Gives a rundown of the realignment debacle.

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/08/26/college-football-preview

"My boss, Chancellor [Carol] Christ, and I were all in for the Pac-12," Cal AD Jim Knowlton said. "She talked to all of her colleagues presidents and chancellors and was convinced that this was going to have a grant of rights signed and we would continue."

After UCLA and USC announced their departures and within a week reports were out that Oregon and Washington were trying to get into the B1G some of us argued Cal needed to be lobbying to get in too and for months on end people on this board claiming insider knowledge stated absolutely that Christ and Knowlton were working behind the scenes to get us into the B1G with Christ "doing more than any other PAC-12 CEO" to get us in, despite not even a hint of a rumor in the press to that effect and Christ's own public statements indicating she was against the idea. The B1G even dropping public hints they were interested in Cal and Stanford for future expansion.

Now Knowlton admits what was obvious: Christ and Knowlton were all in with Kliavkoff and the PAC-12 up until it's demise and were clueless about what everyone on this board knew about (Oregon and UW trying to get onto the B1G).

We are very lucky Stanford and Notre Dame got us into the ACC. Other than the money (which could still result in our demise), and the long travel, I kind of prefer it.

calumnus said:

---

"My boss, Chancellor [Carol] Christ, and I were all in for the Pac-12," Cal AD Jim Knowlton said. "She talked to all of her colleagues presidents and chancellors and was convinced that this was going to have a grant of rights signed and we would continue."

After UCLA and USC announced their departures and within a week reports were out that Oregon and Washington were trying to get into the B1G some of us argued Cal needed to be lobbying to get in too and for months on end people on this board claiming insider knowledge stated absolutely that Christ and Knowlton were working behind the scenes to get us into the B1G with Christ "doing more than any other PAC-12 CEO" to get us in, despite not even a hint of a rumor in the press to that effect and Christ's own public statements indicating she was against the idea. The B1G even dropping public hints they were interested in Cal and Stanford for future expansion.

Now Knowlton admits what was obvious: Christ and Knowlton were all in with Kliavkoff and the PAC-12 up until it's demise and were clueless about what everyone on this board knew about (Oregon and UW trying to get onto the B1G).

We are very lucky Stanford and Notre Dame got us into the ACC. Other than the money (which could still result in our demise), and the long travel, I kind of prefer it.

---

UW I think wanted to stay. UO was fine as well. As long as the games were going to be broadcast on linear TV. Streaming was a very hard no for UW. I was told this by a UW booster associate back in January 2023. They had a handshake agreement with the B1G when Warren was still commissioner.

The entire affair was mishandled. There was a belief from some that the B1G was interested in Cal and Stanford due to academics. Fox was not prepared to pay for them and no B1G school was ever going to reduce their revenue payout. Not against having the 2 academic powerhouse schools just not going to take less to have them.

Seemingly the only journalists that believed the P12 was going to survive were the dynamic duo of Canzano and Wilner. Nobody in the national press or media publications thought the league would survive. And once UW and UO made the official leap it was over. Very quickly.

It is done. Christ is gone and hopefully Cal will quickly move away from Knowlton. What we know now that was ignored by many back then is the realignment is all about money and football brands. Cal is trying to make up for years of indifference towards football in a very short time. Perhaps they can still make the next realignment.

Yes Cal is very fortunate to have Stanford and Notre Dame advocate on their behalf. Lots to still do and there are realignment wheels turning even now. Right now what Cal can do is win at football, get fans in the stands and watch when on TV. Show the folks that will make these decisions Cal belongs as a P4 program.

The ACC will be interesting to watch right now. There is a Feb 2025 opt out clause for ESPN. There are a number of things that could happen. What everybody knows for sure now is this is a money and football brand thing. The conferences love to talk about academics but when all is said and done it is about money, power and football.

Does anyone know if there are other football programs that reside in a mild climate but play half their games in a high heat/humidity climate? My experience with this is very limited but I trained extremely hard for my cross country bike trip in 1982. 21 years old, so similar in age to the football players. I at least got slowly acclimated to increased heat but not necessarily the increased humidity. I even bonked early on in the heat of middle Oregon doing two large mountain climbs in one day. It wasn't until southeast Missouri when I hit some high humidity coupled with high effort. I sort of died. After that I was at a different level. But I didn't come back to the Bay Area for two weeks and then fly back and do it again. I'm very interested to see how our football team handles this. I know they have smart people advising them. I did not.

Quote:

---

There was a belief from some that the B1G was interested in Cal and Stanford due to academics. Fox was not prepared to pay for them and no B1G school was ever going to reduce their revenue payout. Not against having the 2 academic powerhouse schools just not going to take less to have them.

---

Yeah, the BiG had no intention of inviting Cal and Stanford because Fox said they wouldn't pay, and Cal and Stanford were told that long before the public knew. When the Apple deal was the only thing on the table, Cal and Stanford were still "all in" with the Pac simply because there were no other options for them. BiG wasn't interested; Big 12 wasn't interested either. The ACC took a long time to act even after the final Pac collapse, and we should thank Florida State for trying to leave, because there would never have been enough votes to add teams on the west coast if there wasn't the threat of FSU's possible departure.

Quote:

---

Seemingly the only journalists that believed the P12 was going to survive were the dynamic duo of Canzano and Wilner. Nobody in the national press or media publications thought the league would survive.

---

True. Those two spent a year delusionally peddling copium. They took their Oregon and Washington "sources" at face value when they said "Trust us, we're totally on board with the Pac-12". They ignored every solid source that said the Pac's TV options were nil and that every school was scrambling to find a new home.

BearSD said:

---

Quote:

---

There was a belief from some that the B1G was interested in Cal and Stanford due to academics. Fox was not prepared to pay for them and no B1G school was ever going to reduce their revenue payout. Not against having the 2 academic powerhouse schools just not going to take less to have them.

---

Yeah, the BiG had no intention of inviting Cal and Stanford because Fox said they wouldn't pay, and Cal and Stanford were told that long before the public knew. When the Apple deal was the only thing on the table, Cal and Stanford were still "all in" with the Pac simply because there were no other options for them. BiG wasn't interested; Big 12 wasn't interested either. The ACC took a long time to act even after the final Pac collapse, and we should thank Florida State for trying to leave, because there would never have been enough votes to add teams on the west coast if there wasn't the threat of FSU's possible departure.

