As an example of how different things are with other programs, I was reading an article this morning on LSU's firing of Brian Kelly, and apparently Louisiana's governor was involved. Can you even imagine any California governor getting involved in a Cal coaching change? (This is not an invitation to take shots at Newsome or any other politician--you can do that off topic--this is just an observation about how different things are in different parts of the country.)

From the Athletic:

Quote:

---

Conversations took place Sunday among Tigers leadership and power brokers that included the state's governor, Jeff Landry, to assess an immediate path forward with the LSU football program and Kelly's future in Baton Rouge.

---

The difference between Americans, and AMERICANS!

It is just one of the myriad of pieces of evidence that I think about when I argue that programs that asprire to a national championship just are playing nearly a different sport than Cal.

I am not arguing that it is BETTER - Indeed the idea that a politician is involving themselves in that level of minutia at their flagship land grant university is a recipe for disaster (IMHO). You can also see it in Texas as well where Abbot has been involved in discussions about realignment and trying to ensure as few of the universities as possible are at risk of relegation.

Newsom did get involved a bit with the Pac-12 breakup and Cal/Stanford being left behind while UCLA waltzed off to the B1G. Might have been part of why we got the Calimony.

But yeah, it's just a lot more important in the South.

sycasey said:

---

Newsom did get involved a bit with the Pac-12 breakup and Cal/Stanford being left behind while UCLA waltzed off to the B1G. Might have been part of why we got the Calimony.

---

All he did was write a letter to placate some of his patrons locally who were a bit miffed over the PAC-12 collapse, I don't think he was even in the Regents meetings that discussed that

Bobodeluxe said:

---

The difference between Americans, and 'Muricans!

---

FIFY

Strykur said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Newsom did get involved a bit with the Pac-12 breakup and Cal/Stanford being left behind while UCLA waltzed off to the B1G. Might have been part of why we got the Calimony.

---

All he did was write a letter to placate some of his patrons locally who were a bit miffed over the PAC-12 collapse, I don't think he was even in the Regents meetings that discussed that

---

Not true, he first raised his concerns at a UC Regents meeting in SF
https://apnews.com/article/sports-college-california-san-francisco-gavin-newsom-c280f0760d69f195135ae379453c9852

However, he did not attend the UC Regents meeting that Carol Christ brought Kliavkoff to oppose UCLA or the UC Regents meeting that ultimately gave UCLA approval to go.

Newsom is a Regent and supposedly the head of the board or something. Anyway, in LA, they do not have a president of the University - just interim. And $50 million is a big chunk of change, which actually is paid by the school - not a donor. It comes out of AD revenue over the next 5 years.

They have a lot of AD revenue, but that is a big decision. In the end, though, depending on the amount they pay the new guy (and Woodward likes to pay a lot) they just go 5 million per year back in their budget because Orgeron just got paid off. So if they get a coach for 8 million per year, that is really only a 3 million dollar increase in their budget.

Plus LSU may be one the largest employers in the state.

UCLA just went to the regents to get allowance to offer 8 million per year for a head coach. I bet Newsom was not in that meeting.

TouchedTheAxeIn82 said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

The difference between Americans, and 'Muricans!

---

FIFY

---

You right. I stand corrected. Again.

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Newsom did get involved a bit with the Pac-12 breakup and Cal/Stanford being left behind while UCLA waltzed off to the B1G. Might have been part of why we got the Calimony.

---

All he did was write a letter to placate some of his patrons locally who were a bit miffed over the PAC-12 collapse, I don't think he was even in the Regents meetings that discussed that

---

Not true, he first raised his concerns at a UC Regents meeting in SF
https://apnews.com/article/sports-college-california-san-francisco-gavin-newsom-c280f0760d69f195135ae379453c9852

However, he did not attend the UC Regents meeting that Carol Christ brought Kliavkoff to oppose UCLA or the UC Regents meeting that ultimately gave UCLA approval to go.

---

Yeah so he basically brought up the subject then checked out after that which for him is a given

Who Gets Involved in Coaching Changes? At Cal? Apparently no one.

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Newsom did get involved a bit with the Pac-12 breakup and Cal/Stanford being left behind while UCLA waltzed off to the B1G. Might have been part of why we got the Calimony.

---

All he did was write a letter to placate some of his patrons locally who were a bit miffed over the PAC-12 collapse, I don't think he was even in the Regents meetings that discussed that

---

Not true, he first raised his concerns at a UC Regents meeting in SF
https://apnews.com/article/sports-college-california-san-francisco-gavin-newsom-c280f0760d69f195135ae379453c9852

However, he did not attend the UC Regents meeting that Carol Christ brought Kliavkoff to oppose UCLA or the UC Regents meeting that ultimately gave UCLA approval to go.

