that exceeds 3 billion dollars. He is smart enough to know that athletics is just one of a large number of pieces of this massive university, and that the AD has to run athletics capably with only minimal attention from the chancellor, or be replaced by someone who will.

---

Knowlton was the wrong hire from the start. He is the very opposite of the innovative, entrepreneurial visionary thinker, whose passion for Cal and the East Bay, knowledge of the revenue sports, media, and broad connections with our alumni base, might give us a chance to get out of the hole we are in. A hole he has only made many magnitudes bigger. The first rule when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. You can't solve a problem using the same thinking that got you into it. Knowlton must go. Even if we bring in a great AD we may not make it given the hole we are in, but with Knowlton running things there is no hope.

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, ....

In skimming the comments to this thread is seems to be obvious that Cal in the ACC is not going to cut it to come close to breaking even on their athletic budget and that being in the ACC is not going to raise Cal's athletic cash flow future enough to avoid dropping a good number of sports, some of which saddened and surprised me. Reading about Cal's athletic current financial condition saddened me a lot.

Would love to see more comments on this subject for those in the know, with scrubbed numbers associated with any plan of reducing Cal's athletic footprint going forward. Some people must have them.

I have thought of moving forward with my idea of funding a statue of Joe Starkey, who was Cal's radio football announcer for forty eight year's,with a $50,000 donation from me, with a video of The Play inside of it, to be housed inside Memorial instead of outside of it, so it can be stored overnight in a secure office that could not be broken into (likely be people affiiiated with Stanford). But it seems that the $50,000 might not come close to fully funding this project, so it would be rejected by our new chancellor, Rich Lyons, given Cal's athletic poor athletic department prospects.

What are your current thoughts on this revised proposed project? Am I wasting my time on this issue? BTW, I would appreciate someone forwarding this comment to Rich Lyons to perhaps get his thoughts on this project. I don't want to waste my time on this if it is too small of a matter to bring forward to him. I have read there are certain rules he has imposed to avoid taking up his time on all matters, includng a fifteen minute time limit for each conversation with him. Certainly he has bigger fish to fry than taking fifteen minutes of his time on this issue, especially since it could require more than one meeting to resolve. But he might be interested in it, as I have read he attended the 1982 (The Play) football game and has recently camped out with his family at The Lair, where I often spent time at with my kids (go Camp Blue). I used to have n=my morning coffee there while chatting about Cal football (and Illinois football, where he coached after leaving Cal) with then camp director Mike White.

On a related point, I think Cal should take steps to contact ESPN to offer Cal as a host for its Saturday College GameDay program. A little known factoid is that Cal was once offered a GameDay slot but turned it down. Certainly hosting one would be a step forward in raising Cal's football profile. But a school needs a solid showing on its early season football schedule to be selected for ESPN's special program.

I will eagerly await the expected negative comments to this side. Thanks.

49, has markeisha responded yet to your email re: the starkey statue?

No. But I have read on this thread she is one of the people who many regard as causing the very poor finanial position Cal athletics is now in, so she may not be looked to provide any new ideas to him.

49, follow up with her, it's disrespectful that she's not resounding to berkeley grads (of which she is obviously not one, she is dumber than a box of rocks) re: ur generous philanthropic offer

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).

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).

---

There is no doubt the Chancellor has a multitude of issues that are high priority. But athletics is important to a large number of folks including many donors to the University. This is a Cal sports fan forum and to this audience keeping the athletic programs alive and hopefully thrive is an important topic.

If done well you can hire a strong AD that can really run things with greater efficiency. There is really no reason that Cal cannot have it all. Lyons needs to have a strong leader run the AD so he can stay out of the way. But it starts with the Chancellor showing support for athletics and then hiring the right people.

Cal can be strong in all areas. Athletics included. I want this Chancellor to be bold in that area.

6956bear said:

---

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).

---

There is no doubt the Chancellor has a multitude of issues that are high priority. But athletics is important to a large number of folks including many donors to the University. This is a Cal sports fan forum and to this audience keeping the athletic programs alive and hopefully thrive is an important topic.

If done well you can hire a strong AD that can really run things with greater efficiency. There is really no reason that Cal cannot have it all. Lyons needs to have a strong leader run the AD so he can stay out of the way. But it starts with the Chancellor showing support for athletics and then hiring the right people.

Cal can be strong in all areas. Athletics included. I want this Chancellor to be bold in that area.

---

Knowlton, by lack of experience, temperament and ability was likely the worst possible hire to lead Cal athletics at this critical time in our history.He does not even like Berkeley or California and does not even live in the place that pays him a $1.3 million salary. I would trust ANY random poster on this forum to have done a better job as AD and I am completely serious.

Lyons has many other, more important, issues to attend to than athletics, but few that are going to impact his budget so immediately and over such a long time frame, which is why one of his first orders of business should be removing Knowlton, preferably for cause, but removed in any case, and replacing him with someone who can competently lead Cal athletics with a vision for the future so he can attend to other, more important issues.

calumnus said:

---

6956bear said:

---

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).

---

There is no doubt the Chancellor has a multitude of issues that are high priority. But athletics is important to a large number of folks including many donors to the University. This is a Cal sports fan forum and to this audience keeping the athletic programs alive and hopefully thrive is an important topic.

If done well you can hire a strong AD that can really run things with greater efficiency. There is really no reason that Cal cannot have it all. Lyons needs to have a strong leader run the AD so he can stay out of the way. But it starts with the Chancellor showing support for athletics and then hiring the right people.

Cal can be strong in all areas. Athletics included. I want this Chancellor to be bold in that area.

---

Knowlton, by lack of experience, temperament and ability was likely the worst possible hire to lead Cal athletics at this critical time in our history.He does not even like Berkeley or California and does not even live in the place that pays him a $1.3 million salary. I would trust ANY random poster on this forum to have done a better job as AD and I am completely serious.