Quote:

---

Seemingly the only journalists that believed the P12 was going to survive were the dynamic duo of Canzano and Wilner. Nobody in the national press or media publications thought the league would survive.

---

True. Those two spent a year delusionally peddling copium. They took their Oregon and Washington "sources" at face value when they said "Trust us, we're totally on board with the Pac-12". They ignored every solid source that said the Pac's TV options were nil and that every school was scrambling to find a new home.

---

FSU and Clemson wanting out will play a role in whether or not ESPN will opt out of the TV deal in February. I think ESPN wants to keep the ACC TV deal but 2036 is a long time and several years after the other TV deals come open again.

I think it is possible ESPN and the ACC try to renogotiate a new deal during this window between now and February 2025. A shorter deal and one that may pay a bit more. The ACC may try and sweeten the pot by changing the post season payouts based on performance.

A shorter deal that ends around the same time as the other P4 conferences (2030) sets up nicely for a new super league. FSU/Clemson want more money. The lower level programs like BC, Syracuse, Wake and yes Cal/Stanford would be fine with a new deal. It gives them a chance to get their programs and budgets up to speed to be considered for inclusion into the new super league.

The CFP can eliminate the G5 from the playoffs as early as 2026. I think that is a real possibility. If the ACC and ESPN cannot forge some sort of new deal prior to February 2025 it is possible ESPN would opt out.

BearSD said:

---

Quote:

---

There was a belief from some that the B1G was interested in Cal and Stanford due to academics. Fox was not prepared to pay for them and no B1G school was ever going to reduce their revenue payout. Not against having the 2 academic powerhouse schools just not going to take less to have them.

---

Yeah, the BiG had no intention of inviting Cal and Stanford because Fox said they wouldn't pay, and Cal and Stanford were told that long before the public knew. When the Apple deal was the only thing on the table, Cal and Stanford were still "all in" with the Pac simply because there were no other options for them. BiG wasn't interested; Big 12 wasn't interested either. The ACC took a long time to act even after the final Pac collapse, and we should thank Florida State for trying to leave, because there would never have been enough votes to add teams on the west coast if there wasn't the threat of FSU's possible departure.

Quote:

---

Seemingly the only journalists that believed the P12 was going to survive were the dynamic duo of Canzano and Wilner. Nobody in the national press or media publications thought the league would survive.

---

True. Those two spent a year delusionally peddling copium. They took their Oregon and Washington "sources" at face value when they said "Trust us, we're totally on board with the Pac-12". They ignored every solid source that said the Pac's TV options were nil and that every school was scrambling to find a new home.

---

I'm afraid this really is my understanding as well. I might add Utah wanted to go to the B1G and was told "not at this time".

The commentary about Udub is just off. I'm tired of posting the presser that their President and AD had when they announced their move to the B1G, but their main gripe with the Apple proposal was Apple had the option to walk away every year. Both the Washington President and AD said they couldn't commit to long term contracts such as coaching contracts with their main revenue source so insecure. That Christ was willing to accept such a media structure speaks either to utter incompetence or desperation. I'm not sure which or if it is both.

The article saying there were missteps is a nice way of saying the Pac was incompetently managed.

One other thought on Wilner and Canzanno. Wilner is an insider in Cal/Furd circles and is a lot closer to these administrations than people appreciate. Canzono is the same way with the Oregon schools. Nothing wrong with that necessarily. So what they were spouting off was the party line. Colorado already was gone, and candidly Utah and the Arizonas were not going to sign the Apple deal either once they knew they had a landing spot. The reason the Pac 4 was left at the time was because they didn't have a landing spot, not because they were mislead.

Just my opinion as these negotiations are not my area of expertise and are above my pay grade. EAPN won't opt out without another deal already on the table and agreed to because that would just open the door for schools to leave. FSU is one thing because Disney basically owns the SEC and has control over whether FSU can jump ship there but the real issue is UNC and the other schools eyeing the B10.

If they relinquish rights and lose schools to Fox and a sweetheart deal with the ACC that's under market value only to have to pay FSU more for going to the SEC then there's no upside to them opting out.


The other issue is money, ESPN is financially strapped right now and has been trying to sell off assets, I'm not sure they're in a position right now to voluntarily offer more money for something they already own the rights to or 10 more years. Maybe if Amazon, Apple, or someone else wants to come in as a partner to pay big money for the streaming rights and take a big chunk of the financial burden off of Disney then they can get a deal done that benefits all parties involved.

The big risk is still that ESPN opts out, FSU says "ok we'll we're out and want to join the SEC", and then Fox is waiting like vultures to scoop up UNC, Miami, and Duke or someone in the hopes that by breaking the ACC they'll force Notre Dame into their laps. Then ESPN would have just shot themselves in the foot losing valuable rights teams that they had on the cheap

Assume you mean Cal playing road ACC games in the South and Eastern Seaboard? Not really an issue as those games occur between mid October and late November. Snow/cold/rain is a bigger issue than heat/humidity,

Well we do have FSU in week 4 down in Tallahassee in September. You never know how future schedules will shake out either, they could give us some wary ACC games so we can have a West Coast noncon game or two later in the year to limit b2b travel weeks East and break up the travel burden

Bearly Clad said:

---

Just my opinion as these negotiations are not my area of expertise and are above my pay grade. EAPN won't opt out without another deal already on the table and agreed to because that would just open the door for schools to leave. FSU is one thing because Disney basically owns the SEC and has control over whether FSU can jump ship there but the real issue is UNC and the other schools eyeing the B10.

If they relinquish rights and lose schools to Fox and a sweetheart deal with the ACC that's under market value only to have to pay FSU more for going to the SEC then there's no upside to them opting out.


The other issue is money, ESPN is financially strapped right now and has been trying to sell off assets, I'm not sure they're in a position right now to voluntarily offer more money for something they already own the rights to or 10 more years. Maybe if Amazon, Apple, or someone else wants to come in as a partner to pay big money for the streaming rights and take a big chunk of the financial burden off of Disney then they can get a deal done that benefits all parties involved.

