I know staying in the ACC gives us more exposure especially west of the Rockies for recruiting but is it better financially to stay home and build something strong? I know it's a step down from facing USC, Oregon, UW of the past, but are we really in a position to build something in the ACC? Now I know I'll get crap for this post, but what are we gaining staying in the ACC? I'm sure you much smarter posters will give me your input.....

sycasey said:

---

The point is to NOT be a doormat in the ACC. Hence hiring Rivera and restructuring the athletic department to better support football. If you can be good in the ACC, you can still get attention (ESPN will promote you) and be in a better position for realignment. If you are good in the new Pac-12, how much notice will you get?

---

Sensible commentary, the rest of you can get back to your bong.....

sycasey said:

---

I will also add: every team in the Pac-12 right now would LOVE to be a doormat in the ACC. That will be their goal in the next realignment (to get in either there or the Big 12). Cal wants to get to the B1G. Maybe we can't reach that goal, but there's no reason to voluntarily step down in the meantime.

---

Don't get me wrong, I watched more Cal games on TV last year than I ever had besides paying for it!

Trumpanzee said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I will also add: every team in the Pac-12 right now would LOVE to be a doormat in the ACC. That will be their goal in the next realignment (to get in either there or the Big 12). Cal wants to get to the B1G. Maybe we can't reach that goal, but there's no reason to voluntarily step down in the meantime.

---

Don't get me wrong, I watched more Cal games on TV last year than I ever had besides paying for it!

---

Plus I'm excited to see our new Freshman QB!

TomBear said:

---

I think we all know a re-alignment is coming down the line. Frankly, I don't see the Pac as a major power conference anymore. So, the immediate answer is, we're doing better in terms of perception by being in the ACC.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, we must not accept being a "doormat" in that conference, otherwise, when the new re-alignment takes place, we will find ourselves in a "Pac"-like conference.

But right now, it's about positioning. And I'd rather be positioned in the ACC, than in the watered down and less impressive "Pac".

---

I just don't see how give up a huge territory like California and the Pacific Northwest. I bet after initial contracts are completed realignment will happen again.....

Trumpanzee said:

---

TomBear said:

---

I think we all know a re-alignment is coming down the line. Frankly, I don't see the Pac as a major power conference anymore. So, the immediate answer is, we're doing better in terms of perception by being in the ACC.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, we must not accept being a "doormat" in that conference, otherwise, when the new re-alignment takes place, we will find ourselves in a "Pac"-like conference.

But right now, it's about positioning. And I'd rather be positioned in the ACC, than in the watered down and less impressive "Pac".

---

I just don't see how give up a huge territory like California and the Pacific Northwest. I bet after initial contracts are completed realignment will happen again.....

---

IMO the next realignment will see some of the top programs leave the ACC (FSU, Clemson, UNC, etc.), and then an attempt by the remaining ACC schools to backfill with the best from the G5 leagues or maybe the Big 12 (depending on how it goes). Cal would most likely stay in the second tier of conferences if we can't move up to the B1G, however that is constituted.

TomBear said:

---

I think we all know a re-alignment is coming down the line. Frankly, I don't see the Pac as a major power conference anymore. So, the immediate answer is, we're doing better in terms of perception by being in the ACC.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, we must not accept being a "doormat" in that conference, otherwise, when the new re-alignment takes place, we will find ourselves in a "Pac"-like conference.

But right now, it's about positioning. And I'd rather be positioned in the ACC, than in the watered down and less impressive "Pac".

---

Re-alignment is a dystopian euphemism for having your love of college football torn to shreds followed by years of picking up the pieces, rationalization and therapy. Or like the Soylent Green of sports, the cfb you consume this year is unwittingly made up of the bodies of last years cfb. Just keep eating it and don't think about where it came from.

Nice opening for the ACC with the Furd laying a turd in Hawaii against a MWC team. Jet lag or too many fruity umbrella drinks......

From the PAC2+5 defectors perspective, they are leaving the light on for an eventual Cal / Stanford return. In fact, they salivate for that to happen.

Perception wise, if you' think the PAC tops out at $9MM - $12MM per year in media revenue, a Cal/Stanford prestige boost according to their "models" would elevate the conference to $17MM - $20MM (these are my numbers). We will see, but the PAC and their consultants seem to overestimate their worth.

