philbert said:

---

ferCALgm2 said:

---

A lot of people watching the rebuild with these news really want CalFord and maybe Utah back. No say that's happening, right? I'm looking forward to visiting other ACC schools, and the current new PAC expanded teams aren't exciting.

---

No chance unless the ACC implodes. From Canzano:

I'm told it's unlikely that the Pac-12 would request a waiver that buys it some additional time. What about Stanford and Cal? Ready to come home? We'll see, but even if they were, I doubt they'd currently be able to easily get out of the ACC.
What did OSU athletic director Scott Barnes say last week?
He said: "Chaos is our friend."
A source in the media space told me on Wednesday night: "A somewhat informed person might think that they might be keeping a couple of seats warm for Stanford and Cal should mayhem occur in the ACC."

---

If Cal wins big this year, I think mayhem looks more like a B1G bid, with Furd and Notre Dame its well. For whatever reasons these 3 schools seem to have developed a strong relationship.

What makes you think it is a 3 way relationship outside of ND vouching for us and Stanford to get into the ACC? My concern is that ND and Stanford are chummy and we are a third wheel. If those two can get B1G invites, we may be left out.

Bearly Clad said:

---

Y'all deserved better but hating on us with no logical basis doesn't make sense to me. We didn't blow it up or keep you guys down, we were just on the last chopper out of Saigon and not responsible for leaving you guys behind

---

This x 10000. I think a lot of us Cal fans had even adopted the Beavs as a second favorite team and rooting for them the last couple of years.

Then realignment happened and staying through PAC4, and before we even left or had done anything to hurt their chances, a lot of Beav fans started dissing Cal. It's too bad. I still want to root for OSU a little and definitely know they deserve way better, but then I remember how they've all seemed to turn against Cal... Trying to push us down so they look a little better?

Still a valid concern but us and Stanford have made it clear we're tied at the hips, Notre Dame specifically cited us as a team that would be a travesty to leave behind as a consequence of shortsighted realignment, and if we can just start winning some games we'll prove that our value and potential are nothing to be scoffed at.

Long way to go for that but if we can just make an ACC title game this year or next year suddenly our stars look very different

Econ141 said:

---

What makes you think it is a 3 way relationship outside of ND vouching for us and Stanford to get into the ACC? My concern is that ND and Stanford are chummy and we are a third wheel. If those two can get B1G invites, we may be left out.

---

I think that's why these coming years are so important. The ball is on our court. If we stay above mediocre, beat up on some teams out South/East with TV exposure, we won't getting left behind.

It's up to our performance in the next 3-5 years. It just means more.

Bearly Clad said:

---

I get it bud: hurt people, hurt people. No one was more hurt by realignment than you guys and I honestly feel for you. It's why I was pulling for OSU to win the PAC last year and for all of us to get in as a West Coast pod of the B10. But, let's be honest, it makes no sense for Cal and Stanford to come back to the PAC right now.

The ACC situation won't be settled before 2030, the lawsuits will drag on, FSU doesn't really have a legal leg to stand on, the GOR buyout is massive, and they may end up getting a re-worked media deal that benefits the conference - albeit at a lower payout than the SEC/B10.

The lower media payout % from the ACC is still more than the new PAC will make even with us onboard. If it all goes tits up then the ACC/B12 scraps probably form a new conference and that would have more media value as well. Maybe in 2030 if we still don't get our **** together and prove to be a desirable school for Fox/Disney but even then Notre Dame might throw its weight around to drag Cal/Stanford to greener pastures.

The fact is there's no tangible benefit to us reuniting anytime soon and for now we're settled and happy in the ACC. Someday I hope we can get all the PAC-10 teams back together in one conference but we're just not there yet. Y'all deserved better but hating on us with no logical basis doesn't make sense to me. We didn't blow it up or keep you guys down, we were just on the last chopper out of Saigon and not responsible for leaving you guys behind

---

Elegantly said. One day, let's reform the pac 10, but the day is not today unfortunately. We have a couple ACC championships to win in the meanwhile to help ourselves. We wish you the best beavers, I hope you win every game except ours and sneak into the playoffs (if u are eligible, not sure about the nuance there)

I really don't think winning the ACC this year or next (already highly improbable) is what changes the equation. Being a flash in the pan when most of our history is filled with mediocre and worse results is a huge insurmountable obstacle.