The big risk is still that ESPN opts out, FSU says "ok we'll we're out and want to join the SEC", and then Fox is waiting like vultures to scoop up UNC, Miami, and Duke or someone in the hopes that by breaking the ACC they'll force Notre Dame into their laps. Then ESPN would have just shot themselves in the foot losing valuable rights teams that they had on the cheap

---

There is a window right now where ESPN and the ACC can renegotiate/amend the deal. Adding new teams which became official on August 1 allows this. Sure they can stay with the ACC til 2036. That is an additional 5 or 6 seasons and FSU can still buy their way out or win in court. The lawsuit will not be decided anytime soon.

ESPN could opt out. And they may. But I think an amended deal benefits them more than opting in til 2036. And it could benefit FSU and Clemson as well. More money a guaranteed CFP slot rather than fighting with the big boys in the SEC and B1G for a CFP slot. And does either the SEC or B1G offer a full share for either?

The ACC and ESPN can tailor an agreement that is a short term benefit to both. Will they? I believe if they cannot amend the current deal that the opt out becomes more likely. 2036 is long time to commit to a league that is in turmoil and will see every other conferences TV deals expire well before.

I do think streaming could be a factor. It is nearly certain that streaming will be a much bigger player in live sports and 2036 is a long time to hold the rights. And just how valuable will those rights be if the most valuable brands do leave.

My understanding is ESPN and the ACC can amend this agreement with a simple majority of schools voting to do so. That is part of why the ACC voted for Cal, Stanford and SMU to join. In this arrangement BC has a similar vote as does FSU. The ACC has several schools that are unlikely to be confident a blown apart ACC lands them in a P4 conference with a good payout. FSU, Clemson and UNC may have homes if the league falls apart. But what about GaTech, BC, Wake, Duke, Syracuse, Stanford, Cal, SMU, NC State, Louisville and VaTech. If ESPN and the ACC can forge an amended agreement it can be ratified with a simple majority. The commisioner will not need FSU or Clemson to agree.

We'll see. Lots of possibilities for sure. But I would be surprised if they are not talking.

Thanks for the detailed opinion. The only quibble I have is that I never got the feeling that Clemson actually wants out, just that they're using recent success to push for a bigger payout to keep themselves at the top. It's not like Clemson is a blue blood, has a long history of winning pre-Dabo, or even has a really good team now.

I think they're aware that they had a very strong run and are trying to capitalize on that while it's still fresh in people's memories to make it easier for them to outperform the rest of the conference in the future. FSU seems like they're really raging against the machine, Clemson seems like they're being opportunistic.

Let's be honest pre-Dabo Clemson was never a national powerhouse, early-Dabo they were great, and now they look like they're over-the-hill. I wouldn't be surprised if this is their equivalent of the late Tedford era, their recruiting has dipped, they're not utilizing the transfer portal which most good teams are doing, and their on-field performance has fallen precipitously. Clemson isn't a national brand outside a span of 5 years and the SEC already has a team in the state, Idk that the SEC would be jumping to add Clemson or that Clemson moves the needle for them

6956bear said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

Just my opinion as these negotiations are not my area of expertise and are above my pay grade. EAPN won't opt out without another deal already on the table and agreed to because that would just open the door for schools to leave. FSU is one thing because Disney basically owns the SEC and has control over whether FSU can jump ship there but the real issue is UNC and the other schools eyeing the B10.

If they relinquish rights and lose schools to Fox and a sweetheart deal with the ACC that's under market value only to have to pay FSU more for going to the SEC then there's no upside to them opting out.


The other issue is money, ESPN is financially strapped right now and has been trying to sell off assets, I'm not sure they're in a position right now to voluntarily offer more money for something they already own the rights to or 10 more years. Maybe if Amazon, Apple, or someone else wants to come in as a partner to pay big money for the streaming rights and take a big chunk of the financial burden off of Disney then they can get a deal done that benefits all parties involved.

The big risk is still that ESPN opts out, FSU says "ok we'll we're out and want to join the SEC", and then Fox is waiting like vultures to scoop up UNC, Miami, and Duke or someone in the hopes that by breaking the ACC they'll force Notre Dame into their laps. Then ESPN would have just shot themselves in the foot losing valuable rights teams that they had on the cheap

---

There is a window right now where ESPN and the ACC can renegotiate/amend the deal. Adding new teams which became official on August 1 allows this. Sure they can stay with the ACC til 2036. That is an additional 5 or 6 seasons and FSU can still buy their way out or win in court. The lawsuit will not be decided anytime soon.

ESPN could opt out. And they may. But I think an amended deal benefits them more than opting in til 2036. And it could benefit FSU and Clemson as well. More money a guaranteed CFP slot rather than fighting with the big boys in the SEC and B1G for a CFP slot. And does either the SEC or B1G offer a full share for either?

The ACC and ESPN can tailor an agreement that is a short term benefit to both. Will they? I believe if they cannot amend the current deal that the opt out becomes more likely. 2036 is long time to commit to a league that is in turmoil and will see every other conferences TV deals expire well before.

I do think streaming could be a factor. It is nearly certain that streaming will be a much bigger player in live sports and 2036 is a long time to hold the rights. And just how valuable will those rights be if the most valuable brands do leave.

My understanding is ESPN and the ACC can amend this agreement with a simple majority of schools voting to do so. That is part of why the ACC voted for Cal, Stanford and SMU to join. In this arrangement BC has a similar vote as does FSU. The ACC has several schools that are unlikely to be confident a blown apart ACC lands them in a P4 conference with a good payout. FSU, Clemson and UNC may have homes if the league falls apart. But what about GaTech, BC, Wake, Duke, Syracuse, Stanford, Cal, SMU, NC State, Louisville and VaTech. If ESPN and the ACC can forge an amended agreement it can be ratified with a simple majority. The commisioner will not need FSU or Clemson to agree.

We'll see. Lots of possibilities for sure. But I would be surprised if they are not talking.

---

Dumb question: Don't you have get FSU and Clemson (not to mention UNC and others looking to join other conferences) to sign a new grad of rights with a new ESPN Agreement? They would have to be strongly incentivized to do so.

Sure (maybe) re: @FSU this year, but '82's post was about playing half our games in high heat/high humidity as a team from a mild climate.

Cal will play 4 road ACC games a year and one will be in Palo Alto or Dallas & won't be before the end of September at the earliest.

