Was reading about UW hosting Furd Friday - and noticed that Alaska Airlines now has the naming rights to Husky Stadium. Same kind of thing as Kabam Field at California Memorial Stadium.

But Washington is getting $41million/10 years for the naming rights. By far the largest field naming rights deal. By comparison Cal is getting $18 million over 15 years from Kabam. Talk about selling low. Plus with how quickly tech companies come and go, the duration seems like it's extra long too (unless both sides expect an out down the road well before the time is up).

But on that note, what really just grinds my gears is the use of the scoreboard behind the Cal bench on the 50 yard line to display a constant non-stop ad for some Kabam game I have never heard of and will never play. Taking away that scoreboard for the entire game means there is basically nothing visible from the west side in terms of the scoreboard. The minitrons are far away and small, and outside the field of view for normal play watching. WTF? On top of that, I doubt there are more than 50 people on the west side that are under 30, and a large number of donors probably can't even see a cell phone let alone download a cell phone game. We were so broke and desperate that we sold off a scoreboard so now the big $$$ donors have to strain to even follow the score, time and down/distance?

Can't we install a big screen somewhere like every other stadium in the US? It's not too late is it?

KoreAmBear;842736444 said:

---

Can't we install a big screen somewhere like every other stadium in the US? It's not too late is it?

---

This was one of the ridiculous concessions we made to get rid of the idiot Hill People suit (the jumbotron wouldn't exceed the size of the old physical scoreboard).

I think I was definitely much more of a Sandy fan than most, but these concessions were a mistake. We had the Hill People on the ropes. We'd snuck wording into some California legislation designating Memorial a historical landmark (and thus exempt from the Alquist-Priolo Act). The Hill People had lost. Full stop. And yet to "resolve" the suit we gave them a bunch of concessions including severely limiting Cal's ability to ever have non-football events at Memorial, which could have helped generate millions for athletics, and agreeing to this dumb billboard limitation. It seemed like a classic way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I understand why she did it I guess just to put this whole thing behind us, but I'll go to my grave thinking we should have just told the Hill People to get stuffed and moved forward with our plans.

As to selling low to Kabaam, not sure I agree on that one. Wasn't this the highest collegiate field naming deal of all time when we inked it? I mean I'm not shocked that it got passed (as these things tend to always be exceeded by the next deal to come down the pipe) but I thought at the time we'd done pretty well here. And no, I wouldn't know a Kabaam game if it hit me upside the head.

Is it Kabam stadium or Memorial Stadium?

Toughest Kabam Wins!

oski003;842736456 said:

---

Is it Kabam stadium or Memorial Stadium?

---

Kabam field, located in Memorial Stadium

MinotStateBeav;842736457 said:

---

Toughest Kabam Wins!

---

It's kind of an embarrassing shirt when you lose after being out-toughed.

i don't know how much such a thing would cost, but in theory, would we be able to splurge for bigger screens now? (w/ the incoming UA + Learfield)

beeasyed;842736473 said:

---

i don't know how much such a thing would cost, but in theory, would we be able to splurge for bigger screens now? (w/ the incoming UA + Learfield)

---

It's not the cost, it's the restriction. How can we get out of that? How about we just install it? I don't think Dumpster Muffin has any money to sue anyway.

oski003;842736456 said:

---

Is it Kabam stadium or Memorial Stadium?

---

It's "[SIZE=6]KABAM FIELD[SIZE=1]at [SIZE=2]California Memorial Stadium[/SIZE]."[/SIZE][/SIZE]

KoreAmBear;842736475 said:

---

It's not the cost, it's the restriction. How can we get out of that? How about we just install it? I don't think Dumpster Muffin has any money to sue anyway.

---

I'm not sure what was agreed to in the PHA deal, but a scoreboard restriction was not listed in the press release from Cal on the matter, or any other I can see. The restrictions are pretty specifically referenced, so I am guessing it's not in the deal since no one reported it. However, the endzone scoreboard limitation was listed in the EIR report and addendum as a limit to maintain the historical nature of the endzone scoreboard structures. (these were from 2006-2009, which predates the settlement). Would think UC could issue another EIR at a later date? What's more annoying with regard to the minitrons is they don't even go out to the edges of the structure. There is something in the orginal/addendum EIR about another large scoreboard on the east side after Phase III, but who knows if that will ever happen.

Sebastabear;842736450 said:

---

As to selling low to Kabaam, not sure I agree on that one. Wasn't this the highest collegiate field naming deal of all time when we inked it? I mean I'm not shocked that it got passed (as these things tend to always be exceeded by the next deal to come down the pipe) but I thought at the time we'd done pretty well here. And no, I wouldn't know a Kabaam game if it hit me upside the head.