What is more important is for Cal and Stanford marketing to convince Fox that th Bay Area has a ton of B1G fans and alumni in the area and that Cal and Stanford are capable of drawing a large number of viewers when added to the conference.

We can't pin our hopes on simply winning which might not even happen. What we can do though is show them steps Cal and Stanford are taking to improve in investment into their football programs and equally important, growing the college football fanbase in this area. At that point. Fox can view us as an investment - get us for cheap and get a solid ROI in the years ahead. When Cal is good to great, we have proven to draw eyeballs.

wifeisafurd said:

---

philbert said:

---

ferCALgm2 said:

---

A lot of people watching the rebuild with these news really want CalFord and maybe Utah back. No say that's happening, right? I'm looking forward to visiting other ACC schools, and the current new PAC expanded teams aren't exciting.

---

No chance unless the ACC implodes. From Canzano:

I'm told it's unlikely that the Pac-12 would request a waiver that buys it some additional time. What about Stanford and Cal? Ready to come home? We'll see, but even if they were, I doubt they'd currently be able to easily get out of the ACC.
What did OSU athletic director Scott Barnes say last week?
He said: "Chaos is our friend."
A source in the media space told me on Wednesday night: "A somewhat informed person might think that they might be keeping a couple of seats warm for Stanford and Cal should mayhem occur in the ACC."

---

If Cal wins big this year, I think mayhem looks more like a B1G bid, with Furd and Notre Dame its well. For whatever reasons these 3 schools seem to have developed a strong relationship.

---

The ND president, a popular figure who was at the helm for 20 years, is a Cal alum, class of '88 (more specifically, Graduate Theological Union, at a time when it was closely associated with UCB). He lobbied hard for us to get into the ACC as a pair with Stanford, which also lobbied for us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_I._Jenkins

Turns out that Jenkins was recently replaced... by another GTU grad!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Dowd

Dowd went to GTU in the early 90s, back when we had very strong programs both in FB and BB, I bet he (and Jenkins) have personally attended Cal games as students. He should be there through 2030 and beyond, judging by the length of the tenure of his predecessor Jenkins.

ferCALgm2 said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

Y'all deserved better but hating on us with no logical basis doesn't make sense to me. We didn't blow it up or keep you guys down, we were just on the last chopper out of Saigon and not responsible for leaving you guys behind

---

This x 10000. I think a lot of us Cal fans had even adopted the Beavs as a second favorite team and rooting for them the last couple of years.

Then realignment happened and staying through PAC4, and before we even left or had done anything to hurt their chances, a lot of Beav fans started dissing Cal. It's too bad. I still want to root for OSU a little and definitely know they deserve way better, but then I remember how they've all seemed to turn against Cal... Trying to push us down so they look a little better?

---

I think it's Bridesmaid's Syndrome "I love her and she's my friend but why is she getting married and not me?" Even before we left it was like drowning people scrambling to push each other down to reach the surface and they had to climb over us to try and stay afloat. (Sorry for the mixed metaphors)

For us I think all Cal fans realize that "there but for the grace of God, go I." We know how close we were to being there so we can empathize.

Also, imagine how tough it is to know that your admin and AD did everything right but it still turned out this way? Excluding their last leadership who were one of the 3 that saved Larry Scott for all those years, but their current leadership invested in the programs, found a great coach, achieved success, were establishing a brand, and were winning on and off the field. They were recruiting well, they were consistently hitting the 15-10 ranking spots each season, and had holistically built something with staying power. Contrast that with us who had an absentee AD, a chancellor who didn't understand the stakes or just didn't care, who did absolutely nothing right, and we were still saved by white knight alum and, yes, our connections to Stanford. That would be a brutal gut punch no matter how you slice it.

So I understand the resentment m, I just think it should be reserved for the system and not us because we were passive participants. If it was the other way around I'd probably be bitter but I like to think I'd say "sucks for us but OSU didn't deserve to suffer too so good for them." The real hate should be reserved for Fox/Disney, southern cal, UC Los Angeles, Larry Scott, and probably Colorado for tipping over that last domino

Bearly Clad said:

---

ferCALgm2 said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

Y'all deserved better but hating on us with no logical basis doesn't make sense to me. We didn't blow it up or keep you guys down, we were just on the last chopper out of Saigon and not responsible for leaving you guys behind

---

This x 10000. I think a lot of us Cal fans had even adopted the Beavs as a second favorite team and rooting for them the last couple of years.

