Story Poster
Photo by Mike Wondolowski
Cal Football

Cal's Athletic Future - And what FOX Sports and others are missing

August 12, 2023
65,814

In the next seven days, Cal believes it will have a clear answer to its athletic future.  Will the ACC offer admission?   Will the Big Ten come up with enough of a financial commitment to make Cal viable?   Or will Cal be forced to remain in a reimagined Pac-12 whose members will primarily be Group of 5 members from the American and Mountain West Conference?

Let’s start with setting some context.  And that doesn’t include how we got here and who and what may be to blame for the current situation.    What’s relevant is where we are today and how Cal can emerge in a place that preserves the scope and ambition of its athletic endeavors and the essential yet ephemeral connection it provides the world’s leading public institution of higher learning to its students, alumni, and donors.   The other helpful backdrop is that college football is in the middle of an increasingly accelerating realization that it is better defined as a multi-billion dollar media business rather than a bastion of amateur athletics.

Without opining on whether this is a positive change for the constituencies involved or not, let’s accept this is our reality.  And that for at least two decades, Cal and many other schools have supported a diverse number of sports on the backs of the revenue being generated by Football and to a far lesser extent Men’s Basketball.   That revenue became an entitlement that has shifted the decision-making power of college athletics from the hands of University presidents to those of Sports Network executives.   And the status quo of powerful conferences and their highly paid commissioners only adds to the underbrush that delays what is inevitable.

A unified BCS Football organization that can manage broader TV rights would be to the benefit of all of the schools, overseeing the competitive dynamics to create an even playing field inclusive of NIL, the transfer portal, and the operation of the highly lucrative and fan-pleasing 8+ team playoff.  In the wake of Cal finding itself on the wrong side of a game of musical chairs, the imperative becomes ensuring that it has a place in this future entity.   Unfortunately, this is not a situation where time and patience will create that reality.   A single season for Cal outside the BCS will almost certainly prove fatal to its ability to retain its student-athletes, support their non-revenue sports, and sustain the donor and fan interest that are the lifeblood of the athletic department.

Cal is not alone, their long-time rival Stanford finds itself in the same predicament.   And whilst the financial dynamics are different for the two schools, they are working in lockstep to preserve the future of their athletic departments.    It’s my understanding that there is robust communication and alignment of interest between soon-to-be retired Chancellor Christ and Stanford interim President Richard Saller.

Both schools have made joining the B10 the top priority with the ACC a less ideal lifeline.  The options beyond that are simply different takes that would best remind one of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal.  The overwhelming logic of the school's academic credentials, the opportunity to meaningfully mitigate the travel requirements for the other West Coast B10 members, and access to the Bay Area’s media markets which are rife with the alumni of the historic and future members of the B10.

The impediment is that FOX Sports does not believe the additional allocation of capital for Cal and Stanford is worth the value that they will bring.  Thus, they are not willing to offer anything even remotely in the neighborhood of what Oregon and UW have been committed.  Whilst one can argue that Cal and Stanford should be near-term immune to the financials given the chance that there will be no life raft of any value remaining, the reality is that simply being a member of the Big10 (or any conference) is not a sufficiency.  The B10 does not want wildly uncompetitive members, whilst the value of being a BCS school for Cal and Stanford becomes only optics and the dire consequences to athletic department revenue, fan, and donor interest remain.

As has been reported by ESPN and others, the ACC needs 12 of their current 15 schools to approve any new additions and currently, the Bay Area schools are one vote shy of meeting that requirement.  The ACC provides a potential bridge to the final evolution of BCS football yet in almost every other way imaginable is problematic.    No West Coast pod means travel requirements will be beyond onerous and highly expensive further reducing the value of the revenue stream they provide.

I’m told that one certainty in a situation where very little can be relied on is that regardless of the outcome of Cal’s conference affiliation, the school will be forced to reduce the number of sports it supports.  In my mind, this is a long overdue albeit painful measure needed to ensure the long-term viability of the athletic department.

As Chancellor Christ, AD Jim Knowlton, and their advisors burn up the phone and zoom lines between now and Friday, the fulcrum of their efforts will be focused on convincing the media experts who are currently unconvinced that Cal and Stanford will add significant revenue heft to their TV deals.  In my mind, those folks have short memories and limited imaginations.  To wit:

  • The commonly repeated narrative that Cal doesn’t invest in its football and basketball programs is stale news that no longer reflects reality.  This isn’t to say that the University has made the necessary commitments over the past dozen years, but rather that Cal’s donor base has bridged the gap such that Cal’s total football budget now finds itself in the top half of the Pac-12 of 2023 (inclusive of USC and UCLA).   That takes into account coaching salaries, the size, and salaries of the support staff, recruiting budgets, etc.
  • Cal’s NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal.   The proof is obvious given the success that both Men’s Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal
  • The changes above are recent and should start to show up in success on the football field and basketball court these upcoming seasons, reigniting the fan base and meaningfully changing the calculus of any TV viewership analysis
  • Only five short years ago, Stanford was a national power in football with regular appearances in the Rose Bowl.   Less than fifteen years ago, Jeff Tedford led Cal to a seven-year run of national prominence as the clear 2nd best program in the Pac-10 behind only Pete Carrol’s storied USC program.   And most importantly, Cal’s TV ratings and game attendance during that period were top-tier by any relative measure
  • Cal has one of the largest alumni bases in the country and one of the wealthiest.  The potential value of those eyeballs should not be lost on FOX or other media networks.  Stanford’s are even wealthier albeit it against a smaller and less engaged fan base
  • The Bay Area is the nation’s 7th largest media market and it’s home to hundred’s of thousands of alums of Ohio State, Virginia, Duke, Michigan, Northwestern, et al not to mention UCLA, USC, UW, and Oregon.  That’s an audience that is going to care about Stanford and Cal as they are their opponents and rivals within their conference.
  • Beyond the revenue sports, the ACC and B10 networks need shoulder content and the value of Cal and Stanford’s Olympic sports offerings is as good as any two schools in the nation.  Not to mention the media value and inclusion of the star-studded alums in the NFL, NBA, and MLB from the two schools
  • It’s an understandable concern from the networks and members of the ACC and B10 that Cal and Stanford’s administrations may not be as fully committed to their revenue sports as they would like.  However, the answer is as simple as asking the question.  The leaders at both schools now have the type of fulsome clarity which only the potential extinction of their current athletic departments can provide.   Christ and Saller can and should lay out for their potential partners how they plan to invest in football and basketball, not only to help them be relevant on the national stage but to effectively buttress the capital needed for their non-revenue sports.  As pointed out above, Cal can point to its near-term cutting of non-revenue sports as well as its passionate and deep-pocketed donor base as well as the historical embrace of a winning team by its fans to underscore their potential as part of their forward-looking plan

This next week is going to be a roller coaster ride that has no rails and one in which Cal does not control its own fate.   The hope is that the TV execs and potential new conference partners can think long-term and take the time to truly understand the value of having Cal as part of the future of College sports.

Discussion from...

Cal's Athletic Future - And what FOX Sports and others are missing

48,354 Views | 170 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by phyrux
89Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearsandgiants said:

Sebastabear said:

I'll admit I've kind of drifted away from Growls and pulling up these responses . . . yikes guys. BG wrote a compelling and factual piece. And yet people respond saying our transfer portal ranking stinks and our NIL is a failure? Most of our talent transferred out? Seriously? Are you guys even following the program?

This isn't about why we are where we are. To be honest where we are is in a world of trouble and we have no one but ourselves (well no one except ourselves and Larry Scott and we're kind of responsible for him too) to blame. The fact that the flagship university of the largest and wealthiest state in the union is on the outside looking in as realignment madness unfolds is ridiculous. We underinvested in our revenue sports (particularly football) for decades and then were shocked that we stunk . . . for decades. We did this. We should be an absolute no brainer for this round of consolidation. And the one that is going to follow in a few years. But instead we are basically fighting for a lifeline to prove that we are finally (FINALLY!) willing to embrace and understand how the game has changed and can participate in modern college athletics.

The sad part of this timing is that things really have changed as BG notes The certificate program allowing us to retain our grad students and attract other talented athletes who want a grad certificate is a game changer. That's only a couple years old. The Caliber fund (which started in earnest last year) and which is adding millions each and every year to our football budget is a game changer. Our nutrition program has been completely revised. We have one of the best and most well funded NIL's in the (old) Pac. We have added housing, parking, academic support, recruiting resources, social media personnel, etc., etc. All to make football more competitive. And unfortunately all coming just a bit too late to show the results on the field for this round of realignment.

We need Fox and the Big and ESPN and the ACC to look at what we've done to prove we are serious about creating a truly competitive program. Should we have to ask them to squint to see our potential? Shouldn't we have been doing all of this stuff years ago when it became obvious we were falling behind. Absolutely. But unfortunately we didn't until recently.

And yet we ultimately did make changes and have every reason to be optimistic those will bear fruit. We just need a break here. And if we still stink in 5 years? Well they can (and probably should) leave us out then when football realignment reaches its inevitable apotheosis. But today Cal deserves a shot. We are fighting to get that.


This is a great post and I'm sorry if my post was misunderstood. I think we'll be very good this year, but I don't think basing it on our transfer rating makes a ton of sense. It was great, but we brought in 20 and lost 26, plus everyone who graduated, and our incoming class has some great talent, but it's not a top rated freshman class. That's all I was trying to point out. In spite of this, which given how bad our seasons have been, we still have a great team poised to surprise this year.

https://247sports.com/season/2023-football/transferportal/



The 20 coming in, for the most part, are better than the players who left.
berserkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsineMaximus said:

6956bear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
zactly, it is all about the mulla and these prezs aren't letting go.