The travel is a concern, the heat/humidity isn't vs. previous seasons. It'll likely be the same or less than usual for Cal. The cold/snow is a bigger concern.

Quote:

---

One other thought on Wilner and Canzanno. Wilner is an insider in Cal/Furd circles and is a lot closer to these administrations than people appreciate.

---

If Wilner is getting inside information from sources in the Cal athletic department, then the judgment of those sources is very questionable.

Wilner is relentlessly negative about Cal athletics. In any other business, responsible people inside the company don't give scoops to media types whose coverage of the company is so negative.

BearSD said:

---

Quote:

---

One other thought on Wilner and Canzanno. Wilner is an insider in Cal/Furd circles and is a lot closer to these administrations than people appreciate.

---

If Wilner is getting inside information from sources in the Cal athletic department, then the judgment of those sources is very questionable.

Wilner is relentlessly negative about Cal athletics. In any other business, responsible people inside the company don't give scoops to media types whose coverage of the company is so negative.

---

Wilner is literally pimping out Brett Yormark's talking points for the past 2 years plus. Dude has been on Wilner and canzano's podcast multiple times and they speak like they're good ole buddies from way back when.
It would not surprise me to learn that Yormark is Wilber's source amongst the regents.
Remember when he said "odds that fUCLA has to pay 10 million to cal less than 50 percent as per my uc regent sources"
I remember. Dude is a f'ing clown and needs to keep Cal's name out of his dirty fusky troll mouth.

6956bear said:

---

Cal is trying to make up for years of indifference towards football in a very short time. Perhaps they can still make the next realignment.

---

Not trying to pick on you in particular, 6956, but I feel like I've seen a variation of this statement every year for at least 20. I have to ask. How is Cal ACTUALLY trying to make up for years of indifference. What is CAL doing about this?

The most positive thing I could see being argued is that Cal is not any more indifferent than it ever has been. I actually think that as a community we are at about the highest level of indifference in a general sense than at any point in my lifetime. Yes, of course, there have been specific points where sheer awfulness has lead to more indifference on a temporary basis (like Holmoe's last year), but even then, I think if Wilcox pulled a Holmoe, we'd probably reach higher levels of indifference than we did then (if that is possible).

It seems like the real statement is that Cal has been indifferent for 60 years and needs to somehow make up for that and we hope that they do. But I would argue that Cal is not actually doing anything to try and make up for years of indifference, or at least not more than they have in most years of the indifferent string.

Note - Please no one take this as minimizing the very real hard work and support that of course is being brought by individuals. I truly understand the great work done by many in areas like Cal Legends and in other ways and bless all of you. The same can be said for many many great bears over the past 60 years who have been passionate and contributed mightily. I'm in no way saying those people are indifferent.

I just don't see that there is any more commitment from the university or even most of the community than there ever has been. There is a saying that when you walk into a bathroom with the bathtub faucet full blast and the bathroom flooding, the first thing you do is turn off the faucet. I'm not seeing that the faucet of indifference has been shut off. Can't make up for years of indifference while the indifference continues.

Thanks for the heat/humidity replies. I think you are all right. I just have a huge appreciation for the effects of heat/humidity on Bay Area athletes.

CNHTH said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Quote:

---

One other thought on Wilner and Canzanno. Wilner is an insider in Cal/Furd circles and is a lot closer to these administrations than people appreciate.

---

If Wilner is getting inside information from sources in the Cal athletic department, then the judgment of those sources is very questionable.

Wilner is relentlessly negative about Cal athletics. In any other business, responsible people inside the company don't give scoops to media types whose coverage of the company is so negative.

---

Wilner is literally pimping out Brett Yormark's talking points for the past 2 years plus. Dude has been on Wilner and canzano's podcast multiple times and they speak like they're good ole buddies from way back when.
It would not surprise me to learn that Yormark is Wilber's source amongst the regents.
Remember when he said "odds that fUCLA has to pay 10 million to cal less than 50 percent as per my uc regent sources"
I remember. Dude is a f'ing clown and needs to keep Cal's name out of his dirty fusky troll mouth.

---

Where did this notion that Wilner went to UW start? (I've seen it repeatedly so it's not just this post).

https://the5thdown.com/2013/11/04/san-jose-mercury-news-jon-wilner-named-fwaa-beat-writer-of-the-year/

Wilner grew up on the east coast (MD) and went to Penn. He has zero ties to the northwest and did stops covering UofA and UCLA before landing at the Merc.

ColoradoBear said:

---

CNHTH said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Quote:

---

One other thought on Wilner and Canzanno. Wilner is an insider in Cal/Furd circles and is a lot closer to these administrations than people appreciate.

---

If Wilner is getting inside information from sources in the Cal athletic department, then the judgment of those sources is very questionable.

Wilner is relentlessly negative about Cal athletics. In any other business, responsible people inside the company don't give scoops to media types whose coverage of the company is so negative.

---

Wilner is literally pimping out Brett Yormark's talking points for the past 2 years plus. Dude has been on Wilner and canzano's podcast multiple times and they speak like they're good ole buddies from way back when.
It would not surprise me to learn that Yormark is Wilber's source amongst the regents.
Remember when he said "odds that fUCLA has to pay 10 million to cal less than 50 percent as per my uc regent sources"
I remember. Dude is a f'ing clown and needs to keep Cal's name out of his dirty fusky troll mouth.

---

Where did this notion that Wilner went to UW start? (I've seen it repeatedly so it's not just this post).

https://the5thdown.com/2013/11/04/san-jose-mercury-news-jon-wilner-named-fwaa-beat-writer-of-the-year/

Wilner grew up on the east coast (MD) and went to Penn. He has zero ties to the northwest and did stops covering UofA and UCLA before landing at the Merc.

---

I'll take my lashings. I had no idea. I guess I learned of it here or on the old golden blogs site and have been peddling that false narrative unknowingly. Now I know.

100%

Calegends is doing all the heavy lifting. Until the admin and marketing depts are on board, we have no chance in the next realignment.

wifeisafurd said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

Just my opinion as these negotiations are not my area of expertise and are above my pay grade. EAPN won't opt out without another deal already on the table and agreed to because that would just open the door for schools to leave. FSU is one thing because Disney basically owns the SEC and has control over whether FSU can jump ship there but the real issue is UNC and the other schools eyeing the B10.

