Wilner's article today on Cal and Furd:

Wake Forest 98
Cal and Furd 10

Atleast we lead the Nation in a category...

Most total penalties.
Most penalty yards.

LarsBear74 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Please stop making excuses. Injuries. New coordinators. Timing. Bye week. New coach. First-string players. Road game. Too little playing time. Early start.

What excuses did I miss?

fUCLA is showing us how it SHOULD be done.

---

Amen, brother! Cal fans have used every excuse in the books for decades, and it's all BS. The fact is that we have a horrible coaching staff from the head coach on down, and have for years. The drive and motivation to have a top tier team is just not there. We, as a university community, are just too comfortable with a bottom dwelling football program, and we always find a rationale to justify it. Frankly, we deserve relegation. We will never be able to be competitive with legitimate P4 programs. I'm not happy to admit this, but after 66 years of being a fan of Cal football and season ticket holder, I've come to accept the obvious.

---

I'm at 58 years and agree with your take, sadly. Never seems to get any better

---

Wow...took Golden One 66 years and you at 58. I feel so much better now with only 51 years. Thank you.

HearstMining said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Please stop making excuses. Injuries. New coordinators. Timing. Bye week. New coach. First-string players. Road game. Too little playing time. Early start.

What excuses did I miss?

fUCLA is showing us how it SHOULD be done.

---

Amen, brother! Cal fans have used every excuse in the books for decades, and it's all BS. The fact is that we have a horrible coaching staff from the head coach on down, and have for years. The drive and motivation to have a top tier team is just not there. We, as a university community, are just too comfortable with a bottom dwelling football program, and we always find a rationale to justify it. Frankly, we deserve relegation. We will never be able to be competitive with legitimate P4 programs. I'm not happy to admit this, but after 66 years of being a fan of Cal football and season ticket holder, I've come to accept the obvious.

---

I agree with your remarks about the BS excuses an the horrible coaching staff. I disagree about the drive and motivation to be a top tier team. We were told the whale donors lined up to make the Tosh hire happen. So that does show that there's hope the whale donors want to see Cal actually be a good program. The problem is they let their own hubris get in the way of the goal. Rather than donating and letting real college football people handle the hiring, they brought in RL an RR and on top of that, they kept insisting on Tosh.

The whales may be titans of the financial world, but they've proven they know jack all about college football. But their egos have now forced Cal to be stuck with someone whose greatest skill is irrelevant in the NIL era and whose weaknesses have and always will be significant liabilities for a head football coach.

Cal fans don't deserve to see Cal football relegated. Cal fans deserve to see a real winning football coach take over the program. The problem is that the powers that be have their heads too far up their own bungholes. Rather than bringing in real college football minds, they brought in a NFL retread HC with no college football experience (aside from his playing days) and the Chancellor. Great job! /sarcasm

---

Part of the problem here is that Cal did not put "real college football people" in place of their own accord. Cal had Jim Knowlton running the show. As such, the donors kind of had to take matters into their own hands and start picking their own people.

I liked that change and would rather have those folks doing the hiring than a guy like Knowlton. But long-term, yeah, you need an actual healthy program where people care about winning from the top down and it's not just donors calling the shots. Cal (let's be honest) was starting from a pretty poor position in that regard.

---

We keep blowing our chances to become a big time program, a program that, with Stanford, could rejoin USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon as a West Coast pod of the B1G. At least we are free of Knowlton, Christ and Wilcox. However, the move to Lyons, keeping Jenny and Jay, bringing in Rivera and Tosh is a huge disappointment, because it is far short of what we might have done and need to do.

However, I agree with the OP, the sky is not falling. While we will most likely miss out on the next realignment if it happens soon, the reality is that the conference we are in, the ACC, has a media contract with ESPN through 2036. So we are "safe" for 10 years.

The ACC is a good conference and our media share increases to full membership. Even if some schools pay to bolt to the SEC or B1G, the ACC will survive as a conference. Schools can he added. We need to improve our program, but we should not panic. We should cut expenses by parking most of the non-revenue sports in the Big West. Tosh will almost certainly get a year two, but we should not be afraid to cut bait. What we cannot do ever again is extend a coach who is finishing in the bottom half of the conference. Our goal, over the next 8 to 10 years has to be to compete for ACC Championships and CFP berths.

Maybe Tosh ends up working out? I have my doubts, but that would he great. The key for us is getting everything else (administration, marketing) straight so that if we have to make another hire, we have the people in place to get it right the next time.

Getting rid of Jenny and Jay would be a start. I would still like to see Cal outsource the revenue sports to a broadbased alumni run organization. Whales might be major shareholders, but all shareholders would get a vote, and most importantly, a voice, and votes would be public, with public debate. It would be a better mechanism for paying the players without them being university employees.

However, the main point is, I agree with the OP, the sky is not falling. We have time, but the sooner we start making smart decisions, the better.

---

I liked your idea better before we saw what happens when we let the "whales" have major input into the football HC hiring process. They may be good at their professions, but they've demonstrated they don't know how to select a successful college football head coach. No matter how broadbased the alumni-run organization was, the people with the most shares would call the shots, and that would be the whales.

In addition, consider the following scenario: the four top teams in the ACC bolt for the SEC or B1G. Sure, the conference can backfill, but if I'm ESPN, I'd demand a discount because the value of the product has decreased substantially. In short, I'll be amazed of Cal ever receives the full media payment as it exists now.

---

The ACC has a contract with ESPN. They aren't getting out of that, especially if they help induce a team to go to the SEC, where they also have a contract.

DoubtfulBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Please stop making excuses. Injuries. New coordinators. Timing. Bye week. New coach. First-string players. Road game. Too little playing time. Early start.

What excuses did I miss?

fUCLA is showing us how it SHOULD be done.

---

Amen, brother! Cal fans have used every excuse in the books for decades, and it's all BS. The fact is that we have a horrible coaching staff from the head coach on down, and have for years. The drive and motivation to have a top tier team is just not there. We, as a university community, are just too comfortable with a bottom dwelling football program, and we always find a rationale to justify it. Frankly, we deserve relegation. We will never be able to be competitive with legitimate P4 programs. I'm not happy to admit this, but after 66 years of being a fan of Cal football and season ticket holder, I've come to accept the obvious.

---

I agree with your remarks about the BS excuses an the horrible coaching staff. I disagree about the drive and motivation to be a top tier team. We were told the whale donors lined up to make the Tosh hire happen. So that does show that there's hope the whale donors want to see Cal actually be a good program. The problem is they let their own hubris get in the way of the goal. Rather than donating and letting real college football people handle the hiring, they brought in RL an RR and on top of that, they kept insisting on Tosh.

The whales may be titans of the financial world, but they've proven they know jack all about college football. But their egos have now forced Cal to be stuck with someone whose greatest skill is irrelevant in the NIL era and whose weaknesses have and always will be significant liabilities for a head football coach.

Cal fans don't deserve to see Cal football relegated. Cal fans deserve to see a real winning football coach take over the program. The problem is that the powers that be have their heads too far up their own bungholes. Rather than bringing in real college football minds, they brought in a NFL retread HC with no college football experience (aside from his playing days) and the Chancellor. Great job! /sarcasm

---

Part of the problem here is that Cal did not put "real college football people" in place of their own accord. Cal had Jim Knowlton running the show. As such, the donors kind of had to take matters into their own hands and start picking their own people.

