Money Ball 2: Cal-Stanford and Realignment - The True Story

4,574 Views | 57 Replies | Last: 3 days ago by socaltownie
Iamhere2help
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I read a post about the latest wide receiver commitment because, unlike others, it had an amazing 34 posts. I kept reading to find out why. It's because the post discussion changes and ends by answering the question we all never ask
"How did We Get Here?"
It should have its own thread, and I'll start with the best post by Calumnus:

The opportunity was AFTER UCLA and USC announced their departures, giving 1 year notice. The entire year before the PAC-10 broke up. Within a week of USC's and UCLA's announcement there were published reports that UW and Oregon were lobbying the Big-10 for admission despite the fact they were told their rivals WSU and OSU were not wanted.

The speculation was that the Big-10 would take at least two more Pac schools to ease USC and UCLA's travel burden and create a West Coast pod. The published rumor was that USC was very opposed to Oregon and wanted Cal and Stanford. Remember when the PAC-12 split into North and South? USC and UCLA pushed to have their annual games with Cal and Stanford continue. The annual "Weekender" trip to the Bay Area was a long tradition they wanted to retain.

The President of the Big-10 repeatedly mentioned Cal and Stanford as schools that fit the Big 10 profile. Clearly the Big-10 presidents preferred Cal and Stanford for the academic prestige. Plus the Bay Area is the next big West Coast market after LA, much bigger than Seattle or Portland and has much better air connections to the Midwest.

However, when USC and UCLA announced their departure, Carol Christ came out against it, saying the travel would be bad for student athletes, "particularly female athletes" (invoking TitleIX). She enlisted California governor Gavin Newsome to oppose it. Kliavkoff thought he could save the Pac-12 if he could keep UCLA and the LA market and add San Diego State and Carol Christ bought into that strategy 100%. She even brought Kliavkoff to the UC Regents meetings trying to block UCLA from leaving. Calimony was Plan B.

The real architect of USC and UCLA's departure to the Big-10 was Fox Sports President Mark Silverman a UCLA grad (Michigan MBA) who earlier in his career at Fox Sports created the Big 10 Network. He lives 10 minutes from UCLA's campus, has floor seats at Pauley Pavilion attends all their football games and is a major donor. My friends at UCLA say he was majorly pissed at Cal for trying to block UCLA at the Regents and getting the governor involved. Majorly pissed.

When Pac-10 negations with Fox and ESPN fell through and Kliavkoff started looking at streaming deals most of the other schools clearly started looking at or negotiating other options even while giving lip service to the PAC-10 so Kliavkoff could get the best alternative offer possible. Carol Christ later acknowledged that these other schools lied to her and had been making other deals which was shocking to her. Colorado announced their departure to the Big-12 ahead of tge meeting. Christ and Knowlton were all -in with Kliavkoff. When the fateful day arrived it was reported that three schools were prepared to sign Kliavkoff's streaming deal: WSU, OSU and Cal.

It was only after the Pac-12 collapsed and Oregon and UW were in the Big-10 that Christ and Knowlton sought admission to the Big-10. The report was that the Big-10 presidents wanted us, but Fox Sports (UCLA alum Silverman) flatly refused pay anything for us. The Big-10 presidents would have to pay us from their own earnings and they could not justify that.

Knowlton set up a meeting with the Mountain West in Colorado Springs. Christ and Knowlton considered shutting down the program. It was only through the efforts of Stanford, Notre Dame with the full support of ESPN that we got a partial share of the money ESPN is paying for our rights in the ACC.

Again, if Christ and Knowlton had, instead of trying to block UCLA, did what UW and Oregon did, lobbied the Big-10, but also flew down to LA to meet with UCLA, USC and Fox Sports, I am very confident we would be in the Big-10 today. Probably not at full share immediately, but we would have a deal similar to what UW and Oregon got. I am pretty confident, but we will never know.

Given the incompetence of Christ and Knowlton in the high stakes, cut throat world of realignment and essentially professional sports, we are very lucky we got an invite to the ACC, but we need to start acting smart and seizing our opportunities NOW. Bringing in Ron was the only move in the right direction I have seen so far, though the way we did it essentially wasted another year that we don't have to waste for "evaluation."

(Others may continue after this)
75bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Excuse me while I light myself on fire.
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
75bear said:

Excuse me while I light myself on fire.
Before you light the match, please transfer the beneficiary of your estate to the fund that hires players?
CalEcon99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shutting down the program - meaning all sports? Or just football?
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't know that this is totally accurate about how we handled. Publically, yes I think the admin and Stanford and the rest of the Pac left was against the move. I do recall there was plenty of discussion of Cal and Stanford trying to posture to be included in the Big 10. I think that could have been happening in discussions not in public. I also do recall that the Big 10 was a bit hesitant to add more. And if I recall correctly, UW and Oregon went but didn't get the same deal SC an UCLA did.

A lot went wrong, but I don't know if these rumors (unsubstantiated at best) are nearly being accurate.

Go Bears Forever
6956bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Iamhere2help said:

I read a post about the latest wide receiver commitment because, unlike others, it had an amazing 34 posts. I kept reading to find out why. It's because the post discussion changes and ends by answering the question we all never ask
"How did We Get Here?"
It should have its own thread, and I'll start with the best post by Calumnus:

The opportunity was AFTER UCLA and USC announced their departures, giving 1 year notice. The entire year before the PAC-10 broke up. Within a week of USC's and UCLA's announcement there were published reports that UW and Oregon were lobbying the Big-10 for admission despite the fact they were told their rivals WSU and OSU were not wanted.

The speculation was that the Big-10 would take at least two more Pac schools to ease USC and UCLA's travel burden and create a West Coast pod. The published rumor was that USC was very opposed to Oregon and wanted Cal and Stanford. Remember when the PAC-12 split into North and South? USC and UCLA pushed to have their annual games with Cal and Stanford continue. The annual "Weekender" trip to the Bay Area was a long tradition they wanted to retain.

The President of the Big-10 repeatedly mentioned Cal and Stanford as schools that fit the Big 10 profile. Clearly the Big-10 presidents preferred Cal and Stanford for the academic prestige. Plus the Bay Area is the next big West Coast market after LA, much bigger than Seattle or Portland and has much better air connections to the Midwest.

However, when USC and UCLA announced their departure, Carol Christ came out against it, saying the travel would be bad for student athletes, "particularly female athletes" (invoking TitleIX). She enlisted California governor Gavin Newsome to oppose it. Kliavkoff thought he could save the Pac-12 if he could keep UCLA and the LA market and add San Diego State and Carol Christ bought into that strategy 100%. She even brought Kliavkoff to the UC Regents meetings trying to block UCLA from leaving. Calimony was Plan B.