The rumors that the B1G are in strong support of adding Cal and Stanford mean that if the money is there to bring them in, then they will vote yes.

For the ACC, the money is there to add Cal and Stanford, but the vote isn't there because 4 schools don't want to dilute their vote when it comes time to break the GOR.

It's an important distinction. You need both money and the support of the various Presidents.
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berserkeley said:

UrsineMaximus said:

6956bear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
zactly, it is all about the mulla and these prezs aren't letting go.


The rumors that the B1G are in strong support of adding Cal and Stanford mean that if the money is there to bring them in, then they will vote yes.

For the ACC, the money is there to add Cal and Stanford, but the vote isn't there because 4 schools don't want to dilute their vote when it comes time to break the GOR.

It's an important distinction. You need both money and the support of the various Presidents.


But why is money an issue? Surely we would accept anywhere in the 5-20mm in the B1G as that is what we'd get in any other scenario? At least we remain a viable option for recruits. How can a deal not be made?

I get the snarky remark that you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for you but realistically what is fair value? Colorado and Arizona are making 31mm ... Cal has better viewership and brand than both. Is that the floor? Then getting Cal and Stanford at 10-20 should be a steal?
berserkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Econ141 said:

berserkeley said:

UrsineMaximus said:

6956bear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
zactly, it is all about the mulla and these prezs aren't letting go.


The rumors that the B1G are in strong support of adding Cal and Stanford mean that if the money is there to bring them in, then they will vote yes.

For the ACC, the money is there to add Cal and Stanford, but the vote isn't there because 4 schools don't want to dilute their vote when it comes time to break the GOR.

It's an important distinction. You need both money and the support of the various Presidents.


But why is money an issue? Surely we would accept anywhere in the 5-20mm in the B1G as that is what we'd get in any other scenario? At least we remain a viable option for recruits. How can a deal not be made?

I get the snarky remark that you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for you but realistically what is fair value? Colorado and Arizona are making 31mm ... Cal has better viewership and brand than both. Is that the floor? Then getting Cal and Stanford at 10-20 should be a steal?


It's not snarky. It's whatever Fox is willing to pay for Cal and Stanford. The B1G teams aren't going to give up a piece of their pie to add them. Maybe Fox is offering $0. Maybe Cal and Stanford are waiting to see the ACC offer first.

Luckily for Cal and Stanford, the there's no increased travel costs for the Midwest/East Coast schools (at least for football) when increasing from 4 to 6 West Coast teams.
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berserkeley said:

Econ141 said:

berserkeley said:

UrsineMaximus said:

6956bear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
zactly, it is all about the mulla and these prezs aren't letting go.


The rumors that the B1G are in strong support of adding Cal and Stanford mean that if the money is there to bring them in, then they will vote yes.

For the ACC, the money is there to add Cal and Stanford, but the vote isn't there because 4 schools don't want to dilute their vote when it comes time to break the GOR.

It's an important distinction. You need both money and the support of the various Presidents.


But why is money an issue? Surely we would accept anywhere in the 5-20mm in the B1G as that is what we'd get in any other scenario? At least we remain a viable option for recruits. How can a deal not be made?

I get the snarky remark that you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for you but realistically what is fair value? Colorado and Arizona are making 31mm ... Cal has better viewership and brand than both. Is that the floor? Then getting Cal and Stanford at 10-20 should be a steal?


It's not snarky. It's whatever Fox is willing to pay for Cal and Stanford. The B1G teams aren't going to give up a piece of their pie to add them. Maybe Fox is offering $0. Maybe Cal and Stanford are waiting to see the ACC offer first.

Luckily for Cal and Stanford, the there's no increased travel costs for the Midwest/East Coast schools (at least for football) when increasing from 4 to 6 West Coast teams.


If you look at similar schools - you should arrive at a fair value. Now ultimately you could get bought at a discount or premium to the benefit/detriment of the buyer. All I am asking is - what is the fair value. If we use comparables like U of A and Colorado, anything south of 32 million would be buying us at a discount.
BerkeleyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Let's assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford.

If we do assume that FOX is willing to pay only $10M/year for Cal and Stanford and that is a hard limit, there are probably several ways to obtain the rest of the funds required for Cal and Stanford to join the B10.

One potential way could be some variant of the following:

a) The 17 other B10 schools (not including UCLA) chip in an average of $300K/year each for Cal and Stanford (less than 1 percent of their annual FOX money), which would amount to $5M/year for Cal and Stanford.

b) Major Cal and Stanford donors come up with an additional $5M/year (if donors want Cal to continue to compete in football at the major conference level, they are likely going to have to foot some of the bill).

Those two items (a and b) would add $10M to Fox's $10M which would bring the total to $20M/year for Cal and Stanford.

And finally,

c) Initially, the remaining annual balance that Cal needs to have a viable program is made up from the U.C. Regents directing the appropriate amount of UCLA Fox money to Cal. Whereas, Stanford can potentially use a small portion of its available endowment funds to make up its remaining balance.

At this point when survival is at stake all efforts should be focused on trying to obtain a satisfactory resolution of the matter rather than spending a lot of time and effort assessing blame as to why we are where we are, which, of course, will not solve the problem at hand.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BerkeleyBear said:

Let's assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford.

If we do assume that FOX is willing to pay only $10M/year for Cal and Stanford and that is a hard limit, there are probably several ways to obtain the rest of the funds required for Cal and Stanford to join the B10.

One potential way could be some variant of the following:

a) The 17 other B10 schools (not including UCLA) chip in an average of $300K/year each for Cal and Stanford (less than 1 percent of their annual FOX money), which would amount to $5M/year for Cal and Stanford.

b) Major Cal and Stanford donors come up with an additional $5M/year (if donors want Cal to continue to compete in football at the major conference level, they are likely going to have to foot some of the bill).

Those two items (a and b) would add $10M to Fox's $10M which would bring the total to $20M/year for Cal and Stanford.

And finally,

c) Initially, the remaining annual balance that Cal needs to have a viable program is made up from the U.C. Regents directing the appropriate amount of UCLA Fox money to Cal. Whereas, Stanford can potentially use a small portion of its available endowment funds to make up its remaining balance.

At this point when survival is at stake all efforts should be focused on trying to obtain a satisfactory resolution of the matter rather than spending a lot of time and effort assessing blame as to why we are where we are, which, of course, will not solve the problem at hand.
Yup, and you come in with the promise of renegotiating a share of the next media contract, or some kind of ladder up to full share over time. I feel like the B1G would be amenable to that.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Econ141 said:

berserkeley said:

UrsineMaximus said:

6956bear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
zactly, it is all about the mulla and these prezs aren't letting go.


The rumors that the B1G are in strong support of adding Cal and Stanford mean that if the money is there to bring them in, then they will vote yes.

For the ACC, the money is there to add Cal and Stanford, but the vote isn't there because 4 schools don't want to dilute their vote when it comes time to break the GOR.

It's an important distinction. You need both money and the support of the various Presidents.


But why is money an issue? Surely we would accept anywhere in the 5-20mm in the B1G as that is what we'd get in any other scenario? At least we remain a viable option for recruits. How can a deal not be made?

I get the snarky remark that you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for you but realistically what is fair value? Colorado and Arizona are making 31mm ... Cal has better viewership and brand than both. Is that the floor? Then getting Cal and Stanford at 10-20 should be a steal?
it is not what we would accept, it is what the B1G Presidents think is sufficient to make Cal and Furd as viable opponents. This is not an unreasonable position. In fact, SMU's argument is that they have rich donors that are willing to make-up the money they won't get if you eliminate their media share for many years (SMU likely is not a viable candidate for other reasons). If I read between the lines, what Greg is saying is if Fox will provide $20 million, Cal and Furd can make up most of the difference from what other B1G schools are getting, in order to be competitive (this also means Cal and Furd likely are reducing the number of teams). The weirdness of this is schools like ASU and Colorado are getting $33 million a year to join the B12, yet they have weaker programs from a TV perspective than Cal and Furd. What is wrong with this picture? The answer seems to be Fox.

Red Coyote
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've heard that some conferences have charged an entrance fee. I've never heard of the B1G requiring this, but maybe they don't publicize it?
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Econ141 said:

berserkeley said:

UrsineMaximus said:

6956bear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
zactly, it is all about the mulla and these prezs aren't letting go.


The rumors that the B1G are in strong support of adding Cal and Stanford mean that if the money is there to bring them in, then they will vote yes.

For the ACC, the money is there to add Cal and Stanford, but the vote isn't there because 4 schools don't want to dilute their vote when it comes time to break the GOR.

It's an important distinction. You need both money and the support of the various Presidents.


But why is money an issue? Surely we would accept anywhere in the 5-20mm in the B1G as that is what we'd get in any other scenario? At least we remain a viable option for recruits. How can a deal not be made?

I get the snarky remark that you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for you but realistically what is fair value? Colorado and Arizona are making 31mm ... Cal has better viewership and brand than both. Is that the floor? Then getting Cal and Stanford at 10-20 should be a steal?
it is not what we would accept, it is what the B1G Presidents think is sufficient to make Cal and Furd as viable opponents. This is not an unreasonable position. In fact, SMU's argument is that they have rich donors that are willing to make-up the money they won't get if you eliminate their media share for many years (SMU likely is not a viable candidate for other reasons). If I read between the lines, what Greg is saying is if Fox will provide $20 million, Cal and Furd can make up most of the difference from what other B1G schools are getting, in order to be competitive (this also means Cal and Furd likely are reducing the number of teams). The weirdness of this is schools like ASU and Colorado are getting $33 million a year to join the B12, yet they have weaker programs from a TV perspective than Cal and Furd. What is wrong with this picture? The answer seems to be Fox.




