FedEx has naming rights to Memphis Institute of Technology. Its Carnegie R1. Not sure how much money is funding the Institute but it appears they give money to the university. And now they are contributing NIL money.HearstMining said:If true, I'm curious how FedEx can justify this as a good business decision. Sure, Joe BigShot who owns a dozen car dealerships can do whatever he darn well pleases, but FedEx is a publicly traded company and it's hard to imagine the business benefit of such an expenditure.philly1121 said:Makes sense. Article I read indicates that FedEx is gifting $25 million over 5 years to Memphis' NIL fund.movielover said:
Canzano: Pac-12 preparing to take a second bite of expansion apple
University of Memphis and Tulane University are top targets.
Pac-12 to add 4 MW schools
13,176 Views |
114 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by ducktilldeath
In Wilner's defense, Oregon was allegedly ready to sign the Amazon deal and it was Washington's head coach who convinced the UW President to take the Big Ten deal before bailing on UW at the end of the season anyway. Oregon's thinking was that the reduced shared from the Big Ten wasn't better than the Amazon deal by enough to justify the increased travel and harder road to a playoff bid.BearSD said:You have to take ol' John with a grain of salt. He was thoroughly misled in 2022 and 2023 when the Pac-12 disintegrated, because his sources were sunshine pumpers at OSU and WSU. Example: Oregon remains "way on board" with Pac-12, per source.movielover said:
Canzano: Pac-12 preparing to take a second bite of expansion apple
University of Memphis and Tulane University are top targets.
He probably still has the same sources, so you can assume OSU and WSU *want* Memphis and Tulane to join them, but I would not assume more than that.
But, yes, I assume that what's being reported is that the Memphis and Tulane are what that Pac-X wants and not necessarily what Memphis and Tulane want.
berserkeley said:In Wilner's defense, Oregon was allegedly ready to sign the Amazon deal and it was Washington's head coach who convinced the UW President to take the Big Ten deal before bailing on UW at the end of the season anyway. Oregon's thinking was that the reduced shared from the Big Ten wasn't better than the Amazon deal by enough to justify the increased travel and harder road to a playoff bid.BearSD said:You have to take ol' John with a grain of salt. He was thoroughly misled in 2022 and 2023 when the Pac-12 disintegrated, because his sources were sunshine pumpers at OSU and WSU. Example: Oregon remains "way on board" with Pac-12, per source.movielover said:
Canzano: Pac-12 preparing to take a second bite of expansion apple
University of Memphis and Tulane University are top targets.
He probably still has the same sources, so you can assume OSU and WSU *want* Memphis and Tulane to join them, but I would not assume more than that.
But, yes, I assume that what's being reported is that the Memphis and Tulane are what that Pac-X wants and not necessarily what Memphis and Tulane want.
Oregon (Nike) was reportedly the one pushing for B1G admission to keep up with the LA schools with USC not wanting them and saying they wanted Cal and Stanford instead. We just never applied. UW and Oregon were not thrilled with initial partial shares but had their deals in place for months and were just waiting to see if Kliavkoff could beat it, which he didn't, not by a long shot. The Oregon president lied to Christ about signing the Apple streaming deal to hide the fact he had a deal with the B1G. Both he and Christ have said that. It was a game of high stakes poker and we lost, but I am really liking where we ended up, thanks to Stanford.
But, at the end, the reports were that Oregon thought the AppleTV deal was better than the Big Ten deal and Oregon was going to sign it, but Kalen DeBoer and UW lead the exit to the Big Ten and Oregon followed not the other way around. From the LA Times:calumnus said:berserkeley said:In Wilner's defense, Oregon was allegedly ready to sign the Amazon deal and it was Washington's head coach who convinced the UW President to take the Big Ten deal before bailing on UW at the end of the season anyway. Oregon's thinking was that the reduced shared from the Big Ten wasn't better than the Amazon deal by enough to justify the increased travel and harder road to a playoff bid.BearSD said:You have to take ol' John with a grain of salt. He was thoroughly misled in 2022 and 2023 when the Pac-12 disintegrated, because his sources were sunshine pumpers at OSU and WSU. Example: Oregon remains "way on board" with Pac-12, per source.movielover said:
Canzano: Pac-12 preparing to take a second bite of expansion apple
University of Memphis and Tulane University are top targets.
He probably still has the same sources, so you can assume OSU and WSU *want* Memphis and Tulane to join them, but I would not assume more than that.