The real architect of USC and UCLA's departure to the Big-10 was Fox Sports President Mark Silverman a UCLA grad (Michigan MBA) who earlier in his career at Fox Sports created the Big 10 Network. He lives 10 minutes from UCLA's campus, has floor seats at Pauley Pavilion attends all their football games and is a major donor. My friends at UCLA say he was majorly pissed at Cal for trying to block UCLA at the Regents and getting the governor involved. Majorly pissed.

When Pac-10 negations with Fox and ESPN fell through and Kliavkoff started looking at streaming deals most of the other schools clearly started looking at or negotiating other options even while giving lip service to the PAC-10 so Kliavkoff could get the best alternative offer possible. Carol Christ later acknowledged that these other schools lied to her and had been making other deals which was shocking to her. Colorado announced their departure to the Big-12 ahead of tge meeting. Christ and Knowlton were all -in with Kliavkoff. When the fateful day arrived it was reported that three schools were prepared to sign Kliavkoff's streaming deal: WSU, OSU and Cal.

It was only after the Pac-12 collapsed and Oregon and UW were in the Big-10 that Christ and Knowlton sought admission to the Big-10. The report was that the Big-10 presidents wanted us, but Fox Sports (UCLA alum Silverman) flatly refused pay anything for us. The Big-10 presidents would have to pay us from their own earnings and they could not justify that.

Knowlton set up a meeting with the Mountain West in Colorado Springs. Christ and Knowlton considered shutting down the program. It was only through the efforts of Stanford, Notre Dame with the full support of ESPN that we got a partial share of the money ESPN is paying for our rights in the ACC.

Again, if Christ and Knowlton had, instead of trying to block UCLA, did what UW and Oregon did, lobbied the Big-10, but also flew down to LA to meet with UCLA, USC and Fox Sports, I am very confident we would be in the Big-10 today. Probably not at full share immediately, but we would have a deal similar to what UW and Oregon got. I am pretty confident, but we will never know.

Given the incompetence of Christ and Knowlton in the high stakes, cut throat world of realignment and essentially professional sports, we are very lucky we got an invite to the ACC, but we need to start acting smart and seizing our opportunities NOW. Bringing in Ron was the only move in the right direction I have seen so far, though the way we did it essentially wasted another year that we don't have to waste for "evaluation."

(Others may continue after this)
There were so many missteps taken. The entire college football world knew the P12 was done when USC and UCLA left. Many national writers and bloggers posted daily regarding this. Many on this site dismissed those as disinformation and Big 12 propaganda.

I have a long time friend who is a UW alum and donor. He told me soon after the LA schools departed that they were headed to the B1G. That they were told that, but the timing was all that was in question. When Kevin Warren left for the Chicago Bears it jeoparidized that somewhat. But eventually it got done. UO and UW were vetted before Warren left.

The P12 (Kliavkoff) over estimated their value to TV. They did not truly understand the lack of value that a west coast only league was to TV. Only USC and Oregon drew any real ratings and USC was gone. The majority of college football TV folks are located in the eastern and central time zones. They have no interest in watching Cal play Utah at 10:30 on Saturday night. They will watch USC/ND or UO/Ohio St.

It is possible that Cal can eventually end up ok in the next realignment. But they did waste 2024 and are possibly wasting 2025 in football. Which is the only sport that realignment cares about. Things move very slowly at Cal. And the college football world is changing very quickly.

I think any evaluation that takes place needs to be with the overall sports portfolio at Cal. Too many mouths to feed. The Chancellor wants to save all the sports. Is that realistic? TV pays the freight. They have spoken. Loudly. Be good at football. Take it seriously. Or face relegation.

Rivera was a good first step. Knowlton needs to go. A serious fundraiser needs to be hired. Competency needs to be restored in the athletic department. Not just in the football offices. And somehow the 2025 football program needs to WIN.
LunchTime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Pac10-Pac12 to Pac whatever should be mandatory case study in all sports economics.

Colorado without a rival and a mid-major with out a rival shuttled to the south was a disaster. It just started the transition to a 16 team conference on a very weak foundation.

It doesn't help that the good team turned to ass, and the mid-major became good. Conferences are built on tradition and good vs evil, with fairy tails here and there. Not nobodies doing well.

The absolute idiocy of the network never getting off the ground and being stuck with the longest contract humanly possible... The absurdity of a last second streaming push with no revenue at all.

Then the little Cal bit: the demand to stay on the Titanic after the evil team left, with the only card to play being keeping their rival, which should have been a test the water, and make 100% sure you can block it or go all-in.

The giving up on the program by the stewards of the of the program!? That should have been an auto generated email firing.

once USC leaves, the tradition is dead, and the conference is dead. I am sure I was on the side of blocking UCLA, but I'm not paid to think about it all day, and game theory through it.

Just so many missteps over such a long period, I don't know how this isn't a "seconds from disaster" episode.
LunchTime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In other words, the Pac conference was a disaster by itself.

Cal has always been an absolute narcissistic disaster of its own.

As a slight aside:

It's 2025, and Cal still doesn't have an official "Cal: team of the '20s" merch ffs. It's the only dominant decade we have!
juarezbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SBGold said:

I don't know that this is totally accurate about how we handled. Publically, yes I think the admin and Stanford and the rest of the Pac left was against the move. I do recall there was plenty of discussion of Cal and Stanford trying to posture to be included in the Big 10. I think that could have been happening in discussions not in public. I also do recall that the Big 10 was a bit hesitant to add more. And if I recall correctly, UW and Oregon went but didn't get the same deal SC an UCLA did.

A lot went wrong, but I don't know if these rumors (unsubstantiated at best) are nearly being accurate.

Go Bears Forever
I'm certain that Christ and JK fumbled the ball - pun intended - but given that Stanford was also jilted, I think the B1G didn't want Cal or Stanford, so I'm not sure that if Christ hadn't fought UCLA leaving really made a difference. Additionally, I don't believe that the Fox Sports ******bag could really take a personal gripe and make such a momentous decision. If Cal and Furd added a ton of value, he would've added them as he did UO and UW.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The misstep was not accounting for silverman. However i would note that amdins hold donors/supporter really close. It would have been a very smart ad to see how ucla held those cards and decide to go all in and bolt. Christ also misread the regents who i thibk we could have predicted woukd not block it (but also would impose calimony largely as a penalty in ucla for such an outright defiance of system norms).
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Christ being shocked that other schools were making deals behind her back at a time that literally everybody knew they were doing it is actually kind of funny. I'm pretty sure we were writing about it on this forum hah.
mbBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
juarezbear said:

SBGold said:

I don't know that this is totally accurate about how we handled. Publically, yes I think the admin and Stanford and the rest of the Pac left was against the move. I do recall there was plenty of discussion of Cal and Stanford trying to posture to be included in the Big 10. I think that could have been happening in discussions not in public. I also do recall that the Big 10 was a bit hesitant to add more. And if I recall correctly, UW and Oregon went but didn't get the same deal SC an UCLA did.