Lyons has many other, more important, issues to attend to than athletics, but few that are going to impact his budget so immediately and over such a long time frame, which is why one of his first orders of business should be removing Knowlton, preferably for cause, but removed in any case, and replacing him with someone who can competently lead Cal athletics with a vision for the future so he can attend to other, more important issues.

---

I agree that Knowlton has to go. I am very hopeful that Lyons has a plan for that to occur. Being able to remove him for cause would be best. But I think Lyons needs to be mindful of potential litigation from Knowlton and the costs associated with that potential.

I would not be surprised if there is a negotiated settlement that allows both Cal and Knowlton to move forward. This is a crucial time for Cal athletics and new leadership is needed. If he is still in place around Thanksgiving I will be more concerned.

I think the wheels are turning in regards to Knowlton and the department. Lyons just got the job and I think some patience is needed. But yes if athletics is to move forward it will require new leadership and vision.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

My biggest concern was Wilner's analysis/interpretation that we are giving back 2/3 of the ACC Network revenue too, in additional to the base media revenue. I had heard/read/understood/wishcasted that Cal was keeping full shares of ACC Network revenue as well as postseason distributions, and that just the base ESPN revenue was subject to the 2/3 give back.

---

I also thought that was the case. The reporting was that it was 2/3 of the Tier 1 revenue. Maybe the contract also includes ACC Network (which is Tier 2)?

---

Cal and Stanford will get a 30% tier 1 share in the first seven years, followed by 70% in year eight and 75% in year nine before getting the full amount. SMU foregoes all tier 1 revenues for 9 years. All three schools will immediately get full revenue shares from the ACC Network, the College Football Playoff, bowl games and NCAA men's basketball tournament units.

Wilner, who has a degree in accounting and a law degree from no where and clearly is out of his area of expertise doesn't understand what he is talking about. There is a plan in place whereby Cal will be made whole by UCLA and UC for lost tier 1 media revenue. Some of the plan has not been announced and formally voted upon.

The strangeness of all this is that this information was out there for some time (almost a year) so I don't know why Wilner's article is newsworthy:
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/acc-stanford-cal-2/3308750/?_osource=db_npd_nbc_kntv_eml_shr

Then there is the added benefit that Wilner misinterprets the actual agreement. I could go on, but the take away should be you take your chances when you rely on Wilner.

---

Just to loop back to this, Wilner actually did a FOIA on Cal's agreement with the ACC with respect to 'donating' back 67% of media revenue. Nothing in it specifies only tier 1. It does reference two 2016 ESPN contracts, one of which is the one thst established the ACC network, the payout structure, and the opt out option (that the ACC office granted an extension to 2025 during COVID). Unfortunately, that contract is not publicly available, though a heavily redacted version was released that confirms the existence of the ESPN opt out.

Given that the contract between Cal and the ACC references 'media' with no mention of just Tier 1, and other sources like the nbc sports one you reference are claiming only tier one without the actual agreement in front of them I'd have to say Wilner seems more reliable here. Any article (like the nbc one) that cites a 70% reduction is suspect as the agreement Wilner attained clearly spells out 67%. While it doesn't help now, it will be obvious what the media revenue is when Cal releases their 2024-25 financial statements.

Quoted from the agreement:

"Media revenue shall mean all revenue generated and distributed from (i) the Amended and restated Multi-Media Agreement, dated July 21, 2016, by and among ESPN, Inc., ESPN Enterprises, Inc. (collectively referred to as "ESPN") and the Conference … and (ii) the Network Agreement, dated July 21, 2016, by and among ESPN and the Conference, as amended from time to time (collectively with the Multi-Media Agreement, the "Media Rights Agreements").

Another issue this raises is if ESPN opts out, and the ACC remains intact at some level with Cal and Stanford included, would the 67% 'donation' still apply since the contract mentioned in the agreement would be scrapped?

Would be interesting if Wilner or another media type could FOIA the GOR Cal signed with the AC to determine if it lasts through 2036 or it only tied to the ESPN deal, however long they chose that to last. Could be a further financial catastrophe to be tied to the ACC through 2036 with a reduced contract, or it might be a bit more lucrative if it would pay 100% of the reduced amount.

calumnus said:

---

6956bear said:

---

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).

---

There is no doubt the Chancellor has a multitude of issues that are high priority. But athletics is important to a large number of folks including many donors to the University. This is a Cal sports fan forum and to this audience keeping the athletic programs alive and hopefully thrive is an important topic.

If done well you can hire a strong AD that can really run things with greater efficiency. There is really no reason that Cal cannot have it all. Lyons needs to have a strong leader run the AD so he can stay out of the way. But it starts with the Chancellor showing support for athletics and then hiring the right people.

Cal can be strong in all areas. Athletics included. I want this Chancellor to be bold in that area.

---

Knowlton, by lack of experience, temperament and ability was likely the worst possible hire to lead Cal athletics at this critical time in our history.He does not even like Berkeley or California and does not even live in the place that pays him a $1.3 million salary. I would trust ANY random poster on this forum to have done a better job as AD and I am completely serious.

Lyons has many other, more important, issues to attend to than athletics, but few that are going to impact his budget so immediately and over such a long time frame, which is why one of his first orders of business should be removing Knowlton, preferably for cause, but removed in any case, and replacing him with someone who can competently lead Cal athletics with a vision for the future so he can attend to other, more important issues.

---

Honestly that isn't true. Lots of drivers but on the top line his/Cal's budget is a LOT more impacted by the numbnuts in Sacramento and how much they fund each undergrad in the system (as well as restrictions/permissions from the state to go after out of state students that are full pay).

ColoradoBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

My biggest concern was Wilner's analysis/interpretation that we are giving back 2/3 of the ACC Network revenue too, in additional to the base media revenue. I had heard/read/understood/wishcasted that Cal was keeping full shares of ACC Network revenue as well as postseason distributions, and that just the base ESPN revenue was subject to the 2/3 give back.

---

I also thought that was the case. The reporting was that it was 2/3 of the Tier 1 revenue. Maybe the contract also includes ACC Network (which is Tier 2)?

---

Cal and Stanford will get a 30% tier 1 share in the first seven years, followed by 70% in year eight and 75% in year nine before getting the full amount. SMU foregoes all tier 1 revenues for 9 years. All three schools will immediately get full revenue shares from the ACC Network, the College Football Playoff, bowl games and NCAA men's basketball tournament units.

Wilner, who has a degree in accounting and a law degree from no where and clearly is out of his area of expertise doesn't understand what he is talking about. There is a plan in place whereby Cal will be made whole by UCLA and UC for lost tier 1 media revenue. Some of the plan has not been announced and formally voted upon.

The strangeness of all this is that this information was out there for some time (almost a year) so I don't know why Wilner's article is newsworthy:
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/acc-stanford-cal-2/3308750/?_osource=db_npd_nbc_kntv_eml_shr

Then there is the added benefit that Wilner misinterprets the actual agreement. I could go on, but the take away should be you take your chances when you rely on Wilner.

---

Just to loop back to this, Wilner actually did a FOIA on Cal's agreement with the ACC with respect to 'donating' back 67% of media revenue. Nothing in it specifies only tier 1. It does reference the 2016 ESPN contract, which is the one that both established the ACC network and payout structure and the opt out option (that the ACC office granted an extension of during COVID). Unfortunately, that contract is not publicly available, though a heavily redacted version was released that confirms the existence of the ESPN opt out.

Given that the contract between Cal and the ACC references 'media' with no mention of just Tier 1, and other sources like the nbc sports one you reference are claiming only tier one without the actual agreement in front of them I'd have to say Wilner seems more reliable here. Any article (like the nbc one) that cites a 70% reduction is suspect as the agreement Wilner attained clearly spells out 67%. While it doesn't help now, it will be obvious what the media revenue is when Cal releases their 2024-25 financial statements.

Quoted from the agreement:

"Media revenue shall mean all revenue generated and distributed from (i) the Amended and restated Multi-Media Agreement, dated July 21, 2016, by and among ESPN, Inc., ESPN Enterprises, Inc. (collectively referred to as "ESPN") and the Conference … and (ii) the Network Agreement, dated July 21, 2016, by and among ESPN and the Conference, as amended from time to time (collectively with the Multi-Media Agreement, the "Media Rights Agreements").

Another issue this raises is if ESPN opts out, and the ACC remains intact at some level with Cal and Stanford included, would the 67% 'donation' still apply since the contract mentioned in the agreement would scrapped?

Would be interesting if Wilner or another media type could FOIA the GOR Cal signed with the AC to determine if it lasts through 2036 or it only tied to the ESPN deal, however long they chose that to last. Could be a further financial catastrophe to be tied to the ACC through 2036 with a reduced contract, or it might be a bit more lucrative if it would pay 100% of the reduced amount.

---

Great points. Though I do fully expect ESPN to renew.

As you say, we will know the truth about the current payout when Cal athletics publishes its next financial statement.

ColoradoBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

My biggest concern was Wilner's analysis/interpretation that we are giving back 2/3 of the ACC Network revenue too, in additional to the base media revenue. I had heard/read/understood/wishcasted that Cal was keeping full shares of ACC Network revenue as well as postseason distributions, and that just the base ESPN revenue was subject to the 2/3 give back.

---

I also thought that was the case. The reporting was that it was 2/3 of the Tier 1 revenue. Maybe the contract also includes ACC Network (which is Tier 2)?

---

Cal and Stanford will get a 30% tier 1 share in the first seven years, followed by 70% in year eight and 75% in year nine before getting the full amount. SMU foregoes all tier 1 revenues for 9 years. All three schools will immediately get full revenue shares from the ACC Network, the College Football Playoff, bowl games and NCAA men's basketball tournament units.

Wilner, who has a degree in accounting and a law degree from no where and clearly is out of his area of expertise doesn't understand what he is talking about. There is a plan in place whereby Cal will be made whole by UCLA and UC for lost tier 1 media revenue. Some of the plan has not been announced and formally voted upon.

The strangeness of all this is that this information was out there for some time (almost a year) so I don't know why Wilner's article is newsworthy:
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/acc-stanford-cal-2/3308750/?_osource=db_npd_nbc_kntv_eml_shr

Then there is the added benefit that Wilner misinterprets the actual agreement. I could go on, but the take away should be you take your chances when you rely on Wilner.

---

Just to loop back to this, Wilner actually did a FOIA on Cal's agreement with the ACC with respect to 'donating' back 67% of media revenue. Nothing in it specifies only tier 1. It does reference two 2016 ESPN contracts, one of which is the one thst established the ACC network, the payout structure, and the opt out option (that the ACC office granted an extension to 2025 during COVID). Unfortunately, that contract is not publicly available, though a heavily redacted version was released that confirms the existence of the ESPN opt out.

Given that the contract between Cal and the ACC references 'media' with no mention of just Tier 1, and other sources like the nbc sports one you reference are claiming only tier one without the actual agreement in front of them I'd have to say Wilner seems more reliable here. Any article (like the nbc one) that cites a 70% reduction is suspect as the agreement Wilner attained clearly spells out 67%. While it doesn't help now, it will be obvious what the media revenue is when Cal releases their 2024-25 financial statements.

Quoted from the agreement:

"Media revenue shall mean all revenue generated and distributed from (i) the Amended and restated Multi-Media Agreement, dated July 21, 2016, by and among ESPN, Inc., ESPN Enterprises, Inc. (collectively referred to as "ESPN") and the Conference … and (ii) the Network Agreement, dated July 21, 2016, by and among ESPN and the Conference, as amended from time to time (collectively with the Multi-Media Agreement, the "Media Rights Agreements").