Then realignment happened and staying through PAC4, and before we even left or had done anything to hurt their chances, a lot of Beav fans started dissing Cal. It's too bad. I still want to root for OSU a little and definitely know they deserve way better, but then I remember how they've all seemed to turn against Cal... Trying to push us down so they look a little better?

---

I think it's Bridesmaid's Syndrome "I love her and she's my friend but why is she getting married and not me?" Even before we left it was like drowning people scrambling to push each other down to reach the surface and they had to climb over us to try and stay afloat. (Sorry for the mixed metaphors)

For us I think all Cal fans realize that "there but for the grace of God, go I." We know how close we were to being there so we can empathize.

Also, imagine how tough it is to know that your admin and AD did everything right but it still turned out this way? Excluding their last leadership who were one of the 3 that saved Larry Scott for all those years, but their current leadership invested in the programs, found a great coach, achieved success, were establishing a brand, and were winning on and off the field. They were recruiting well, they were consistently hitting the 15-10 ranking spots each season, and had holistically built something with staying power. Contrast that with us who had an absentee AD, a chancellor who didn't understand the stakes or just didn't care, who did absolutely nothing right, and we were still saved by white knight alum and, yes, our connections to Stanford. That would be a brutal gut punch no matter how you slice it.

So I understand the resentment m, I just think it should be reserved for the system and not us because we were passive participants. If it was the other way around I'd probably be bitter but I like to think I'd say "sucks for us but OSU didn't deserve to suffer too so good for them." The real hate should be reserved for Fox/Disney, southern cal, UC Los Angeles, Larry Scott, and probably Colorado for tipping over that last domino

---

It's also unfortunate, but OSU and WSU were just always in a tough position: they are smaller schools in small media markets. Even in down years for Cal, their paid attendance doesn't match ours (the TV ratings can, if they get more games on the big networks). Their academics and overall athletic departments don't match those of Calford (not even close). There are structural reasons why they wouldn't get the same interest from the ACC, despite more recent football success.

So yeah, Cal got pulled along thanks to those natural advantages, despite absentee leadership. It's not fair, but it's how it goes.

wifeisafurd said:

---

philbert said:

---

ferCALgm2 said:

---

A lot of people watching the rebuild with these news really want CalFord and maybe Utah back. No say that's happening, right? I'm looking forward to visiting other ACC schools, and the current new PAC expanded teams aren't exciting.

---

No chance unless the ACC implodes. From Canzano:

I'm told it's unlikely that the Pac-12 would request a waiver that buys it some additional time. What about Stanford and Cal? Ready to come home? We'll see, but even if they were, I doubt they'd currently be able to easily get out of the ACC.
What did OSU athletic director Scott Barnes say last week?
He said: "Chaos is our friend."
A source in the media space told me on Wednesday night: "A somewhat informed person might think that they might be keeping a couple of seats warm for Stanford and Cal should mayhem occur in the ACC."

---

If Cal wins big this year, I think mayhem looks more like a B1G bid, with Furd and Notre Dame its well. For whatever reasons these 3 schools seem to have developed a strong relationship.

---

Five TOs and Teddy Buchanan really have you that optimistic?

Econ141 said:

---

I really don't think winning the ACC this year or next (already highly improbable) is what changes the equation. Being a flash in the pan when most of our history is filled with mediocre and worse results is a huge insurmountable obstacle.

What is more important is for Cal and Stanford marketing to convince Fox that th Bay Area has a ton of B1G fans and alumni in the area and that Cal and Stanford are capable of drawing a large number of viewers when added to the conference.

We can't pin our hopes on simply winning which might not even happen. What we can do though is show them steps Cal and Stanford are taking to improve in investment into their football programs and equally important, growing the college football fanbase in this area. At that point. Fox can view us as an investment - get us for cheap and get a solid ROI in the years ahead. When Cal is good to great, we have proven to draw eyeballs.

---

Thats true but winning is what draws eyeballs, especially now that we have East Coast viewership. Just look at our first 4 games, two will be on ESPN networks with viewership outside our own media footprint. If we somehow make it to 4-0 or 5-0 we'll get even bigger draws. Even if our games were relegated to ACCN a small amount of viewers on each coast is much larger than just a small amount of viewers on the West Coast, especially for games in the evening.