It is exactly Fox.

ESPN will now pay for us. Notre Dame is an ally, the B1G presidents like us. A majority of the ACC likes us.

I wonder if the B1G can add a media partner? ESPN or Apple? Is their deal with Fox exclusive?

Can the B1G presidents vote to enter into a "scheduling agreement" with the PAC-4 without Fox's approval? The PAC-4 could then partner with ESPN and Apple and play as the defacto PAC-8 year to year for two years. With the B1G opposing any SEC motion to deny us a path to the CFP and P5 payout?

Maybe we take whatever crumbs Fox offers for B1G admission, with a path toward more, but the B1G presidents allow us to put the Olympic sports in the Big West for cost savings in the meantime?




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

Econ141 said:

berserkeley said:

UrsineMaximus said:

6956bear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
zactly, it is all about the mulla and these prezs aren't letting go.


The rumors that the B1G are in strong support of adding Cal and Stanford mean that if the money is there to bring them in, then they will vote yes.

For the ACC, the money is there to add Cal and Stanford, but the vote isn't there because 4 schools don't want to dilute their vote when it comes time to break the GOR.

It's an important distinction. You need both money and the support of the various Presidents.


But why is money an issue? Surely we would accept anywhere in the 5-20mm in the B1G as that is what we'd get in any other scenario? At least we remain a viable option for recruits. How can a deal not be made?

I get the snarky remark that you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for you but realistically what is fair value? Colorado and Arizona are making 31mm ... Cal has better viewership and brand than both. Is that the floor? Then getting Cal and Stanford at 10-20 should be a steal?
it is not what we would accept, it is what the B1G Presidents think is sufficient to make Cal and Furd as viable opponents. This is not an unreasonable position. In fact, SMU's argument is that they have rich donors that are willing to make-up the money they won't get if you eliminate their media share for many years (SMU likely is not a viable candidate for other reasons). If I read between the lines, what Greg is saying is if Fox will provide $20 million, Cal and Furd can make up most of the difference from what other B1G schools are getting, in order to be competitive (this also means Cal and Furd likely are reducing the number of teams). The weirdness of this is schools like ASU and Colorado are getting $33 million a year to join the B12, yet they have weaker programs from a TV perspective than Cal and Furd. What is wrong with this picture? The answer seems to be Fox.



Yes, Fox seems to have done some kind of calculation that Cal and Stanford are not worth bringing in for the money they would have to pay out. This seems like a very short-term calculation but it's clearly there.

Given that the Bay Area schools want in and the current B1G presidents would like to have them, how do they work this out financially? Fox can't be the be-all end-all.
berserkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

wifeisafurd said:

Econ141 said:

berserkeley said:

UrsineMaximus said:

6956bear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
zactly, it is all about the mulla and these prezs aren't letting go.


The rumors that the B1G are in strong support of adding Cal and Stanford mean that if the money is there to bring them in, then they will vote yes.

For the ACC, the money is there to add Cal and Stanford, but the vote isn't there because 4 schools don't want to dilute their vote when it comes time to break the GOR.

It's an important distinction. You need both money and the support of the various Presidents.


But why is money an issue? Surely we would accept anywhere in the 5-20mm in the B1G as that is what we'd get in any other scenario? At least we remain a viable option for recruits. How can a deal not be made?

I get the snarky remark that you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for you but realistically what is fair value? Colorado and Arizona are making 31mm ... Cal has better viewership and brand than both. Is that the floor? Then getting Cal and Stanford at 10-20 should be a steal?
it is not what we would accept, it is what the B1G Presidents think is sufficient to make Cal and Furd as viable opponents. This is not an unreasonable position. In fact, SMU's argument is that they have rich donors that are willing to make-up the money they won't get if you eliminate their media share for many years (SMU likely is not a viable candidate for other reasons). If I read between the lines, what Greg is saying is if Fox will provide $20 million, Cal and Furd can make up most of the difference from what other B1G schools are getting, in order to be competitive (this also means Cal and Furd likely are reducing the number of teams). The weirdness of this is schools like ASU and Colorado are getting $33 million a year to join the B12, yet they have weaker programs from a TV perspective than Cal and Furd. What is wrong with this picture? The answer seems to be Fox.



Yes, Fox seems to have done some kind of calculation that Cal and Stanford are not worth bringing in for the money they would have to pay out. This seems like a very short-term calculation but it's clearly there.

Given that the Bay Area schools want in and the current B1G presidents would like to have them, how do they work this out financially? Fox can't be the be-all end-all.


My guess is Fox is looking at what Cal and Stanford are worth for the next 6 years and not what Cal and Stanford are worth for the next 100 years. The B1G is looking at what Cal and Stanford are worth for the next 100 years.

Unfortunately, Cal and Stanford don't look like good short term investments at this precise moment.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

wifeisafurd said:

Econ141 said:

berserkeley said:

UrsineMaximus said:

6956bear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
zactly, it is all about the mulla and these prezs aren't letting go.


The rumors that the B1G are in strong support of adding Cal and Stanford mean that if the money is there to bring them in, then they will vote yes.

For the ACC, the money is there to add Cal and Stanford, but the vote isn't there because 4 schools don't want to dilute their vote when it comes time to break the GOR.

It's an important distinction. You need both money and the support of the various Presidents.


But why is money an issue? Surely we would accept anywhere in the 5-20mm in the B1G as that is what we'd get in any other scenario? At least we remain a viable option for recruits. How can a deal not be made?

I get the snarky remark that you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for you but realistically what is fair value? Colorado and Arizona are making 31mm ... Cal has better viewership and brand than both. Is that the floor? Then getting Cal and Stanford at 10-20 should be a steal?
it is not what we would accept, it is what the B1G Presidents think is sufficient to make Cal and Furd as viable opponents. This is not an unreasonable position. In fact, SMU's argument is that they have rich donors that are willing to make-up the money they won't get if you eliminate their media share for many years (SMU likely is not a viable candidate for other reasons). If I read between the lines, what Greg is saying is if Fox will provide $20 million, Cal and Furd can make up most of the difference from what other B1G schools are getting, in order to be competitive (this also means Cal and Furd likely are reducing the number of teams). The weirdness of this is schools like ASU and Colorado are getting $33 million a year to join the B12, yet they have weaker programs from a TV perspective than Cal and Furd. What is wrong with this picture? The answer seems to be Fox.



Yes, Fox seems to have done some kind of calculation that Cal and Stanford are not worth bringing in for the money they would have to pay out. This seems like a very short-term calculation but it's clearly there.

Given that the Bay Area schools want in and the current B1G presidents would like to have them, how do they work this out financially? Fox can't be the be-all end-all.


Fox thinks we are worthless in the B1G but Arizona is worth $33 million in the B-12? I'd sure like to see those calculations.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

sycasey said:

wifeisafurd said:

Econ141 said:

berserkeley said:

UrsineMaximus said:

6956bear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
zactly, it is all about the mulla and these prezs aren't letting go.


The rumors that the B1G are in strong support of adding Cal and Stanford mean that if the money is there to bring them in, then they will vote yes.

For the ACC, the money is there to add Cal and Stanford, but the vote isn't there because 4 schools don't want to dilute their vote when it comes time to break the GOR.

It's an important distinction. You need both money and the support of the various Presidents.


But why is money an issue? Surely we would accept anywhere in the 5-20mm in the B1G as that is what we'd get in any other scenario? At least we remain a viable option for recruits. How can a deal not be made?

I get the snarky remark that you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for you but realistically what is fair value? Colorado and Arizona are making 31mm ... Cal has better viewership and brand than both. Is that the floor? Then getting Cal and Stanford at 10-20 should be a steal?
it is not what we would accept, it is what the B1G Presidents think is sufficient to make Cal and Furd as viable opponents. This is not an unreasonable position. In fact, SMU's argument is that they have rich donors that are willing to make-up the money they won't get if you eliminate their media share for many years (SMU likely is not a viable candidate for other reasons). If I read between the lines, what Greg is saying is if Fox will provide $20 million, Cal and Furd can make up most of the difference from what other B1G schools are getting, in order to be competitive (this also means Cal and Furd likely are reducing the number of teams). The weirdness of this is schools like ASU and Colorado are getting $33 million a year to join the B12, yet they have weaker programs from a TV perspective than Cal and Furd. What is wrong with this picture? The answer seems to be Fox.



Yes, Fox seems to have done some kind of calculation that Cal and Stanford are not worth bringing in for the money they would have to pay out. This seems like a very short-term calculation but it's clearly there.

Given that the Bay Area schools want in and the current B1G presidents would like to have them, how do they work this out financially? Fox can't be the be-all end-all.


Fox thinks we are worthless in the B1G but Arizona is worth $33 million in the B-12? I'd sure like to see those calculations.

ESPN is paying the B12, not Fox. But yeah, it's a weird situation.
sosheezy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calumnus said:

sycasey said:

wifeisafurd said:

Econ141 said:

berserkeley said:

UrsineMaximus said:

6956bear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
zactly, it is all about the mulla and these prezs aren't letting go.