Another issue this raises is if ESPN opts out, and the ACC remains intact at some level with Cal and Stanford included, would the 67% 'donation' still apply since the contract mentioned in the agreement would be scrapped?

Would be interesting if Wilner or another media type could FOIA the GOR Cal signed with the AC to determine if it lasts through 2036 or it only tied to the ESPN deal, however long they chose that to last. Could be a further financial catastrophe to be tied to the ACC through 2036 with a reduced contract, or it might be a bit more lucrative if it would pay 100% of the reduced amount.

---

Yup, this is my big question. All of the reporting at the time of the deal said that Cal/Stanford/SMU were giving up certain percentages of the Tier 1 media revenue to enter the ACC. The language Wilner quotes in the contract seems to state that it is actually a percentage of all media revenue. Now, it could be that there is other contract language elsewhere that spells out the Tier 1 piece and Wilner is either misreading it or doesn't have it. Seems weird that all parties would let a bunch of reporting about Tier 1 go out there without correcting it and then have a contract that says otherwise.

I wonder what is correct here?

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

The ACC was a life raft to allow us to ride the waves a bit longer rather than sinking to the ocean floor next to the dead Beavers and Cougars.

---

Yes.

And if you read anything Wilner writes about Cal and Stanford, you have to keep in mind that he is rooting hard for Cal and Stanford athletics to sink to the ocean floor next to OSU and WSU.

And why would he want both programs sink to the bottom? Is it personal? Did we (Cal and Stanford) slight him in some way? Not give him season tickets? What is the reason for this so called, pardon the unintentional pun, axe grinding?

ColoradoBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

My biggest concern was Wilner's analysis/interpretation that we are giving back 2/3 of the ACC Network revenue too, in additional to the base media revenue. I had heard/read/understood/wishcasted that Cal was keeping full shares of ACC Network revenue as well as postseason distributions, and that just the base ESPN revenue was subject to the 2/3 give back.

---

I also thought that was the case. The reporting was that it was 2/3 of the Tier 1 revenue. Maybe the contract also includes ACC Network (which is Tier 2)?

---

Cal and Stanford will get a 30% tier 1 share in the first seven years, followed by 70% in year eight and 75% in year nine before getting the full amount. SMU foregoes all tier 1 revenues for 9 years. All three schools will immediately get full revenue shares from the ACC Network, the College Football Playoff, bowl games and NCAA men's basketball tournament units.

Wilner, who has a degree in accounting and a law degree from no where and clearly is out of his area of expertise doesn't understand what he is talking about. There is a plan in place whereby Cal will be made whole by UCLA and UC for lost tier 1 media revenue. Some of the plan has not been announced and formally voted upon.

The strangeness of all this is that this information was out there for some time (almost a year) so I don't know why Wilner's article is newsworthy:
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/acc-stanford-cal-2/3308750/?_osource=db_npd_nbc_kntv_eml_shr

Then there is the added benefit that Wilner misinterprets the actual agreement. I could go on, but the take away should be you take your chances when you rely on Wilner.

---

Just to loop back to this, Wilner actually did a FOIA on Cal's agreement with the ACC with respect to 'donating' back 67% of media revenue. Nothing in it specifies only tier 1. It does reference two 2016 ESPN contracts, one of which is the one thst established the ACC network, the payout structure, and the opt out option (that the ACC office granted an extension to 2025 during COVID). Unfortunately, that contract is not publicly available, though a heavily redacted version was released that confirms the existence of the ESPN opt out.

Given that the contract between Cal and the ACC references 'media' with no mention of just Tier 1, and other sources like the nbc sports one you reference are claiming only tier one without the actual agreement in front of them I'd have to say Wilner seems more reliable here. Any article (like the nbc one) that cites a 70% reduction is suspect as the agreement Wilner attained clearly spells out 67%. While it doesn't help now, it will be obvious what the media revenue is when Cal releases their 2024-25 financial statements.

Quoted from the agreement:

"Media revenue shall mean all revenue generated and distributed from (i) the Amended and restated Multi-Media Agreement, dated July 21, 2016, by and among ESPN, Inc., ESPN Enterprises, Inc. (collectively referred to as "ESPN") and the Conference … and (ii) the Network Agreement, dated July 21, 2016, by and among ESPN and the Conference, as amended from time to time (collectively with the Multi-Media Agreement, the "Media Rights Agreements").

Another issue this raises is if ESPN opts out, and the ACC remains intact at some level with Cal and Stanford included, would the 67% 'donation' still apply since the contract mentioned in the agreement would be scrapped?

Would be interesting if Wilner or another media type could FOIA the GOR Cal signed with the AC to determine if it lasts through 2036 or it only tied to the ESPN deal, however long they chose that to last. Could be a further financial catastrophe to be tied to the ACC through 2036 with a reduced contract, or it might be a bit more lucrative if it would pay 100% of the reduced amount.

---

So I tried to figure out the disconnect with over 1,000 articles that say that the give back of media revenue only applies to tier 1 and what was in the Wilner article, and then I sent an email inquiry to the ACC Commissioner, not expecting any answer. But then I just got a response from the ACC.

What conferences call tier 1, 2 and 3 media rights "varies among conferences" (which I view as main contract with linear TV as tier 1, conference network as tier 2 and streaming and any other stuff as tier 3). The ACC considers there is only 1 tier since ESPN owns all broadcasting rights, period. Any other content that comes from other sources is produced under a sublease from ESPN (e.g., Raycom). So I guess everyone, including reporters that put out all those misleading articles, didn't appreciate how the ACC labels their rights. Obviously the sources that were leaking what the deal was going to be didn't appreciate the ACC nomenclature either. The ACC did not respond to my question was to why 67% versus the reported 70%, which makes sense if you think about it. So I hope that clarifies.

socaltownie said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

---

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.