I liked that change and would rather have those folks doing the hiring than a guy like Knowlton. But long-term, yeah, you need an actual healthy program where people care about winning from the top down and it's not just donors calling the shots. Cal (let's be honest) was starting from a pretty poor position in that regard.

---

However, the main point is, I agree with the OP, the sky is not falling. We have time, but the sooner we start making smart decisions, the better.

---

The sky is not falling because it has already fallen. At this point the goal posts have moved from having a good shot of getting into the B1G to coping about being in the ACC. Albeit one with less viewers and less media money after the top program leave for P2.

---

Unless there is some major reorg of college football, we still have a shot a joining the B1G when the ACC media rights expire in 2036. That is ten years from now. In the meantime our media revenues will increase every year. The ACC is improving. Miami was in the National Championship Game and is currently #1. We have 4 teams getting votes and none are the three that keep talking about leaving. We just need to adjust to potentially being in the ACC long term and start challenging Miami, Wake Forest, SMU and Virginia Tech for the ACC Championship and CFP berth. It is no coincidence that the top of the ACC Standings and offensive rankings are:
1. Miami #1
2. SMU #4
3. Wake Forest #3
4. Virginia Tech #5
5. Louisville #2
The top five ACC teams have the top five ACC offenses and are coached by 5 guys who came up as OCs.

Holmoe, Wilcox and Lupoi were just teally bad hires. Obviously Lupoi still could, but he was not a good bet. My hope was that his aggressiveness, his Madden playing, would give him enough of the "be aggressive, creative and score points" mindset that was missing from Holmoe and Wilcox (who even forced out the one OC who had it midseason). My fear is that, like the 14 years we churned through 9 OCs trying to prop up Holmoe and Wilcox, thinking "If he only had a good OC" we fall into the same trap with Tosh.

Tosh had a $10 million assistants budget. $2-3 million needed to be spent on getting a great, proven OC even if he hired his friends as understudies. There are guys that are great OCs, but not great HC material or are looking to step back from that (see Chip Kelly at Nortwestern).

DoubtfulBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Please stop making excuses. Injuries. New coordinators. Timing. Bye week. New coach. First-string players. Road game. Too little playing time. Early start.

What excuses did I miss?

fUCLA is showing us how it SHOULD be done.

---

Amen, brother! Cal fans have used every excuse in the books for decades, and it's all BS. The fact is that we have a horrible coaching staff from the head coach on down, and have for years. The drive and motivation to have a top tier team is just not there. We, as a university community, are just too comfortable with a bottom dwelling football program, and we always find a rationale to justify it. Frankly, we deserve relegation. We will never be able to be competitive with legitimate P4 programs. I'm not happy to admit this, but after 66 years of being a fan of Cal football and season ticket holder, I've come to accept the obvious.

---

I agree with your remarks about the BS excuses an the horrible coaching staff. I disagree about the drive and motivation to be a top tier team. We were told the whale donors lined up to make the Tosh hire happen. So that does show that there's hope the whale donors want to see Cal actually be a good program. The problem is they let their own hubris get in the way of the goal. Rather than donating and letting real college football people handle the hiring, they brought in RL an RR and on top of that, they kept insisting on Tosh.

The whales may be titans of the financial world, but they've proven they know jack all about college football. But their egos have now forced Cal to be stuck with someone whose greatest skill is irrelevant in the NIL era and whose weaknesses have and always will be significant liabilities for a head football coach.

Cal fans don't deserve to see Cal football relegated. Cal fans deserve to see a real winning football coach take over the program. The problem is that the powers that be have their heads too far up their own bungholes. Rather than bringing in real college football minds, they brought in a NFL retread HC with no college football experience (aside from his playing days) and the Chancellor. Great job! /sarcasm

---

Part of the problem here is that Cal did not put "real college football people" in place of their own accord. Cal had Jim Knowlton running the show. As such, the donors kind of had to take matters into their own hands and start picking their own people.

I liked that change and would rather have those folks doing the hiring than a guy like Knowlton. But long-term, yeah, you need an actual healthy program where people care about winning from the top down and it's not just donors calling the shots. Cal (let's be honest) was starting from a pretty poor position in that regard.

---

However, the main point is, I agree with the OP, the sky is not falling. We have time, but the sooner we start making smart decisions, the better.

---

The sky is not falling because it has already fallen. At this point the goal posts have moved from having a good shot of getting into the B1G to coping about being in the ACC. Albeit one with less viewers and less media money after the top program leave for P2.

---

Unless there is some major reorg of college football, we still have a shot a joining the B1G when the ACC media rights expire in 2036. That is ten years from now. In the meantime our media revenues will increase every year. The ACC is improving. Miami was in the National Championship Game and is currently #1. We have 4 teams getting votes and none are the three that keep talking about leaving. We just need to adjust to potentially being in the ACC long term and start challenging Miami, Wake Forest, SMU and Virginia Tech for the ACC Championship and CFP berth. It is no coincidence that the top of the ACC Standings and offensive rankings are:
1. Miami #1
2. SMU #4
3. Wake Forest #3
4. Virginia Tech #5
5. Louisville #2
The top five ACC teams have the top five ACC offenses and are coached by 5 guys who came up as OCs.

Holmoe, Wilcox and Lupoi were just teally bad hires. Obviously Lupoi still could, but he was not a good bet. My hope was that his aggressiveness, his Madden playing, would give him enough of the "be aggressive, creative and score points" mindset that was missing from Holmoe and Wilcox (who even forced out the one OC who had it midseason). My fear is that, like the 14 years we churned through 9 OCs trying to prop up Holmoe and Wilcox, thinking "If he only had a good OC" we fall into the same trap with Tosh.

Tosh had a $10 million assistants budget. $2-3 million needed to be spent on getting a great, proven OC even if he hired his friends as understudies. There are guys that are great OCs, but not great HC material or are looking to step back from that (see Chip Kelly at Nortwestern).

---

ACC media rights expire in 2036, but exit fees drop every year. By 2029, it's only $93M which is low enough for the most attractive programs to want out. We really only have 3 years if we want a chance to get into the B1G, but thanks to the disastrous hire of Lupoi, we don't have another shot at rolling the dice.

Lupoi has a $10M assistant coach pool but he has already squandered with no indication he learned from his mistakes. Dan Lanning moved on from Drew Mehringer after 7 games while we still have Jordan Somerville as OC after 8 games. It's clear that his pride and/or stupidity outweighs any good judgment in building a competent coaching staff.

So I stand by what I said. The sky has already fallen, the flagship university in the largest state in the country has been relegated to the bottom of the second tier of CFB, while regularly losing to third tier (G6) teams.

---

Clemson or FSU might spend $93 million to get out of the ACC, but did anybody really think Cal would?

Maybe if Cal and Stanford had B1G offers we would join with a majority or super-majority that would dissolve the ACC? It just always seemed unlikely there would be that many votes.

There is no minumum # of teams in the ESPN contract, if anyone leaves we get to split their exit fees and their share. The ACC can backfill. JMU ot UConn? Maybe we raid the Big12?