---

Yeah so he basically brought up the subject then checked out after that which for him is a given

---

He probably realized Los Angeles is the biggest part of California and UCLA will make A LOT more money in the B1G. There was no good reason as Governor of the entire state to block UCLA from going.

I do wish he had put pressure on the B1G to take us too as a condition for UCLA going, but that is not what Carol Christ was asking him to do. She was all-in with Kliavkoff in trying to block UCLA from going and keep it as the Pac-11.

The Regents all agreed UCLA is better off making a lot more money and if Cal felt aggrieved, UCLA was making enough that they could share some with Cal and still be far better off. Again, what we really needed to do is insist the 4 California schools are a package deal.

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Newsom did get involved a bit with the Pac-12 breakup and Cal/Stanford being left behind while UCLA waltzed off to the B1G. Might have been part of why we got the Calimony.

---

All he did was write a letter to placate some of his patrons locally who were a bit miffed over the PAC-12 collapse, I don't think he was even in the Regents meetings that discussed that

---

Not true, he first raised his concerns at a UC Regents meeting in SF
https://apnews.com/article/sports-college-california-san-francisco-gavin-newsom-c280f0760d69f195135ae379453c9852

However, he did not attend the UC Regents meeting that Carol Christ brought Kliavkoff to oppose UCLA or the UC Regents meeting that ultimately gave UCLA approval to go.

---

Yeah so he basically brought up the subject then checked out after that which for him is a given

---

He probably realized Los Angeles is the biggest part of California and UCLA will make A LOT more money in the B1G. There was no good reason as Governor of the entire state to block UCLA from going.

I do wish he had put pressure on the B1G to take us too as a condition for UCLA going, but that is not what Carol Christ was asking him to do. She was all-in with Kliavkoff in trying to block UCLA from going and keep it as the Pac-11.

The Regents all agreed UCLA is better off making a lot more money and if Cal felt aggrieved, UCLA was making enough that they could share some with Cal and still be far better off. Again, what we really needed to do is insist the 4 California schools are a package deal.

---

Of course, if they tried to do that, the B1G could have just said, "Okay then. No deal". Or worse. They could have said, "we really only want USC". Or worse. They could have said, "We really only want USC, but in the interest of pairing up, we'll take USC and Stanford, get two media markets and statewide recruiting coverage with no political hoops to jump through".

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Newsom did get involved a bit with the Pac-12 breakup and Cal/Stanford being left behind while UCLA waltzed off to the B1G. Might have been part of why we got the Calimony.

---

All he did was write a letter to placate some of his patrons locally who were a bit miffed over the PAC-12 collapse, I don't think he was even in the Regents meetings that discussed that

---

Not true, he first raised his concerns at a UC Regents meeting in SF
https://apnews.com/article/sports-college-california-san-francisco-gavin-newsom-c280f0760d69f195135ae379453c9852

However, he did not attend the UC Regents meeting that Carol Christ brought Kliavkoff to oppose UCLA or the UC Regents meeting that ultimately gave UCLA approval to go.

---

Yeah so he basically brought up the subject then checked out after that which for him is a given

---

He probably realized Los Angeles is the biggest part of California and UCLA will make A LOT more money in the B1G. There was no good reason as Governor of the entire state to block UCLA from going.

I do wish he had put pressure on the B1G to take us too as a condition for UCLA going, but that is not what Carol Christ was asking him to do. She was all-in with Kliavkoff in trying to block UCLA from going and keep it as the Pac-11.

The Regents all agreed UCLA is better off making a lot more money and if Cal felt aggrieved, UCLA was making enough that they could share some with Cal and still be far better off. Again, what we really needed to do is insist the 4 California schools are a package deal.

---

Of course, if they tried to do that, the B1G could have just said, "Okay then. No deal". Or worse. They could have said, "we really only want USC". Or worse. They could have said, "We really only want USC, but in the interest of pairing up, we'll take USC and Stanford, get two media markets and statewide recruiting coverage with no political hoops to jump through".

---

Sure, maybe. It would have been a negotiation at that point. Big 10 Presidents wanted Cal and Stanford over Oregon and Washington if it didnt affect their revenues. USC and UCLA wanted Cal and Stanford too (they were the ones who pushed for continuing to play Cal and Stanford when the Pac-12 split North-South) and USC really didn't want Oregon.

So it was about the money and since the architect of the whole move, Fox Sports COO Silverman, is a UCLA alum, I doubt he wanted to take USC and Stanford to the B1G and make them rich at UCLA's expense. I think no deal would be more likely than that.