A lot went wrong, but I don't know if these rumors (unsubstantiated at best) are nearly being accurate.

Go Bears Forever
I'm certain that Christ and JK fumbled the ball - pun intended - but given that Stanford was also jilted, I think the B1G didn't want Cal or Stanford, so I'm not sure that if Christ hadn't fought UCLA leaving really made a difference. Additionally, I don't believe that the Fox Sports ******bag could really take a personal gripe and make such a momentous decision. If Cal and Furd added a ton of value, he would've added them as he did UO and UW.
I'm definitely in this court based on my own conversations. We can make us feel better and think the Big wanted us, but Cal and Furd were blindsided, and SC didn't give a **** who else came along (besides UCLA) as long as they were getting the money...
"Added value", perfectly said. I mean, Furd over the last 15 years or so had football seasons that us Cal fans would have been building statues and naming buildings over. And yet, that still wasn't good enough?
Piling on Knowlton isn't going away anytime soon, well, until he does, but the biggest mistakes lay at the lap of that idiot Larry Scott. Discussions about the "future" of the Pac-12 should have been constant, and with kissing the ring of SC at every turn. Worrying about whether we would have interest in Asia etc. and all the other Scott pablum was cart before the horse was even born.
BUT-I will say this, and I say this with every ounce of conviction, and first hand interaction: had Jim Delaney still been the Comish of the Big, it would never had gone down this way.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
juarezbear said:

SBGold said:

I don't know that this is totally accurate about how we handled. Publically, yes I think the admin and Stanford and the rest of the Pac left was against the move. I do recall there was plenty of discussion of Cal and Stanford trying to posture to be included in the Big 10. I think that could have been happening in discussions not in public. I also do recall that the Big 10 was a bit hesitant to add more. And if I recall correctly, UW and Oregon went but didn't get the same deal SC an UCLA did.

A lot went wrong, but I don't know if these rumors (unsubstantiated at best) are nearly being accurate.

Go Bears Forever
I'm certain that Christ and JK fumbled the ball - pun intended - but given that Stanford was also jilted, I think the B1G didn't want Cal or Stanford, so I'm not sure that if Christ hadn't fought UCLA leaving really made a difference. Additionally, I don't believe that the Fox Sports ******bag could really take a personal gripe and make such a momentous decision. If Cal and Furd added a ton of value, he would've added them as he did UO and UW.
Agreed. The rumor I remember is that the Big Ten was told there would be no TV money added for Cal and Stanford and the Big Ten would have to add them while getting no additional money if they wanted them. FWIW I also remember hearing that Stanford administrators acted as if the Big 12 was beneath them, and so Cal and Stanford were not seriously considered there.

calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
juarezbear said:

SBGold said:

I don't know that this is totally accurate about how we handled. Publically, yes I think the admin and Stanford and the rest of the Pac left was against the move. I do recall there was plenty of discussion of Cal and Stanford trying to posture to be included in the Big 10. I think that could have been happening in discussions not in public. I also do recall that the Big 10 was a bit hesitant to add more. And if I recall correctly, UW and Oregon went but didn't get the same deal SC an UCLA did.

A lot went wrong, but I don't know if these rumors (unsubstantiated at best) are nearly being accurate.

Go Bears Forever
I'm certain that Christ and JK fumbled the ball - pun intended - but given that Stanford was also jilted, I think the B1G didn't want Cal or Stanford, so I'm not sure that if Christ hadn't fought UCLA leaving really made a difference. Additionally, I don't believe that the Fox Sports ******bag could really take a personal gripe and make such a momentous decision. If Cal and Furd added a ton of value, he would've added them as he did UO and UW.

After Oregon and UW announced their deals for the Big 10 and the PAC-10 collapsed, we finally asked the Big 10 if we could get in too. The Big-10 president's went to Fox Sports and asked how much they would pay for us and the answer was "nothing." Zero. Not $10 million (Mountain West money). Zero. That is a FU. And it was because of our attempt to derail UCLA and the Fox Sports plan, and failing that, put UCLA at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis USC.

Remember that the Big 10 (with Fox Sports' money and approval) added Rutgers and Maryland at eventual full shares (now $70 million+ each) to get the NYC and DC markets. The Bay Area is the third or fourth largest market in the country, depending on what is included, but definitely bigger than DC. ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million for our rights and wanted to so badly they offered to pay the travel costs of any ACC team traveling to California.

Again, as I was saying at the time, when USC and UCLA announced their departures in 2022, Christ and Knowlton needed to see the Big-10 as an opportunity (like Oregon and UW did) and be in LA working with UCLA, USC and Fox Sports to assure that the 4 California schools stayed together and maintained their historic rivalries as we did when the PAC-10 went to 12 and split North and South. The Big-10 presidents were already sold. They wanted us more than UW and Oregon. It was just a matter of how much Fox Sports would pay for us. We needed to be lobbying UCLA and USC and especially Fox Sports, not opposing them, if wanted to join them in the Big-10.

But what was amazing to me was the number of "insiders" on this board who that entire year when the above was pointed out, when there were reports of UW and Oregon meeting with the Big-10, kept attacking the messenger, calling the above "slander" with "no evidence" and instead insisting Christ "was doing more than any other PAC-10 CEO to get us into the Big-10" despite any reported rumors she was, and her very publicly opposing any West Coast school going to the Big-10 because of "the travel" and working with Kliavkoff to block UCLA from going.

This was where we really needed a savvy AD, knowledgeable about big time college athletics, to guide her, or at least a savvy head coach or savvy boosters to intercede, instead of reflexively defending her and Knowlton with disinformation.







sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
juarezbear said:

SBGold said:

I don't know that this is totally accurate about how we handled. Publically, yes I think the admin and Stanford and the rest of the Pac left was against the move. I do recall there was plenty of discussion of Cal and Stanford trying to posture to be included in the Big 10. I think that could have been happening in discussions not in public. I also do recall that the Big 10 was a bit hesitant to add more. And if I recall correctly, UW and Oregon went but didn't get the same deal SC an UCLA did.

A lot went wrong, but I don't know if these rumors (unsubstantiated at best) are nearly being accurate.