---

Just to comment on (2) here: UC Berkeley's financial reports indicate that the annual retiree pension and health benefits paid out are more than $430 million. The projected unfunded future liability for pensions alone, not including health benefits, is more than $1.5 billion.

wifeisafurd said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

My biggest concern was Wilner's analysis/interpretation that we are giving back 2/3 of the ACC Network revenue too, in additional to the base media revenue. I had heard/read/understood/wishcasted that Cal was keeping full shares of ACC Network revenue as well as postseason distributions, and that just the base ESPN revenue was subject to the 2/3 give back.

---

I also thought that was the case. The reporting was that it was 2/3 of the Tier 1 revenue. Maybe the contract also includes ACC Network (which is Tier 2)?

---

Cal and Stanford will get a 30% tier 1 share in the first seven years, followed by 70% in year eight and 75% in year nine before getting the full amount. SMU foregoes all tier 1 revenues for 9 years. All three schools will immediately get full revenue shares from the ACC Network, the College Football Playoff, bowl games and NCAA men's basketball tournament units.

Wilner, who has a degree in accounting and a law degree from no where and clearly is out of his area of expertise doesn't understand what he is talking about. There is a plan in place whereby Cal will be made whole by UCLA and UC for lost tier 1 media revenue. Some of the plan has not been announced and formally voted upon.

The strangeness of all this is that this information was out there for some time (almost a year) so I don't know why Wilner's article is newsworthy:
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/acc-stanford-cal-2/3308750/?_osource=db_npd_nbc_kntv_eml_shr

Then there is the added benefit that Wilner misinterprets the actual agreement. I could go on, but the take away should be you take your chances when you rely on Wilner.

---

Just to loop back to this, Wilner actually did a FOIA on Cal's agreement with the ACC with respect to 'donating' back 67% of media revenue. Nothing in it specifies only tier 1. It does reference two 2016 ESPN contracts, one of which is the one thst established the ACC network, the payout structure, and the opt out option (that the ACC office granted an extension to 2025 during COVID). Unfortunately, that contract is not publicly available, though a heavily redacted version was released that confirms the existence of the ESPN opt out.

Given that the contract between Cal and the ACC references 'media' with no mention of just Tier 1, and other sources like the nbc sports one you reference are claiming only tier one without the actual agreement in front of them I'd have to say Wilner seems more reliable here. Any article (like the nbc one) that cites a 70% reduction is suspect as the agreement Wilner attained clearly spells out 67%. While it doesn't help now, it will be obvious what the media revenue is when Cal releases their 2024-25 financial statements.

Quoted from the agreement:

"Media revenue shall mean all revenue generated and distributed from (i) the Amended and restated Multi-Media Agreement, dated July 21, 2016, by and among ESPN, Inc., ESPN Enterprises, Inc. (collectively referred to as "ESPN") and the Conference … and (ii) the Network Agreement, dated July 21, 2016, by and among ESPN and the Conference, as amended from time to time (collectively with the Multi-Media Agreement, the "Media Rights Agreements").

Another issue this raises is if ESPN opts out, and the ACC remains intact at some level with Cal and Stanford included, would the 67% 'donation' still apply since the contract mentioned in the agreement would be scrapped?

Would be interesting if Wilner or another media type could FOIA the GOR Cal signed with the AC to determine if it lasts through 2036 or it only tied to the ESPN deal, however long they chose that to last. Could be a further financial catastrophe to be tied to the ACC through 2036 with a reduced contract, or it might be a bit more lucrative if it would pay 100% of the reduced amount.

---

So I tried to figure out the disconnect with over 1,000 articles that say that the give back of media revenue only applies to tier 1 and what was in the Wilner article, and then I sent an email inquiry to the ACC Commissioner, not expecting any answer. But then I just got a response from the ACC.

What conferences call tier 1, 2 and 3 media rights "varies among conferences" (which I view as main contract with linear TV as tier 1, conference network as tier 2 and streaming and any other stuff as tier 3). The ACC considers there is only 1 tier since ESPN owns all broadcasting rights, period. Any other content that comes from other sources is produced under a sublease from ESPN (e.g., Raycom). So I guess everyone, including reporters that put out all those misleading articles, didn't appreciate how the ACC labels their rights. Obviously the sources that were leaking what the deal was going to be didn't appreciate the ACC nomenclature either. The ACC did not respond to my question was to why 67% versus the reported 70%, which makes sense if you think about it. So I hope that clarifies.

---

So Wilner is right and the percentage Cal is giving up includes ACC Network revenue.

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

My biggest concern was Wilner's analysis/interpretation that we are giving back 2/3 of the ACC Network revenue too, in additional to the base media revenue. I had heard/read/understood/wishcasted that Cal was keeping full shares of ACC Network revenue as well as postseason distributions, and that just the base ESPN revenue was subject to the 2/3 give back.

---

I also thought that was the case. The reporting was that it was 2/3 of the Tier 1 revenue. Maybe the contract also includes ACC Network (which is Tier 2)?

---

Cal and Stanford will get a 30% tier 1 share in the first seven years, followed by 70% in year eight and 75% in year nine before getting the full amount. SMU foregoes all tier 1 revenues for 9 years. All three schools will immediately get full revenue shares from the ACC Network, the College Football Playoff, bowl games and NCAA men's basketball tournament units.

Wilner, who has a degree in accounting and a law degree from no where and clearly is out of his area of expertise doesn't understand what he is talking about. There is a plan in place whereby Cal will be made whole by UCLA and UC for lost tier 1 media revenue. Some of the plan has not been announced and formally voted upon.