I really think the most likely scenario would have been Cal and Stanford coming along but at a reduced payout, as Oregon and UW got, but if we were bundled together the LA and Bay Area markets together are worth enough for all 4 schools to get full B1G payouts. I really think that was a possibility. Instead, Christ went against UCLA trying to block them and we almost got relegated as a result.

calumnus said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Newsom did get involved a bit with the Pac-12 breakup and Cal/Stanford being left behind while UCLA waltzed off to the B1G. Might have been part of why we got the Calimony.

---

All he did was write a letter to placate some of his patrons locally who were a bit miffed over the PAC-12 collapse, I don't think he was even in the Regents meetings that discussed that

---

Not true, he first raised his concerns at a UC Regents meeting in SF
https://apnews.com/article/sports-college-california-san-francisco-gavin-newsom-c280f0760d69f195135ae379453c9852

However, he did not attend the UC Regents meeting that Carol Christ brought Kliavkoff to oppose UCLA or the UC Regents meeting that ultimately gave UCLA approval to go.

---

Yeah so he basically brought up the subject then checked out after that which for him is a given

---

He probably realized Los Angeles is the biggest part of California and UCLA will make A LOT more money in the B1G. There was no good reason as Governor of the entire state to block UCLA from going.

I do wish he had put pressure on the B1G to take us too as a condition for UCLA going, but that is not what Carol Christ was asking him to do. She was all-in with Kliavkoff in trying to block UCLA from going and keep it as the Pac-11.

The Regents all agreed UCLA is better off making a lot more money and if Cal felt aggrieved, UCLA was making enough that they could share some with Cal and still be far better off. Again, what we really needed to do is insist the 4 California schools are a package deal.

---

Of course, if they tried to do that, the B1G could have just said, "Okay then. No deal". Or worse. They could have said, "we really only want USC". Or worse. They could have said, "We really only want USC, but in the interest of pairing up, we'll take USC and Stanford, get two media markets and statewide recruiting coverage with no political hoops to jump through".

---

Sure, maybe. It would have been a negotiation at that point. Big 10 Presidents wanted Cal and Stanford over Oregon and Washington if it didnt affect their revenues. USC and UCLA wanted Cal and Stanford too (they were the ones who pushed for continuing to play Cal and Stanford when the Pac-12 split North-South) and USC really didn't want Oregon.

So it was about the money and since the architect of the whole move, Fox Sports COO Silverman, is a UCLA alum, I doubt he wanted to take USC and Stanford to the B1G and make them rich at UCLA's expense. I think no deal would be more likely than that.

I really think the most likely scenario would have been Cal and Stanford coming along but at a reduced payout, as Oregon and UW got, but if we were bundled together the LA and Bay Area markets together are worth enough for all 4 schools to get full B1G payouts. I really think that was a possibility. Instead, Christ went against UCLA trying to block them and we almost got relegated as a result.

---

USC didn't care about anyone come on. They knew about their move to the B1G and hid their intentions. There is a reason nobody in the Pac-12 was prepared when it happened. Not even UCLA. USC purposefully killed the Texas/OK because they knew where they were going. They were all about securing their future and damn anybody else.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Newsom did get involved a bit with the Pac-12 breakup and Cal/Stanford being left behind while UCLA waltzed off to the B1G. Might have been part of why we got the Calimony.

---

All he did was write a letter to placate some of his patrons locally who were a bit miffed over the PAC-12 collapse, I don't think he was even in the Regents meetings that discussed that

---

Not true, he first raised his concerns at a UC Regents meeting in SF
https://apnews.com/article/sports-college-california-san-francisco-gavin-newsom-c280f0760d69f195135ae379453c9852

However, he did not attend the UC Regents meeting that Carol Christ brought Kliavkoff to oppose UCLA or the UC Regents meeting that ultimately gave UCLA approval to go.

---

Yeah so he basically brought up the subject then checked out after that which for him is a given

---

He probably realized Los Angeles is the biggest part of California and UCLA will make A LOT more money in the B1G. There was no good reason as Governor of the entire state to block UCLA from going.

I do wish he had put pressure on the B1G to take us too as a condition for UCLA going, but that is not what Carol Christ was asking him to do. She was all-in with Kliavkoff in trying to block UCLA from going and keep it as the Pac-11.

The Regents all agreed UCLA is better off making a lot more money and if Cal felt aggrieved, UCLA was making enough that they could share some with Cal and still be far better off. Again, what we really needed to do is insist the 4 California schools are a package deal.