Go Bears Forever
I'm certain that Christ and JK fumbled the ball - pun intended - but given that Stanford was also jilted, I think the B1G didn't want Cal or Stanford, so I'm not sure that if Christ hadn't fought UCLA leaving really made a difference. Additionally, I don't believe that the Fox Sports ******bag could really take a personal gripe and make such a momentous decision. If Cal and Furd added a ton of value, he would've added them as he did UO and UW.
Seems like it's not so much that the B1G schools didn't want Cal and Stanford, it's that Fox didn't want to pay. Oregon/Washington only got in at a reduced share, so it seems like Fox was being tight-fisted about money, for whatever reason.

The ACC was able to add us because their ESPN contract had a requirement for ESPN to pay a full share for any school the conference voted to add. So that only involved convincing enough ACC presidents to approve it.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Knowlton, Christ and Kliavkoff were all in over their heads on this, which made it pretty tough for a school with a "mediocre" (euphemism) recent track record in all the revenue sports. Hopefully we start building those back up and then let's see what happens. We do have some potential: we've made a number of inroads the past several years, but the treadmill keeps moving faster and we're just barely staying on it.
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

juarezbear said:

SBGold said:

I don't know that this is totally accurate about how we handled. Publically, yes I think the admin and Stanford and the rest of the Pac left was against the move. I do recall there was plenty of discussion of Cal and Stanford trying to posture to be included in the Big 10. I think that could have been happening in discussions not in public. I also do recall that the Big 10 was a bit hesitant to add more. And if I recall correctly, UW and Oregon went but didn't get the same deal SC an UCLA did.

A lot went wrong, but I don't know if these rumors (unsubstantiated at best) are nearly being accurate.

Go Bears Forever
I'm certain that Christ and JK fumbled the ball - pun intended - but given that Stanford was also jilted, I think the B1G didn't want Cal or Stanford, so I'm not sure that if Christ hadn't fought UCLA leaving really made a difference. Additionally, I don't believe that the Fox Sports ******bag could really take a personal gripe and make such a momentous decision. If Cal and Furd added a ton of value, he would've added them as he did UO and UW.
Seems like it's not so much that the B1G schools didn't want Cal and Stanford, it's that Fox didn't want to pay. Oregon/Washington only got in at a reduced share, so it seems like Fox was being tight-fisted about money, for whatever reason.

The ACC was able to add us because their ESPN contract had a requirement for ESPN to pay a full share for any school the conference voted to add. So that only involved convincing enough ACC presidents to approve it.
And those presidents went along because Stanford and UC Berkeley got almost nothing. Big10 nothing would have been worth more. Whatever.

Laundry.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bobodeluxe said:

sycasey said:

juarezbear said:

SBGold said:

I don't know that this is totally accurate about how we handled. Publically, yes I think the admin and Stanford and the rest of the Pac left was against the move. I do recall there was plenty of discussion of Cal and Stanford trying to posture to be included in the Big 10. I think that could have been happening in discussions not in public. I also do recall that the Big 10 was a bit hesitant to add more. And if I recall correctly, UW and Oregon went but didn't get the same deal SC an UCLA did.

A lot went wrong, but I don't know if these rumors (unsubstantiated at best) are nearly being accurate.

Go Bears Forever
I'm certain that Christ and JK fumbled the ball - pun intended - but given that Stanford was also jilted, I think the B1G didn't want Cal or Stanford, so I'm not sure that if Christ hadn't fought UCLA leaving really made a difference. Additionally, I don't believe that the Fox Sports ******bag could really take a personal gripe and make such a momentous decision. If Cal and Furd added a ton of value, he would've added them as he did UO and UW.
Seems like it's not so much that the B1G schools didn't want Cal and Stanford, it's that Fox didn't want to pay. Oregon/Washington only got in at a reduced share, so it seems like Fox was being tight-fisted about money, for whatever reason.

The ACC was able to add us because their ESPN contract had a requirement for ESPN to pay a full share for any school the conference voted to add. So that only involved convincing enough ACC presidents to approve it.
And those presidents went along because Stanford and UC Berkeley got almost nothing. Big10 nothing would have been worth more. Whatever.

Laundry.


And SMU literally got nothing. So that was $120 million ESPN kicked in. And it wasn't like ESPN was forced into it, they were actively encouraging it, even offering to pay the travel expenses of teams traveling to California if the ACC agreed. They saw the need to have West Coast games for "After Dark."

The Big-10 presidents wanted us, far more than UW and Oregon, but not if they had to give up their own money, which is what Fox Sports told them.

ESPN is paying $40 million for our rights.

Fox Sports is reportedly paying Oregon and UW a full $62 million share as part of the Big-10 this year.

Knowlton, and I am blaming him over Christ since he made twice as much and in his role is supposed to be our college athletics "expert" and in that role should have been guiding and informing Christ, will have cost Cal hundreds of $millions when it is all said and done through his incompetence. We will be lucky if we even still have a program when he is done.


TedfordTheGreat
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MinotStateBeav said:

Christ being shocked that other schools were making deals behind her back at a time that literally everybody knew they were doing it is actually kind of funny. I'm pretty sure we were writing about it on this forum hah.
academics. bureaucrats.

We need business leaders to run the show. they understand how to deal with people
TedfordTheGreat
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

juarezbear said:

SBGold said:

I don't know that this is totally accurate about how we handled. Publically, yes I think the admin and Stanford and the rest of the Pac left was against the move. I do recall there was plenty of discussion of Cal and Stanford trying to posture to be included in the Big 10. I think that could have been happening in discussions not in public. I also do recall that the Big 10 was a bit hesitant to add more. And if I recall correctly, UW and Oregon went but didn't get the same deal SC an UCLA did.

A lot went wrong, but I don't know if these rumors (unsubstantiated at best) are nearly being accurate.

Go Bears Forever
I'm certain that Christ and JK fumbled the ball - pun intended - but given that Stanford was also jilted, I think the B1G didn't want Cal or Stanford, so I'm not sure that if Christ hadn't fought UCLA leaving really made a difference. Additionally, I don't believe that the Fox Sports ******bag could really take a personal gripe and make such a momentous decision. If Cal and Furd added a ton of value, he would've added them as he did UO and UW.
Seems like it's not so much that the B1G schools didn't want Cal and Stanford, it's that Fox didn't want to pay. Oregon/Washington only got in at a reduced share, so it seems like Fox was being tight-fisted about money, for whatever reason.