---

We were pretty much the first P5 team to sell 'field' rights only. Highest $$ deal doesn't mean much because the market was pretty new. UW got basically 4x what we did. And they have working scoreboards not just in each endzone, but both sides of the field. Gotta think we are the only P5 school that has not even a ribbon board on the sideline. We do have a creepy blow up oski peering over the student section though.

ColoradoBear1;842736492 said:

---

I'm not sure what was agreed to in the PHA deal, but a scoreboard restriction was not listed in the press release from Cal on the matter, or any other I can see. The restrictions are pretty specifically referenced, so I am guessing it's not in the deal since no one reported it. However, the endzone scoreboard limitation was listed in the EIR report and addendum as a limit to maintain the historical nature of the endzone scoreboard structures. (these were from 2006-2009, which predates the settlement). Would think UC could issue another EIR at a later date? What's more annoying with regard to the minitrons is they don't even go out to the edges of the structure. There is something in the orginal/addendum EIR about another large scoreboard on the east side after Phase III, but who knows if that will ever happen.

---

To be blunt or indelicate or whatever, I offered Cal that I'd contribute toward a bigger scoreboard (several times) during the planning phase. It was the one thing I didn't like about the renovation. I was turned down and was told they couldn't do it because of the settlement. Is it possible that the EIR restrictions were incorporated into the settlement? I honestly dropped the issue afterward but I have to believe they aren't turning down free money without a reason. Actually this is Cal, so maybe that's an incorrect assumption...

Sebastabear;842736605 said:

---

To be blunt or indelicate or whatever, I offered Cal that I'd contribute toward a bigger scoreboard (several times) during the planning phase. It was the one thing I didn't like about the renovation. I was turned down and was told they couldn't do it because of the settlement. Is it possible that the EIR restrictions were incorporated into the settlement? I honestly dropped the issue afterward but I have to believe they aren't turning down free money without a reason. Actually this is Cal, so maybe that's an incorrect assumption...

---

maybe they just dont want to deal with navigating around the complexities of it. if they only knew how much better it would make the gameday experience....

Sebasta: "TAKE MY MONEY"
Cal: "nah, i'm good"

KoreAmBear;842736444 said:

---

Can't we install a big screen somewhere like every other stadium in the US? It's not too late is it?

---

I may be in the minority, but I'm glad we didn't get larger screens. I can see replays fine and the screens are used mostly for ads, crowd games in which I'm not interested, and Cal promotions.

pierrezo;842736612 said:

---

I may be in the minority, but I'm glad we didn't get larger screens. I can see replays fine and the screens are used mostly for ads, crowd games in which I'm not interested, and Cal promotions.

---

A very fair point but one that probably breaks down along people with good eye sight and... uh... those of us with "less good" eyesight. I'm often looking at those replays to see if a foot or knee was down and thinking "Hell I can't even tell if that thing is a foot much less whether it's down. Looks like a fuzzy blue cucumber or something. Where's my drink?"

"As part of the deal, UW has also created an Athletic Village presented by Alaska Airlines, which incorporates all of the athletic facilities located around the football stadium. The Seattle-based airline will also have a presence on UW's Tacoma and Bothell campuses"

This is nothing like our deal...

socaliganbear;842736619 said:

---

"As part of the deal, UW has also created an Athletic Village presented by Alaska Airlines, which incorporates all of the athletic facilities located around the football stadium. The Seattle-based airline will also have a presence on UW's Tacoma and Bothell campuses"

This is nothing like our deal...

---

Please, it's nothing like our deal only because the size of the payments due to naming football field is far larger. The other naming rights involved are a small, small fraction of the value.

ColoradoB, do you know if the language of the settlement includes both minitrons or just the northerly one facing Panoramic Hill? I can't imagine why the southern minitron could not be enlarged when it can't affect the lighting in that area of residences.

ColoradoBear1;842736623 said:

---

Please, it's nothing like our deal only because the size of the payments due to naming football field is far larger. The other naming rights involved are a small, small fraction of the value.

---

Alaska gives current dollars for their field, "village" and branding on their two other satellite campuses. Kabam gets field name only. Seems pretty different.

Not to mention they're an existing partner for them, i.e. Basketball. It's very clear their level of partnership is quite different than what we have going on with Kabam.

socaliganbear;842736626 said:

---

Alaska gives current dollars for their field, "village" and branding on their two other satellite campuses. Kabam gets field name only. Seems pretty different.

Not to mention they're an existing partner for them, i.e. Basketball. It's very clear their le el of partnership is quite different than what we have going on with Kabam.

---

Yes, I understand the additional branding component.... I'm saying those components are not more than a few hundred thousand out of the $4 million. I mean the village part is like if Cal called the baseball, tennis, has, swimming, Edwards complex 'the Kabam Village' without renaming any of the structures. It's something that is never said on TV or in print. Alaska Airlines Field is the majority of that value.