The rumors that the B1G are in strong support of adding Cal and Stanford mean that if the money is there to bring them in, then they will vote yes.

For the ACC, the money is there to add Cal and Stanford, but the vote isn't there because 4 schools don't want to dilute their vote when it comes time to break the GOR.

It's an important distinction. You need both money and the support of the various Presidents.


But why is money an issue? Surely we would accept anywhere in the 5-20mm in the B1G as that is what we'd get in any other scenario? At least we remain a viable option for recruits. How can a deal not be made?

I get the snarky remark that you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for you but realistically what is fair value? Colorado and Arizona are making 31mm ... Cal has better viewership and brand than both. Is that the floor? Then getting Cal and Stanford at 10-20 should be a steal?
it is not what we would accept, it is what the B1G Presidents think is sufficient to make Cal and Furd as viable opponents. This is not an unreasonable position. In fact, SMU's argument is that they have rich donors that are willing to make-up the money they won't get if you eliminate their media share for many years (SMU likely is not a viable candidate for other reasons). If I read between the lines, what Greg is saying is if Fox will provide $20 million, Cal and Furd can make up most of the difference from what other B1G schools are getting, in order to be competitive (this also means Cal and Furd likely are reducing the number of teams). The weirdness of this is schools like ASU and Colorado are getting $33 million a year to join the B12, yet they have weaker programs from a TV perspective than Cal and Furd. What is wrong with this picture? The answer seems to be Fox.



Yes, Fox seems to have done some kind of calculation that Cal and Stanford are not worth bringing in for the money they would have to pay out. This seems like a very short-term calculation but it's clearly there.

Given that the Bay Area schools want in and the current B1G presidents would like to have them, how do they work this out financially? Fox can't be the be-all end-all.


Fox thinks we are worthless in the B1G but Arizona is worth $33 million in the B-12? I'd sure like to see those calculations.

ESPN is paying the B12, not Fox. But yeah, it's a weird situation.

Fox has something like 35-40% of the Big12 deal, espn the rest. And they did approve pro-rata to P5 additions when Yormark renegotiated last fall - which at the time could pretty much only mean poaching Pac12 schools and specifically always suspected to be the 4 corners.
MilleniaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How about Stanford and Cal join the Big10 for the next 6 years but with our own media contract? Like selling Cal & Furd media rights to Apple? Thats no skin off Fox's nose and Apple might like the toe hold in CFB.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MilleniaBear said:

How about Stanford and Cal join the Big10 for the next 6 years but with our own media contract? Like selling Cal & Furd media rights to Apple? Thats no skin off Fox's nose and Apple might like the toe hold in CFB.


Football only for additional savings.

If we retain rights to our home games ESPN could easily be a buyer, they now need games to replace PAC-12 After Dark.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sosheezy said:

sycasey said:

calumnus said:

sycasey said:

wifeisafurd said:

Econ141 said:

berserkeley said:

UrsineMaximus said:

6956bear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
zactly, it is all about the mulla and these prezs aren't letting go.


The rumors that the B1G are in strong support of adding Cal and Stanford mean that if the money is there to bring them in, then they will vote yes.

For the ACC, the money is there to add Cal and Stanford, but the vote isn't there because 4 schools don't want to dilute their vote when it comes time to break the GOR.

It's an important distinction. You need both money and the support of the various Presidents.


But why is money an issue? Surely we would accept anywhere in the 5-20mm in the B1G as that is what we'd get in any other scenario? At least we remain a viable option for recruits. How can a deal not be made?

I get the snarky remark that you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for you but realistically what is fair value? Colorado and Arizona are making 31mm ... Cal has better viewership and brand than both. Is that the floor? Then getting Cal and Stanford at 10-20 should be a steal?
it is not what we would accept, it is what the B1G Presidents think is sufficient to make Cal and Furd as viable opponents. This is not an unreasonable position. In fact, SMU's argument is that they have rich donors that are willing to make-up the money they won't get if you eliminate their media share for many years (SMU likely is not a viable candidate for other reasons). If I read between the lines, what Greg is saying is if Fox will provide $20 million, Cal and Furd can make up most of the difference from what other B1G schools are getting, in order to be competitive (this also means Cal and Furd likely are reducing the number of teams). The weirdness of this is schools like ASU and Colorado are getting $33 million a year to join the B12, yet they have weaker programs from a TV perspective than Cal and Furd. What is wrong with this picture? The answer seems to be Fox.



Yes, Fox seems to have done some kind of calculation that Cal and Stanford are not worth bringing in for the money they would have to pay out. This seems like a very short-term calculation but it's clearly there.

Given that the Bay Area schools want in and the current B1G presidents would like to have them, how do they work this out financially? Fox can't be the be-all end-all.


Fox thinks we are worthless in the B1G but Arizona is worth $33 million in the B-12? I'd sure like to see those calculations.

ESPN is paying the B12, not Fox. But yeah, it's a weird situation.

Fox has something like 35-40% of the Big12 deal, espn the rest. And they did approve pro-rata to P5 additions when Yormark renegotiated last fall - which at the time could pretty much only mean poaching Pac12 schools and specifically always suspected to be the 4 corners.



Yeah Fox and ESPN share the Big-12 and work together which is why their actions to arm the B-12 with 4 expansion slots worth more than either were offering the PAC-10 as a whole is likely actionable. ESPN appears to realize this and is working to find us a home in the ACC. Fox's parent appears to like losing big money in litigation.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MilleniaBear said:

How about Stanford and Cal join the Big10 for the next 6 years but with our own media contract? Like selling Cal & Furd media rights to Apple? Thats no skin off Fox's nose and Apple might like the toe hold in CFB.

I wonder if they'd go for that. I do think Stanford and Cal need to explore this option, working with Apple to see what they'd put up to have them play a full B1G slate and show the games. Might close the gap.
sosheezy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

MilleniaBear said:

How about Stanford and Cal join the Big10 for the next 6 years but with our own media contract? Like selling Cal & Furd media rights to Apple? Thats no skin off Fox's nose and Apple might like the toe hold in CFB.

I wonder if they'd go for that. I do think Stanford and Cal need to explore this option, working with Apple to see what they'd put up to have them play a full B1G slate and show the games. Might close the gap.

Fox owns a controlling interest in the Big Ten Network (de facto controls the Big Ten media rights). They are essentially sub licensing a package to nbc and cbs. Many reasons why they would NOT want to let espn back in to the late night west coast time slot or let Apple in altogether
LunchTime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think the honest question that the admin has to answer for is: what is the runway we can give UC Berkeley and Cal football and basketball to turn around decades of hostile management.

Every potential deal on the table would give us a significantly larger shortfall, while potentially putting us in a more competitive environment.

So let's say the B1G gets Fox to allow us in. How long does Cal give Cal football and UC Berkeley to get fans interested in the product? How much is Cal willing to invest to turn it around, knowing we are already the most heavily indebted AD in the country.

Going B1G is just a place to be to execute a plan. But they aren't even talking about a plan to improve game experience, to win, to get broader consistent alumni engagement, to get people to watch.

If this article, about a diamond in the rough opportunity, is accurate, who is the Smith cutting and polishing the stone, and how long do they get to finish their work?
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

Econ141 said:

berserkeley said:

UrsineMaximus said:

6956bear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
zactly, it is all about the mulla and these prezs aren't letting go.


The rumors that the B1G are in strong support of adding Cal and Stanford mean that if the money is there to bring them in, then they will vote yes.

For the ACC, the money is there to add Cal and Stanford, but the vote isn't there because 4 schools don't want to dilute their vote when it comes time to break the GOR.

It's an important distinction. You need both money and the support of the various Presidents.


But why is money an issue? Surely we would accept anywhere in the 5-20mm in the B1G as that is what we'd get in any other scenario? At least we remain a viable option for recruits. How can a deal not be made?

I get the snarky remark that you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for you but realistically what is fair value? Colorado and Arizona are making 31mm ... Cal has better viewership and brand than both. Is that the floor? Then getting Cal and Stanford at 10-20 should be a steal?
it is not what we would accept, it is what the B1G Presidents think is sufficient to make Cal and Furd as viable opponents. This is not an unreasonable position. In fact, SMU's argument is that they have rich donors that are willing to make-up the money they won't get if you eliminate their media share for many years (SMU likely is not a viable candidate for other reasons). If I read between the lines, what Greg is saying is if Fox will provide $20 million, Cal and Furd can make up most of the difference from what other B1G schools are getting, in order to be competitive (this also means Cal and Furd likely are reducing the number of teams). The weirdness of this is schools like ASU and Colorado are getting $33 million a year to join the B12, yet they have weaker programs from a TV perspective than Cal and Furd. What is wrong with this picture? The answer seems to be Fox.




It is exactly Fox.

ESPN will now pay for us. Notre Dame is an ally, the B1G presidents like us. A majority of the ACC likes us.

I wonder if the B1G can add a media partner? ESPN or Apple? Is their deal with Fox exclusive?

Can the B1G presidents vote to enter into a "scheduling agreement" with the PAC-4 without Fox's approval? The PAC-4 could then partner with ESPN and Apple and play as the defacto PAC-8 year to year for two years. With the B1G opposing any SEC motion to deny us a path to the CFP and P5 payout?

Maybe we take whatever crumbs Fox offers for B1G admission, with a path toward more, but the B1G presidents allow us to put the Olympic sports in the Big West for cost savings in the meantime?






The post above and others are suggesting that ESPN "will pay for Cal" but Fox won't. That ESPN sees value where Fox does not.