We just need to have Cal sports succeed over the next ten years with the revenue sports in the ACC. Grow our fanbase. Be financially stable. Make the CFP at some point.

Has anyone read Beargregs post "Enough!". No one has posted a reply. Any thoughts on his post?

upsetof86 said:

---

Has anyone read Beargregs post "Enough!". No one has posted a reply. Any thoughts on his post?

---

It's locked.

post here, if you have something to say.

I think even rich people can get pissed off about things, but they don't care to have fingers pointed at them.

they didn't plan for this situation

$714 happens.

upsetof86 said:

---

Has anyone read Beargregs post "Enough!". No one has posted a reply. Any thoughts on his post?

---

I think his post thread is locked

calumnus said:

---

upsetof86 said:

---

Has anyone read Beargregs post "Enough!". No one has posted a reply. Any thoughts on his post?

---

I think his post thread is locked

---

Ah got it thanks for explaining

upsetof86 said:

---

Has anyone read Beargregs post "Enough!". No one has posted a reply. Any thoughts on his post?

---

I agree with his overall thesis.

However, the analogy to a "boat" getting lost is an interesting one.
I'm just not sure it holds water.

DiabloWags said:

---

upsetof86 said:

---

Has anyone read Beargregs post "Enough!". No one has posted a reply. Any thoughts on his post?

---

I agree with his overall thesis.

However, the analogy to a "boat" getting lost is an interesting one.
I'm just not sure it holds water.

---

A boat that holds water gathers no moss.

Your two mentors at the investment firm most likely had learned from previous experiences with various management teams. Some people can execute. Some can't, overpromise and underdeliver.

Figuring that out and putting aside your emotions is how you make a lot of money in the markets.
You have to be able to SEE THINGS CLEARLY.

In this most recent case, there was no proof of concept.
Just a lot of hype and 3 first year rookie coaches.

Signed,

Cal Class of '82
Season ticket holder during the Tedford years

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Please stop making excuses. Injuries. New coordinators. Timing. Bye week. New coach. First-string players. Road game. Too little playing time. Early start.

What excuses did I miss?

fUCLA is showing us how it SHOULD be done.

---

Amen, brother! Cal fans have used every excuse in the books for decades, and it's all BS. The fact is that we have a horrible coaching staff from the head coach on down, and have for years. The drive and motivation to have a top tier team is just not there. We, as a university community, are just too comfortable with a bottom dwelling football program, and we always find a rationale to justify it. Frankly, we deserve relegation. We will never be able to be competitive with legitimate P4 programs. I'm not happy to admit this, but after 66 years of being a fan of Cal football and season ticket holder, I've come to accept the obvious.

---

I agree with your remarks about the BS excuses an the horrible coaching staff. I disagree about the drive and motivation to be a top tier team. We were told the whale donors lined up to make the Tosh hire happen. So that does show that there's hope the whale donors want to see Cal actually be a good program. The problem is they let their own hubris get in the way of the goal. Rather than donating and letting real college football people handle the hiring, they brought in RL an RR and on top of that, they kept insisting on Tosh.

The whales may be titans of the financial world, but they've proven they know jack all about college football. But their egos have now forced Cal to be stuck with someone whose greatest skill is irrelevant in the NIL era and whose weaknesses have and always will be significant liabilities for a head football coach.

Cal fans don't deserve to see Cal football relegated. Cal fans deserve to see a real winning football coach take over the program. The problem is that the powers that be have their heads too far up their own bungholes. Rather than bringing in real college football minds, they brought in a NFL retread HC with no college football experience (aside from his playing days) and the Chancellor. Great job! /sarcasm

---

Part of the problem here is that Cal did not put "real college football people" in place of their own accord. Cal had Jim Knowlton running the show. As such, the donors kind of had to take matters into their own hands and start picking their own people.

I liked that change and would rather have those folks doing the hiring than a guy like Knowlton. But long-term, yeah, you need an actual healthy program where people care about winning from the top down and it's not just donors calling the shots. Cal (let's be honest) was starting from a pretty poor position in that regard.

---

We keep blowing our chances to become a big time program, a program that, with Stanford, could rejoin USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon as a West Coast pod of the B1G. At least we are free of Knowlton, Christ and Wilcox. However, the move to Lyons, keeping Jenny and Jay, bringing in Rivera and Tosh is a huge disappointment, because it is far short of what we might have done and need to do.

However, I agree with the OP, the sky is not falling. While we will most likely miss out on the next realignment if it happens soon, the reality is that the conference we are in, the ACC, has a media contract with ESPN through 2036. So we are "safe" for 10 years.

The ACC is a good conference and our media share increases to full membership. Even if some schools pay to bolt to the SEC or B1G, the ACC will survive as a conference. Schools can he added. We need to improve our program, but we should not panic. We should cut expenses by parking most of the non-revenue sports in the Big West. Tosh will almost certainly get a year two, but we should not be afraid to cut bait. What we cannot do ever again is extend a coach who is finishing in the bottom half of the conference. Our goal, over the next 8 to 10 years has to be to compete for ACC Championships and CFP berths.

Maybe Tosh ends up working out? I have my doubts, but that would he great. The key for us is getting everything else (administration, marketing) straight so that if we have to make another hire, we have the people in place to get it right the next time.

Getting rid of Jenny and Jay would be a start. I would still like to see Cal outsource the revenue sports to a broadbased alumni run organization. Whales might be major shareholders, but all shareholders would get a vote, and most importantly, a voice, and votes would be public, with public debate. It would be a better mechanism for paying the players without them being university employees.

However, the main point is, I agree with the OP, the sky is not falling. We have time, but the sooner we start making smart decisions, the better.

---

i think espn can renegotiate tv contract if number of teams falls below 15. good chance miami, clemson, fsu, smu and nd all leave

DiabloWags said:

---

upsetof86 said:

---

Has anyone read Beargregs post "Enough!". No one has posted a reply. Any thoughts on his post?

---

I agree with his overall thesis.

However, the analogy to a "boat" getting lost is an interesting one.
I'm just not sure it holds water.

---

Perhaps the boat was the one Tosh was rumored to have been offered by UW to lure him and his recruits away from Cal in 2012, and it being lost is a poetic analogy, with Tosh being captain of the lost boat representing his current Head coaching status.

By the way, no one here that I've seen has mentioned that Tosh departed UW in 2014 under a cloud of suspicion for providing impermissible recruiting benefits.

bearvalley1 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Please stop making excuses. Injuries. New coordinators. Timing. Bye week. New coach. First-string players. Road game. Too little playing time. Early start.

What excuses did I miss?

fUCLA is showing us how it SHOULD be done.

---

Amen, brother! Cal fans have used every excuse in the books for decades, and it's all BS. The fact is that we have a horrible coaching staff from the head coach on down, and have for years. The drive and motivation to have a top tier team is just not there. We, as a university community, are just too comfortable with a bottom dwelling football program, and we always find a rationale to justify it. Frankly, we deserve relegation. We will never be able to be competitive with legitimate P4 programs. I'm not happy to admit this, but after 66 years of being a fan of Cal football and season ticket holder, I've come to accept the obvious.