The ACC was able to add us because their ESPN contract had a requirement for ESPN to pay a full share for any school the conference voted to add. So that only involved convincing enough ACC presidents to approve it.
the reason is because when UCLA/USC announced the move we were in a peak covid bounce. One year later the whole stock market crashed so money is tighter. Media evals went down the hill and they had to layoff staff. Oregon and UW absolutely deserve just as much as UCLA and USC but they joined at a different time so their value was lowered. Strike while the iron is hot is always the saying.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TedfordTheGreat said:

sycasey said:

juarezbear said:

SBGold said:

I don't know that this is totally accurate about how we handled. Publically, yes I think the admin and Stanford and the rest of the Pac left was against the move. I do recall there was plenty of discussion of Cal and Stanford trying to posture to be included in the Big 10. I think that could have been happening in discussions not in public. I also do recall that the Big 10 was a bit hesitant to add more. And if I recall correctly, UW and Oregon went but didn't get the same deal SC an UCLA did.

A lot went wrong, but I don't know if these rumors (unsubstantiated at best) are nearly being accurate.

Go Bears Forever
I'm certain that Christ and JK fumbled the ball - pun intended - but given that Stanford was also jilted, I think the B1G didn't want Cal or Stanford, so I'm not sure that if Christ hadn't fought UCLA leaving really made a difference. Additionally, I don't believe that the Fox Sports ******bag could really take a personal gripe and make such a momentous decision. If Cal and Furd added a ton of value, he would've added them as he did UO and UW.
Seems like it's not so much that the B1G schools didn't want Cal and Stanford, it's that Fox didn't want to pay. Oregon/Washington only got in at a reduced share, so it seems like Fox was being tight-fisted about money, for whatever reason.

The ACC was able to add us because their ESPN contract had a requirement for ESPN to pay a full share for any school the conference voted to add. So that only involved convincing enough ACC presidents to approve it.
the reason is because when UCLA/USC announced the move we were in a peak covid bounce. One year later the whole stock market crashed so money is tighter. Media evals went down the hill and they had to layoff staff. Oregon and UW absolutely deserve just as much as UCLA and USC but they joined at a different time so their value was lowered. Strike while the iron is hot is always the saying.

I saw recently that Oregon and UW are getting a full $62 million share this year. They had one year of "reduced" ($30 million? Plus a share of Ohio State's NC?) revenue.

Negotiating a behind the scenes deal with the Big-10 and Fox (that everyone paying attention knew about) while seeing what Kliavkoff could offer if the Pac-10 stayed together was the smart strategy.

Our best play was something similar, but working to have ourselves tied to UCLA and USC, with them lobbying for us. We played it about as poorly as we possibly could.
TedfordTheGreat
How long do you want to ignore this user?
yup. nobody is surprised. we have people that have no connections. no foresight. no business sense in charge

the frustrating part is that there is no accountability. he should be fired for cause 3x over or 4x over for mis handling every extension, conf realignment, scandals. but yet Lyons shows him respect and invite him on to intro Rivera as if Knowlton had any part to play in it.


all because what? he had a team of compliance people we cant replace? clean house
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MinotStateBeav said:

Christ being shocked that other schools were making deals behind her back at a time that literally everybody knew they were doing it is actually kind of funny. I'm pretty sure we were writing about it on this forum hah.


People thought Christ and Knowlton were working "behind the scenes". We find out now that they were trying to kill our program. I no longer can even fake hatred towards Stanford.
Give to Cal Legends!

https://calegends.com/donation/ Do it now. Text every Cal fan you know, give them the link, tell them how much you gave, and ask them to text every Cal fan they know and do the same.
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TedfordTheGreat said:

yup. nobody is surprised. we have people that have no connections. no foresight. no business sense in charge

the frustrating part is that there is no accountability. he should be fired for cause 3x over or 4x over for mis handling every extension, conf realignment, scandals. but yet Lyons shows him respect and invite him on to intro Rivera as if Knowlton had any part to play in it.


all because what? he had a team of compliance people we cant replace? clean house


It's mind-boggling for sure.

The question I would like to know is that with Ron Rivera - someone who has excelled in NFL - do we have connections now? I feel like the lobbying for a B1G invite (or whatever league exists in 3-5 years) needs to start now. It's clear we are making institutional changes. We are handcuffed by the miniscule media rights deal so I think we need to show potential rather than outright ACC championships (although that would go a long way).
Give to Cal Legends!

https://calegends.com/donation/ Do it now. Text every Cal fan you know, give them the link, tell them how much you gave, and ask them to text every Cal fan they know and do the same.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Bobodeluxe said:

sycasey said:

juarezbear said:

SBGold said:

I don't know that this is totally accurate about how we handled. Publically, yes I think the admin and Stanford and the rest of the Pac left was against the move. I do recall there was plenty of discussion of Cal and Stanford trying to posture to be included in the Big 10. I think that could have been happening in discussions not in public. I also do recall that the Big 10 was a bit hesitant to add more. And if I recall correctly, UW and Oregon went but didn't get the same deal SC an UCLA did.

A lot went wrong, but I don't know if these rumors (unsubstantiated at best) are nearly being accurate.

Go Bears Forever
I'm certain that Christ and JK fumbled the ball - pun intended - but given that Stanford was also jilted, I think the B1G didn't want Cal or Stanford, so I'm not sure that if Christ hadn't fought UCLA leaving really made a difference. Additionally, I don't believe that the Fox Sports ******bag could really take a personal gripe and make such a momentous decision. If Cal and Furd added a ton of value, he would've added them as he did UO and UW.
Seems like it's not so much that the B1G schools didn't want Cal and Stanford, it's that Fox didn't want to pay. Oregon/Washington only got in at a reduced share, so it seems like Fox was being tight-fisted about money, for whatever reason.

The ACC was able to add us because their ESPN contract had a requirement for ESPN to pay a full share for any school the conference voted to add. So that only involved convincing enough ACC presidents to approve it.
And those presidents went along because Stanford and UC Berkeley got almost nothing. Big10 nothing would have been worth more. Whatever.

Laundry.


And SMU literally got nothing. So that was $120 million ESPN kicked in. And it wasn't like ESPN was forced into it, they were actively encouraging it, even offering to pay the travel expenses of teams traveling to California if the ACC agreed. They saw the need to have West Coast games for "After Dark."

Yeah, I can definitely see that ESPN was not sad about adding Western teams for late inventory, plus getting the higher carriage rates in California for the ACC Network.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm going to funnel my inner old curmudgeon for a second.

Conference realignment and the completely stupid conferences and conference scheduling (when you dont have a division but also dont play half the other teams) is just another reason why college football sucks now.

The other reasons are:
1. The transfer portal and NIL combined to make the players mercenaries, not students. I liked when the players were apart of the school and represented the student body (albeit with certain benefits and drawbacks). I'm okay with them getting paid, and transferring but there needs to be some regulation.

2. The college football playoffs (I really hate them and MUCH prefer the old bowl system), a BCS plus 1 system would have been perfect.