If they relinquish rights and lose schools to Fox and a sweetheart deal with the ACC that's under market value only to have to pay FSU more for going to the SEC then there's no upside to them opting out.


The other issue is money, ESPN is financially strapped right now and has been trying to sell off assets, I'm not sure they're in a position right now to voluntarily offer more money for something they already own the rights to or 10 more years. Maybe if Amazon, Apple, or someone else wants to come in as a partner to pay big money for the streaming rights and take a big chunk of the financial burden off of Disney then they can get a deal done that benefits all parties involved.

The big risk is still that ESPN opts out, FSU says "ok we'll we're out and want to join the SEC", and then Fox is waiting like vultures to scoop up UNC, Miami, and Duke or someone in the hopes that by breaking the ACC they'll force Notre Dame into their laps. Then ESPN would have just shot themselves in the foot losing valuable rights teams that they had on the cheap

---

There is a window right now where ESPN and the ACC can renegotiate/amend the deal. Adding new teams which became official on August 1 allows this. Sure they can stay with the ACC til 2036. That is an additional 5 or 6 seasons and FSU can still buy their way out or win in court. The lawsuit will not be decided anytime soon.

ESPN could opt out. And they may. But I think an amended deal benefits them more than opting in til 2036. And it could benefit FSU and Clemson as well. More money a guaranteed CFP slot rather than fighting with the big boys in the SEC and B1G for a CFP slot. And does either the SEC or B1G offer a full share for either?

The ACC and ESPN can tailor an agreement that is a short term benefit to both. Will they? I believe if they cannot amend the current deal that the opt out becomes more likely. 2036 is long time to commit to a league that is in turmoil and will see every other conferences TV deals expire well before.

I do think streaming could be a factor. It is nearly certain that streaming will be a much bigger player in live sports and 2036 is a long time to hold the rights. And just how valuable will those rights be if the most valuable brands do leave.

My understanding is ESPN and the ACC can amend this agreement with a simple majority of schools voting to do so. That is part of why the ACC voted for Cal, Stanford and SMU to join. In this arrangement BC has a similar vote as does FSU. The ACC has several schools that are unlikely to be confident a blown apart ACC lands them in a P4 conference with a good payout. FSU, Clemson and UNC may have homes if the league falls apart. But what about GaTech, BC, Wake, Duke, Syracuse, Stanford, Cal, SMU, NC State, Louisville and VaTech. If ESPN and the ACC can forge an amended agreement it can be ratified with a simple majority. The commisioner will not need FSU or Clemson to agree.

We'll see. Lots of possibilities for sure. But I would be surprised if they are not talking.

---

Dumb question: Don't you have get FSU and Clemson (not to mention UNC and others looking to join other conferences) to sign a new grad of rights with a new ESPN Agreement? They would have to be strongly incentivized to do so.

---

No doubt they would. But ESPN not opting out puts these programs in a box. Til 2036. What is the B1G/Fox willing to pony up to get these schools on board? The GOR may go away if ESPN opts out but not the conference exit fee.

The SEC is already a premier league. If ESPN opts out what are they willing to kick in for FSU, UNC, Clemson or anyone else. 50% shares? These schools want the money. If ESPN opts out then the ACC is where the P12 was in 2022. USC got what they wanted. But USC is in LA and has at least an equal brand as FSU (IMO USC is a better brand) and sits in LA. Fox and the B1G gave UO and UW partial shares.

But a reduced length of deal with a somewhat bigger payout and perhaps some unequal performance payouts for post season money may be worth considering. Also the ACC gets an autobid to the CFP. FSU and Clemson are good programs but are they a genuine threat in either the SEC or B1G? And would they get equal shares?

There are a lot of moving parts. The lawsuit for one. The House settlement. The lack of anti trust protection. Plus what is any ACC program really worth on the open market.

The worst case scenario for FSU, Clemson and UNC would be for ESPN to simply not exercise the exit clause. Then the GOR runs through 2036. Does FSU really have a case in the lawsuit? Does anyone want to take them on with that case pending? A new deal that reduces the GOR length and provides a bit more money and ends the lawsuit may be good enough. Or it may not be.

It would be 2023 all over again should ESPN opt out in February 2025. 17 teams available. FSU did not file their intent to leave for 2025 which was due on 8/15. They are in for 2 years at this point. I think it could benefit everyone to negotiate a new deal with a shorter term.

FSU wants more money. Right now they are just spending money on lawyers and may not have a valid case. Or a place to land if they do decide to exit. At least not for the money they believe they deserve.

What does seem likely is that ESPN as the acknowledged kingpin in college football media knows which way the wind is blowing. They are likely the ones providing whatever winds there are. Them and Fox.

Quote:

---

ESPN not opting out puts these programs in a box. Til 2036. What is the B1G/Fox willing to pony up to get these schools on board? The GOR may go away if ESPN opts out but not the conference exit fee.

The SEC is already a premier league. If ESPN opts out what are they willing to kick in for FSU, UNC, Clemson or anyone else. 50% shares?

---

ESPN is not going to opt out, let the ACC go, and then watch the BigFox swipe UNC and FSU. ESPN isn't going to do anything to reduce the length of the ACC contract unless it helps ESPN and the SEC acquire the teams they want from the ACC before Fox gets them.

Lorenz' "Butterfly Effect" described the non-linearity of complex systems. I would totally agree that CFB today has certainly entered an environment of complexity and is surfing the edge of chaos. It is rife with amplifying and dampening feedback loops and who knows where it will all end up. A good analog, for sure, IMPO.

6956bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

Just my opinion as these negotiations are not my area of expertise and are above my pay grade. EAPN won't opt out without another deal already on the table and agreed to because that would just open the door for schools to leave. FSU is one thing because Disney basically owns the SEC and has control over whether FSU can jump ship there but the real issue is UNC and the other schools eyeing the B10.

If they relinquish rights and lose schools to Fox and a sweetheart deal with the ACC that's under market value only to have to pay FSU more for going to the SEC then there's no upside to them opting out.


The other issue is money, ESPN is financially strapped right now and has been trying to sell off assets, I'm not sure they're in a position right now to voluntarily offer more money for something they already own the rights to or 10 more years. Maybe if Amazon, Apple, or someone else wants to come in as a partner to pay big money for the streaming rights and take a big chunk of the financial burden off of Disney then they can get a deal done that benefits all parties involved.