---

I agree with your remarks about the BS excuses an the horrible coaching staff. I disagree about the drive and motivation to be a top tier team. We were told the whale donors lined up to make the Tosh hire happen. So that does show that there's hope the whale donors want to see Cal actually be a good program. The problem is they let their own hubris get in the way of the goal. Rather than donating and letting real college football people handle the hiring, they brought in RL an RR and on top of that, they kept insisting on Tosh.

The whales may be titans of the financial world, but they've proven they know jack all about college football. But their egos have now forced Cal to be stuck with someone whose greatest skill is irrelevant in the NIL era and whose weaknesses have and always will be significant liabilities for a head football coach.

Cal fans don't deserve to see Cal football relegated. Cal fans deserve to see a real winning football coach take over the program. The problem is that the powers that be have their heads too far up their own bungholes. Rather than bringing in real college football minds, they brought in a NFL retread HC with no college football experience (aside from his playing days) and the Chancellor. Great job! /sarcasm

---

Part of the problem here is that Cal did not put "real college football people" in place of their own accord. Cal had Jim Knowlton running the show. As such, the donors kind of had to take matters into their own hands and start picking their own people.

I liked that change and would rather have those folks doing the hiring than a guy like Knowlton. But long-term, yeah, you need an actual healthy program where people care about winning from the top down and it's not just donors calling the shots. Cal (let's be honest) was starting from a pretty poor position in that regard.

---

We keep blowing our chances to become a big time program, a program that, with Stanford, could rejoin USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon as a West Coast pod of the B1G. At least we are free of Knowlton, Christ and Wilcox. However, the move to Lyons, keeping Jenny and Jay, bringing in Rivera and Tosh is a huge disappointment, because it is far short of what we might have done and need to do.

However, I agree with the OP, the sky is not falling. While we will most likely miss out on the next realignment if it happens soon, the reality is that the conference we are in, the ACC, has a media contract with ESPN through 2036. So we are "safe" for 10 years.

The ACC is a good conference and our media share increases to full membership. Even if some schools pay to bolt to the SEC or B1G, the ACC will survive as a conference. Schools can he added. We need to improve our program, but we should not panic. We should cut expenses by parking most of the non-revenue sports in the Big West. Tosh will almost certainly get a year two, but we should not be afraid to cut bait. What we cannot do ever again is extend a coach who is finishing in the bottom half of the conference. Our goal, over the next 8 to 10 years has to be to compete for ACC Championships and CFP berths.

Maybe Tosh ends up working out? I have my doubts, but that would he great. The key for us is getting everything else (administration, marketing) straight so that if we have to make another hire, we have the people in place to get it right the next time.

Getting rid of Jenny and Jay would be a start. I would still like to see Cal outsource the revenue sports to a broadbased alumni run organization. Whales might be major shareholders, but all shareholders would get a vote, and most importantly, a voice, and votes would be public, with public debate. It would be a better mechanism for paying the players without them being university employees.

However, the main point is, I agree with the OP, the sky is not falling. We have time, but the sooner we start making smart decisions, the better.

---

i think espn can renegotiate tv contract if number of teams falls below 15. good chance miami, clemson, fsu, smu and nd all leave

---

Who is taking SMU? I'd put UNC above them on that list.

bearvalley1 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Please stop making excuses. Injuries. New coordinators. Timing. Bye week. New coach. First-string players. Road game. Too little playing time. Early start.

What excuses did I miss?

fUCLA is showing us how it SHOULD be done.

---

Amen, brother! Cal fans have used every excuse in the books for decades, and it's all BS. The fact is that we have a horrible coaching staff from the head coach on down, and have for years. The drive and motivation to have a top tier team is just not there. We, as a university community, are just too comfortable with a bottom dwelling football program, and we always find a rationale to justify it. Frankly, we deserve relegation. We will never be able to be competitive with legitimate P4 programs. I'm not happy to admit this, but after 66 years of being a fan of Cal football and season ticket holder, I've come to accept the obvious.

---

I agree with your remarks about the BS excuses an the horrible coaching staff. I disagree about the drive and motivation to be a top tier team. We were told the whale donors lined up to make the Tosh hire happen. So that does show that there's hope the whale donors want to see Cal actually be a good program. The problem is they let their own hubris get in the way of the goal. Rather than donating and letting real college football people handle the hiring, they brought in RL an RR and on top of that, they kept insisting on Tosh.

The whales may be titans of the financial world, but they've proven they know jack all about college football. But their egos have now forced Cal to be stuck with someone whose greatest skill is irrelevant in the NIL era and whose weaknesses have and always will be significant liabilities for a head football coach.

Cal fans don't deserve to see Cal football relegated. Cal fans deserve to see a real winning football coach take over the program. The problem is that the powers that be have their heads too far up their own bungholes. Rather than bringing in real college football minds, they brought in a NFL retread HC with no college football experience (aside from his playing days) and the Chancellor. Great job! /sarcasm

---

Part of the problem here is that Cal did not put "real college football people" in place of their own accord. Cal had Jim Knowlton running the show. As such, the donors kind of had to take matters into their own hands and start picking their own people.

I liked that change and would rather have those folks doing the hiring than a guy like Knowlton. But long-term, yeah, you need an actual healthy program where people care about winning from the top down and it's not just donors calling the shots. Cal (let's be honest) was starting from a pretty poor position in that regard.

---

We keep blowing our chances to become a big time program, a program that, with Stanford, could rejoin USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon as a West Coast pod of the B1G. At least we are free of Knowlton, Christ and Wilcox. However, the move to Lyons, keeping Jenny and Jay, bringing in Rivera and Tosh is a huge disappointment, because it is far short of what we might have done and need to do.

However, I agree with the OP, the sky is not falling. While we will most likely miss out on the next realignment if it happens soon, the reality is that the conference we are in, the ACC, has a media contract with ESPN through 2036. So we are "safe" for 10 years.

The ACC is a good conference and our media share increases to full membership. Even if some schools pay to bolt to the SEC or B1G, the ACC will survive as a conference. Schools can he added. We need to improve our program, but we should not panic. We should cut expenses by parking most of the non-revenue sports in the Big West. Tosh will almost certainly get a year two, but we should not be afraid to cut bait. What we cannot do ever again is extend a coach who is finishing in the bottom half of the conference. Our goal, over the next 8 to 10 years has to be to compete for ACC Championships and CFP berths.

Maybe Tosh ends up working out? I have my doubts, but that would he great. The key for us is getting everything else (administration, marketing) straight so that if we have to make another hire, we have the people in place to get it right the next time.

Getting rid of Jenny and Jay would be a start. I would still like to see Cal outsource the revenue sports to a broadbased alumni run organization. Whales might be major shareholders, but all shareholders would get a vote, and most importantly, a voice, and votes would be public, with public debate. It would be a better mechanism for paying the players without them being university employees.

However, the main point is, I agree with the OP, the sky is not falling. We have time, but the sooner we start making smart decisions, the better.

---

i think espn can renegotiate tv contract if number of teams falls below 15. good chance miami, clemson, fsu, smu and nd all leave

---

Not according to AI. The ACC just needs to have enough teams to have a schedule and deliver sufficient content. The NCAA minimum is 7 teams. Moreover, even if there was a minimum, the ACC can easily backfill any teams that leave. It isnt the SEC or B1G, but it is a great paying P4 conference. Furthermore, ESPN just signed the extension, with Cal, Stanford and SMU in, with Clemson, FSU and UNC threatening to leave and suing. The contract is solid. ESPN is owned by Disney and they aren't going anywhere.