You have to think about what a Cal/Stanford addition impacts the next media deal in the early 2030's.


I said it before, creating a college football culture in California and increasing penetration rate is the way to grow the pie and solve some problems. I believe, I truly do, to best position for the next round of realignment is to grow the local home market first.


As a Hawaii fan first, I don't like the new PAC.

Trumpanzee said:

---

Nice opening for the ACC with the Furd laying a turd in Hawaii against a MWC team. Jet lag or too many fruity umbrella drinks......

---

did u watch that game too from ur urine stained sofa in boise??

Shocky1 said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

Nice opening for the ACC with the Furd laying a turd in Hawaii against a MWC team. Jet lag or too many fruity umbrella drinks......

---

did u watch that game too from ur urine stained sofa in boise??

---

Shocky1 are you like 10 years old, man up.

Trumpanzee said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

Nice opening for the ACC with the Furd laying a turd in Hawaii against a MWC team. Jet lag or too many fruity umbrella drinks......

---

did u watch that game too from ur urine stained sofa in boise??

---

Shocky1 are you like 10 years old, man up.

---

trumpanzee, is it better to watch every cal football game from a urine stained sofa in boise and talk **** about the bears at every opportunity or maybe actually get to memorial stadium and experience the magic of cal football??

trust me anybody who wuz euphorically running around on the field postgame in palo alto celebrating with the players and staff while the cal band played our favorite songs that special nite last november thinks ur predictably negative 5 cent non insightful drivel is just caca from an angry dude at the blue carpet incel halfway house

if u can't afford a plane tix did u know there r greyhound buses from boise to berkeley??

but ur at least fun to respond to unlike bobo whose repetitive not funny drivel is set to ignore

calumnus said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

TomBear said:

---

I think we all know a re-alignment is coming down the line. Frankly, I don't see the Pac as a major power conference anymore. So, the immediate answer is, we're doing better in terms of perception by being in the ACC.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, we must not accept being a "doormat" in that conference, otherwise, when the new re-alignment takes place, we will find ourselves in a "Pac"-like conference.

But right now, it's about positioning. And I'd rather be positioned in the ACC, than in the watered down and less impressive "Pac".

---

I just don't see how give up a huge territory like California and the Pacific Northwest. I bet after initial contracts are completed realignment will happen again.....

---

No one is saying they give up the Pacific Northwest and California, but that is why they already took Washington, Oregon, UCLA and USC. The question, which Ron Rivera made clear, is whether we can convince them that we (with Stanford) can deliver the Bay Area and the 4th largest media market in the country. Our competition is probably the 4 Corners schools. We have to become more attractive than them.

---

Better attendance/ratings is what it really boils down to. If Cal goes 11-1, 10-2, etc. but attendance and Bay Area TV ratings don't improve accordingly, Cal won't be attractive to the networks, and it's the networks who really decide which schools join the conference of their choice because they pay the bills.

Per Wikipedia, Cal's attendance didn't really jump until Tedford's third year, so Cal has to improve NOW and it's still unlikely the jump in attendance/ratings will be immediate. This is why an 8-4 season probably doesn't move the needle. It's got to be several years of DRAMATIC AND SUSTAINED IMPROVEMENT and hope the attendance/ratings improve. It's like planting a vineyard - you spend the first few years plowing money into it hoping for the future return.

EDIT - Besides the W-L improvement, I forgot to mention, "AND A REAL MARKETING EFFORT!"

Shocky1 said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

Nice opening for the ACC with the Furd laying a turd in Hawaii against a MWC team. Jet lag or too many fruity umbrella drinks......

---

did u watch that game too from ur urine stained sofa in boise??

---

Shocky1 are you like 10 years old, man up.

---

trumpanzee, is it better to watch every cal football game from a urine stained sofa in boise and talk **** about the bears at every opportunity or maybe actually get to memorial stadium and experience the magic of cal football??

trust me anybody who wuz euphorically running around on the field postgame in palo alto celebrating with the players and staff while the cal band played our favorite songs that special nite last november thinks ur predictably negative 5 cent non insightful drivel is just caca from an angry dude at the blue carpet incel halfway house

if u can't afford a plane tix did u know there r greyhound buses from boise to berkeley??

but ur at least fun to respond to unlike bobo whose repetitive not funny drivel is set to ignore

---

Shocky1 I never said I have not seen a game from Memorial Stadium, just never seen one from the stands.......No disrespect to you. Have a good season! Go Bears!