3. The fall of the NCAA as a regulatory body. The fact I would lament this greatly surprised myself, but somebody needs to regulate the conferences and enforce the rules. Right now it's just the most powerful conferences taking whatever they want, and everyone else is damned.

I mentioned this before, but I think I'm done with college football. That said, I'm still here, so I dont know.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Iamhere2help said:

I read a post about the latest wide receiver commitment because, unlike others, it had an amazing 34 posts. I kept reading to find out why. It's because the post discussion changes and ends by answering the question we all never ask
"How did We Get Here?"
It should have its own thread, and I'll start with the best post by Calumnus:

The opportunity was AFTER UCLA and USC announced their departures, giving 1 year notice. The entire year before the PAC-10 broke up. Within a week of USC's and UCLA's announcement there were published reports that UW and Oregon were lobbying the Big-10 for admission despite the fact they were told their rivals WSU and OSU were not wanted.

The speculation was that the Big-10 would take at least two more Pac schools to ease USC and UCLA's travel burden and create a West Coast pod. The published rumor was that USC was very opposed to Oregon and wanted Cal and Stanford. Remember when the PAC-12 split into North and South? USC and UCLA pushed to have their annual games with Cal and Stanford continue. The annual "Weekender" trip to the Bay Area was a long tradition they wanted to retain.

The President of the Big-10 repeatedly mentioned Cal and Stanford as schools that fit the Big 10 profile. Clearly the Big-10 presidents preferred Cal and Stanford for the academic prestige. Plus the Bay Area is the next big West Coast market after LA, much bigger than Seattle or Portland and has much better air connections to the Midwest.

However, when USC and UCLA announced their departure, Carol Christ came out against it, saying the travel would be bad for student athletes, "particularly female athletes" (invoking TitleIX). She enlisted California governor Gavin Newsome to oppose it. Kliavkoff thought he could save the Pac-12 if he could keep UCLA and the LA market and add San Diego State and Carol Christ bought into that strategy 100%. She even brought Kliavkoff to the UC Regents meetings trying to block UCLA from leaving. Calimony was Plan B.

The real architect of USC and UCLA's departure to the Big-10 was Fox Sports President Mark Silverman a UCLA grad (Michigan MBA) who earlier in his career at Fox Sports created the Big 10 Network. He lives 10 minutes from UCLA's campus, has floor seats at Pauley Pavilion attends all their football games and is a major donor. My friends at UCLA say he was majorly pissed at Cal for trying to block UCLA at the Regents and getting the governor involved. Majorly pissed.

When Pac-10 negations with Fox and ESPN fell through and Kliavkoff started looking at streaming deals most of the other schools clearly started looking at or negotiating other options even while giving lip service to the PAC-10 so Kliavkoff could get the best alternative offer possible. Carol Christ later acknowledged that these other schools lied to her and had been making other deals which was shocking to her. Colorado announced their departure to the Big-12 ahead of tge meeting. Christ and Knowlton were all -in with Kliavkoff. When the fateful day arrived it was reported that three schools were prepared to sign Kliavkoff's streaming deal: WSU, OSU and Cal.

It was only after the Pac-12 collapsed and Oregon and UW were in the Big-10 that Christ and Knowlton sought admission to the Big-10. The report was that the Big-10 presidents wanted us, but Fox Sports (UCLA alum Silverman) flatly refused pay anything for us. The Big-10 presidents would have to pay us from their own earnings and they could not justify that.

Knowlton set up a meeting with the Mountain West in Colorado Springs. Christ and Knowlton considered shutting down the program. It was only through the efforts of Stanford, Notre Dame with the full support of ESPN that we got a partial share of the money ESPN is paying for our rights in the ACC.

Again, if Christ and Knowlton had, instead of trying to block UCLA, did what UW and Oregon did, lobbied the Big-10, but also flew down to LA to meet with UCLA, USC and Fox Sports, I am very confident we would be in the Big-10 today. Probably not at full share immediately, but we would have a deal similar to what UW and Oregon got. I am pretty confident, but we will never know.

Given the incompetence of Christ and Knowlton in the high stakes, cut throat world of realignment and essentially professional sports, we are very lucky we got an invite to the ACC, but we need to start acting smart and seizing our opportunities NOW. Bringing in Ron was the only move in the right direction I have seen so far, though the way we did it essentially wasted another year that we don't have to waste for "evaluation."

(Others may continue after this)
In August 2023 I posted that Silverman was the guy behind this. I had heard that from pretty reliable second hand sources - and that the negotiations had gone on for some time. I also heard (at that time) the Silverman didn't want Cal/Stanford.

Obviously Christ and Knowlton mismanaged the situation horribly. They were outclassed and naive.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/1/topics/115741/replies/2202486
bencgilmore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

juarezbear said:

SBGold said:

I don't know that this is totally accurate about how we handled. Publically, yes I think the admin and Stanford and the rest of the Pac left was against the move. I do recall there was plenty of discussion of Cal and Stanford trying to posture to be included in the Big 10. I think that could have been happening in discussions not in public. I also do recall that the Big 10 was a bit hesitant to add more. And if I recall correctly, UW and Oregon went but didn't get the same deal SC an UCLA did.

A lot went wrong, but I don't know if these rumors (unsubstantiated at best) are nearly being accurate.

Go Bears Forever
I'm certain that Christ and JK fumbled the ball - pun intended - but given that Stanford was also jilted, I think the B1G didn't want Cal or Stanford, so I'm not sure that if Christ hadn't fought UCLA leaving really made a difference. Additionally, I don't believe that the Fox Sports ******bag could really take a personal gripe and make such a momentous decision. If Cal and Furd added a ton of value, he would've added them as he did UO and UW.

After Oregon and UW announced their deals for the Big 10 and the PAC-10 collapsed, we finally asked the Big 10 if we could get in too. The Big-10 president's went to Fox Sports and asked how much they would pay for us and the answer was "nothing." Zero. Not $10 million (Mountain West money). Zero. That is a FU. And it was because of our attempt to derail UCLA and the Fox Sports plan, and failing that, put UCLA at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis USC.

Remember that the Big 10 (with Fox Sports' money and approval) added Rutgers and Maryland at eventual full shares (now $70 million+ each) to get the NYC and DC markets. The Bay Area is the third or fourth largest market in the country, depending on what is included, but definitely bigger than DC. ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million for our rights and wanted to so badly they offered to pay the travel costs of any ACC team traveling to California.

Again, as I was saying at the time, when USC and UCLA announced their departures in 2022, Christ and Knowlton needed to see the Big-10 as an opportunity (like Oregon and UW did) and be in LA working with UCLA, USC and Fox Sports to assure that the 4 California schools stayed together and maintained their historic rivalries as we did when the PAC-10 went to 12 and split North and South. The Big-10 presidents were already sold. They wanted us more than UW and Oregon. It was just a matter of how much Fox Sports would pay for us. We needed to be lobbying UCLA and USC and especially Fox Sports, not opposing them, if wanted to join them in the Big-10.