The expansion of the CFP also makes the idea of Superconferences less compelling. The Save Act would make them illegal. I think Miami and SMU are pretty happy with the ACC right now since the ACC lets CFP teams keep that money. Clemson and FSU are idiots.

The ACC is a safe haven until 2036. It is not as great as getting an invite to the B1G with Cal having enough money to buy our way out of the ACC (always was a pipe dream) but the sky is not falling. We just need to stop doing dumb things, start making smart decisions, improve our program, attendance and finances within the confines of the ACC over the next ten years. The opportunity is still there.

"even if there was a minimum, the ACC can easily backfill any teams that leave. It isnt the SEC or B1G, but it is a great paying P4 conference. Furthermore, ESPN just signed the extension, with Cal, Stanford and SMU in, with Clemson, FSU and UNC threatening to leave and suing. The contract is solid."

Grok ai indicates that there is a provision in the contract that calls for renogiation if top teams leave even if replaced to keep total at or above 15, and that this part of the contract was not disclosed to the public.

bearvalley1 said:

---

"even if there was a minimum, the ACC can easily backfill any teams that leave. It isnt the SEC or B1G, but it is a great paying P4 conference. Furthermore, ESPN just signed the extension, with Cal, Stanford and SMU in, with Clemson, FSU and UNC threatening to leave and suing. The contract is solid."

Grok ai indicates that there is a provision in the contract that calls for renogiation if top teams leave even if replaced to keep total at or above 15, and that this part of the contract was not disclosed to the public.

---

Grok, lol.
It would have had to be disclosed in the litigation and would therefore be public.

But I'll play along. How many "top" teams and how are these "top" teams determined in the secret contract ? Are they named?

Remember, the ACC will also have the exit fees from the departing members in addition to the revenue shares they are giving up. Even if some of that huge windfall is given back to ESPN, I highly doubt the per school payout for the remaining members is reduced.

Remember, the same ACC contract that ESPN extended allowed the ACC to receive additional revenue, 3 more full shares, when Cal, Stanford and SMU were added. ESPN was so eager for it to happen that they also said they would cover the traveling costs for East Coast teams traveling West. ESPN likes the ACC and wants it to survive.

Moreover, Cal entered the ACC only receiving 1/4 of its share as paid by ESPN. However, our % increases over time. No matter what, I don't see any way Cal will be making less money through the rest of the contract than it does now. And certainly more than any non-P4 school. The Pac-12 payout is only $10 million per school.

calumnus said:

---

bearvalley1 said:

---

"even if there was a minimum, the ACC can easily backfill any teams that leave. It isnt the SEC or B1G, but it is a great paying P4 conference. Furthermore, ESPN just signed the extension, with Cal, Stanford and SMU in, with Clemson, FSU and UNC threatening to leave and suing. The contract is solid."

Grok ai indicates that there is a provision in the contract that calls for renogiation if top teams leave even if replaced to keep total at or above 15, and that this part of the contract was not disclosed to the public.

---

Grok, lol.
It would have had to be disclosed in the litigation and would therefore be public.

But I'll play along. How many "top" teams and how are these "top" teams determined in the contract ?

Remember, the ACC will also have the exit fees from the departing members in addition to the revenue shares they are giving up. Even if some of that huge windfall is given back to ESPN, I highly doubt the per school payout for the remaining members is reduced.

Remember, the same ACC contract that ESPN extended allowed the ACC to receive additional revenue, 3 more full shares, when Cal, Stanford and SMU were added. ESPN was so eager for it to happen that they also said they would cover the traveling costs for East Coast teams traveling West. ESPN likes the ACC and wants it to survive.

Moreover, Cal entered the ACC only receiving 1/4 of its share as paid by ESPN. However, our % increases over time. No matter what, I don't see any way Cal will be making less money through the rest of the contract than it does now. And certainly more than any non-P4 school.

---

I'm not sure the argument is that Cal wouldn't be in the ACC or even that the ACC would no longer exist. The issue is that the ACC, itself, may become irrelevant as the B1G and the SEC end up as the de facto top tier of college football. The ACC may well be a second tier conference and ahead of the G6 conferences, but that still leaves Cal and the rest of the ACC without a seat at the big boys table. This would mean Cal would (in all likelihood) not get a legitimate shot at the CFP, further reducing its ability to draw eyeballs. With the reduction in viewership overall throughout the ACC, ESPN will have greater leverage to renegotiate a contract that pays out less money to the conference members. Even assuming that the stadium debt hasn't defaulted by the time this all happens, none of this will not help Cal to pay off said debt and may prove to be a hindrance.

Even aside from the debt issue, I cannot accept that any Cal fan would be willing to see Cal relegated to a second tier conference. It galls me to think that could become Cal's future. What's more, all of this worry could've been avoided had the whales not insisted that Cal hire their would-be football savior, Tosh* and instead hired a coach who has won at previous levels of football, including G6 and FCS and who could have brought some stud players and assistants to Cal to turnaround the Cal football culture from the moment he unpacked his bags.


*Or at least, this is how it's been represented in these boards and those who can disprove this argument have been silent on that matter.

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

bearvalley1 said:

---

"even if there was a minimum, the ACC can easily backfill any teams that leave. It isnt the SEC or B1G, but it is a great paying P4 conference. Furthermore, ESPN just signed the extension, with Cal, Stanford and SMU in, with Clemson, FSU and UNC threatening to leave and suing. The contract is solid."

Grok ai indicates that there is a provision in the contract that calls for renogiation if top teams leave even if replaced to keep total at or above 15, and that this part of the contract was not disclosed to the public.

---

Grok, lol.
It would have had to be disclosed in the litigation and would therefore be public.

But I'll play along. How many "top" teams and how are these "top" teams determined in the contract ?

Remember, the ACC will also have the exit fees from the departing members in addition to the revenue shares they are giving up. Even if some of that huge windfall is given back to ESPN, I highly doubt the per school payout for the remaining members is reduced.

Remember, the same ACC contract that ESPN extended allowed the ACC to receive additional revenue, 3 more full shares, when Cal, Stanford and SMU were added. ESPN was so eager for it to happen that they also said they would cover the traveling costs for East Coast teams traveling West. ESPN likes the ACC and wants it to survive.

Moreover, Cal entered the ACC only receiving 1/4 of its share as paid by ESPN. However, our % increases over time. No matter what, I don't see any way Cal will be making less money through the rest of the contract than it does now. And certainly more than any non-P4 school.

---

I'm not sure the argument is that Cal wouldn't be in the ACC or even that the ACC would no longer exist. The issue is that the ACC, itself, may become irrelevant as the B1G and the SEC end up as the de facto top tier of college football. The ACC may well be a second tier conference and ahead of the G6 conferences, but that still leaves Cal and the rest of the ACC without a seat at the big boys table. This would mean Cal would (in all likelihood) not get a legitimate shot at the CFP, further reducing its ability to draw eyeballs. With the reduction in viewership overall throughout the ACC, ESPN will have greater leverage to renegotiate a contract that pays out less money to the conference members. Even assuming that the stadium debt hasn't defaulted by the time this all happens, none of this will not help Cal to pay off said debt and may prove to be a hindrance.