---

Of course, if they tried to do that, the B1G could have just said, "Okay then. No deal". Or worse. They could have said, "we really only want USC". Or worse. They could have said, "We really only want USC, but in the interest of pairing up, we'll take USC and Stanford, get two media markets and statewide recruiting coverage with no political hoops to jump through".

---

Sure, maybe. It would have been a negotiation at that point. Big 10 Presidents wanted Cal and Stanford over Oregon and Washington if it didnt affect their revenues. USC and UCLA wanted Cal and Stanford too (they were the ones who pushed for continuing to play Cal and Stanford when the Pac-12 split North-South) and USC really didn't want Oregon.

So it was about the money and since the architect of the whole move, Fox Sports COO Silverman, is a UCLA alum, I doubt he wanted to take USC and Stanford to the B1G and make them rich at UCLA's expense. I think no deal would be more likely than that.

I really think the most likely scenario would have been Cal and Stanford coming along but at a reduced payout, as Oregon and UW got, but if we were bundled together the LA and Bay Area markets together are worth enough for all 4 schools to get full B1G payouts. I really think that was a possibility. Instead, Christ went against UCLA trying to block them and we almost got relegated as a result.

---

USC purposefully killed the Texas/OK because they knew where they were going.

---

Uh no the Big-12 merger blew up because of a dispute over Longhorn Network and that was at the conference leadership (Larry Scott) level

Fred Bear said:

---

Texas/Oklahoma was the kind of deal that only a conference as dumb as the Pac 12 would have rejected. The two biggest football programs on this side of the Mississippi want to join your poorly managed conference, guaranteeing a far better TV deal and more money for everyone and you say no?

---

Larry Scott could have been a legend. Instead, he's infamous.

calumnus said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Newsom did get involved a bit with the Pac-12 breakup and Cal/Stanford being left behind while UCLA waltzed off to the B1G. Might have been part of why we got the Calimony.

---

All he did was write a letter to placate some of his patrons locally who were a bit miffed over the PAC-12 collapse, I don't think he was even in the Regents meetings that discussed that

---

Not true, he first raised his concerns at a UC Regents meeting in SF
https://apnews.com/article/sports-college-california-san-francisco-gavin-newsom-c280f0760d69f195135ae379453c9852

However, he did not attend the UC Regents meeting that Carol Christ brought Kliavkoff to oppose UCLA or the UC Regents meeting that ultimately gave UCLA approval to go.

---

Yeah so he basically brought up the subject then checked out after that which for him is a given

---

He probably realized Los Angeles is the biggest part of California and UCLA will make A LOT more money in the B1G. There was no good reason as Governor of the entire state to block UCLA from going.

I do wish he had put pressure on the B1G to take us too as a condition for UCLA going, but that is not what Carol Christ was asking him to do. She was all-in with Kliavkoff in trying to block UCLA from going and keep it as the Pac-11.

The Regents all agreed UCLA is better off making a lot more money and if Cal felt aggrieved, UCLA was making enough that they could share some with Cal and still be far better off. Again, what we really needed to do is insist the 4 California schools are a package deal.

---

Of course, if they tried to do that, the B1G could have just said, "Okay then. No deal". Or worse. They could have said, "we really only want USC". Or worse. They could have said, "We really only want USC, but in the interest of pairing up, we'll take USC and Stanford, get two media markets and statewide recruiting coverage with no political hoops to jump through".

---

Sure, maybe. It would have been a negotiation at that point. Big 10 Presidents wanted Cal and Stanford over Oregon and Washington if it didnt affect their revenues. USC and UCLA wanted Cal and Stanford too (they were the ones who pushed for continuing to play Cal and Stanford when the Pac-12 split North-South) and USC really didn't want Oregon.

So it was about the money and since the architect of the whole move, Fox Sports COO Silverman, is a UCLA alum, I doubt he wanted to take USC and Stanford to the B1G and make them rich at UCLA's expense. I think no deal would be more likely than that.

I really think the most likely scenario would have been Cal and Stanford coming along but at a reduced payout, as Oregon and UW got, but if we were bundled together the LA and Bay Area markets together are worth enough for all 4 schools to get full B1G payouts. I really think that was a possibility. Instead, Christ went against UCLA trying to block them and we almost got relegated as a result.

---

We did get relegated

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/46773515/gov-jeff-landry-critical-ad-scott-woodward-amid-lsu-shakeup

Robocheme said:

---

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/46773515/gov-jeff-landry-critical-ad-scott-woodward-amid-lsu-shakeup

---

All I can say to that is, "Joe McCarthy was right.'

A quick non-scientific dig shows me that the entire LSU system annual revenue is somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.4 billion.