But, yes, I assume that what's being reported is that the Memphis and Tulane are what that Pac-X wants and not necessarily what Memphis and Tulane want.
Oregon (Nike) was reportedly the one pushing for B1G admission to keep up with the LA schools with USC not wanting them and saying they wanted Cal and Stanford instead. We just never applied. UW and Oregon were not thrilled with initial partial shares but had their deals in place for months and were just waiting to see if Kliavkoff could beat it, which he didn't, not by a long shot. The Oregon president lied to Christ about signing the Apple streaming deal to hide the fact he had a deal with the B1G. Both he and Christ have said that. It was a game of high stakes poker and we lost, but I am really liking where we ended up, thanks to Stanford.
Oregon and Washington were the key to keeping the league together, and the Apple deal had one very important Duck feather in its cap.
"Phil Knight loved it," a source said.
The Nike CEO whose millions helped build upstart Oregon into a West Coast power saw the potential that Kliavkoff was pitching.
After two days of reports circulating that the Ducks and Huskies were pushing to leave for the Big Ten, there was a sudden turnabout. Reports from multiple outlets said the Pac-12 presidents were intending to meet on the morning of Aug. 4 to sign their grant of rights with a 10th school to be added later replacing Colorado.
Ten minutes before the meeting was to begin, however, Washington informed the Pac-12 that it was leaving for the Big Ten. The possibility of playing no games on the major linear networks was too tough of a sell for Washington football coach Kalen DeBoer, two sources told The Times.
"I give president [Ana Mari] Cauce and [athletic director] Jennifer Cohen a lot of credit, because these are not easy choices," DeBoer told reporters after the move to the Big Ten was announced, according to the Seattle Times. "But just thinking years down the road, it came to a point where the resources that we need to be able to provide for our student-athletes … going to the Big Ten allowed for a lot of that."
Once the Huskies left, the Ducks followed. The Arizona, Arizona State and Utah exodus to the Big 12 flowed naturally from there.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2023-08-16/pac-12-collapse-decisions-realignment-ucla-oregon
Where did you see the Oregon President admitted he lied about intending to sign the AppleTV deal? Because I cannot imagine that to be true. And it contradicts what was acrtually reported.
Update on this: SDSU-Cal drew 938k viewers.sycasey said:One thing about the upcoming SDSU game: there will be very little competition in the time slot. The only other FBS game in the time slot is NM State vs. Fresno State on TruTV, which is basically no competition at all vs. an ESPN game. So hopefully Cal is still able to draw decent ratings even though it's not an exciting matchup for a casual fan. People just leave ESPN on all night.sycasey said:Yup, but there was less competition in the time slot last year. And ESPN probably gets better ratings in general than ESPN2.golden sloth said:sycasey said:Cal-Auburn drew more than 1 million viewers, and that's despite being on ESPN2 and up against a lot of competition in the time slot. Second only to the Alabama game for cable broadcasts.Econ141 said:
Totally agree that winning is 100% necessary. My point though is that more wins these next two years is not sufficient to seal any deal. We have to prove that we are setting up our programs for long-term success instead of just collecting paychecks and trying to catch lightening in a bottle like we did with Tedford. Any outsized success this year is 100% due to support from Calegends and not from Cal admin. If all three (wins, Calegends, Cal admin) align, then there would be no question that more wins and eyeballs will follow for Cal football.
Also - it will be very interesting to see what the view ship numbers are for this week's game against SDSU. Hopefully we can show value by getting 1m+ viewers. If not this week than let's see what the view ship numbers are vs the lesser ACC teams. Good to see what viewership Cal brings to the table when the competition isnt Miami/FSU.
So glad we got out of pac-12 where our viewership numbers were penciled in as zeros!
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Of course, that's with Auburn involved. Let's see what happens when we play some lesser brand names.
Surprisingly, that is about half the number of people that watched last year's game. As a reminder that game kicked off at 7:30 PM pst on ESPN.
But any game not on the ACC Network is a win though with regards to ratings.
https://mattsarzsports.com/Schedule/Weekly/football2024/3
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
A bit lower than the previous two weeks in the same time slot (which were in the 950k range), though one involved a ranked team in Arizona and the other had two P4 schools. I'd say this is not a bad performance at all, given no ranked teams and a G5 playing. As I said, sports fans just leave ESPN on the TV if there is nothing else on.