Instead of having half our games on P12N where most people can't watch if they wanted to we're getting better TV windows and a bigger audience. I wouldn't be surprised if our total viewers this season more than doubles last year and the year before. If we keep up a good record then we have a datapoint that clearly says we have value to media companies without PAC mismanagement

movielover said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

philbert said:

---

ferCALgm2 said:

---

A lot of people watching the rebuild with these news really want CalFord and maybe Utah back. No say that's happening, right? I'm looking forward to visiting other ACC schools, and the current new PAC expanded teams aren't exciting.

---

No chance unless the ACC implodes. From Canzano:

I'm told it's unlikely that the Pac-12 would request a waiver that buys it some additional time. What about Stanford and Cal? Ready to come home? We'll see, but even if they were, I doubt they'd currently be able to easily get out of the ACC.
What did OSU athletic director Scott Barnes say last week?
He said: "Chaos is our friend."
A source in the media space told me on Wednesday night: "A somewhat informed person might think that they might be keeping a couple of seats warm for Stanford and Cal should mayhem occur in the ACC."

---

If Cal wins big this year, I think mayhem looks more like a B1G bid, with Furd and Notre Dame its well. For whatever reasons these 3 schools seem to have developed a strong relationship.

---

Five TOs and Teddy Buchanan really have you that optimistic?

---

Hope springs eternal.

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!

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!

---

We need winning to kickstart it though. I think we are are on the same page, but winnning the next 2 years is a firs STEP, it makes our athletic department's job easier to sell tickets, it makes Sebastabear's effort easier in raising funds. We need to

1. Win and win a lot
2. Take care of the admin stuff behind the scenes

I am hoping Wilcox can help with 1 and Lyons can help with 2

No arguments from me there. I will be at memorial this Saturday night getting liquored up to help Wilcox secure those wins!

Econ141 said:

---

What makes you think it is a 3 way relationship outside of ND vouching for us and Stanford to get into the ACC? My concern is that ND and Stanford are chummy and we are a third wheel. If those two can get B1G invites, we may be left out.

---

Obviously the situation could always change, but the reason people think this could happen is because it already happened once.

I agree winning cures all ills typically. Remember the year before Tedford in what..2001? and the year AFTER in 2003 the difference in the program? Sellouts left and right, recruiting was going like crazy with high 3stars and high 4s with the occasional 5 visiting. We went from a moribund program to one of the top programs in the nation in 3 years.

Econ141 said:

---

I really don't think winning the ACC this year or next (already highly improbable) is what changes the equation. Being a flash in the pan when most of our history is filled with mediocre and worse results is a huge insurmountable obstacle.

What is more important is for Cal and Stanford marketing to convince Fox that th Bay Area has a ton of B1G fans and alumni in the area and that Cal and Stanford are capable of drawing a large number of viewers when added to the conference.

We can't pin our hopes on simply winning which might not even happen. What we can do though is show them steps Cal and Stanford are taking to improve in investment into their football programs and equally important, growing the college football fanbase in this area. At that point. Fox can view us as an investment - get us for cheap and get a solid ROI in the years ahead. When Cal is good to great, we have proven to draw eyeballs.

---

ESPN already saw all that and is paying $80 million a year for Calford.

The reason we got an offer of ZERO from Fox is: 1) UW and Oregon had been lobbying for nearly a year and applied when we didn't despite B1G presidents hinting in the press they wanted us to apply and 2) Christ/Knowlton really pissed off Fox Sports COO, who calls the shots, by trying to block his alma mater, UCLA, from going to the B1G and the B1G Network that he personally created. Christ badmouthed his whole idea saying it was particularly bad for "women athletes." Getting the regents and the Governor involved…. If we had succeeded UCLA would have been separated from their main rival USC, with USC getting the huge B1G payout and UCLA stuck in Kliavkoff's middling PAC-11. We we failed we still got the Regents to agree to Calimony payment s from UCLA (which their rival does not have to pay). So after UW and Oregon got in and the Four Corners schools jumped to the Big-12, we asked if we could get into the B1G and what Fox would pay us and the answer was a big fat "NO, we will pay you NOTHING."

We were VERY lucky we got into the ACC, we almost didn't. If we hadn't we'd be with the Beavers and Cougs now.

Knowlton and Wilcox agreeing to a home and home series with Oregon State this year could come back to bite us. They still have a good team and their fan base will be very motivated as they seem to focus a lot of their ire on us.