Even aside from the debt issue, I cannot accept that any Cal fan would be willing to see Cal relegated to a second tier conference. It galls me to think that could become Cal's future. What's more, all of this worry could've been avoided had the whales not insisted that Cal hire their would-be football savior, Tosh* and instead hired a coach who has won at previous levels of football, including G6 and FCS and who could have brought some stud players and assistants to Cal to turnaround the Cal football culture from the moment he unpacked his bags.


*Or at least, this is how it's been represented in these boards and those who can disprove this argument have been silent on that matter.

---

The ACC already quite clearly is on a tier below the B1G and SEC. But that's still a tier above the current Pac-12 and other G6 conferences so there's no reason to think about leaving it except to go to the B1G. Miami has also obviously shown that a team from the conference can still have success in the playoff, so I think access to it likely remains.

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

bearvalley1 said:

---

"even if there was a minimum, the ACC can easily backfill any teams that leave. It isnt the SEC or B1G, but it is a great paying P4 conference. Furthermore, ESPN just signed the extension, with Cal, Stanford and SMU in, with Clemson, FSU and UNC threatening to leave and suing. The contract is solid."

Grok ai indicates that there is a provision in the contract that calls for renogiation if top teams leave even if replaced to keep total at or above 15, and that this part of the contract was not disclosed to the public.

---

Grok, lol.
It would have had to be disclosed in the litigation and would therefore be public.

But I'll play along. How many "top" teams and how are these "top" teams determined in the contract ?

Remember, the ACC will also have the exit fees from the departing members in addition to the revenue shares they are giving up. Even if some of that huge windfall is given back to ESPN, I highly doubt the per school payout for the remaining members is reduced.

Remember, the same ACC contract that ESPN extended allowed the ACC to receive additional revenue, 3 more full shares, when Cal, Stanford and SMU were added. ESPN was so eager for it to happen that they also said they would cover the traveling costs for East Coast teams traveling West. ESPN likes the ACC and wants it to survive.

Moreover, Cal entered the ACC only receiving 1/4 of its share as paid by ESPN. However, our % increases over time. No matter what, I don't see any way Cal will be making less money through the rest of the contract than it does now. And certainly more than any non-P4 school.

---

I'm not sure the argument is that Cal wouldn't be in the ACC or even that the ACC would no longer exist. The issue is that the ACC, itself, may become irrelevant as the B1G and the SEC end up as the de facto top tier of college football. The ACC may well be a second tier conference and ahead of the G6 conferences, but that still leaves Cal and the rest of the ACC without a seat at the big boys table. This would mean Cal would (in all likelihood) not get a legitimate shot at the CFP, further reducing its ability to draw eyeballs. With the reduction in viewership overall throughout the ACC, ESPN will have greater leverage to renegotiate a contract that pays out less money to the conference members. Even assuming that the stadium debt hasn't defaulted by the time this all happens, none of this will not help Cal to pay off said debt and may prove to be a hindrance.

Even aside from the debt issue, I cannot accept that any Cal fan would be willing to see Cal relegated to a second tier conference. It galls me to think that could become Cal's future. What's more, all of this worry could've been avoided had the whales not insisted that Cal hire their would-be football savior, Tosh* and instead hired a coach who has won at previous levels of football, including G6 and FCS and who could have brought some stud players and assistants to Cal to turnaround the Cal football culture from the moment he unpacked his bags.


*Or at least, this is how it's been represented in these boards and those who can disprove this argument have been silent on that matter.

---

The ACC already quite clearly is on a tier below the B1G and SEC. But that's still a tier above the current Pac-12 and other G6 conferences so there's no reason to think about leaving it except to go to the B1G. Miami has also obviously shown that a team from the conference can still have success in the playoff, so I think access to it likely remains.

---

The ACC is still part of the P4. Come realignment, it may very well be P2 and G8. Cal would be left out of the P2. That's not something to be excited about as a Cal fan.

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

bearvalley1 said:

---

"even if there was a minimum, the ACC can easily backfill any teams that leave. It isnt the SEC or B1G, but it is a great paying P4 conference. Furthermore, ESPN just signed the extension, with Cal, Stanford and SMU in, with Clemson, FSU and UNC threatening to leave and suing. The contract is solid."

Grok ai indicates that there is a provision in the contract that calls for renogiation if top teams leave even if replaced to keep total at or above 15, and that this part of the contract was not disclosed to the public.

---

Grok, lol.
It would have had to be disclosed in the litigation and would therefore be public.

But I'll play along. How many "top" teams and how are these "top" teams determined in the contract ?

Remember, the ACC will also have the exit fees from the departing members in addition to the revenue shares they are giving up. Even if some of that huge windfall is given back to ESPN, I highly doubt the per school payout for the remaining members is reduced.

Remember, the same ACC contract that ESPN extended allowed the ACC to receive additional revenue, 3 more full shares, when Cal, Stanford and SMU were added. ESPN was so eager for it to happen that they also said they would cover the traveling costs for East Coast teams traveling West. ESPN likes the ACC and wants it to survive.

Moreover, Cal entered the ACC only receiving 1/4 of its share as paid by ESPN. However, our % increases over time. No matter what, I don't see any way Cal will be making less money through the rest of the contract than it does now. And certainly more than any non-P4 school.

---

I'm not sure the argument is that Cal wouldn't be in the ACC or even that the ACC would no longer exist. The issue is that the ACC, itself, may become irrelevant as the B1G and the SEC end up as the de facto top tier of college football. The ACC may well be a second tier conference and ahead of the G6 conferences, but that still leaves Cal and the rest of the ACC without a seat at the big boys table. This would mean Cal would (in all likelihood) not get a legitimate shot at the CFP, further reducing its ability to draw eyeballs. With the reduction in viewership overall throughout the ACC, ESPN will have greater leverage to renegotiate a contract that pays out less money to the conference members. Even assuming that the stadium debt hasn't defaulted by the time this all happens, none of this will not help Cal to pay off said debt and may prove to be a hindrance.

Even aside from the debt issue, I cannot accept that any Cal fan would be willing to see Cal relegated to a second tier conference. It galls me to think that could become Cal's future. What's more, all of this worry could've been avoided had the whales not insisted that Cal hire their would-be football savior, Tosh* and instead hired a coach who has won at previous levels of football, including G6 and FCS and who could have brought some stud players and assistants to Cal to turnaround the Cal football culture from the moment he unpacked his bags.


*Or at least, this is how it's been represented in these boards and those who can disprove this argument have been silent on that matter.

---

The ACC already quite clearly is on a tier below the B1G and SEC. But that's still a tier above the current Pac-12 and other G6 conferences so there's no reason to think about leaving it except to go to the B1G. Miami has also obviously shown that a team from the conference can still have success in the playoff, so I think access to it likely remains.

---

The ACC is still part of the P4. Come realignment, it may very well be P2 and G8. Cal would be left out of the P2. That's not something to be excited about as a Cal fan.

---

Maybe, but I suspect it's still part of a second tier that's above G6. I don't think the top two leagues are taking THAT many schools.