But what was amazing to me was the number of "insiders" on this board who that entire year when the above was pointed out, when there were reports of UW and Oregon meeting with the Big-10, kept attacking the messenger, calling the above "slander" with "no evidence" and instead insisting Christ "was doing more than any other PAC-10 CEO to get us into the Big-10" despite any reported rumors she was, and her very publicly opposing any West Coast school going to the Big-10 because of "the travel" and working with Kliavkoff to block UCLA from going.

This was where we really needed a savvy AD, knowledgeable about big time college athletics, to guide her, or at least a savvy head coach or savvy boosters to intercede, instead of reflexively defending her and Knowlton with disinformation.










ESPN didn't want to pay $40m for us. The contract stipulated that they would if we were accepted by 3/4 the conference. No other conference had the same setup as the ACC and could have added us without the content providers outright endorsement
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bencgilmore said:

calumnus said:

juarezbear said:

SBGold said:

I don't know that this is totally accurate about how we handled. Publically, yes I think the admin and Stanford and the rest of the Pac left was against the move. I do recall there was plenty of discussion of Cal and Stanford trying to posture to be included in the Big 10. I think that could have been happening in discussions not in public. I also do recall that the Big 10 was a bit hesitant to add more. And if I recall correctly, UW and Oregon went but didn't get the same deal SC an UCLA did.

A lot went wrong, but I don't know if these rumors (unsubstantiated at best) are nearly being accurate.

Go Bears Forever
I'm certain that Christ and JK fumbled the ball - pun intended - but given that Stanford was also jilted, I think the B1G didn't want Cal or Stanford, so I'm not sure that if Christ hadn't fought UCLA leaving really made a difference. Additionally, I don't believe that the Fox Sports ******bag could really take a personal gripe and make such a momentous decision. If Cal and Furd added a ton of value, he would've added them as he did UO and UW.

After Oregon and UW announced their deals for the Big 10 and the PAC-10 collapsed, we finally asked the Big 10 if we could get in too. The Big-10 president's went to Fox Sports and asked how much they would pay for us and the answer was "nothing." Zero. Not $10 million (Mountain West money). Zero. That is a FU. And it was because of our attempt to derail UCLA and the Fox Sports plan, and failing that, put UCLA at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis USC.

Remember that the Big 10 (with Fox Sports' money and approval) added Rutgers and Maryland at eventual full shares (now $70 million+ each) to get the NYC and DC markets. The Bay Area is the third or fourth largest market in the country, depending on what is included, but definitely bigger than DC. ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million for our rights and wanted to so badly they offered to pay the travel costs of any ACC team traveling to California.

Again, as I was saying at the time, when USC and UCLA announced their departures in 2022, Christ and Knowlton needed to see the Big-10 as an opportunity (like Oregon and UW did) and be in LA working with UCLA, USC and Fox Sports to assure that the 4 California schools stayed together and maintained their historic rivalries as we did when the PAC-10 went to 12 and split North and South. The Big-10 presidents were already sold. They wanted us more than UW and Oregon. It was just a matter of how much Fox Sports would pay for us. We needed to be lobbying UCLA and USC and especially Fox Sports, not opposing them, if wanted to join them in the Big-10.

But what was amazing to me was the number of "insiders" on this board who that entire year when the above was pointed out, when there were reports of UW and Oregon meeting with the Big-10, kept attacking the messenger, calling the above "slander" with "no evidence" and instead insisting Christ "was doing more than any other PAC-10 CEO to get us into the Big-10" despite any reported rumors she was, and her very publicly opposing any West Coast school going to the Big-10 because of "the travel" and working with Kliavkoff to block UCLA from going.

This was where we really needed a savvy AD, knowledgeable about big time college athletics, to guide her, or at least a savvy head coach or savvy boosters to intercede, instead of reflexively defending her and Knowlton with disinformation.










ESPN didn't want to pay $40m for us. The contract stipulated that they would if we were accepted by 3/4 the conference. No other conference had the same setup as the ACC and could have added us without the content providers outright endorsement

Yes but they also didn't raise any objections to it and per some "insider" folks here even encouraged the move. Makes some sense, they are getting a footprint in a big market and some much-needed West Coast inventory for late games.
trueblue22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hundreds of millions in lost revenue. Probably over a billion when you consider what competition in the Big 10 would have meant for our brand, alumni awareness, fundraising. Bad leadership is so unbelievably costly.
mbBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
trueblue22 said:

Hundreds of millions in lost revenue. Probably over a billion when you consider what competition in the Big 10 would have meant for our brand, alumni awareness, fundraising. Bad leadership is so unbelievably costly.
Again, if it helps you to rationalize and scapegoat that the Big 10 was there for our taking, then by all means, carry on.
What was happening within the conference and long before JK is much more relevant in my book. Texas? Oklahoma? A conference merger in the top Pac-12 days? Have you heard of Larry Scott? LOL
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bencgilmore said:

calumnus said:

juarezbear said:

SBGold said:

I don't know that this is totally accurate about how we handled. Publically, yes I think the admin and Stanford and the rest of the Pac left was against the move. I do recall there was plenty of discussion of Cal and Stanford trying to posture to be included in the Big 10. I think that could have been happening in discussions not in public. I also do recall that the Big 10 was a bit hesitant to add more. And if I recall correctly, UW and Oregon went but didn't get the same deal SC an UCLA did.

A lot went wrong, but I don't know if these rumors (unsubstantiated at best) are nearly being accurate.

Go Bears Forever
I'm certain that Christ and JK fumbled the ball - pun intended - but given that Stanford was also jilted, I think the B1G didn't want Cal or Stanford, so I'm not sure that if Christ hadn't fought UCLA leaving really made a difference. Additionally, I don't believe that the Fox Sports ******bag could really take a personal gripe and make such a momentous decision. If Cal and Furd added a ton of value, he would've added them as he did UO and UW.

After Oregon and UW announced their deals for the Big 10 and the PAC-10 collapsed, we finally asked the Big 10 if we could get in too. The Big-10 president's went to Fox Sports and asked how much they would pay for us and the answer was "nothing." Zero. Not $10 million (Mountain West money). Zero. That is a FU. And it was because of our attempt to derail UCLA and the Fox Sports plan, and failing that, put UCLA at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis USC.