The big risk is still that ESPN opts out, FSU says "ok we'll we're out and want to join the SEC", and then Fox is waiting like vultures to scoop up UNC, Miami, and Duke or someone in the hopes that by breaking the ACC they'll force Notre Dame into their laps. Then ESPN would have just shot themselves in the foot losing valuable rights teams that they had on the cheap

---

There is a window right now where ESPN and the ACC can renegotiate/amend the deal. Adding new teams which became official on August 1 allows this. Sure they can stay with the ACC til 2036. That is an additional 5 or 6 seasons and FSU can still buy their way out or win in court. The lawsuit will not be decided anytime soon.

ESPN could opt out. And they may. But I think an amended deal benefits them more than opting in til 2036. And it could benefit FSU and Clemson as well. More money a guaranteed CFP slot rather than fighting with the big boys in the SEC and B1G for a CFP slot. And does either the SEC or B1G offer a full share for either?

The ACC and ESPN can tailor an agreement that is a short term benefit to both. Will they? I believe if they cannot amend the current deal that the opt out becomes more likely. 2036 is long time to commit to a league that is in turmoil and will see every other conferences TV deals expire well before.

I do think streaming could be a factor. It is nearly certain that streaming will be a much bigger player in live sports and 2036 is a long time to hold the rights. And just how valuable will those rights be if the most valuable brands do leave.

My understanding is ESPN and the ACC can amend this agreement with a simple majority of schools voting to do so. That is part of why the ACC voted for Cal, Stanford and SMU to join. In this arrangement BC has a similar vote as does FSU. The ACC has several schools that are unlikely to be confident a blown apart ACC lands them in a P4 conference with a good payout. FSU, Clemson and UNC may have homes if the league falls apart. But what about GaTech, BC, Wake, Duke, Syracuse, Stanford, Cal, SMU, NC State, Louisville and VaTech. If ESPN and the ACC can forge an amended agreement it can be ratified with a simple majority. The commisioner will not need FSU or Clemson to agree.

We'll see. Lots of possibilities for sure. But I would be surprised if they are not talking.

---

Dumb question: Don't you have get FSU and Clemson (not to mention UNC and others looking to join other conferences) to sign a new grad of rights with a new ESPN Agreement? They would have to be strongly incentivized to do so.

---

The worst case scenario for FSU, Clemson and UNC would be for ESPN to simply not exercise the exit clause. Then the GOR runs through 2036. Does FSU really have a case in the lawsuit? Does anyone want to take them on with that case pending?

---

If ESPN decides to walk enough ACC schools could come together and end the ACC GOR, presuming enough institutions have landing spots elsewhere if the ACC goes down, which even we could be party to if we have an understanding with the B1G at that point.

Strykur said:

---

6956bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

Just my opinion as these negotiations are not my area of expertise and are above my pay grade. EAPN won't opt out without another deal already on the table and agreed to because that would just open the door for schools to leave. FSU is one thing because Disney basically owns the SEC and has control over whether FSU can jump ship there but the real issue is UNC and the other schools eyeing the B10.

If they relinquish rights and lose schools to Fox and a sweetheart deal with the ACC that's under market value only to have to pay FSU more for going to the SEC then there's no upside to them opting out.


The other issue is money, ESPN is financially strapped right now and has been trying to sell off assets, I'm not sure they're in a position right now to voluntarily offer more money for something they already own the rights to or 10 more years. Maybe if Amazon, Apple, or someone else wants to come in as a partner to pay big money for the streaming rights and take a big chunk of the financial burden off of Disney then they can get a deal done that benefits all parties involved.

The big risk is still that ESPN opts out, FSU says "ok we'll we're out and want to join the SEC", and then Fox is waiting like vultures to scoop up UNC, Miami, and Duke or someone in the hopes that by breaking the ACC they'll force Notre Dame into their laps. Then ESPN would have just shot themselves in the foot losing valuable rights teams that they had on the cheap

---

There is a window right now where ESPN and the ACC can renegotiate/amend the deal. Adding new teams which became official on August 1 allows this. Sure they can stay with the ACC til 2036. That is an additional 5 or 6 seasons and FSU can still buy their way out or win in court. The lawsuit will not be decided anytime soon.

ESPN could opt out. And they may. But I think an amended deal benefits them more than opting in til 2036. And it could benefit FSU and Clemson as well. More money a guaranteed CFP slot rather than fighting with the big boys in the SEC and B1G for a CFP slot. And does either the SEC or B1G offer a full share for either?

The ACC and ESPN can tailor an agreement that is a short term benefit to both. Will they? I believe if they cannot amend the current deal that the opt out becomes more likely. 2036 is long time to commit to a league that is in turmoil and will see every other conferences TV deals expire well before.

I do think streaming could be a factor. It is nearly certain that streaming will be a much bigger player in live sports and 2036 is a long time to hold the rights. And just how valuable will those rights be if the most valuable brands do leave.

My understanding is ESPN and the ACC can amend this agreement with a simple majority of schools voting to do so. That is part of why the ACC voted for Cal, Stanford and SMU to join. In this arrangement BC has a similar vote as does FSU. The ACC has several schools that are unlikely to be confident a blown apart ACC lands them in a P4 conference with a good payout. FSU, Clemson and UNC may have homes if the league falls apart. But what about GaTech, BC, Wake, Duke, Syracuse, Stanford, Cal, SMU, NC State, Louisville and VaTech. If ESPN and the ACC can forge an amended agreement it can be ratified with a simple majority. The commisioner will not need FSU or Clemson to agree.

We'll see. Lots of possibilities for sure. But I would be surprised if they are not talking.

---

Dumb question: Don't you have get FSU and Clemson (not to mention UNC and others looking to join other conferences) to sign a new grad of rights with a new ESPN Agreement? They would have to be strongly incentivized to do so.

---

The worst case scenario for FSU, Clemson and UNC would be for ESPN to simply not exercise the exit clause. Then the GOR runs through 2036. Does FSU really have a case in the lawsuit? Does anyone want to take them on with that case pending?

---

If ESPN decides to walk enough ACC schools could come together and end the ACC GOR, presuming enough institutions have landing spots elsewhere if the ACC goes down, which even we could be party to if we have an understanding with the B1G at that point.