So I have a question or two . . . the reports I've read suggest that the ESPN agreement with the ACC requires ESPN to contribute an additional share if the ACC expands - regardless of what school is admitted as a new member. I believe the share is around $33M.

If that's correct (I'm not sure it is, but that is how I've interpreted the very vague reports), then it isn't really a question of ESPN valuing Cal - they have no choice.

And this aligns with the notion that Cal would be admitted to the ACC and get less than $33M, with the excess going to other schools. It is basically a gambit by the conference to increase the existing members' take (or at least offset the increased travel costs). If ESPN valued Cal, then Cal would not have to take a haircut.
PappysBoy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If Fox wants FSU and Clemson, seems like the smart move would be for them to make some eyes at Cal and Stanford and then wait for Clemson and FSU to pay out their exit fees and jump. It would be particularly cruel.
PappysBoy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:


The thing is that Cal and Stanford's TV viewership isn't even that bad. As has been noted, even in a year when both teams stunk we were still in the middle of the pack among P5 football teams. We'd be above average in the ACC. The refusal to look beyond very recent history is befuddling.
What's nearly as befuddling is the disinterest and unwillingness to get in front of the narrative publicly. You can't just make the case behind closed doors. They should be fighting back on public perception. But we just get crickets.
berserkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MilleniaBear said:

How about Stanford and Cal join the Big10 for the next 6 years but with our own media contract? Like selling Cal & Furd media rights to Apple? Thats no skin off Fox's nose and Apple might like the toe hold in CFB.


I have no idea how these things work, but I have to imagine that Fox/NBC/CBS would have a serious problem if Michigan or Ohio Stare played a conference game at Cal or Stanford and someone else had the rights to game. Those three paid for the rights to Ohio State and Michigan conference games regardless of home or away.

I would assume any new media partner could only acquire the rights to the last pick of games, i.e. the pick would be based on selection order not which team. Even then, Fox may have a problem becauee they'd argue it dilutes their Big Ten Network content.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

Econ141 said:

berserkeley said:

UrsineMaximus said:

6956bear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
zactly, it is all about the mulla and these prezs aren't letting go.


The rumors that the B1G are in strong support of adding Cal and Stanford mean that if the money is there to bring them in, then they will vote yes.

For the ACC, the money is there to add Cal and Stanford, but the vote isn't there because 4 schools don't want to dilute their vote when it comes time to break the GOR.

It's an important distinction. You need both money and the support of the various Presidents.


But why is money an issue? Surely we would accept anywhere in the 5-20mm in the B1G as that is what we'd get in any other scenario? At least we remain a viable option for recruits. How can a deal not be made?

I get the snarky remark that you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for you but realistically what is fair value? Colorado and Arizona are making 31mm ... Cal has better viewership and brand than both. Is that the floor? Then getting Cal and Stanford at 10-20 should be a steal?
it is not what we would accept, it is what the B1G Presidents think is sufficient to make Cal and Furd as viable opponents. This is not an unreasonable position. In fact, SMU's argument is that they have rich donors that are willing to make-up the money they won't get if you eliminate their media share for many years (SMU likely is not a viable candidate for other reasons). If I read between the lines, what Greg is saying is if Fox will provide $20 million, Cal and Furd can make up most of the difference from what other B1G schools are getting, in order to be competitive (this also means Cal and Furd likely are reducing the number of teams). The weirdness of this is schools like ASU and Colorado are getting $33 million a year to join the B12, yet they have weaker programs from a TV perspective than Cal and Furd. What is wrong with this picture? The answer seems to be Fox.




It is exactly Fox.

ESPN will now pay for us. Notre Dame is an ally, the B1G presidents like us. A majority of the ACC likes us.

I wonder if the B1G can add a media partner? ESPN or Apple? Is their deal with Fox exclusive?

Can the B1G presidents vote to enter into a "scheduling agreement" with the PAC-4 without Fox's approval? The PAC-4 could then partner with ESPN and Apple and play as the defacto PAC-8 year to year for two years. With the B1G opposing any SEC motion to deny us a path to the CFP and P5 payout?

Maybe we take whatever crumbs Fox offers for B1G admission, with a path toward more, but the B1G presidents allow us to put the Olympic sports in the Big West for cost savings in the meantime?






The post above and others are suggesting that ESPN "will pay for Cal" but Fox won't. That ESPN sees value where Fox does not.

So I have a question or two . . . the reports I've read suggest that the ESPN agreement with the ACC requires ESPN to contribute an additional share if the ACC expands - regardless of what school is admitted as a new member. I believe the share is around $33M.

If that's correct (I'm not sure it is, but that is how I've interpreted the very vague reports), then it isn't really a question of ESPN valuing Cal - they have no choice.

And this aligns with the notion that Cal would be admitted to the ACC and get less than $33M, with the excess going to other schools. It is basically a gambit by the conference to increase the existing members' take (or at least offset the increased travel costs). If ESPN valued Cal, then Cal would not have to take a haircut.


Except In order to encourage the ACC to take Cal and Stanford triggering that $33 million per school payout from ESPN, ESPN was reportedly willing to ALSO pay travel expenses. That means they value Cal and Stanford MORE than $33 million per school.

The fact the ACC would take a big cut from our payout share to pay off malcontents has nothing to do with ESPN's valuation of Cal and Stanford.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berserkeley said:

MilleniaBear said:

How about Stanford and Cal join the Big10 for the next 6 years but with our own media contract? Like selling Cal & Furd media rights to Apple? Thats no skin off Fox's nose and Apple might like the toe hold in CFB.


I have no idea how these things work, but I have to imagine that Fox/NBC/CBS would have a serious problem if Michigan or Ohio Stare played a conference game at Cal or Stanford and someone else had the rights to game. Those three paid for the rights to Ohio State and Michigan conference games regardless of home or away.

I would assume any new media partner could only acquire the rights to the last pick of games, i.e. the pick would be based on selection order not which team. Even then, Fox may have a problem becauee they'd argue it dilutes their Big Ten Network content.


We would need to know the B1G contract with Fox. It also depends on how willing the B1G presidents are to play hardball with Fox to bring us in at a fair valuation or piss them off with us coming in under a separate contract.
BarcaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BearGreg said:

StarsDoMatter said:

"Cal's NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal. The proof is obvious given the success that both Men's Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal"

You have to be kidding?!

Our transfer portal "success" is mediocre at best. Recruiting might the worst it's ever been.

We need to be honest with ourselves.
247 ranked Cal's Tranfer Class in 2023 15th nationally
On3 ranked the same transfer football clas 24th nationally

In basketball, On3 ranked Cal's basketball class 7th in the country
247 ranked the class 18th in the country


And yet the media picked Cal to finish near the bottom of the PAC-12 and most betting sites have us missing a bowl game yet again. When you look at what Cal has done in a vacuum, it seems like progress, but not when you take our competition into consideration.

Bottom line, the conferences and media companies have done the math and determined Cal adds little to no value.
you're flat out confusing two completely separate entities. media and college presidents.

Entity 1: corporate media have done the math and know that the Bay Area is the #10 media market. UCLA and USC have ZERO pull in this area for media. no media company would be facepalmingly dunderheaded enough to leave out the #10 media market (which btw, in times of economic duress, that media market becomes a strong factor in societal cohesion, relevant insofar as the region clings more to entertainment during hard times, and those hard times are coming). there is a reason they are not pushing harder for it.

Entity 2: college presidents are trying to hoard as much of the wealth as possible, because they are converting universities into businesses. those college presidents are the ones giving the heisman stiff arm to whatever colleges they can. the giants of college football have been whining about sharing money with mid to low level schools for decades. this finally allows them to shift the distribution of money in a way that reflects their belief that they should keep it all and give scraps to everyone else that they can.

do you honestly think a mediocre Arizona (media market #71, population of 550k) and Arizona St. (media market #12, population 1.8 million) is better than Cal and Stanford in a media market #10, population of 7.8 million people? you didn't do the math, but entertainment companies have.

companies can do the math. college presidents can, too. the reason for keeping Cal and Stanford out has different reasons. if the Conferences were genuinely trying to get Cal and Stanford in, then the argument is self explanatory, all media companies can do the math, and we would already be in a different conference.

but...at this point, the media companies aren't forcing the conferences because they see the opportunity of hiding behind college presidents in order to low ball the price for the Bay Area media market and get it for pennies on the dollar. except for FOX, and their ulterior motive.

*i have said elsewhere that Cal is fighting a weird rightwing paranoia about being a communist haven when the university has never ever even remotely been leftist. Its uneducated alumns in the South and Midwest and East Coast who don't realize that California banned affirmative action almost 30 years ago. So, when folks bring up that FOX chopped off the B1G balls, that is literally why. Someone posted the Clemson forums and more than half of the gibberish in that forum is that rightwing delusional fantasy about Cal being a fountain of revolutionary antifa. FOX is literally trying to smash Cal, and oddly enough, Stanford is getting smacked for it as well, and all because a bunch of non-student hippies swarmed Cal's campus in the 60's leading to Reagan having tear gas dropped on their heads. Cal is not leftist, but we are intellectual snobs. i don't think the snobs is why we get slammed by schools on the other side of the country.