The strangeness of all this is that this information was out there for some time (almost a year) so I don't know why Wilner's article is newsworthy:
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/acc-stanford-cal-2/3308750/?_osource=db_npd_nbc_kntv_eml_shr

Then there is the added benefit that Wilner misinterprets the actual agreement. I could go on, but the take away should be you take your chances when you rely on Wilner.

---

Just to loop back to this, Wilner actually did a FOIA on Cal's agreement with the ACC with respect to 'donating' back 67% of media revenue. Nothing in it specifies only tier 1. It does reference two 2016 ESPN contracts, one of which is the one thst established the ACC network, the payout structure, and the opt out option (that the ACC office granted an extension to 2025 during COVID). Unfortunately, that contract is not publicly available, though a heavily redacted version was released that confirms the existence of the ESPN opt out.

Given that the contract between Cal and the ACC references 'media' with no mention of just Tier 1, and other sources like the nbc sports one you reference are claiming only tier one without the actual agreement in front of them I'd have to say Wilner seems more reliable here. Any article (like the nbc one) that cites a 70% reduction is suspect as the agreement Wilner attained clearly spells out 67%. While it doesn't help now, it will be obvious what the media revenue is when Cal releases their 2024-25 financial statements.

Quoted from the agreement:

"Media revenue shall mean all revenue generated and distributed from (i) the Amended and restated Multi-Media Agreement, dated July 21, 2016, by and among ESPN, Inc., ESPN Enterprises, Inc. (collectively referred to as "ESPN") and the Conference … and (ii) the Network Agreement, dated July 21, 2016, by and among ESPN and the Conference, as amended from time to time (collectively with the Multi-Media Agreement, the "Media Rights Agreements").

Another issue this raises is if ESPN opts out, and the ACC remains intact at some level with Cal and Stanford included, would the 67% 'donation' still apply since the contract mentioned in the agreement would be scrapped?

Would be interesting if Wilner or another media type could FOIA the GOR Cal signed with the AC to determine if it lasts through 2036 or it only tied to the ESPN deal, however long they chose that to last. Could be a further financial catastrophe to be tied to the ACC through 2036 with a reduced contract, or it might be a bit more lucrative if it would pay 100% of the reduced amount.

---

So I tried to figure out the disconnect with over 1,000 articles that say that the give back of media revenue only applies to tier 1 and what was in the Wilner article, and then I sent an email inquiry to the ACC Commissioner, not expecting any answer. But then I just got a response from the ACC.

What conferences call tier 1, 2 and 3 media rights "varies among conferences" (which I view as main contract with linear TV as tier 1, conference network as tier 2 and streaming and any other stuff as tier 3). The ACC considers there is only 1 tier since ESPN owns all broadcasting rights, period. Any other content that comes from other sources is produced under a sublease from ESPN (e.g., Raycom). So I guess everyone, including reporters that put out all those misleading articles, didn't appreciate how the ACC labels their rights. Obviously the sources that were leaking what the deal was going to be didn't appreciate the ACC nomenclature either. The ACC did not respond to my question was to why 67% versus the reported 70%, which makes sense if you think about it. So I hope that clarifies.

---

So Wilner is right and the percentage Cal is giving up includes ACC Network revenue.

---

Yes. It is pretty clear that is the case.

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

My biggest concern was Wilner's analysis/interpretation that we are giving back 2/3 of the ACC Network revenue too, in additional to the base media revenue. I had heard/read/understood/wishcasted that Cal was keeping full shares of ACC Network revenue as well as postseason distributions, and that just the base ESPN revenue was subject to the 2/3 give back.

---

I also thought that was the case. The reporting was that it was 2/3 of the Tier 1 revenue. Maybe the contract also includes ACC Network (which is Tier 2)?

---

Cal and Stanford will get a 30% tier 1 share in the first seven years, followed by 70% in year eight and 75% in year nine before getting the full amount. SMU foregoes all tier 1 revenues for 9 years. All three schools will immediately get full revenue shares from the ACC Network, the College Football Playoff, bowl games and NCAA men's basketball tournament units.

Wilner, who has a degree in accounting and a law degree from no where and clearly is out of his area of expertise doesn't understand what he is talking about. There is a plan in place whereby Cal will be made whole by UCLA and UC for lost tier 1 media revenue. Some of the plan has not been announced and formally voted upon.

The strangeness of all this is that this information was out there for some time (almost a year) so I don't know why Wilner's article is newsworthy:
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/acc-stanford-cal-2/3308750/?_osource=db_npd_nbc_kntv_eml_shr

Then there is the added benefit that Wilner misinterprets the actual agreement. I could go on, but the take away should be you take your chances when you rely on Wilner.

---

Just to loop back to this, Wilner actually did a FOIA on Cal's agreement with the ACC with respect to 'donating' back 67% of media revenue. Nothing in it specifies only tier 1. It does reference two 2016 ESPN contracts, one of which is the one thst established the ACC network, the payout structure, and the opt out option (that the ACC office granted an extension to 2025 during COVID). Unfortunately, that contract is not publicly available, though a heavily redacted version was released that confirms the existence of the ESPN opt out.

Given that the contract between Cal and the ACC references 'media' with no mention of just Tier 1, and other sources like the nbc sports one you reference are claiming only tier one without the actual agreement in front of them I'd have to say Wilner seems more reliable here. Any article (like the nbc one) that cites a 70% reduction is suspect as the agreement Wilner attained clearly spells out 67%. While it doesn't help now, it will be obvious what the media revenue is when Cal releases their 2024-25 financial statements.

Quoted from the agreement:

"Media revenue shall mean all revenue generated and distributed from (i) the Amended and restated Multi-Media Agreement, dated July 21, 2016, by and among ESPN, Inc., ESPN Enterprises, Inc. (collectively referred to as "ESPN") and the Conference … and (ii) the Network Agreement, dated July 21, 2016, by and among ESPN and the Conference, as amended from time to time (collectively with the Multi-Media Agreement, the "Media Rights Agreements").