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

What makes you think it is a 3 way relationship outside of ND vouching for us and Stanford to get into the ACC? My concern is that ND and Stanford are chummy and we are a third wheel. If those two can get B1G invites, we may be left out.

---

Obviously the situation could always change, but the reason people think this could happen is because it already happened once.

---

Teams jumping to other conferences and the old conference's dissolution always comes within a year of the expiration of the grant of rights.

Source tells @FOS that Sacramento's local politicians and business leaders are planning to launch a campaign to help get Sacramento State into the Pac-12 or Mountain West.

— Amanda Christovich (@achristovichh) September 12, 2024

Did they pay the $80 million because they think we are actually worth that much? Or did they pay that because they know they are grossly underpaying for Clemson, FSU, and UNC and therefore had some money to try and keep them happy?

If we are worth $40 mm during a time when we are mediocre at best, then I don't think we will have anything to worry about I. The next round of realignment. Surely a team worth that much won't be left out?

I'm not trying to hit OSU while they're down but if we lose to them this year or next that's just an indicator that Wilcox doesn't have what it takes. They lost most of their coaching staff, their QB (as limited as he is), their star RB, and a slew of other players. We just won in an SEC stadium, albeit one of the lower tier SEC teams, in a raucous atmosphere and with one of the largest crowds in CFB (I think they're in the 15-10 range).

If scheduling OSU this year and next or their fans bringing some extra juice because of some perceived slight on our end is what does us in then we have much bigger problems

Econ141 said:

---

Did they pay the $80 million because they think we are actually worth that much? Or did they pay that because they know they are grossly underpaying for Clemson, FSU, and UNC and therefore had some money to try and keep them happy?

If we are worth $40 mm during a time when we are mediocre at best, then I don't think we will have anything to worry about I. The next round of realignment. Surely a team worth that much won't be left out?

---

In all honesty, they paid because the ACC media contract said they would pay the same flat rate for any new ACC schools the conference voted to add. And then the ACC voted to add us.

That said, ESPN could have raised a stink about it if they were unhappy with the new additions and it seems like they didn't.

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Did they pay the $80 million because they think we are actually worth that much? Or did they pay that because they know they are grossly underpaying for Clemson, FSU, and UNC and therefore had some money to try and keep them happy?

If we are worth $40 mm during a time when we are mediocre at best, then I don't think we will have anything to worry about I. The next round of realignment. Surely a team worth that much won't be left out?

---

In all honesty, they paid because the ACC media contract said they would pay the same flat rate for any new ACC schools the conference voted to add. And then the ACC voted to add us.

That said, ESPN could have raised a stink about it if they were unhappy with the new additions and it seems like they didn't.

---

Only way to know for sure comes when ESPN has the option to renew/opt out in Feb 2025.

Econ141 said:

---

Did they pay the $80 million because they think we are actually worth that much? Or did they pay that because they know they are grossly underpaying for Clemson, FSU, and UNC and therefore had some money to try and keep them happy?

If we are worth $40 mm during a time when we are mediocre at best, then I don't think we will have anything to worry about I. The next round of realignment. Surely a team worth that much won't be left out?

---

If we were only worth $0-10 million, and ESPN really wanted to just give money to the three schools, then the easiest and cheapest way for ESPN to get more money to them would be to give it to them directly.

Moreover, remember that eventually we will get full ACC shares, so ESPN has to believe we are or will be worth that, both by adding the huge Northern California market to the ACCN and by giving them late East Coast time slots featuring East Coast teams for national broadcasts (in addition to our own fan base). Plus our own fan base of course.

What might really help is a huge increase in ACCN subscriptions in SoCal and alums pushing local providers to add it to basic?

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Did they pay the $80 million because they think we are actually worth that much? Or did they pay that because they know they are grossly underpaying for Clemson, FSU, and UNC and therefore had some money to try and keep them happy?

If we are worth $40 mm during a time when we are mediocre at best, then I don't think we will have anything to worry about I. The next round of realignment. Surely a team worth that much won't be left out?

---

In all honesty, they paid because the ACC media contract said they would pay the same flat rate for any new ACC schools the conference voted to add. And then the ACC voted to add us.

That said, ESPN could have raised a stink about it if they were unhappy with the new additions and it seems like they didn't.

---

The ACC would never add schools if ESPN did not give the OK. Especially with a contract renewal on the table.