Won't comment on all the conspiracy theories being thrown around here, however I question the argument about the Bay Area media market. Yes, it's the number ten media market but that doesn't translate into people actually watching and paying attention to Cal and Stanford games. The viewership isn't reflective of the size of the market. As for the Colorado and Arizona schools, my assumption is their respective leadership was much more aggressive in seeking a path out of the PAC-12 and they may be viewed as more likely to support and build respectable programs going forward with the increase in media revenue. Small markets with higher potential essentially.
nothing conspiratorial at all. this is data that is out there. multiple published sources have cited all this in one way or another. You have high hopes for what Colorado and Arizona schools can pull, i think them being brought into the B12 was more about cheaply bringing in schools that could boost them without increasing costs of travel. the TV model doesn't bode well for them.

you do bring up something I have spoken about elsewhere. TV viewership.
this isn't the Midwest or the South, the number of people watching TV is plummeting, Keep in mind this is California, not the rest of the country, and the following data is national, our percentages skew even lower.

Who follows the archaic (not meant as an insult) model of watching sports? it's basically the Boomer generation, like 50% watch cable TV. Gen X mirrors that with folks over 50, but those below that start breaking dramatically with that archaic model upon which all these contracts are built.

Between 19-25% of Millenials and Gen Z watch cable TV, rest are streaming. Younger they get the less cable TV they watch. I'm on the younger part of Gen X and since graduating I know almost nobody that watches sports using Cable TV. They don't subscribe. Younger folks stream. Not only do we stream, but almost nobody pays for subscriptions. It's folks using VPN's or TOR browser to stream illegally. Hate to break it to y'all, but that is the reality for sports moving forward. They haven't figured out a revenue model to offset this.

There is no brand allegiance, no morality notions that will ever break this trend. I think this is particular to East Coast and West Coast, for now, where youth demographics and tech knowledge reigns supreme. FOX, NBC, CBS are massively overpaying, because I said earlier, those percentages are national percentages.

Apple knows this, and this is the analytics behind why Apple came in with a very realistic offer of market value at around 20 million. Disney also knows this which is why ESPN isn't putting up FOX money. LA has the same problem. ignoring the joke of Neilsen ratings and turning to Adobe analytics...the Arizona schools and Colorado are a embarrasingly bad and make ZERO sense. Calford both average 850k per week, double that of the Arizona schools and triple that of Colorado. USC (2 million per week), UCLA (1.59 million)

USC will get the turnout for Buck Eyes, but empty stadiums for Minnesota, Rutgers, and Maryland... why? because the NFL finally returned to LA, and that means the non-alumn fair weather fans dropped them and went to the Rams, and for Raiders fans being in Las Vegas is better than Oakland, so they are setting aside their money for Vegas trips. LA market has same youth issues as we do. None of this is unknown by the media execs, and if it is, then they have serious issues of incompetence.

What are the reasons that people speculate for why FOX won't let the B1G add Calford?

If they know this data then they massively overpaid for the LA market, and it doesn't really make sense over the next decade, but with the current situation FOX could get the #10 market on the cheap. and we can boost numbers quickly in ways that LA really can't. refer to others pointing out that Bay Area lost two pro sports teams. Calford have been having middling years and our Adobe analytics for TV show it, which means we get significant boosts if we play the majority of the B1G teams.

The only ACC teams with better numbers than Calford are? Clemson, Notre Dame, FSU, and NC State. UNC is right between Cal (857k) and Stanford (847). the rest are below us. Washington State, btw, averages 907k.

so... why would FOX, given the data, go after NC State and UNC, after they get Clemson and FSU to join the Big 10, but not Cal and Stanford? We have way better potential for ratings increases than either UNC or NC State. so...either multiple sources are lying and FOX doesn't have ulterior motives, or...you are wrong? The data all points to that you are flat out wrong.





So Fox sports has a political agenda against Cal, that's the gist of your argument?
are you not paying attention?
your lack of argumentation concedes all points, otherwise your argument is that Fox is incompetent and can't do basic math. lol

NC State, Clemson, Notre Dame, and FSU are the ONLY ACC schools better than Cal's media numbers. They all have (rumored) gaurantees to join B1G.

Those schools can't really increase significantly in viewership because they live in football country. and none of them really need to increase in numbers. Cal's numbers point to the potential for significant growth, to the numbers we had during the Marshawn, DeSean years. That gives us a lot of upside. and FOX can get us on the cheap right now. and they aren't. so you are obviously struggling with the math as much as you imply Fox is.
BarcaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shocky1 said:

yes, a longtime & highly respected golf friend of mine who belongs to chicago golf club (115 members, the top club in the midwest) & has served as a northwestern trustee directly told me that knowlton lied about receiving an offer, apparently once the con artist got the $1,300,000+ salary extension thru 2029 from christ he removed his name from consideration from the nw process which wuz not necessary because he wuzn't gonna get hired anyways
is this not grounds for some sort of dismissal? if someone essentially conned everyone in the hiring process?
also, how come nobody spotted this at Cal and yelled for him to not be hired?
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BarcaBear said:

Shocky1 said:

yes, a longtime & highly respected golf friend of mine who belongs to chicago golf club (115 members, the top club in the midwest) & has served as a northwestern trustee directly told me that knowlton lied about receiving an offer, apparently once the con artist got the $1,300,000+ salary extension thru 2029 from christ he removed his name from consideration from the nw process which wuz not necessary because he wuzn't gonna get hired anyways
is this not grounds for some sort of dismissal? if someone essentially conned everyone in the hiring process?
also, how come nobody spotted this at Cal and yelled for him to not be hired?


It was the pretext he used to get an 8 year contract extension from Christ after already showing he was a horrible fit and an incompetent AD.

He was exactly the worst person to lead Cal through this critical time in the history of college athletics.
MTbear22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

sosheezy said:

sycasey said:

calumnus said:

sycasey said:

wifeisafurd said:

Econ141 said:

berserkeley said:

UrsineMaximus said:

6956bear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

"According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal."

If true, these presidents could back that up with $$$$. They could take less share, per school, to get Cal and 'furd in. If and when they put their money where their mouth is I will consider this a rumor. Perhasp 3 - 4 B!0 presidents want it but ALL?? Doubt it. Otherwise this would be a done deal regardless of Fox.
Lets assume Fox is in for $10M per year for Cal and Stanford. Would the remaining schools give up as little as $1M per year to get these teams in? My guess is no.

It is easy to say you are in strong support until it comes time to part with even a small slice of your pie. Do the 4 joining P12 schools even have a vote for now? We have heard over and over that a 6 team western pod is part of the B1G master plan. That may be, but is Fox willing to subsidize that?

If I am running Fox I would say we are in for $10M. How badly do you B1G presidents want to invite Cal and Stanford?
zactly, it is all about the mulla and these prezs aren't letting go.


The rumors that the B1G are in strong support of adding Cal and Stanford mean that if the money is there to bring them in, then they will vote yes.

For the ACC, the money is there to add Cal and Stanford, but the vote isn't there because 4 schools don't want to dilute their vote when it comes time to break the GOR.

It's an important distinction. You need both money and the support of the various Presidents.


But why is money an issue? Surely we would accept anywhere in the 5-20mm in the B1G as that is what we'd get in any other scenario? At least we remain a viable option for recruits. How can a deal not be made?

I get the snarky remark that you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for you but realistically what is fair value? Colorado and Arizona are making 31mm ... Cal has better viewership and brand than both. Is that the floor? Then getting Cal and Stanford at 10-20 should be a steal?
it is not what we would accept, it is what the B1G Presidents think is sufficient to make Cal and Furd as viable opponents. This is not an unreasonable position. In fact, SMU's argument is that they have rich donors that are willing to make-up the money they won't get if you eliminate their media share for many years (SMU likely is not a viable candidate for other reasons). If I read between the lines, what Greg is saying is if Fox will provide $20 million, Cal and Furd can make up most of the difference from what other B1G schools are getting, in order to be competitive (this also means Cal and Furd likely are reducing the number of teams). The weirdness of this is schools like ASU and Colorado are getting $33 million a year to join the B12, yet they have weaker programs from a TV perspective than Cal and Furd. What is wrong with this picture? The answer seems to be Fox.



Yes, Fox seems to have done some kind of calculation that Cal and Stanford are not worth bringing in for the money they would have to pay out. This seems like a very short-term calculation but it's clearly there.

Given that the Bay Area schools want in and the current B1G presidents would like to have them, how do they work this out financially? Fox can't be the be-all end-all.


Fox thinks we are worthless in the B1G but Arizona is worth $33 million in the B-12? I'd sure like to see those calculations.

ESPN is paying the B12, not Fox. But yeah, it's a weird situation.

Fox has something like 35-40% of the Big12 deal, espn the rest. And they did approve pro-rata to P5 additions when Yormark renegotiated last fall - which at the time could pretty much only mean poaching Pac12 schools and specifically always suspected to be the 4 corners.



Yeah Fox and ESPN share the Big-12 and work together which is why their actions to arm the B-12 with 4 expansion slots worth more than either were offering the PAC-10 as a whole is likely actionable. ESPN appears to realize this and is working to find us a home in the ACC. Fox's parent appears to like losing big money in litigation.
ESPN offered the PAC essentially what the Big XII would later accept. The PAC said no. To say that ESPN/ Fox is paying the Big XII more is a major stretch - they offered the PAC 30 per school, and the Big XII is paying an average over their contract of 31.7 (less to start). Had the PAC come to the negotiating table with anything remotely realistic, they could have negotiated those terms upwards by 1.7 mil or more and been equal to, or higher than, the Big XII contract. Instead, the PAC came to the negotiating table with an insanely unrealistic self-valuation. So ESPN made a better business decision, to invest in the Big XII. Nothing actionable there. Fox is not going to lose big money in litigation. Cal fans are beginning to sound like Baylor fans circa 2010 (if it all goes down, we'll sue our way out of this!)
familysection
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Live in Southern Cal (Palm Desert) and was not able to pick up all the televised games.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LunchTime said:

I think the honest question that the admin has to answer for is: what is the runway we can give UC Berkeley and Cal football and basketball to turn around decades of hostile management.