Another issue this raises is if ESPN opts out, and the ACC remains intact at some level with Cal and Stanford included, would the 67% 'donation' still apply since the contract mentioned in the agreement would be scrapped?

Would be interesting if Wilner or another media type could FOIA the GOR Cal signed with the AC to determine if it lasts through 2036 or it only tied to the ESPN deal, however long they chose that to last. Could be a further financial catastrophe to be tied to the ACC through 2036 with a reduced contract, or it might be a bit more lucrative if it would pay 100% of the reduced amount.

---

So I tried to figure out the disconnect with over 1,000 articles that say that the give back of media revenue only applies to tier 1 and what was in the Wilner article, and then I sent an email inquiry to the ACC Commissioner, not expecting any answer. But then I just got a response from the ACC.

What conferences call tier 1, 2 and 3 media rights "varies among conferences" (which I view as main contract with linear TV as tier 1, conference network as tier 2 and streaming and any other stuff as tier 3). The ACC considers there is only 1 tier since ESPN owns all broadcasting rights, period. Any other content that comes from other sources is produced under a sublease from ESPN (e.g., Raycom). So I guess everyone, including reporters that put out all those misleading articles, didn't appreciate how the ACC labels their rights. Obviously the sources that were leaking what the deal was going to be didn't appreciate the ACC nomenclature either. The ACC did not respond to my question was to why 67% versus the reported 70%, which makes sense if you think about it. So I hope that clarifies.

---

So Wilner is right and the percentage Cal is giving up includes ACC Network revenue.

---

yes, as well as the streaming platform, which is an affiliate of the ACC Network revenue.

Kinda strange no one bothered to clarify what was out in the media from either three teams or the ACC.

BearSD said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

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.

---

Just to comment on (2) here: UC Berkeley's financial reports indicate that the annual retiree pension and health benefits paid out are more than $430 million. The projected unfunded future liability for pensions alone, not including health benefits, is more than $1.5 billion.

---

So the total pension liability is therefore somewhere in the 20 billion dollar range, and so the 1.5 billion is fixed with a slight change in the interest rate over the next 40 years.

wifeisafurd said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

My biggest concern was Wilner's analysis/interpretation that we are giving back 2/3 of the ACC Network revenue too, in additional to the base media revenue. I had heard/read/understood/wishcasted that Cal was keeping full shares of ACC Network revenue as well as postseason distributions, and that just the base ESPN revenue was subject to the 2/3 give back.

---

I also thought that was the case. The reporting was that it was 2/3 of the Tier 1 revenue. Maybe the contract also includes ACC Network (which is Tier 2)?

---

Cal and Stanford will get a 30% tier 1 share in the first seven years, followed by 70% in year eight and 75% in year nine before getting the full amount. SMU foregoes all tier 1 revenues for 9 years. All three schools will immediately get full revenue shares from the ACC Network, the College Football Playoff, bowl games and NCAA men's basketball tournament units.

Wilner, who has a degree in accounting and a law degree from no where and clearly is out of his area of expertise doesn't understand what he is talking about. There is a plan in place whereby Cal will be made whole by UCLA and UC for lost tier 1 media revenue. Some of the plan has not been announced and formally voted upon.

The strangeness of all this is that this information was out there for some time (almost a year) so I don't know why Wilner's article is newsworthy:
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/acc-stanford-cal-2/3308750/?_osource=db_npd_nbc_kntv_eml_shr

Then there is the added benefit that Wilner misinterprets the actual agreement. I could go on, but the take away should be you take your chances when you rely on Wilner.

---

Just to loop back to this, Wilner actually did a FOIA on Cal's agreement with the ACC with respect to 'donating' back 67% of media revenue. Nothing in it specifies only tier 1. It does reference two 2016 ESPN contracts, one of which is the one thst established the ACC network, the payout structure, and the opt out option (that the ACC office granted an extension to 2025 during COVID). Unfortunately, that contract is not publicly available, though a heavily redacted version was released that confirms the existence of the ESPN opt out.

Given that the contract between Cal and the ACC references 'media' with no mention of just Tier 1, and other sources like the nbc sports one you reference are claiming only tier one without the actual agreement in front of them I'd have to say Wilner seems more reliable here. Any article (like the nbc one) that cites a 70% reduction is suspect as the agreement Wilner attained clearly spells out 67%. While it doesn't help now, it will be obvious what the media revenue is when Cal releases their 2024-25 financial statements.

Quoted from the agreement:

"Media revenue shall mean all revenue generated and distributed from (i) the Amended and restated Multi-Media Agreement, dated July 21, 2016, by and among ESPN, Inc., ESPN Enterprises, Inc. (collectively referred to as "ESPN") and the Conference … and (ii) the Network Agreement, dated July 21, 2016, by and among ESPN and the Conference, as amended from time to time (collectively with the Multi-Media Agreement, the "Media Rights Agreements").

Another issue this raises is if ESPN opts out, and the ACC remains intact at some level with Cal and Stanford included, would the 67% 'donation' still apply since the contract mentioned in the agreement would be scrapped?

Would be interesting if Wilner or another media type could FOIA the GOR Cal signed with the AC to determine if it lasts through 2036 or it only tied to the ESPN deal, however long they chose that to last. Could be a further financial catastrophe to be tied to the ACC through 2036 with a reduced contract, or it might be a bit more lucrative if it would pay 100% of the reduced amount.

---

So I tried to figure out the disconnect with over 1,000 articles that say that the give back of media revenue only applies to tier 1 and what was in the Wilner article, and then I sent an email inquiry to the ACC Commissioner, not expecting any answer. But then I just got a response from the ACC.