Another thing, if you google UW/AA you see other connections beyond this. What this shows is that maybe going all in with a sponsor/brand is a better deal. As it stands, Kabam is not to Cal what AA is to UW. For us, they really are just an alum's company name on a field.

They're literally "the official airline for the university's three campuses."

ColoradoBear1;842736422 said:

---

Was reading about UW hosting Furd Friday - and noticed that Alaska Airlines now has the naming rights to Husky Stadium. Same kind of thing as Kabam Field at California Memorial Stadium.

But Washington is getting $41million/10 years for the naming rights. By far the largest field naming rights deal. By comparison Cal is getting $18 million over 15 years from Kabam. Talk about selling low. Plus with how quickly tech companies come and go, the duration seems like it's extra long too (unless both sides expect an out down the road well before the time is up).

But on that note, what really just grinds my gears is the use of the scoreboard behind the Cal bench on the 50 yard line to display a constant non-stop ad for some Kabam game I have never heard of and will never play. Taking away that scoreboard for the entire game means there is basically nothing visible from the west side in terms of the scoreboard. The minitrons are far away and small, and outside the field of view for normal play watching. WTF? On top of that, I doubt there are more than 50 people on the west side that are under 30, and a large number of donors probably can't even see a cell phone let alone download a cell phone game. We were so broke and desperate that we sold off a scoreboard so now the big $$$ donors have to strain to even follow the score, time and down/distance?

---

I just moved to that side of the field and was insanely annoyed at the static banner ad the entire game.

Also Kabam is kind of a shitty deal based on the company alone. Alaska Airlines has $5.6Billion in revenue, Is headquartered in Seattle, and is EXTREMELY well known in the region and nation. It is one of the biggest airlines in the world.

We have Kabam. A $350m revenue company. No relevance in the region. No relevance nationally. Minor relevance in their own industry.

Why not get a lower dollar amount for Clif Bar or powerbar? They are relevant to athletics, local brands with national recognition.

Or Kaiser? Or Clorox?


Nope. Kabam. Even if that was the most money they could get, it is still embarrassing.

Why wouldn't Cal, and Maybe even the UC system, partner with Kaiser? Or one of the 11nty billion massive relevent bay area companies...

Sebastabear;842736615 said:

---

A very fair point but one that probably breaks down along people with good eye sight and... uh... those of us with "less good" eyesight. I'm often looking at those replays to see if a foot or knee was down and thinking "Hell I can't even tell if that thing is a foot much less whether it's down. Looks like a fuzzy blue cucumber or something. Where's my drink?"

---

I'm with you. Our video screens are embarrassingly small and almost worthless. I think we have the smallest screens in the Pac-12, and perhaps in all of the Power-5 conferences.

socaliganbear;842736633 said:

---

Another thing, if you google UW/AA you see other connections beyond this. What this shows is that maybe going all in with a sponsor/brand is a better deal. As it stands, Kabam is not to Cal what AA is to UW. For us, they really are just an alum's company name on a field.

They're literally "the official airline for the university's three campuses."

---

Fair statement. I don't see the University allowing the athletic department determine who an 'official partner' is for the whole campus. I mean can't have an evil corporation there can we? But the whole point about corporate naming sponsorship is not just to have a name on the field but to be 'partners' and get some synergy out of that. So how much deprecated would the phrase 'official partner of Cal Athletics' versus 'official partner of UC Berkeley' be in the advertising world? I think depends.... coming off a 1-11 season, maybe a big difference.

What I do see regarding Alaksa Airlines and UW is that it is a product that every alum is likely to use (or at least be in the market for, there's a major airline battle brewing in Seattle). Not just that every alum would be a target, but anyone who hears the field mentioned on TV, or in print, or where ever else. I can't say the same about Kabam.... and who even knows if they are getting their money's worth?

Also, I believe the Hec Ed basketball arena sponsorship at UW netted $700k per year, but expired in 2016. So maybe this is all rolled into one?

ColoradoBear1;842736648 said:

---

Fair statement. I don't see the University allowing the athletic department determine who an 'official partner' is for the whole campus. I mean can't have an evil corporation there can we? But the whole point about corporate naming sponsorship is not just to have a name on the field but to be 'partners' and get some synergy out of that. So how much deprecated would the phrase 'official partner of Cal Athletics' versus 'official partner of UC Berkeley' be in the advertising world? I think depends.... coming off a 1-11 season, maybe a big difference.

What I do see regarding Alaksa Airlines and UW is that it is a product that every alum is likely to use (or at least be in the market for, there's a major airline battle brewing in Seattle). Not just that every alum would be a target, but anyone who hears the field mentioned on TV, or in print, or where ever else. I can't say the same about Kabam.... and who even knows if they are getting their money's worth?