MrGPAC said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

TomBear said:

---

I think we all know a re-alignment is coming down the line. Frankly, I don't see the Pac as a major power conference anymore. So, the immediate answer is, we're doing better in terms of perception by being in the ACC.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, we must not accept being a "doormat" in that conference, otherwise, when the new re-alignment takes place, we will find ourselves in a "Pac"-like conference.

But right now, it's about positioning. And I'd rather be positioned in the ACC, than in the watered down and less impressive "Pac".

---

I just don't see how give up a huge territory like California and the Pacific Northwest. I bet after initial contracts are completed realignment will happen again.....

---

IMO the next realignment will see some of the top programs leave the ACC (FSU, Clemson, UNC, etc.), and then an attempt by the remaining ACC schools to backfill with the best from the G5 leagues or maybe the Big 12 (depending on how it goes). Cal would most likely stay in the second tier of conferences if we can't move up to the B1G, however that is constituted.

---

I think there is an important question to answer in the thread title. Is it better to be a door Matt in the ACC or competitive in the neutered PAC. I'll answer for myself. I think it is better to be competitive in a lesser conference. (I also think the ACC is going to ultimately go the way of the PAC)

That is not saying we should give up and leave. As you say, the point is to stop being a doormat. But I think it is important to answer the question because staying in the ACC requires a commitment to elevate the program. If Cal determines it can't or won't improve beyond doormat status, it needs to compete where it can. In other words there is limited value in being in a better conference if you won't compete in that conference

There are people on this board who think it is too much to ask that we have a winning record in conference. I don't agree with them. I don't understand what the point of this is if we can't even aspire to being in the top half of our conference. Those that think we can't expect more without spending more money, I'd ask, then if we won't spend more money than why are we in a conference of teams that will?

---

That is a false presentation of our options.

If we are a doormat in the ACC we would be a doormat in the neutered Pac too. Dropping down in conference prestige is going to limit our financials substantially. It's going to reduce how much we get from our donors. It is going to reduce the calibur of athletes we can attract through the portal or otherwise.

There are two questions here:

1) Is it better to be a doormat of the ACC or a doormat of the neutered Pac? Answer is doormat of the ACC where we get far more money, visibility, and a viable path out of being a doormat.

2) Is it better to be competitive in the ACC or competitive in a neutered Pac? Again, the answer is competitve in the ACC.

If anything Cal football is not going to drop a level, its going to disband all together. The financials simply don't make sense if they aren't at the highest level.

If we are going to fix our woes and try to be actually competitive it will always be competitive relative to our peers. Lets make sure our peers are the best possible.

---

This is a false presentation of the options as well. The financials don't just get bigger on the positive side. They get bigger on the negative side. Cal's last financial statements BEFORE THE ACC, show football running a operating loss of $10M. You may very well be right that dropping to a neutered PAC would mean being a doormat of that conference if the revenue drop outstrips the expense drop. I disagree that the alternative is disband. There is a conference level where the expenses are low enough that it makes sense for Cal to compete. Or at least the losses will be low enough that they barely matter.

Note I said IF Cal determines it will be a door mat. I didn't say to give up now, but I think the question needs to be asked if we should keep spending $10M a year to be a door mat if we have no way out of being a door mat.

I just posted this on another thread. You have to admit the numbers are grim if we want to compete at this level. I'm sure it is only getting worse:

For 2023-2024, before schools were paying NIL (last data available) (I chose UNC as a sorta competitive school in our conference):

LSU Football total operating revenues: $108,000,000
UNC Football total operating revenues: $ 67,000,000
Cal Football total operating revenues: $ 35,000,000

LSU Football total operating profits/losses: $53,000,000
UNC Football total operating profits/losses: $27,000,000
Cal Football total operating profits/losses: -$10,000,000

LSU Athletics total operating revenues: $220,000,000
UNC Athletics total operating revenues: $164,000,000
Cal Athletics total operating revenues: $ 82,000,000 (Cal reports $119M because it calls $37M of direct institutional aid revenue which is bogus)

LSU Athletics total profits/losses: $1,500,000
UNC Athletics total profits/losses: $8,400,000
Cal Athletics total profits/losses: -$67,000,000

HearstMining said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

TomBear said:

---

I think we all know a re-alignment is coming down the line. Frankly, I don't see the Pac as a major power conference anymore. So, the immediate answer is, we're doing better in terms of perception by being in the ACC.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, we must not accept being a "doormat" in that conference, otherwise, when the new re-alignment takes place, we will find ourselves in a "Pac"-like conference.