---

There are a lot of potential possibilities. If there is going to be a major realignment soon the easiest thing is for ESPN to just opt out. That would force the schools to come together and likely dissolve the conference. But if ESPN feels the ACC is worth keeping together then a deal could come together. I just cannot fathom in the current climate that ESPN wants to keep the rights for a conference in turmoil til 2036. But a short deal? Maybe.

The schools can come together and force the conference to dissolve at any time. That was part of why they asked Cal, Stanford and SMU to join in the first place. A short deal could provide some stability while the House settlement gets implemented, the schools pressure Congress for an anti-trust exemption and for these schools to lobby for new homes.

I am not saying they can for sure come to an agreement for a short deal. But I do think it serves both better than opting in on the current agreement.

As to your point regarding Cal and the B1G. I am hoping they are working behind the scenes to see if there is a path forward for Cal. There are some things that benefit both. Just not sure Fox is even interested. At any price. At one point the presumed master plan for the B1G was a 24 team conference. Just not for 2024. The B1G sits at 18 now.

JMO but February 2025 seems like a big moment. Does ESPN opt in or out.And if in does that current contract stay or get amended.

There is literally nobody that believes everyone survives a major realignment. Not for the P4 and CFP anyway. If that is the case why would ESPN obligate themselves til 2036 for a conference that has several members that may not make the cut.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Cal is trying to make up for years of indifference towards football in a very short time. Perhaps they can still make the next realignment.

---

Not trying to pick on you in particular, 6956, but I feel like I've seen a variation of this statement every year for at least 20. I have to ask. How is Cal ACTUALLY trying to make up for years of indifference. What is CAL doing about this?

The most positive thing I could see being argued is that Cal is not any more indifferent than it ever has been. I actually think that as a community we are at about the highest level of indifference in a general sense than at any point in my lifetime. Yes, of course, there have been specific points where sheer awfulness has lead to more indifference on a temporary basis (like Holmoe's last year), but even then, I think if Wilcox pulled a Holmoe, we'd probably reach higher levels of indifference than we did then (if that is possible).

It seems like the real statement is that Cal has been indifferent for 60 years and needs to somehow make up for that and we hope that they do. But I would argue that Cal is not actually doing anything to try and make up for years of indifference, or at least not more than they have in most years of the indifferent string.

Note - Please no one take this as minimizing the very real hard work and support that of course is being brought by individuals. I truly understand the great work done by many in areas like Cal Legends and in other ways and bless all of you. The same can be said for many many great bears over the past 60 years who have been passionate and contributed mightily. I'm in no way saying those people are indifferent.

I just don't see that there is any more commitment from the university or even most of the community than there ever has been. There is a saying that when you walk into a bathroom with the bathtub faucet full blast and the bathroom flooding, the first thing you do is turn off the faucet. I'm not seeing that the faucet of indifference has been shut off. Can't make up for years of indifference while the indifference continues.

---

True enough that the University has not really done anything near enough to stem the tide of indifference. They have made a short term commitment for football to keep their revenues rather than disperse them to the other sports. And possibly provide some additional football funding. But the right sizing of the athletic department needs to happen. And they need to change the leadership there as well.

Expecting football to perform well enough in 2024 so they receive a liferaft when realignment happens is a hope and not a plan. Even if they do the department needs to be rightsized.

Chancellor Lyons has a lot on his plate and faces a lot of obstructionists. Personally I believe Cal gets relegated. To much to overcome in too short a timeline. And nowhere near enough urgency. In fact they are quasi relegated now. And the ACC is in turmoil.

Words are fine and Lyons has said some of the right things. But action is needed. So I agree that the small commitment that Lyons has made likely is too little too late. At Cal you need to take baby steps rather than big steps. The program got to where they are because participating was more important than thriving. It will unfortunately likely take time to turn that ship around. If they really even want to, which is another open question.

6956, agree with everything u wrote but does lyons wanna be the chancellor that lost berkeley it's #1 ranking in the world??

Shocky1 said:

---

6956, agree with everything u wrote but does lyons wanna be the chancellor that lost berkeley it's #1 ranking in the world??

---

Shocky, I don't think he does. But does he have the courage and support to act? Does not sound like it. I think way too many people believe Cal can maintain their status without big time athletics. I do not agree and you don't.

Unfortunately unless something changes and really soon I am afraid we may find out. Your post on your monster thread is really disheartening.

His problem, it seems to me, is figuring out which men's non-revenue sports he can cut which don't have boosters who are also significant contributors of academic contributions, and don't pay for themselves through contributions. He has to cut men's sports first, in order to make cuts to women's sports and still be in compliance with Title IX. Just with my limited knowledge, I would guess golf, aquatics, rugby, crew and water polo would be considered sacrosanct.

6956bear said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Cal is trying to make up for years of indifference towards football in a very short time. Perhaps they can still make the next realignment.

---

Not trying to pick on you in particular, 6956, but I feel like I've seen a variation of this statement every year for at least 20. I have to ask. How is Cal ACTUALLY trying to make up for years of indifference. What is CAL doing about this?

The most positive thing I could see being argued is that Cal is not any more indifferent than it ever has been. I actually think that as a community we are at about the highest level of indifference in a general sense than at any point in my lifetime. Yes, of course, there have been specific points where sheer awfulness has lead to more indifference on a temporary basis (like Holmoe's last year), but even then, I think if Wilcox pulled a Holmoe, we'd probably reach higher levels of indifference than we did then (if that is possible).

It seems like the real statement is that Cal has been indifferent for 60 years and needs to somehow make up for that and we hope that they do. But I would argue that Cal is not actually doing anything to try and make up for years of indifference, or at least not more than they have in most years of the indifferent string.

Note - Please no one take this as minimizing the very real hard work and support that of course is being brought by individuals. I truly understand the great work done by many in areas like Cal Legends and in other ways and bless all of you. The same can be said for many many great bears over the past 60 years who have been passionate and contributed mightily. I'm in no way saying those people are indifferent.

I just don't see that there is any more commitment from the university or even most of the community than there ever has been. There is a saying that when you walk into a bathroom with the bathtub faucet full blast and the bathroom flooding, the first thing you do is turn off the faucet. I'm not seeing that the faucet of indifference has been shut off. Can't make up for years of indifference while the indifference continues.