In fact ESPN pushed for it and even offered to pay the travel expenses for any school traveling west to make it happen.

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!

---

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.

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.

sycasey said:

---

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!

---

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.

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.

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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!

---

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.

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.

---

Yup, but there was less competition in the time slot last year. And ESPN probably gets better ratings in general than ESPN2.

On another note, it's pretty amazing how much Deion Sanders is driving eyeballs to his games, despite Colorado being a bad team.

It also seems like being on FS1 generally sucks, compared to ESPN or ESPN2. Those games consistently lag behind other comparable games in the ratings. It's good to be in an ESPN conference.

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

I really don't think winning the ACC this year or next (already highly improbable) is what changes the equation. Being a flash in the pan when most of our history is filled with mediocre and worse results is a huge insurmountable obstacle.

What is more important is for Cal and Stanford marketing to convince Fox that th Bay Area has a ton of B1G fans and alumni in the area and that Cal and Stanford are capable of drawing a large number of viewers when added to the conference.

We can't pin our hopes on simply winning which might not even happen. What we can do though is show them steps Cal and Stanford are taking to improve in investment into their football programs and equally important, growing the college football fanbase in this area. At that point. Fox can view us as an investment - get us for cheap and get a solid ROI in the years ahead. When Cal is good to great, we have proven to draw eyeballs.

---

ESPN already saw all that and is paying $80 million a year for Calford.

The reason we got an offer of ZERO from Fox is: 1) UW and Oregon had been lobbying for nearly a year and applied when we didn't despite B1G presidents hinting in the press they wanted us to apply and 2) Christ/Knowlton really pissed off Fox Sports COO, who calls the shots, by trying to block his alma mater, UCLA, from going to the B1G and the B1G Network that he personally created. Christ badmouthed his whole idea saying it was particularly bad for "women athletes." Getting the regents and the Governor involved…. If we had succeeded UCLA would have been separated from their main rival USC, with USC getting the huge B1G payout and UCLA stuck in Kliavkoff's middling PAC-11. We we failed we still got the Regents to agree to Calimony payment s from UCLA (which their rival does not have to pay). So after UW and Oregon got in and the Four Corners schools jumped to the Big-12, we asked if we could get into the B1G and what Fox would pay us and the answer was a big fat "NO, we will pay you NOTHING."

We were VERY lucky we got into the ACC, we almost didn't. If we hadn't we'd be with the Beavers and Cougs now.

Knowlton and Wilcox agreeing to a home and home series with Oregon State this year could come back to bite us. They still have a good team and their fan base will be very motivated as they seem to focus a lot of their ire on us.

---

I don't buy point #2 for the reason you just articulated. If the Calimony upset the Fox COO, he would have offered to pay something for at least Cal so UCLA would get out of the Calimony. What you're arguing is that the Fox COO cut off his nose to spite his face. If Cal was worth more than $0 and he decided to offer nothing becuase he was upset that UCLA had to pay the Calimony, then it's his fault UCLA has to pay that money.

FWIW, no one has mentioned that ex Cal senior staffer Teresa Gould is running the top spot.

berserkeley said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

I really don't think winning the ACC this year or next (already highly improbable) is what changes the equation. Being a flash in the pan when most of our history is filled with mediocre and worse results is a huge insurmountable obstacle.

What is more important is for Cal and Stanford marketing to convince Fox that th Bay Area has a ton of B1G fans and alumni in the area and that Cal and Stanford are capable of drawing a large number of viewers when added to the conference.

We can't pin our hopes on simply winning which might not even happen. What we can do though is show them steps Cal and Stanford are taking to improve in investment into their football programs and equally important, growing the college football fanbase in this area. At that point. Fox can view us as an investment - get us for cheap and get a solid ROI in the years ahead. When Cal is good to great, we have proven to draw eyeballs.

---

ESPN already saw all that and is paying $80 million a year for Calford.

The reason we got an offer of ZERO from Fox is: 1) UW and Oregon had been lobbying for nearly a year and applied when we didn't despite B1G presidents hinting in the press they wanted us to apply and 2) Christ/Knowlton really pissed off Fox Sports COO, who calls the shots, by trying to block his alma mater, UCLA, from going to the B1G and the B1G Network that he personally created. Christ badmouthed his whole idea saying it was particularly bad for "women athletes." Getting the regents and the Governor involved…. If we had succeeded UCLA would have been separated from their main rival USC, with USC getting the huge B1G payout and UCLA stuck in Kliavkoff's middling PAC-11. We we failed we still got the Regents to agree to Calimony payment s from UCLA (which their rival does not have to pay). So after UW and Oregon got in and the Four Corners schools jumped to the Big-12, we asked if we could get into the B1G and what Fox would pay us and the answer was a big fat "NO, we will pay you NOTHING."