But right now, it's about positioning. And I'd rather be positioned in the ACC, than in the watered down and less impressive "Pac".

---

I just don't see how give up a huge territory like California and the Pacific Northwest. I bet after initial contracts are completed realignment will happen again.....

---

No one is saying they give up the Pacific Northwest and California, but that is why they already took Washington, Oregon, UCLA and USC. The question, which Ron Rivera made clear, is whether we can convince them that we (with Stanford) can deliver the Bay Area and the 4th largest media market in the country. Our competition is probably the 4 Corners schools. We have to become more attractive than them.

---

Better attendance/ratings is what it really boils down to. If Cal goes 11-1, 10-2, etc. but attendance and Bay Area TV ratings don't improve accordingly, Cal won't be attractive to the networks, and it's the networks who really decide which schools join the conference of their choice because they pay the bills.

Per Wikipedia, Cal's attendance didn't really jump until Tedford's third year, so Cal has to improve NOW and it's still unlikely the jump in attendance/ratings will be immediate. This is why an 8-4 season probably doesn't move the needle. It's got to be several years of DRAMATIC AND SUSTAINED IMPROVEMENT and hope the attendance/ratings improve. It's like planting a vineyard - you spend the first few years plowing money into it hoping for the future return.

EDIT - Besides the W-L improvement, I forgot to mention, "AND A REAL MARKETING EFFORT!"

---

I think the key to positioning for the next round of realignment is tv ratings, not game attendance. There's possibly some correlation but tv is driving realignment. Being a better team that is consistently competitive and fun to watch is what needs to happen. Easier said than done of course.

ninetyfourbear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

TomBear said:

---

I think we all know a re-alignment is coming down the line. Frankly, I don't see the Pac as a major power conference anymore. So, the immediate answer is, we're doing better in terms of perception by being in the ACC.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, we must not accept being a "doormat" in that conference, otherwise, when the new re-alignment takes place, we will find ourselves in a "Pac"-like conference.

But right now, it's about positioning. And I'd rather be positioned in the ACC, than in the watered down and less impressive "Pac".

---

I just don't see how give up a huge territory like California and the Pacific Northwest. I bet after initial contracts are completed realignment will happen again.....

---

No one is saying they give up the Pacific Northwest and California, but that is why they already took Washington, Oregon, UCLA and USC. The question, which Ron Rivera made clear, is whether we can convince them that we (with Stanford) can deliver the Bay Area and the 4th largest media market in the country. Our competition is probably the 4 Corners schools. We have to become more attractive than them.

---

Better attendance/ratings is what it really boils down to. If Cal goes 11-1, 10-2, etc. but attendance and Bay Area TV ratings don't improve accordingly, Cal won't be attractive to the networks, and it's the networks who really decide which schools join the conference of their choice because they pay the bills.

Per Wikipedia, Cal's attendance didn't really jump until Tedford's third year, so Cal has to improve NOW and it's still unlikely the jump in attendance/ratings will be immediate. This is why an 8-4 season probably doesn't move the needle. It's got to be several years of DRAMATIC AND SUSTAINED IMPROVEMENT and hope the attendance/ratings improve. It's like planting a vineyard - you spend the first few years plowing money into it hoping for the future return.

EDIT - Besides the W-L improvement, I forgot to mention, "AND A REAL MARKETING EFFORT!"

---

I think the key to positioning for the next round of realignment is tv ratings, not game attendance. There's possibly some correlation but tv is driving realignment. Being a better team that is consistently competitive and fun to watch is what needs to happen. Easier said than done of course.

---

A full noisy stadium is big positive for TV. Nothing worse for a broadcast than a sparse crowd. A casual viewer thinks "Why should I care if their own fans don't care."

Think about the impression we made on ESPN and national audiences with Game Day?

It is just one reason why students should get in free (plus give away tickets to anyone with a student ID; JCs, CSUs, USF, St Mary's…. At least until we start to sell out). Sell out the stadium first, THEN start to raise prices.