I think this is also showing how screwed we were by the Pac-12 media coverage. Last year this is a Pac-12 Network game, no question, and would have counted for zero viewers. Now with games actually on ESPN we'll get to see how many people are actually watching Cal football. I suspect we are actually decently above average in terms of viewership, when all is said and done.
sycasey said:Update on this: SDSU-Cal drew 938k viewers.sycasey said:One thing about the upcoming SDSU game: there will be very little competition in the time slot. The only other FBS game in the time slot is NM State vs. Fresno State on TruTV, which is basically no competition at all vs. an ESPN game. So hopefully Cal is still able to draw decent ratings even though it's not an exciting matchup for a casual fan. People just leave ESPN on all night.sycasey said:Yup, but there was less competition in the time slot last year. And ESPN probably gets better ratings in general than ESPN2.golden sloth said:sycasey said:Cal-Auburn drew more than 1 million viewers, and that's despite being on ESPN2 and up against a lot of competition in the time slot. Second only to the Alabama game for cable broadcasts.Econ141 said:
Totally agree that winning is 100% necessary. My point though is that more wins these next two years is not sufficient to seal any deal. We have to prove that we are setting up our programs for long-term success instead of just collecting paychecks and trying to catch lightening in a bottle like we did with Tedford. Any outsized success this year is 100% due to support from Calegends and not from Cal admin. If all three (wins, Calegends, Cal admin) align, then there would be no question that more wins and eyeballs will follow for Cal football.
Also - it will be very interesting to see what the view ship numbers are for this week's game against SDSU. Hopefully we can show value by getting 1m+ viewers. If not this week than let's see what the view ship numbers are vs the lesser ACC teams. Good to see what viewership Cal brings to the table when the competition isnt Miami/FSU.
So glad we got out of pac-12 where our viewership numbers were penciled in as zeros!
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Of course, that's with Auburn involved. Let's see what happens when we play some lesser brand names.
Surprisingly, that is about half the number of people that watched last year's game. As a reminder that game kicked off at 7:30 PM pst on ESPN.
But any game not on the ACC Network is a win though with regards to ratings.
https://mattsarzsports.com/Schedule/Weekly/football2024/3
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
A bit lower than the previous two weeks in the same time slot (which were in the 950k range), though one involved a ranked team in Arizona and the other had two P4 schools. I'd say this is not a bad performance at all, given no ranked teams and a G5 playing. As I said, sports fans just leave ESPN on the TV if there is nothing else on.
I think this is also showing how screwed we were by the Pac-12 media coverage. Last year this is a Pac-12 Network game, no question, and would have counted for zero viewers. Now with games actually on ESPN we'll get to see how many people are actually watching Cal football. I suspect we are actually decently above average in terms of viewership, when all is said and done.
There's 39M people in the state of California and two California schools were playing.
Is this supposed to mean something? If anything it probably reduces the potential audience because you're only drawing from one region.dimitrig said:sycasey said:Update on this: SDSU-Cal drew 938k viewers.sycasey said:One thing about the upcoming SDSU game: there will be very little competition in the time slot. The only other FBS game in the time slot is NM State vs. Fresno State on TruTV, which is basically no competition at all vs. an ESPN game. So hopefully Cal is still able to draw decent ratings even though it's not an exciting matchup for a casual fan. People just leave ESPN on all night.sycasey said:Yup, but there was less competition in the time slot last year. And ESPN probably gets better ratings in general than ESPN2.golden sloth said:sycasey said:Cal-Auburn drew more than 1 million viewers, and that's despite being on ESPN2 and up against a lot of competition in the time slot. Second only to the Alabama game for cable broadcasts.Econ141 said:
Totally agree that winning is 100% necessary. My point though is that more wins these next two years is not sufficient to seal any deal. We have to prove that we are setting up our programs for long-term success instead of just collecting paychecks and trying to catch lightening in a bottle like we did with Tedford. Any outsized success this year is 100% due to support from Calegends and not from Cal admin. If all three (wins, Calegends, Cal admin) align, then there would be no question that more wins and eyeballs will follow for Cal football.
Also - it will be very interesting to see what the view ship numbers are for this week's game against SDSU. Hopefully we can show value by getting 1m+ viewers. If not this week than let's see what the view ship numbers are vs the lesser ACC teams. Good to see what viewership Cal brings to the table when the competition isnt Miami/FSU.
So glad we got out of pac-12 where our viewership numbers were penciled in as zeros!
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Of course, that's with Auburn involved. Let's see what happens when we play some lesser brand names.
Surprisingly, that is about half the number of people that watched last year's game. As a reminder that game kicked off at 7:30 PM pst on ESPN.