We were VERY lucky we got into the ACC, we almost didn't. If we hadn't we'd be with the Beavers and Cougs now.

Knowlton and Wilcox agreeing to a home and home series with Oregon State this year could come back to bite us. They still have a good team and their fan base will be very motivated as they seem to focus a lot of their ire on us.

---

I don't buy point #2 for the reason you just articulated. If the Calimony upset the Fox COO, he would have offered to pay something for at least Cal so UCLA would get out of the Calimony. What you're arguing is that the Fox COO cut off his nose to spite his face. If Cal was worth more than $0 and he decided to offer nothing becuase he was upset that UCLA had to pay the Calimony, then it's his fault UCLA has to pay that money.

---

It was not rational. He was PISSED. He is a UCLA alum and fan. We tried to scuttle his deal for his alma mater. We would have separated UCLA from USC, leaving his rival to get rich off his money on his network. We even got the Governor and the Regents involved. An offer of ZERO is a Big FU due to Christ and Knowlton actions because they totally misunderstanding and mismanaging the situation.

berserkeley said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

I really don't think winning the ACC this year or next (already highly improbable) is what changes the equation. Being a flash in the pan when most of our history is filled with mediocre and worse results is a huge insurmountable obstacle.

What is more important is for Cal and Stanford marketing to convince Fox that th Bay Area has a ton of B1G fans and alumni in the area and that Cal and Stanford are capable of drawing a large number of viewers when added to the conference.

We can't pin our hopes on simply winning which might not even happen. What we can do though is show them steps Cal and Stanford are taking to improve in investment into their football programs and equally important, growing the college football fanbase in this area. At that point. Fox can view us as an investment - get us for cheap and get a solid ROI in the years ahead. When Cal is good to great, we have proven to draw eyeballs.

---

ESPN already saw all that and is paying $80 million a year for Calford.

The reason we got an offer of ZERO from Fox is: 1) UW and Oregon had been lobbying for nearly a year and applied when we didn't despite B1G presidents hinting in the press they wanted us to apply and 2) Christ/Knowlton really pissed off Fox Sports COO, who calls the shots, by trying to block his alma mater, UCLA, from going to the B1G and the B1G Network that he personally created. Christ badmouthed his whole idea saying it was particularly bad for "women athletes." Getting the regents and the Governor involved…. If we had succeeded UCLA would have been separated from their main rival USC, with USC getting the huge B1G payout and UCLA stuck in Kliavkoff's middling PAC-11. We we failed we still got the Regents to agree to Calimony payment s from UCLA (which their rival does not have to pay). So after UW and Oregon got in and the Four Corners schools jumped to the Big-12, we asked if we could get into the B1G and what Fox would pay us and the answer was a big fat "NO, we will pay you NOTHING."

We were VERY lucky we got into the ACC, we almost didn't. If we hadn't we'd be with the Beavers and Cougs now.

Knowlton and Wilcox agreeing to a home and home series with Oregon State this year could come back to bite us. They still have a good team and their fan base will be very motivated as they seem to focus a lot of their ire on us.

---

I don't buy point #2 for the reason you just articulated. If the Calimony upset the Fox COO, he would have offered to pay something for at least Cal so UCLA would get out of the Calimony. What you're arguing is that the Fox COO cut off his nose to spite his face. If Cal was worth more than $0 and he decided to offer nothing becuase he was upset that UCLA had to pay the Calimony, then it's his fault UCLA has to pay that money.

---

He's not saying it was Calimony that upset the Fox guy, it was trying to block UCLA's move to the B1G. The theory here is that if we'd just tried to get into the B1G too rather than block the whole thing it might have been different.

movielover said:

---

FWIW, no one has mentioned that ex Cal senior staffer Teresa Gould is running the top spot.

---

And the MWC is run by Cal and Boalt alum Gloria Nevarez who was also on staff at Cal (they possibly worked together?).

https://themw.com/staff/gloria-nevarez/