What conferences call tier 1, 2 and 3 media rights "varies among conferences" (which I view as main contract with linear TV as tier 1, conference network as tier 2 and streaming and any other stuff as tier 3). The ACC considers there is only 1 tier since ESPN owns all broadcasting rights, period. Any other content that comes from other sources is produced under a sublease from ESPN (e.g., Raycom). So I guess everyone, including reporters that put out all those misleading articles, didn't appreciate how the ACC labels their rights. Obviously the sources that were leaking what the deal was going to be didn't appreciate the ACC nomenclature either. The ACC did not respond to my question was to why 67% versus the reported 70%, which makes sense if you think about it. So I hope that clarifies.

---

Appreciate the initiative to reach out to the ACC - I too would not have expected an answer and would not have even though of it.

The difference between 67 and 70% is basically immaterial, but it shows having the actual doc in front of one's eyes helps. I would say that Wilner can be a good resource when he gets information from non-biased sources (like a FOIA), but he way to often repeated as fact info from sources at Cal and the P12 offices that was clearly biased to essentially shirk responsibility and pass the buck. He also jumps to way to many conclusions of doom that somehow apparently drives up readership.

I also wonder why he doesn't subscribe to BI. Would be a good investment of $99/yr that could help clean up a lot of the half truths in his writing.

We need to just do football realignment. There's no reason to break up the other sports.

Oski87 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

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.

---

Just to comment on (2) here: UC Berkeley's financial reports indicate that the annual retiree pension and health benefits paid out are more than $430 million. The projected unfunded future liability for pensions alone, not including health benefits, is more than $1.5 billion.

---

So the total pension liability is therefore somewhere in the 20 billion dollar range, and so the 1.5 billion is fixed with a slight change in the interest rate over the next 40 years.

---

You would have to dig into the details to understand the UUAL and whether or not the assumptions are "aggressive" or not. Some of the biggest (negative) changes to the CALPERS numbers, for example, are a decision to stop making up aggressive numbers to avoid having to increase contribution.

My understanding is that the pensions are far less of a problem (still a problem) compared to health care.

I don't want to subscribe to mercury news for one article so am wondering if anyone here who is able to access this link summarize Wilner's thoughts on a super league and ACC?

https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/08/16/mailbag-likelihood-of-a-super-league-or-super-teams-acc-sustainability-the-cfps-future-wsu-and-osu-revenue-sharing-and-more/?utm_email=B49FF4D443F093986342F3764F&lctg=B49FF4D443F093986342F3764F&active=no&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mercurynews.com%2f2024%2f08%2f16%2fmailbag-likelihood-of-a-super-league-or-super-teams-acc-sustainability-the-cfps-future-wsu-and-osu-revenue-sharing-and-more%2f&utm_campaign=bang-mult-nl-wilner-hotline-nl&utm_content=manual

Thank you

Econ141 said:

---

I don't want to subscribe to mercury news for one article so am wondering if anyone here who is able to access this link summarize Wilner's thoughts on a super league and ACC?

https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/08/16/mailbag-likelihood-of-a-super-league-or-super-teams-acc-sustainability-the-cfps-future-wsu-and-osu-revenue-sharing-and-more/?utm_email=B49FF4D443F093986342F3764F&lctg=B49FF4D443F093986342F3764F&active=no&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mercurynews.com%2f2024%2f08%2f16%2fmailbag-likelihood-of-a-super-league-or-super-teams-acc-sustainability-the-cfps-future-wsu-and-osu-revenue-sharing-and-more%2f&utm_campaign=bang-mult-nl-wilner-hotline-nl&utm_content=manual

Thank you

---

My quick summary: Due to conference media agreements unlikely until 2033 (give or take). 2 paths. One is a true super league of top brands at like 32 teams tops. Second is conference structures exist but unequal media revenue for top brands would be the new norm for media deals, which obviously would perpetuate uneven results.

ACC viability: Not sustainable for the Olympic sports, and maybe not even for football for Cal/Furd. Big range of outcomes: status quo could holds for eight or 10 years, ACC could consolidate or dissolve altogether. Expects eventual settlements with FSU/CLEM and then UNC likely not far behind. Could then backfill with Wazzu/OSU or others or stand pat with Cal/Gurd/SMU. Nothing really new.

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.

Thank you so much. Very interesting but also scary. I don't know how I came to like Cal football so much despite all the disappointment it brings me but having us not be part of the national CFB scene will be quite a bummer.

And of course Wilner didn't miss his opportunity to take a dig at Cal:

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

I think UCLA fans like that game way more than AZ a e Utah.

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.

calumnus said:

---

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

---

Well, if Notre Dame counts as an ACC team then it's obviously them first. Then I think UNC.

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

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

---

Well, if Notre Dame counts as an ACC team then it's obviously them first. Then I think UNC.

---

Ok, definitely Notre Dame and probably North Carolina. Let's amend and say the ACC team in Florida they would want is Miami, both due to academics and location just like Rutgers (New York) and Maryland (DC). For PAC-12 teams they were focused on the LA , Portland and Seattle markets and likely would have taken us if we had tried to get in instead of trying to block UCLA and had not pissed off Fox in the process.

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

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

---

Well, if Notre Dame counts as an ACC team then it's obviously them first. Then I think UNC.

---

The very top of the Big Ten's list is, for sure, ND then UNC.

It would be a big help to Cal's BiG chances if the SEC adds both UNC and FSU when/if the ACC GOR is blown up. (Even better if ESPN has the SEC also add Miami, to lock Fox out of Florida like Fox locked ESPN out of SoCal.) The BiG might then forget about adding teams in the south, and the list after ND becomes wide open.

By the way -- UCLA isn't leaving the Rose Bowl anytime soon. The Rose Bowl committee anticipated the construction of SoFi; they locked UCLA into a Rose Bowl lease that runs through the end of 2042.

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.