A quick non-scientific dig shows me that the entire UC system annual revune is somewhere in the neighborhood of $55.4 billion.

State budget of Louisiana - about $51 billion
State budget of California - about $450 billion

I think this scale has something to do with making LSU football a bigger potato in state matters in Louisiana while Cal football would be a smaller potato in the state matters of California.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Newsom did get involved a bit with the Pac-12 breakup and Cal/Stanford being left behind while UCLA waltzed off to the B1G. Might have been part of why we got the Calimony.

---

All he did was write a letter to placate some of his patrons locally who were a bit miffed over the PAC-12 collapse, I don't think he was even in the Regents meetings that discussed that

---

Not true, he first raised his concerns at a UC Regents meeting in SF
https://apnews.com/article/sports-college-california-san-francisco-gavin-newsom-c280f0760d69f195135ae379453c9852

However, he did not attend the UC Regents meeting that Carol Christ brought Kliavkoff to oppose UCLA or the UC Regents meeting that ultimately gave UCLA approval to go.

---

Yeah so he basically brought up the subject then checked out after that which for him is a given

---

He probably realized Los Angeles is the biggest part of California and UCLA will make A LOT more money in the B1G. There was no good reason as Governor of the entire state to block UCLA from going.

I do wish he had put pressure on the B1G to take us too as a condition for UCLA going, but that is not what Carol Christ was asking him to do. She was all-in with Kliavkoff in trying to block UCLA from going and keep it as the Pac-11.

The Regents all agreed UCLA is better off making a lot more money and if Cal felt aggrieved, UCLA was making enough that they could share some with Cal and still be far better off. Again, what we really needed to do is insist the 4 California schools are a package deal.

---

Of course, if they tried to do that, the B1G could have just said, "Okay then. No deal". Or worse. They could have said, "we really only want USC". Or worse. They could have said, "We really only want USC, but in the interest of pairing up, we'll take USC and Stanford, get two media markets and statewide recruiting coverage with no political hoops to jump through".

---

Sure, maybe. It would have been a negotiation at that point. Big 10 Presidents wanted Cal and Stanford over Oregon and Washington if it didnt affect their revenues. USC and UCLA wanted Cal and Stanford too (they were the ones who pushed for continuing to play Cal and Stanford when the Pac-12 split North-South) and USC really didn't want Oregon.

So it was about the money and since the architect of the whole move, Fox Sports COO Silverman, is a UCLA alum, I doubt he wanted to take USC and Stanford to the B1G and make them rich at UCLA's expense. I think no deal would be more likely than that.

I really think the most likely scenario would have been Cal and Stanford coming along but at a reduced payout, as Oregon and UW got, but if we were bundled together the LA and Bay Area markets together are worth enough for all 4 schools to get full B1G payouts. I really think that was a possibility. Instead, Christ went against UCLA trying to block them and we almost got relegated as a result.

---

USC didn't care about anyone come on. They knew about their move to the B1G and hid their intentions. There is a reason nobody in the Pac-12 was prepared when it happened. Not even UCLA. USC purposefully killed the Texas/OK because they knew where they were going. They were all about securing their future and damn anybody else.

---

USC didn't care but the architect of the move, the guy paying all the money to make it happen, was Fox Sports President and COO Mark Silverman who is a UCLA grad and huge fan that created the Big-10 Network and lives 5 minutes from the UCLA campus just across the 405 in Brentwood. He is a donor and season ticket holder.

Nothing happens without Fox Sports and Silverman's OK. USC might have wanted to jump to the B1G even without UCLA, but I highly doubt Silverman pays them full freight to jump and leave his Bruins behind in the wreckage of the Pac-11, destroying the rivalry and UCLA in the process.

I still think Cal's best move after UCLA and USC announced was to get together with Stanford and: 1) meet with UCLA and USC to affirm the desire to stay together and continue our historic rivalries, 2) meet with the B1G presidents to confirm the desire to have Cal and Stanford in the B1G (which we did), 3) meet with the Governor and Regents to confirm the desire to keep the California schools together as a package deal and 4) meet with Silverman in LA to express the desire of everyone above to add Cal and Stanford to the B1G and emphasize the advantage of adding the Bay Area market to the B1G for Fox Sports. We only play hardball with Silverman at the Regents if we don't like what he says.

I don't know if it would have worked, but that is how we should have used our leverage and historic connections and I said so at the time, What Christ did was really the opposite, alienating everyone we needed on our side, especially Silverman, when we eventually asked to get in. The tell is that when the PAC-10 broke up, instead of offering a lowball amount for our media rights, Silverman offered ZERO.