Every potential deal on the table would give us a significantly larger shortfall, while potentially putting us in a more competitive environment.

So let's say the B1G gets Fox to allow us in. How long does Cal give Cal football and UC Berkeley to get fans interested in the product? How much is Cal willing to invest to turn it around, knowing we are already the most heavily indebted AD in the country.

Going B1G is just a place to be to execute a plan. But they aren't even talking about a plan to improve game experience, to win, to get broader consistent alumni engagement, to get people to watch.

If this article, about a diamond in the rough opportunity, is accurate, who is the Smith cutting and polishing the stone, and how long do they get to finish their work?
If you think the game day experience was bad, it will be worse considering need for revenue.
Go Bears!
HKBear97!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BearGreg said:

StarsDoMatter said:

"Cal's NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal. The proof is obvious given the success that both Men's Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal"

You have to be kidding?!

Our transfer portal "success" is mediocre at best. Recruiting might the worst it's ever been.

We need to be honest with ourselves.
247 ranked Cal's Tranfer Class in 2023 15th nationally
On3 ranked the same transfer football clas 24th nationally

In basketball, On3 ranked Cal's basketball class 7th in the country
247 ranked the class 18th in the country


And yet the media picked Cal to finish near the bottom of the PAC-12 and most betting sites have us missing a bowl game yet again. When you look at what Cal has done in a vacuum, it seems like progress, but not when you take our competition into consideration.

Bottom line, the conferences and media companies have done the math and determined Cal adds little to no value.
you're flat out confusing two completely separate entities. media and college presidents.

Entity 1: corporate media have done the math and know that the Bay Area is the #10 media market. UCLA and USC have ZERO pull in this area for media. no media company would be facepalmingly dunderheaded enough to leave out the #10 media market (which btw, in times of economic duress, that media market becomes a strong factor in societal cohesion, relevant insofar as the region clings more to entertainment during hard times, and those hard times are coming). there is a reason they are not pushing harder for it.

Entity 2: college presidents are trying to hoard as much of the wealth as possible, because they are converting universities into businesses. those college presidents are the ones giving the heisman stiff arm to whatever colleges they can. the giants of college football have been whining about sharing money with mid to low level schools for decades. this finally allows them to shift the distribution of money in a way that reflects their belief that they should keep it all and give scraps to everyone else that they can.

do you honestly think a mediocre Arizona (media market #71, population of 550k) and Arizona St. (media market #12, population 1.8 million) is better than Cal and Stanford in a media market #10, population of 7.8 million people? you didn't do the math, but entertainment companies have.

companies can do the math. college presidents can, too. the reason for keeping Cal and Stanford out has different reasons. if the Conferences were genuinely trying to get Cal and Stanford in, then the argument is self explanatory, all media companies can do the math, and we would already be in a different conference.

but...at this point, the media companies aren't forcing the conferences because they see the opportunity of hiding behind college presidents in order to low ball the price for the Bay Area media market and get it for pennies on the dollar. except for FOX, and their ulterior motive.

*i have said elsewhere that Cal is fighting a weird rightwing paranoia about being a communist haven when the university has never ever even remotely been leftist. Its uneducated alumns in the South and Midwest and East Coast who don't realize that California banned affirmative action almost 30 years ago. So, when folks bring up that FOX chopped off the B1G balls, that is literally why. Someone posted the Clemson forums and more than half of the gibberish in that forum is that rightwing delusional fantasy about Cal being a fountain of revolutionary antifa. FOX is literally trying to smash Cal, and oddly enough, Stanford is getting smacked for it as well, and all because a bunch of non-student hippies swarmed Cal's campus in the 60's leading to Reagan having tear gas dropped on their heads. Cal is not leftist, but we are intellectual snobs. i don't think the snobs is why we get slammed by schools on the other side of the country.




Won't comment on all the conspiracy theories being thrown around here, however I question the argument about the Bay Area media market. Yes, it's the number ten media market but that doesn't translate into people actually watching and paying attention to Cal and Stanford games. The viewership isn't reflective of the size of the market. As for the Colorado and Arizona schools, my assumption is their respective leadership was much more aggressive in seeking a path out of the PAC-12 and they may be viewed as more likely to support and build respectable programs going forward with the increase in media revenue. Small markets with higher potential essentially.
nothing conspiratorial at all. this is data that is out there. multiple published sources have cited all this in one way or another. You have high hopes for what Colorado and Arizona schools can pull, i think them being brought into the B12 was more about cheaply bringing in schools that could boost them without increasing costs of travel. the TV model doesn't bode well for them.

you do bring up something I have spoken about elsewhere. TV viewership.
this isn't the Midwest or the South, the number of people watching TV is plummeting, Keep in mind this is California, not the rest of the country, and the following data is national, our percentages skew even lower.

Who follows the archaic (not meant as an insult) model of watching sports? it's basically the Boomer generation, like 50% watch cable TV. Gen X mirrors that with folks over 50, but those below that start breaking dramatically with that archaic model upon which all these contracts are built.

Between 19-25% of Millenials and Gen Z watch cable TV, rest are streaming. Younger they get the less cable TV they watch. I'm on the younger part of Gen X and since graduating I know almost nobody that watches sports using Cable TV. They don't subscribe. Younger folks stream. Not only do we stream, but almost nobody pays for subscriptions. It's folks using VPN's or TOR browser to stream illegally. Hate to break it to y'all, but that is the reality for sports moving forward. They haven't figured out a revenue model to offset this.

There is no brand allegiance, no morality notions that will ever break this trend. I think this is particular to East Coast and West Coast, for now, where youth demographics and tech knowledge reigns supreme. FOX, NBC, CBS are massively overpaying, because I said earlier, those percentages are national percentages.

Apple knows this, and this is the analytics behind why Apple came in with a very realistic offer of market value at around 20 million. Disney also knows this which is why ESPN isn't putting up FOX money. LA has the same problem. ignoring the joke of Neilsen ratings and turning to Adobe analytics...the Arizona schools and Colorado are a embarrasingly bad and make ZERO sense. Calford both average 850k per week, double that of the Arizona schools and triple that of Colorado. USC (2 million per week), UCLA (1.59 million)

USC will get the turnout for Buck Eyes, but empty stadiums for Minnesota, Rutgers, and Maryland... why? because the NFL finally returned to LA, and that means the non-alumn fair weather fans dropped them and went to the Rams, and for Raiders fans being in Las Vegas is better than Oakland, so they are setting aside their money for Vegas trips. LA market has same youth issues as we do. None of this is unknown by the media execs, and if it is, then they have serious issues of incompetence.

What are the reasons that people speculate for why FOX won't let the B1G add Calford?

If they know this data then they massively overpaid for the LA market, and it doesn't really make sense over the next decade, but with the current situation FOX could get the #10 market on the cheap. and we can boost numbers quickly in ways that LA really can't. refer to others pointing out that Bay Area lost two pro sports teams. Calford have been having middling years and our Adobe analytics for TV show it, which means we get significant boosts if we play the majority of the B1G teams.

The only ACC teams with better numbers than Calford are? Clemson, Notre Dame, FSU, and NC State. UNC is right between Cal (857k) and Stanford (847). the rest are below us. Washington State, btw, averages 907k.

so... why would FOX, given the data, go after NC State and UNC, after they get Clemson and FSU to join the Big 10, but not Cal and Stanford? We have way better potential for ratings increases than either UNC or NC State. so...either multiple sources are lying and FOX doesn't have ulterior motives, or...you are wrong? The data all points to that you are flat out wrong.





So Fox sports has a political agenda against Cal, that's the gist of your argument?
are you not paying attention?
your lack of argumentation concedes all points, otherwise your argument is that Fox is incompetent and can't do basic math. lol

NC State, Clemson, Notre Dame, and FSU are the ONLY ACC schools better than Cal's media numbers. They all have (rumored) gaurantees to join B1G.

Those schools can't really increase significantly in viewership because they live in football country. and none of them really need to increase in numbers. Cal's numbers point to the potential for significant growth, to the numbers we had during the Marshawn, DeSean years. That gives us a lot of upside. and FOX can get us on the cheap right now. and they aren't. so you are obviously struggling with the math as much as you imply Fox is.
No struggle on this side and based on the current situation, my take on the so-called Bay Area market "value" aligns with the media companies and major conference views. Maybe the Big Ten and ACC are interested in taking us in, but clearly very far from full share. Yes, the Bay Area is a major media market, but despite our supposed potential, Cal has never garnered much attention locally or nationally. In 2022, Cal had 857,000 average viewers per week. Arizona and Arizona state averaged 506,000 and 314,000 a week in significantly smaller markets. Since 2016, Cal has had only 16 games with over one million viewers compared to 22 for ASU and 14 for Arizona. That's pathetic given the relative size of media markets involved. Look at attendance figures in 2022, which was a terrible year for Cal, Arizona, ASU and Colorado, yet all three of those schools averaged better attendance than Cal. Lots of talk about potential, but Cal has shown time and again they never reach it. I imagine when the media/conference presidents do the math, they realize Cal is institutionally challenged and if Cal did see additional media revenue, it wouldn't go into elevating football and basketball programs which would in turn elevate the conference. I imagine Arizona, ASU and Colorado leadership all pitched that additional media revenue would be used to improve their competitiveness. You think Knowlton can make that pitch?