Remember that the Big 10 (with Fox Sports' money and approval) added Rutgers and Maryland at eventual full shares (now $70 million+ each) to get the NYC and DC markets. The Bay Area is the third or fourth largest market in the country, depending on what is included, but definitely bigger than DC. ESPN is paying the ACC $40 million for our rights and wanted to so badly they offered to pay the travel costs of any ACC team traveling to California.

Again, as I was saying at the time, when USC and UCLA announced their departures in 2022, Christ and Knowlton needed to see the Big-10 as an opportunity (like Oregon and UW did) and be in LA working with UCLA, USC and Fox Sports to assure that the 4 California schools stayed together and maintained their historic rivalries as we did when the PAC-10 went to 12 and split North and South. The Big-10 presidents were already sold. They wanted us more than UW and Oregon. It was just a matter of how much Fox Sports would pay for us. We needed to be lobbying UCLA and USC and especially Fox Sports, not opposing them, if wanted to join them in the Big-10.

But what was amazing to me was the number of "insiders" on this board who that entire year when the above was pointed out, when there were reports of UW and Oregon meeting with the Big-10, kept attacking the messenger, calling the above "slander" with "no evidence" and instead insisting Christ "was doing more than any other PAC-10 CEO to get us into the Big-10" despite any reported rumors she was, and her very publicly opposing any West Coast school going to the Big-10 because of "the travel" and working with Kliavkoff to block UCLA from going.

This was where we really needed a savvy AD, knowledgeable about big time college athletics, to guide her, or at least a savvy head coach or savvy boosters to intercede, instead of reflexively defending her and Knowlton with disinformation.


ESPN didn't want to pay $40m for us. The contract stipulated that they would if we were accepted by 3/4 the conference. No other conference had the same setup as the ACC and could have added us without the content providers outright endorsement

First, ESPN gave them that contract and with the ACC wanting ESPN to sign the media rights extension in 2025, the ACC was not going to add anyone that ESPN did not approve of, anyone that would lower the leagues' overall media value and make it less likely ESPN signed the extension. Of course ACC officials were working with ESPN and had their approval to add us.

In fact ESPN was pushing for our admission. They even offered to pay for the travel costs of teams traveling to California to get enough votes. This was public. Our first year in they finally gave us College Gameday and they have been hyping that College Gameday ever since.

Now, if you really want to argue against Cal being valuable to ESPN, you could say the reason they were pushing for Cal and Stanford to be admitted is that Notre Dame wanted us, and ESPN wants to keep Notre Dame from eventually going to the B1G and Fox Sports, especially now that USC is in the B1G. I think that it was a factor but it was very small.

Or, you could say they hoped that by our taking reduced shares it would make more money available for Clemson and Florida State and keep them happy, but of course publicly it was the opposite, Clemson, Florida State and North Carolina voted against us and FSU used our admission as part of their legal complaint. ESPN offered to pay travel expenses in order to overcome one of their objections and get more votes for us. They still voted against us.

Maybe you could argue ESPN wanted us in the ACC because it would help keep Clemsen, Florida State and North Carolina in the ACC by providing more votes to keep the ACC together? But really, all the B1G and Fox Sports would have to do is match or come close to what we are making in the ACC and we would be votes for dissolution so we could join the B1G West Coast pod of UCLA, USC, Oregon, Stanford and Cal.

I don't think we really stabilize the ACC, other than making it more valuable to ESPN. So in the end, you have to conclude ESPN actually wanted to pay $40 million for our media rights, mostly to try to create late night content for a national, especially East Coast, audience and to get carriage fees for the ACC Network in the Bay Area. Moreover, they probably see more potential in Cal than many on this board, who make excuses for inept leadership and coaching, do.
PaulCali
How long do you want to ignore this user?
After all the dust settles, after we have dropped football, after the California Memorial Stadium debt has been assumed by the UC System, after most of our remaining 18 sports are competing in the Big West Conference and after we have had to pay the ACC an exit fee of $25 million to extricate ourselves from that conference, the Cal Admin, under great pressure to explain things, will appoint an ad hoc committee to determine what happened with intercollegiate athletics. Three years later, the committee's findings will state something to the effect that "Although some errors in judgement may have occurred, the chaotic state of intercollegiate athletics made it virtually impossible to chart any alternative course of action." In other words, it had to happen in the way it happened; it was no one's fault. By that time, all the main characters in the drama will have retired with improved pensions or sizable buyouts of their employment contracts. And the beat goes on.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
mbBear said:

trueblue22 said:

Hundreds of millions in lost revenue. Probably over a billion when you consider what competition in the Big 10 would have meant for our brand, alumni awareness, fundraising. Bad leadership is so unbelievably costly.
Again, if it helps you to rationalize and scapegoat that the Big 10 was there for our taking, then by all means, carry on.
What was happening within the conference and long before JK is much more relevant in my book. Texas? Oklahoma? A conference merger in the top Pac-12 days? Have you heard of Larry Scott? LOL


I agree Larry Scott is most responsible for the break up of the PAC-12. If we had better conference leadership the PAC-12 probably survives longer with media rights at least as good as the ACC and Big-12. Maybe it is enough that USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon don't jump to the B1G. Then we could survive a worthless, clueless AD like Knowlton making $1.3 million a year extending coaches that lose twice as many conference games as they win, playing in front of ever shrinking crowds at CMS, hiring and extending the coach that would post the worst basketball record in the country and worst in our history, because, with equal split of the media revenues, we could continue to leech off the revenues the LA schools and schools with good leadership and coaching produce while finishing near the bottom of the conference most years for awhile longer, maybe even keep leeching until 2029, the end of his contract.

However, given that most saw conference realignment coming when Knowlton was hired in 2018, he was almost the worst possible AD we could have hired given his lack of experience in major college revenue or professional sports, lack of fundraising experience, lack of business and negotiating experience, lack of marketing experience and poor cultural fit for Berkeley.

When the PAC-12 did break up, 8 schools made more money than they had been making in the PAC-12. Two schools, WSU and OSU, are in very small towns and do not have the academics to get into the B1G or ACC and are too distant from the Big-12.

Two of the schools left behind were in the PAC-12's second largest media market, one of the largest in the country and had far and away the best academic profiles. However, one of them is a small, elite private school with a very small undergraduate population and small alumni base. Moreover, the most popular pro team in the region recently moved just down the road. The other, is a large public school with a huge alumni base, playing in one of the most beautiful stadiums in the world, recently renovated for half a $billion. A school with a good past history of exciting offenses and getting elite players to the NFL. Moreover, the local pro team recently relocated to Las Vegas. This school, with so much potential, made the least amount of money of the 12 in 2024. That is mostly on Knowlton and the chancellor that hired him and gave him a ridiculous, unconscionable lengthy extension before she retired. Our leadership going into realignment was about as bad as possible.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

reality can be depressing...
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.