---

True enough that the University has not really done anything near enough to stem the tide of indifference. They have made a short term commitment for football to keep their revenues rather than disperse them to the other sports. And possibly provide some additional football funding. But the right sizing of the athletic department needs to happen. And they need to change the leadership there as well.

Expecting football to perform well enough in 2024 so they receive a liferaft when realignment happens is a hope and not a plan. Even if they do the department needs to be rightsized.

Chancellor Lyons has a lot on his plate and faces a lot of obstructionists. Personally I believe Cal gets relegated. To much to overcome in too short a timeline. And nowhere near enough urgency. In fact they are quasi relegated now. And the ACC is in turmoil.

Words are fine and Lyons has said some of the right things. But action is needed. So I agree that the small commitment that Lyons has made likely is too little too late. At Cal you need to take baby steps rather than big steps. The program got to where they are because participating was more important than thriving. It will unfortunately likely take time to turn that ship around. If they really even want to, which is another open question.

---

Very well stated. If Lyons does not feel the urgency, especially being in ear shot of those trying to keep our program afloat (Calegends), well then we have our answer regarding relegation. Regardless of the infield performance this year, if he isn't able to fire Knowlton or Markeisha and ideally both in the next 6 months, I think we can close the books on Cal football.

BearSD said:

---

Quote:

---

One other thought on Wilner and Canzanno. Wilner is an insider in Cal/Furd circles and is a lot closer to these administrations than people appreciate.

---

If Wilner is getting inside information from sources in the Cal athletic department, then the judgment of those sources is very questionable.

Wilner is relentlessly negative about Cal athletics. In any other business, responsible people inside the company don't give scoops to media types whose coverage of the company is so negative.

---

I was personally involved in one matter that Cal had to get their position out, and while Jon asked a lot of questions and did his due diligence, he basically published what Cal said to him. Jon has the relationships and , like it or not, is the only game in town covering the Pac 12 and college athletics that could get out your message to a regional or national audience. BTW, when you get to the University level, the media guys like Moguluf know what they are doing.

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Quote:

---

One other thought on Wilner and Canzanno. Wilner is an insider in Cal/Furd circles and is a lot closer to these administrations than people appreciate.

---

If Wilner is getting inside information from sources in the Cal athletic department, then the judgment of those sources is very questionable.

Wilner is relentlessly negative about Cal athletics. In any other business, responsible people inside the company don't give scoops to media types whose coverage of the company is so negative.

---

I was personally involved in one matter that Cal had to get their position out, and while Jon asked a lot of questions and did his due diligence, he basically published what Cal said to him. Jon has the relationships and , like it or not, is the only game in town covering the Pac 12 and college athletics that could get out your message to a regional or national audience. BTW, when you get to the University level, the media guys like Moguluf know what they are doing.

---

Wilner is entitled to his opinions. And the guys in the athletic department should be courteous and professional, but they shouldn't tell him anything they don't tell anyone else. If he asks you the color of the sky or the grass, go ahead and answer because everyone already knows the sky is blue and the grass is green. But if he asks for nonpublic information like, what is the AD going to do about a budget squeeze or who is the HC going to name as the starting QB, you politely deflect. Any scoops should be given out only to media types whose coverage is at least somewhat positive.

Jeff82 said:

---

His problem, it seems to me, is figuring out which men's non-revenue sports he can cut which don't have boosters who are also significant contributors of academic contributions, and don't pay for themselves through contributions. He has to cut men's sports first, in order to make cuts to women's sports and still be in compliance with Title IX. Just with my limited knowledge, I would guess golf, aquatics, rugby, crew and water polo would be considered sacrosanct.

---

I think that is something he will consider. It is not easy to to tell stakeholders their sport is either going away or needs to fully endow to survive. No doubt it has the potential of pissing off several major donors.

What I believe though is if he fails to take swift and firm action that will happen anyway. The football program whether anyone wants to believe it is the key to realignment. They have a budget problem and football even in realignment won't solve it. If football falls out of the P4 the impact on donations are likely to be immense. And not in a positive way.

Rightsizing is going to occur regardless. Not relaying the urgency of this (if he isn't) is avoiding the reality. So sure it is a tough decision, but one that must be made. The AD and his minions do not help the cause. They are a big part of the problem. Knowlton and others need to go. The typical Cal way is to embark on a listening tour taking months, have the obstructionists chime in telling Lyons athletics will kill the Cal mission and then have lawyers say you need to give a majority of the House settlement payouts to womens sports or risk a lawsuit.

Several schools right now are making plans to determine how to go forward. They realize that cuts have to be made. The House settlement makes rightsizing even more critical. Cal will be paying players whether some donors have a problem with this component or not. Title IX is of course important and how these payments and any cuts are made will be under scrutiny from many fronts.

If they do not get serious soon (like now) they will certainly be left behind and holding a very large budget deficit bag. They may anyway.

Cal was headed towards this iceberg before the P12 got blown up. Now they are headed towards it at warp speed. This is not just a football problem. It is an entire athletic department problem and a huge blow to the reputation of the school if they do not fix it. And losing this battle will result in fewer donations. But hey we may still have crew. And a mostly empty football stadium when Cal plays UCD in what will now be a conference game.

The number of folks that did not believe the P12 would dissolve are mostly the same ones that are not fully recognizing this possible disaster. When is that game vs USC this year....oh never mind.

6956bear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

His problem, it seems to me, is figuring out which men's non-revenue sports he can cut which don't have boosters who are also significant contributors of academic contributions, and don't pay for themselves through contributions. He has to cut men's sports first, in order to make cuts to women's sports and still be in compliance with Title IX. Just with my limited knowledge, I would guess golf, aquatics, rugby, crew and water polo would be considered sacrosanct.

---

The number of folks that did not believe the P12 would dissolve are mostly the same ones that are not fully recognizing this possible disaster. When is that game vs USC this year....oh never mind.

---

If the people at the top (Christ and Knowlton) were not envisioning whatsoever that the PAC-12 was going to go down the last weekend of July 2022 when the LA schools announced they were bouncing then that tells you all you need to know, I was baffled the following Monday that the PAC-12 had not imploded within 48 hours and for over a year (until August 2023) a bunch of folks were still deluding themselves with the notion that we would get a deal signed, yeah right.