Like it or not, college sports finally stopped pretending to be about student athletes and has shown its true colors as a multi-billion dollar business. Decisions are being made on risk and reward versus tradition and history and Cal is simply not a good investment at this time. You're welcome to rationalize the why, but money talks and right now, there is very little money coming to Cal.
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BearGreg said:

StarsDoMatter said:

"Cal's NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal. The proof is obvious given the success that both Men's Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal"

You have to be kidding?!

Our transfer portal "success" is mediocre at best. Recruiting might the worst it's ever been.

We need to be honest with ourselves.
247 ranked Cal's Tranfer Class in 2023 15th nationally
On3 ranked the same transfer football clas 24th nationally

In basketball, On3 ranked Cal's basketball class 7th in the country
247 ranked the class 18th in the country


And yet the media picked Cal to finish near the bottom of the PAC-12 and most betting sites have us missing a bowl game yet again. When you look at what Cal has done in a vacuum, it seems like progress, but not when you take our competition into consideration.

Bottom line, the conferences and media companies have done the math and determined Cal adds little to no value.
you're flat out confusing two completely separate entities. media and college presidents.

Entity 1: corporate media have done the math and know that the Bay Area is the #10 media market. UCLA and USC have ZERO pull in this area for media. no media company would be facepalmingly dunderheaded enough to leave out the #10 media market (which btw, in times of economic duress, that media market becomes a strong factor in societal cohesion, relevant insofar as the region clings more to entertainment during hard times, and those hard times are coming). there is a reason they are not pushing harder for it.

Entity 2: college presidents are trying to hoard as much of the wealth as possible, because they are converting universities into businesses. those college presidents are the ones giving the heisman stiff arm to whatever colleges they can. the giants of college football have been whining about sharing money with mid to low level schools for decades. this finally allows them to shift the distribution of money in a way that reflects their belief that they should keep it all and give scraps to everyone else that they can.

do you honestly think a mediocre Arizona (media market #71, population of 550k) and Arizona St. (media market #12, population 1.8 million) is better than Cal and Stanford in a media market #10, population of 7.8 million people? you didn't do the math, but entertainment companies have.

companies can do the math. college presidents can, too. the reason for keeping Cal and Stanford out has different reasons. if the Conferences were genuinely trying to get Cal and Stanford in, then the argument is self explanatory, all media companies can do the math, and we would already be in a different conference.

but...at this point, the media companies aren't forcing the conferences because they see the opportunity of hiding behind college presidents in order to low ball the price for the Bay Area media market and get it for pennies on the dollar. except for FOX, and their ulterior motive.

*i have said elsewhere that Cal is fighting a weird rightwing paranoia about being a communist haven when the university has never ever even remotely been leftist. Its uneducated alumns in the South and Midwest and East Coast who don't realize that California banned affirmative action almost 30 years ago. So, when folks bring up that FOX chopped off the B1G balls, that is literally why. Someone posted the Clemson forums and more than half of the gibberish in that forum is that rightwing delusional fantasy about Cal being a fountain of revolutionary antifa. FOX is literally trying to smash Cal, and oddly enough, Stanford is getting smacked for it as well, and all because a bunch of non-student hippies swarmed Cal's campus in the 60's leading to Reagan having tear gas dropped on their heads. Cal is not leftist, but we are intellectual snobs. i don't think the snobs is why we get slammed by schools on the other side of the country.




Won't comment on all the conspiracy theories being thrown around here, however I question the argument about the Bay Area media market. Yes, it's the number ten media market but that doesn't translate into people actually watching and paying attention to Cal and Stanford games. The viewership isn't reflective of the size of the market. As for the Colorado and Arizona schools, my assumption is their respective leadership was much more aggressive in seeking a path out of the PAC-12 and they may be viewed as more likely to support and build respectable programs going forward with the increase in media revenue. Small markets with higher potential essentially.
nothing conspiratorial at all. this is data that is out there. multiple published sources have cited all this in one way or another. You have high hopes for what Colorado and Arizona schools can pull, i think them being brought into the B12 was more about cheaply bringing in schools that could boost them without increasing costs of travel. the TV model doesn't bode well for them.

you do bring up something I have spoken about elsewhere. TV viewership.
this isn't the Midwest or the South, the number of people watching TV is plummeting, Keep in mind this is California, not the rest of the country, and the following data is national, our percentages skew even lower.

Who follows the archaic (not meant as an insult) model of watching sports? it's basically the Boomer generation, like 50% watch cable TV. Gen X mirrors that with folks over 50, but those below that start breaking dramatically with that archaic model upon which all these contracts are built.

Between 19-25% of Millenials and Gen Z watch cable TV, rest are streaming. Younger they get the less cable TV they watch. I'm on the younger part of Gen X and since graduating I know almost nobody that watches sports using Cable TV. They don't subscribe. Younger folks stream. Not only do we stream, but almost nobody pays for subscriptions. It's folks using VPN's or TOR browser to stream illegally. Hate to break it to y'all, but that is the reality for sports moving forward. They haven't figured out a revenue model to offset this.

There is no brand allegiance, no morality notions that will ever break this trend. I think this is particular to East Coast and West Coast, for now, where youth demographics and tech knowledge reigns supreme. FOX, NBC, CBS are massively overpaying, because I said earlier, those percentages are national percentages.

Apple knows this, and this is the analytics behind why Apple came in with a very realistic offer of market value at around 20 million. Disney also knows this which is why ESPN isn't putting up FOX money. LA has the same problem. ignoring the joke of Neilsen ratings and turning to Adobe analytics...the Arizona schools and Colorado are a embarrasingly bad and make ZERO sense. Calford both average 850k per week, double that of the Arizona schools and triple that of Colorado. USC (2 million per week), UCLA (1.59 million)

USC will get the turnout for Buck Eyes, but empty stadiums for Minnesota, Rutgers, and Maryland... why? because the NFL finally returned to LA, and that means the non-alumn fair weather fans dropped them and went to the Rams, and for Raiders fans being in Las Vegas is better than Oakland, so they are setting aside their money for Vegas trips. LA market has same youth issues as we do. None of this is unknown by the media execs, and if it is, then they have serious issues of incompetence.

What are the reasons that people speculate for why FOX won't let the B1G add Calford?

If they know this data then they massively overpaid for the LA market, and it doesn't really make sense over the next decade, but with the current situation FOX could get the #10 market on the cheap. and we can boost numbers quickly in ways that LA really can't. refer to others pointing out that Bay Area lost two pro sports teams. Calford have been having middling years and our Adobe analytics for TV show it, which means we get significant boosts if we play the majority of the B1G teams.

The only ACC teams with better numbers than Calford are? Clemson, Notre Dame, FSU, and NC State. UNC is right between Cal (857k) and Stanford (847). the rest are below us. Washington State, btw, averages 907k.

so... why would FOX, given the data, go after NC State and UNC, after they get Clemson and FSU to join the Big 10, but not Cal and Stanford? We have way better potential for ratings increases than either UNC or NC State. so...either multiple sources are lying and FOX doesn't have ulterior motives, or...you are wrong? The data all points to that you are flat out wrong.





So Fox sports has a political agenda against Cal, that's the gist of your argument?
are you not paying attention?
your lack of argumentation concedes all points, otherwise your argument is that Fox is incompetent and can't do basic math. lol

NC State, Clemson, Notre Dame, and FSU are the ONLY ACC schools better than Cal's media numbers. They all have (rumored) gaurantees to join B1G.

Those schools can't really increase significantly in viewership because they live in football country. and none of them really need to increase in numbers. Cal's numbers point to the potential for significant growth, to the numbers we had during the Marshawn, DeSean years. That gives us a lot of upside. and FOX can get us on the cheap right now. and they aren't. so you are obviously struggling with the math as much as you imply Fox is.
No struggle on this side and based on the current situation, my take on the so-called Bay Area market "value" aligns with the media companies and major conference views. Maybe the Big Ten and ACC are interested in taking us in, but clearly very far from full share. Yes, the Bay Area is a major media market, but despite our supposed potential, Cal has never garnered much attention locally or nationally. In 2022, Cal had 857,000 average viewers per week. Arizona and Arizona state averaged 506,000 and 314,000 a week in significantly smaller markets. Since 2016, Cal has had only 16 games with over one million viewers compared to 22 for ASU and 14 for Arizona. That's pathetic given the relative size of media markets involved. Look at attendance figures in 2022, which was a terrible year for Cal, Arizona, ASU and Colorado, yet all three of those schools averaged better attendance than Cal. Lots of talk about potential, but Cal has shown time and again they never reach it. I imagine when the media/conference presidents do the math, they realize Cal is institutionally challenged and if Cal did see additional media revenue, it wouldn't go into elevating football and basketball programs which would in turn elevate the conference. I imagine Arizona, ASU and Colorado leadership all pitched that additional media revenue would be used to improve their competitiveness. You think Knowlton can make that pitch?

Like it or not, college sports finally stopped pretending to be about student athletes and has shown its true colors as a multi-billion dollar business. Decisions are being made on risk and reward versus tradition and history and Cal is simply not a good investment at this time. You're welcome to rationalize the why, but money talks and right now, there is very little money coming to Cal.


Probably the most compelling reason I've read for excluding Cal because of the numbers you provided. Thank you for helping our exclusion make more sense to me. Not what I wanted to hear but at least it is rationale.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.