Also, I believe the Hec Ed basketball arena sponsorship at UW netted $700k per year, but expired in 2016. So maybe this is all rolled into one?

---

Interesting convo, as the university is in the midst of renewing and/or starting fresh university wide partnerships. e.g. Bank of The West, which has been an IA sponsor, signed a new 10 year deal with the university for 17 million last fall.

Sebastabear;842736605 said:

---

To be blunt or indelicate or whatever, I offered Cal that I'd contribute toward a bigger scoreboard (several times) during the planning phase. It was the one thing I didn't like about the renovation. I was turned down and was told they couldn't do it because of the settlement. Is it possible that the EIR restrictions were incorporated into the settlement? I honestly dropped the issue afterward but I have to believe they aren't turning down free money without a reason. Actually this is Cal, so maybe that's an incorrect assumption...

---

Not indelicate at all... I'm just hoping that at some time in the future the video board issue can be revisited. I don't see that being any time soon - like is phase III going to ever happen? Definitely curious if there was an additional agreement with PHA, or if the EIR was enough to restrict Cal's actions in terms of the video boards. The restricting them to the size of the current structure went back to the 2006 EIR, so I can see a couple reasons why Cal would not want to rock the boat in regards to the size after the PHA agreement - was that in 2010? First, it might have affected the historical status of the stadium, most notable the inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. I believe the exception to the Alquist-Priolo Act required some kind of historical status. It also might be hard to get bigger scoreboards pushed through without refiling the EIR. Again at that late stage, maybe the risk (and potential additional delays) would be too much.

Now today, I'm not sure how many houses on the hill would actually have their view changed by scoreboards. Maybe we should all chip in and slowly buy them because I bet there are only a handful. On top of that, the new press box is so massive compared to the old one, that perhaps a larger end scoreboard structure would fit in and really not change anything. (At this point, whether the structure is historical or not really has no meaning... UC is not subject to laws forbidding modifications even if structures in the COB are.)

socaliganbear;842736653 said:

---

Interesting convo, as the university is in the midst of renewing and/or starting fresh university wide partnerships. e.g. Bank of The West, which has been an IA sponsor, signed a new 10 year deal with the university for 17 million last fall.

---

Interesting. So I'll backtrack a bit to say, what if the Alaska Airlines 'Partnership' was in the $15 million range, the Football Field in the $20 million range, and the basketball arena portion in the $10 million range? That could be a fair break down (+- a few million on each subset) based on the Bank of the West - UCB deal.

But then I think, damn, if UC can actually do a corporate partnership with an 'evil corporate' bank (that may be slightly less 'evil' than other unnamed big evil corporate banks), then why not try to go big and sell the same 'Alaska Airlines' package (minus the arena) to BoW for $50 million over 10. Or something like that. Bay Area market is big, and the association with UC is valuable.

So in all honestly, I would not have been upset at Kabam being a shorter term sponsor as it's currently framed. Like maybe 5 years? The tech/software industry changes so quickly that can one really project revenues out that far? But 15 years is definitely selling low IMO.

I'm not sure how much FB success and perception played into the Cal Under Armor and Learfield deals, but those are surprisingly good. Sure UCLA's UA deal is far bigger in number, but a lot of that is millions upon millions in gear and not cash. I can't see that extra gear being worth all that much to UCLA - even their non-rev teams could roll out 5 uni combos a year and still have $$ left over.

Phantomfan;842736635 said:

---

I just moved to that side of the field and was insanely annoyed at the static banner ad the entire game.

---

At the end of the day, that is my main displeasure and not the video boards. It's also the easiest changed (in theory, but who knows what our deal with Kabam says). Not having a scoreboard in easy sight for the majority of the donor is pretty bad. You end up looking around the stadium a lot for the pertinent info and miss a lot on the field.

pierrezo;842736612 said:

---

I may be in the minority, but I'm glad we didn't get larger screens. I can see replays fine and the screens are used mostly for ads, crowd games in which I'm not interested, and Cal promotions.

---

You must be significantly younger than I. I can barely make out the detail on the screen.

ColoradoBear1;842736422 said:

---

On top of that, I doubt there are more than 50 people on the west side that are under 30, and a large number of donors probably can't even see a cell phone let alone download a cell phone game.

---

The Kabam video board is definitely pointing toward the wrong demographic.

southseasbear;842736805 said:

---

You must be significantly younger than I. I can barely make out the detail on the screen.

---

And here I am nearly 78 and I can see the scoreboard and replays fine. Maybe some of you need glasses.

6164bear;842736832 said:

---

And here I am nearly 78 and I can see the scoreboard and replays fine. Maybe some of you need glasses.

---

Glasses? What kind of newfangled contraption is that? i don't go in for that trendy stuff.