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

bearvalley1 said:

---

"even if there was a minimum, the ACC can easily backfill any teams that leave. It isnt the SEC or B1G, but it is a great paying P4 conference. Furthermore, ESPN just signed the extension, with Cal, Stanford and SMU in, with Clemson, FSU and UNC threatening to leave and suing. The contract is solid."

Grok ai indicates that there is a provision in the contract that calls for renogiation if top teams leave even if replaced to keep total at or above 15, and that this part of the contract was not disclosed to the public.

---

Grok, lol.
It would have had to be disclosed in the litigation and would therefore be public.

But I'll play along. How many "top" teams and how are these "top" teams determined in the contract ?

Remember, the ACC will also have the exit fees from the departing members in addition to the revenue shares they are giving up. Even if some of that huge windfall is given back to ESPN, I highly doubt the per school payout for the remaining members is reduced.

Remember, the same ACC contract that ESPN extended allowed the ACC to receive additional revenue, 3 more full shares, when Cal, Stanford and SMU were added. ESPN was so eager for it to happen that they also said they would cover the traveling costs for East Coast teams traveling West. ESPN likes the ACC and wants it to survive.

Moreover, Cal entered the ACC only receiving 1/4 of its share as paid by ESPN. However, our % increases over time. No matter what, I don't see any way Cal will be making less money through the rest of the contract than it does now. And certainly more than any non-P4 school.

---

I'm not sure the argument is that Cal wouldn't be in the ACC or even that the ACC would no longer exist. The issue is that the ACC, itself, may become irrelevant as the B1G and the SEC end up as the de facto top tier of college football. The ACC may well be a second tier conference and ahead of the G6 conferences, but that still leaves Cal and the rest of the ACC without a seat at the big boys table. This would mean Cal would (in all likelihood) not get a legitimate shot at the CFP, further reducing its ability to draw eyeballs. With the reduction in viewership overall throughout the ACC, ESPN will have greater leverage to renegotiate a contract that pays out less money to the conference members. Even assuming that the stadium debt hasn't defaulted by the time this all happens, none of this will not help Cal to pay off said debt and may prove to be a hindrance.

Even aside from the debt issue, I cannot accept that any Cal fan would be willing to see Cal relegated to a second tier conference. It galls me to think that could become Cal's future. What's more, all of this worry could've been avoided had the whales not insisted that Cal hire their would-be football savior, Tosh* and instead hired a coach who has won at previous levels of football, including G6 and FCS and who could have brought some stud players and assistants to Cal to turnaround the Cal football culture from the moment he unpacked his bags.


*Or at least, this is how it's been represented in these boards and those who can disprove this argument have been silent on that matter.

---

The ACC already quite clearly is on a tier below the B1G and SEC. But that's still a tier above the current Pac-12 and other G6 conferences so there's no reason to think about leaving it except to go to the B1G. Miami has also obviously shown that a team from the conference can still have success in the playoff, so I think access to it likely remains.

---

The ACC is still part of the P4. Come realignment, it may very well be P2 and G8. Cal would be left out of the P2. That's not something to be excited about as a Cal fan.

---

Maybe, but I suspect it's still part of a second tier that's above G6. I don't think the top two leagues are taking THAT many schools.

---

Once outside the Power Conferences, Cal football will become truly irrelevant.

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

bearvalley1 said:

---

"even if there was a minimum, the ACC can easily backfill any teams that leave. It isnt the SEC or B1G, but it is a great paying P4 conference. Furthermore, ESPN just signed the extension, with Cal, Stanford and SMU in, with Clemson, FSU and UNC threatening to leave and suing. The contract is solid."

Grok ai indicates that there is a provision in the contract that calls for renogiation if top teams leave even if replaced to keep total at or above 15, and that this part of the contract was not disclosed to the public.

---

Grok, lol.
It would have had to be disclosed in the litigation and would therefore be public.

But I'll play along. How many "top" teams and how are these "top" teams determined in the contract ?

Remember, the ACC will also have the exit fees from the departing members in addition to the revenue shares they are giving up. Even if some of that huge windfall is given back to ESPN, I highly doubt the per school payout for the remaining members is reduced.

Remember, the same ACC contract that ESPN extended allowed the ACC to receive additional revenue, 3 more full shares, when Cal, Stanford and SMU were added. ESPN was so eager for it to happen that they also said they would cover the traveling costs for East Coast teams traveling West. ESPN likes the ACC and wants it to survive.

Moreover, Cal entered the ACC only receiving 1/4 of its share as paid by ESPN. However, our % increases over time. No matter what, I don't see any way Cal will be making less money through the rest of the contract than it does now. And certainly more than any non-P4 school.

---

I'm not sure the argument is that Cal wouldn't be in the ACC or even that the ACC would no longer exist. The issue is that the ACC, itself, may become irrelevant as the B1G and the SEC end up as the de facto top tier of college football. The ACC may well be a second tier conference and ahead of the G6 conferences, but that still leaves Cal and the rest of the ACC without a seat at the big boys table. This would mean Cal would (in all likelihood) not get a legitimate shot at the CFP, further reducing its ability to draw eyeballs. With the reduction in viewership overall throughout the ACC, ESPN will have greater leverage to renegotiate a contract that pays out less money to the conference members. Even assuming that the stadium debt hasn't defaulted by the time this all happens, none of this will not help Cal to pay off said debt and may prove to be a hindrance.

Even aside from the debt issue, I cannot accept that any Cal fan would be willing to see Cal relegated to a second tier conference. It galls me to think that could become Cal's future. What's more, all of this worry could've been avoided had the whales not insisted that Cal hire their would-be football savior, Tosh* and instead hired a coach who has won at previous levels of football, including G6 and FCS and who could have brought some stud players and assistants to Cal to turnaround the Cal football culture from the moment he unpacked his bags.


*Or at least, this is how it's been represented in these boards and those who can disprove this argument have been silent on that matter.

---

The ACC already quite clearly is on a tier below the B1G and SEC. But that's still a tier above the current Pac-12 and other G6 conferences so there's no reason to think about leaving it except to go to the B1G. Miami has also obviously shown that a team from the conference can still have success in the playoff, so I think access to it likely remains.

---

The ACC is still part of the P4. Come realignment, it may very well be P2 and G8. Cal would be left out of the P2. That's not something to be excited about as a Cal fan.

---

Maybe, but I suspect it's still part of a second tier that's above G6. I don't think the top two leagues are taking THAT many schools.

---

Once outside the Power Conferences, Cal football will become truly irrelevant.

---

The point is we are in a Power Conference through 2036. The sky is not falling as long as we don't do another Wilcox and keep a losing coach for 9 years.

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

bearvalley1 said:

---

"even if there was a minimum, the ACC can easily backfill any teams that leave. It isnt the SEC or B1G, but it is a great paying P4 conference. Furthermore, ESPN just signed the extension, with Cal, Stanford and SMU in, with Clemson, FSU and UNC threatening to leave and suing. The contract is solid."

Grok ai indicates that there is a provision in the contract that calls for renogiation if top teams leave even if replaced to keep total at or above 15, and that this part of the contract was not disclosed to the public.

---

Grok, lol.
It would have had to be disclosed in the litigation and would therefore be public.

But I'll play along. How many "top" teams and how are these "top" teams determined in the contract ?