But any game not on the ACC Network is a win though with regards to ratings.
https://mattsarzsports.com/Schedule/Weekly/football2024/3
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
A bit lower than the previous two weeks in the same time slot (which were in the 950k range), though one involved a ranked team in Arizona and the other had two P4 schools. I'd say this is not a bad performance at all, given no ranked teams and a G5 playing. As I said, sports fans just leave ESPN on the TV if there is nothing else on.
I think this is also showing how screwed we were by the Pac-12 media coverage. Last year this is a Pac-12 Network game, no question, and would have counted for zero viewers. Now with games actually on ESPN we'll get to see how many people are actually watching Cal football. I suspect we are actually decently above average in terms of viewership, when all is said and done.
There's 39M people in the state of California and two California schools were playing.
sycasey said:Is this supposed to mean something? If anything it probably reduces the potential audience because you're only drawing from one region.dimitrig said:sycasey said:Update on this: SDSU-Cal drew 938k viewers.sycasey said:One thing about the upcoming SDSU game: there will be very little competition in the time slot. The only other FBS game in the time slot is NM State vs. Fresno State on TruTV, which is basically no competition at all vs. an ESPN game. So hopefully Cal is still able to draw decent ratings even though it's not an exciting matchup for a casual fan. People just leave ESPN on all night.sycasey said:Yup, but there was less competition in the time slot last year. And ESPN probably gets better ratings in general than ESPN2.golden sloth said:sycasey said:Cal-Auburn drew more than 1 million viewers, and that's despite being on ESPN2 and up against a lot of competition in the time slot. Second only to the Alabama game for cable broadcasts.Econ141 said:
Totally agree that winning is 100% necessary. My point though is that more wins these next two years is not sufficient to seal any deal. We have to prove that we are setting up our programs for long-term success instead of just collecting paychecks and trying to catch lightening in a bottle like we did with Tedford. Any outsized success this year is 100% due to support from Calegends and not from Cal admin. If all three (wins, Calegends, Cal admin) align, then there would be no question that more wins and eyeballs will follow for Cal football.
Also - it will be very interesting to see what the view ship numbers are for this week's game against SDSU. Hopefully we can show value by getting 1m+ viewers. If not this week than let's see what the view ship numbers are vs the lesser ACC teams. Good to see what viewership Cal brings to the table when the competition isnt Miami/FSU.
So glad we got out of pac-12 where our viewership numbers were penciled in as zeros!
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Of course, that's with Auburn involved. Let's see what happens when we play some lesser brand names.
Surprisingly, that is about half the number of people that watched last year's game. As a reminder that game kicked off at 7:30 PM pst on ESPN.
But any game not on the ACC Network is a win though with regards to ratings.
https://mattsarzsports.com/Schedule/Weekly/football2024/3
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
A bit lower than the previous two weeks in the same time slot (which were in the 950k range), though one involved a ranked team in Arizona and the other had two P4 schools. I'd say this is not a bad performance at all, given no ranked teams and a G5 playing. As I said, sports fans just leave ESPN on the TV if there is nothing else on.
I think this is also showing how screwed we were by the Pac-12 media coverage. Last year this is a Pac-12 Network game, no question, and would have counted for zero viewers. Now with games actually on ESPN we'll get to see how many people are actually watching Cal football. I suspect we are actually decently above average in terms of viewership, when all is said and done.
There's 39M people in the state of California and two California schools were playing.
It means that there's a pool of 39M to draw from versus, say, Alabama where there is only a population of 5M total. I would hope that out of 39M people we can draw 1M plus whoever else out there might be interested.
I don't think there's any question that the salience of college football is much lower in the West than it is in the South. Down there, everyone watches. Out here, it's a fraction. Just how it is.dimitrig said:sycasey said:Is this supposed to mean something? If anything it probably reduces the potential audience because you're only drawing from one region.dimitrig said:sycasey said:Update on this: SDSU-Cal drew 938k viewers.sycasey said:One thing about the upcoming SDSU game: there will be very little competition in the time slot. The only other FBS game in the time slot is NM State vs. Fresno State on TruTV, which is basically no competition at all vs. an ESPN game. So hopefully Cal is still able to draw decent ratings even though it's not an exciting matchup for a casual fan. People just leave ESPN on all night.sycasey said:Yup, but there was less competition in the time slot last year. And ESPN probably gets better ratings in general than ESPN2.golden sloth said:sycasey said:Cal-Auburn drew more than 1 million viewers, and that's despite being on ESPN2 and up against a lot of competition in the time slot. Second only to the Alabama game for cable broadcasts.Econ141 said:
Totally agree that winning is 100% necessary. My point though is that more wins these next two years is not sufficient to seal any deal. We have to prove that we are setting up our programs for long-term success instead of just collecting paychecks and trying to catch lightening in a bottle like we did with Tedford. Any outsized success this year is 100% due to support from Calegends and not from Cal admin. If all three (wins, Calegends, Cal admin) align, then there would be no question that more wins and eyeballs will follow for Cal football.