Remember, the ACC will also have the exit fees from the departing members in addition to the revenue shares they are giving up. Even if some of that huge windfall is given back to ESPN, I highly doubt the per school payout for the remaining members is reduced.

Remember, the same ACC contract that ESPN extended allowed the ACC to receive additional revenue, 3 more full shares, when Cal, Stanford and SMU were added. ESPN was so eager for it to happen that they also said they would cover the traveling costs for East Coast teams traveling West. ESPN likes the ACC and wants it to survive.

Moreover, Cal entered the ACC only receiving 1/4 of its share as paid by ESPN. However, our % increases over time. No matter what, I don't see any way Cal will be making less money through the rest of the contract than it does now. And certainly more than any non-P4 school.

---

I'm not sure the argument is that Cal wouldn't be in the ACC or even that the ACC would no longer exist. The issue is that the ACC, itself, may become irrelevant as the B1G and the SEC end up as the de facto top tier of college football. The ACC may well be a second tier conference and ahead of the G6 conferences, but that still leaves Cal and the rest of the ACC without a seat at the big boys table. This would mean Cal would (in all likelihood) not get a legitimate shot at the CFP, further reducing its ability to draw eyeballs. With the reduction in viewership overall throughout the ACC, ESPN will have greater leverage to renegotiate a contract that pays out less money to the conference members. Even assuming that the stadium debt hasn't defaulted by the time this all happens, none of this will not help Cal to pay off said debt and may prove to be a hindrance.

Even aside from the debt issue, I cannot accept that any Cal fan would be willing to see Cal relegated to a second tier conference. It galls me to think that could become Cal's future. What's more, all of this worry could've been avoided had the whales not insisted that Cal hire their would-be football savior, Tosh* and instead hired a coach who has won at previous levels of football, including G6 and FCS and who could have brought some stud players and assistants to Cal to turnaround the Cal football culture from the moment he unpacked his bags.


*Or at least, this is how it's been represented in these boards and those who can disprove this argument have been silent on that matter.

---

The ACC already quite clearly is on a tier below the B1G and SEC. But that's still a tier above the current Pac-12 and other G6 conferences so there's no reason to think about leaving it except to go to the B1G. Miami has also obviously shown that a team from the conference can still have success in the playoff, so I think access to it likely remains.

---

The ACC is still part of the P4. Come realignment, it may very well be P2 and G8. Cal would be left out of the P2. That's not something to be excited about as a Cal fan.

---

Maybe, but I suspect it's still part of a second tier that's above G6. I don't think the top two leagues are taking THAT many schools.

---

Once outside the Power Conferences, Cal football will become truly irrelevant.

---

Very likely the ACC and Big 12 will continue as "B-tier" power conferences: don't make as much money as the big two but still are basically guaranteed to see their champion make the playoff and probably at least one other team (when it goes to 24). If your conference has access to the playoff you aren't irrelevant and there's still a path to contend. Maybe the B1G and SEC try to lock out everyone else from their playoff but I suspect there would be too much political blowback for them to do that.

It is what it is. We have likely lost our chance at a quick turnaround that would gain promotion by 2030 so that's the next path.

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

bearvalley1 said:

---

"even if there was a minimum, the ACC can easily backfill any teams that leave. It isnt the SEC or B1G, but it is a great paying P4 conference. Furthermore, ESPN just signed the extension, with Cal, Stanford and SMU in, with Clemson, FSU and UNC threatening to leave and suing. The contract is solid."

Grok ai indicates that there is a provision in the contract that calls for renogiation if top teams leave even if replaced to keep total at or above 15, and that this part of the contract was not disclosed to the public.

---

Grok, lol.
It would have had to be disclosed in the litigation and would therefore be public.

But I'll play along. How many "top" teams and how are these "top" teams determined in the contract ?

Remember, the ACC will also have the exit fees from the departing members in addition to the revenue shares they are giving up. Even if some of that huge windfall is given back to ESPN, I highly doubt the per school payout for the remaining members is reduced.

Remember, the same ACC contract that ESPN extended allowed the ACC to receive additional revenue, 3 more full shares, when Cal, Stanford and SMU were added. ESPN was so eager for it to happen that they also said they would cover the traveling costs for East Coast teams traveling West. ESPN likes the ACC and wants it to survive.

Moreover, Cal entered the ACC only receiving 1/4 of its share as paid by ESPN. However, our % increases over time. No matter what, I don't see any way Cal will be making less money through the rest of the contract than it does now. And certainly more than any non-P4 school.

---

I'm not sure the argument is that Cal wouldn't be in the ACC or even that the ACC would no longer exist. The issue is that the ACC, itself, may become irrelevant as the B1G and the SEC end up as the de facto top tier of college football. The ACC may well be a second tier conference and ahead of the G6 conferences, but that still leaves Cal and the rest of the ACC without a seat at the big boys table. This would mean Cal would (in all likelihood) not get a legitimate shot at the CFP, further reducing its ability to draw eyeballs. With the reduction in viewership overall throughout the ACC, ESPN will have greater leverage to renegotiate a contract that pays out less money to the conference members. Even assuming that the stadium debt hasn't defaulted by the time this all happens, none of this will not help Cal to pay off said debt and may prove to be a hindrance.

Even aside from the debt issue, I cannot accept that any Cal fan would be willing to see Cal relegated to a second tier conference. It galls me to think that could become Cal's future. What's more, all of this worry could've been avoided had the whales not insisted that Cal hire their would-be football savior, Tosh* and instead hired a coach who has won at previous levels of football, including G6 and FCS and who could have brought some stud players and assistants to Cal to turnaround the Cal football culture from the moment he unpacked his bags.


*Or at least, this is how it's been represented in these boards and those who can disprove this argument have been silent on that matter.

---

The ACC already quite clearly is on a tier below the B1G and SEC. But that's still a tier above the current Pac-12 and other G6 conferences so there's no reason to think about leaving it except to go to the B1G. Miami has also obviously shown that a team from the conference can still have success in the playoff, so I think access to it likely remains.

---

The ACC is still part of the P4. Come realignment, it may very well be P2 and G8. Cal would be left out of the P2. That's not something to be excited about as a Cal fan.

---

Maybe, but I suspect it's still part of a second tier that's above G6. I don't think the top two leagues are taking THAT many schools.

---

Once outside the Power Conferences, Cal football will become truly irrelevant.

---

Very likely the ACC and Big 12 will continue as "B-tier" power conferences: don't make as much money as the big two but still are basically guaranteed to see their champion make the playoff and probably at least one other team (when it goes to 24). If your conference has access to the playoff you aren't irrelevant and there's still a path to contend. Maybe the B1G and SEC try to lock out everyone else from their playoff but I suspect there would be too much political blowback for them to do that.

It is what it is. We have likely lost our chance at a quick turnaround that would gain promotion by 2030 so that's the next path.

---

Exactly. We blew the first chance to go to the B1G with Wilcox, Christ and Knowlton. We blew the second chance, a chance to make a splash in the ACC, by keeping Wilcox. We blew the third chance to become relevant by not firing Knowlton and Wilcox immediately, and waiting a year to make Ron GM instead of coach. We blew the fourth chance by hiring Tosh, another Wilcox. As long as we don't extend a losing coach again we will get a fifth chance.