Also - it will be very interesting to see what the view ship numbers are for this week's game against SDSU. Hopefully we can show value by getting 1m+ viewers. If not this week than let's see what the view ship numbers are vs the lesser ACC teams. Good to see what viewership Cal brings to the table when the competition isnt Miami/FSU.
So glad we got out of pac-12 where our viewership numbers were penciled in as zeros!
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Of course, that's with Auburn involved. Let's see what happens when we play some lesser brand names.
Surprisingly, that is about half the number of people that watched last year's game. As a reminder that game kicked off at 7:30 PM pst on ESPN.
But any game not on the ACC Network is a win though with regards to ratings.
https://mattsarzsports.com/Schedule/Weekly/football2024/3
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
A bit lower than the previous two weeks in the same time slot (which were in the 950k range), though one involved a ranked team in Arizona and the other had two P4 schools. I'd say this is not a bad performance at all, given no ranked teams and a G5 playing. As I said, sports fans just leave ESPN on the TV if there is nothing else on.
I think this is also showing how screwed we were by the Pac-12 media coverage. Last year this is a Pac-12 Network game, no question, and would have counted for zero viewers. Now with games actually on ESPN we'll get to see how many people are actually watching Cal football. I suspect we are actually decently above average in terms of viewership, when all is said and done.
There's 39M people in the state of California and two California schools were playing.
It means that there's a pool of 39M to draw from versus, say, Alabama where there is only a population of 5M total. I would hope that out of 39M people we can draw 1M plus whoever else out there might be interested.
But that's not the argument that needs to be made by Cal when looking to gain or maintain a place in a major conference. It just needs to be: "Our games draw X number of viewers, therefore we are worth the network's money." Whether that's a smaller fraction of the state's population or not is largely irrelevant. It's just about what you can bring.
He didn't. He is, in fact, lying.berserkeley said:calumnus said:berserkeley said:In Wilner's defense, Oregon was allegedly ready to sign the Amazon deal and it was Washington's head coach who convinced the UW President to take the Big Ten deal before bailing on UW at the end of the season anyway. Oregon's thinking was that the reduced shared from the Big Ten wasn't better than the Amazon deal by enough to justify the increased travel and harder road to a playoff bid.BearSD said:You have to take ol' John with a grain of salt. He was thoroughly misled in 2022 and 2023 when the Pac-12 disintegrated, because his sources were sunshine pumpers at OSU and WSU. Example: Oregon remains "way on board" with Pac-12, per source.movielover said:
Canzano: Pac-12 preparing to take a second bite of expansion apple
University of Memphis and Tulane University are top targets.
He probably still has the same sources, so you can assume OSU and WSU *want* Memphis and Tulane to join them, but I would not assume more than that.
But, yes, I assume that what's being reported is that the Memphis and Tulane are what that Pac-X wants and not necessarily what Memphis and Tulane want.
Oregon (Nike) was reportedly the one pushing for B1G admission to keep up with the LA schools with USC not wanting them and saying they wanted Cal and Stanford instead. We just never applied. UW and Oregon were not thrilled with initial partial shares but had their deals in place for months and were just waiting to see if Kliavkoff could beat it, which he didn't, not by a long shot. The Oregon president lied to Christ about signing the Apple streaming deal to hide the fact he had a deal with the B1G. Both he and Christ have said that. It was a game of high stakes poker and we lost, but I am really liking where we ended up, thanks to Stanford.
Where did you see the Oregon President admitted he lied about intending to sign the AppleTV deal? Because I cannot imagine that to be true. And it contradicts what was acrtually reported.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Win Thriller at Boston College, 28-24
by Jim McGill
Paws Plays of the Week E4: Cal vs SDSU Film Breakdown
by Mike Pawlawski
Cal vs Boston College Q&A
by Jim McGill
Ultimate Insider Video E113: Cal vs SDSU Review, BC Preview
by Mike Pawlawski