Story Poster
Photo by Mike Wondolowski
Cal Football

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

August 12, 2023
63,586

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

46,195 Views | 170 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by phyrux
familysection
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Accept an offer from the Big 10.with lower guarantees for year one. Have incentive guarantees for future years. Example increased attendance and a winning record.
CNHTH
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You're referencing the 2022 article from "run it back with Zack" that data was proven erroneous as he counts incomplete data as 0 views and still counts it against the 12 game denominator. The more accurate data from fox indicated 1.25 million viewers per game for Cal.
And as for the original argument / question / discussion.
Understand that this is a purely political play by fox as they don't like us. Their's a lot going on behind the scenes politically and unfortunately viewership and ad dollars don't influence their decision.
Case in point fox collected 4.9 billion in sub and affiliate fees last year against only 1.4 billion in ad dollars. What does that mean?
It means that without any advertising at all fox inks a 1.5 billion dollar profit while without any sub fees they'd post a 3.3 billion dollar loss. It's the dirty little secret nobody is talking about. Fox is a paper dragon who makes money by selling their bundle of **** to cable providers. Whereas if ad dollars (and as a correlate, viewership) were more linear to their margins we'd be in in a heart beat. Which is why you see them swooping up **** markets like Eugene and Tucson: not because they're actually valuable but because some tv exec type a la Kliavkoff or Yormark says they are.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CNHTH said:

You're referencing the 2022 article from "run it back with Zack" that data was proven erroneous as he counts incomplete data as 0 views and still counts it against the 12 game denominator. The more accurate data from fox indicated 1.25 million viewers per game for Cal.
And as for the original argument / question / discussion.
Understand that this is a purely political play by fox as they don't like us. Their's a lot going on behind the scenes politically and unfortunately viewership and ad dollars don't influence their decision.
Case in point fox collected 4.9 billion in sub and affiliate fees last year against only 1.4 billion in ad dollars. What does that mean?
It means that without any advertising at all fox inks a 1.5 billion dollar profit while without any sub fees they'd post a 3.3 billion dollar loss. It's the dirty little secret nobody is talking about. Fox is a paper dragon who makes money by selling their bundle of **** to cable providers. Whereas if ad dollars (and as a correlate, viewership) were more linear to their margins we'd be in in a heart beat. Which is why you see them swooping up **** markets like Eugene and Tucson: not because they're actually valuable but because some tv exec type a la Kliavkoff or Yormark says they are.
I think Fox is afraid we may have a good enough NIL program to make us a top 20 team, which they probably don't want. Another reason not to watch any Fox channels. So once again, there is a reason why we are doomed to failure.
Go Bears!
DoubtfulBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskidunker said:

CNHTH said:

You're referencing the 2022 article from "run it back with Zack" that data was proven erroneous as he counts incomplete data as 0 views and still counts it against the 12 game denominator. The more accurate data from fox indicated 1.25 million viewers per game for Cal.
And as for the original argument / question / discussion.
Understand that this is a purely political play by fox as they don't like us. Their's a lot going on behind the scenes politically and unfortunately viewership and ad dollars don't influence their decision.
Case in point fox collected 4.9 billion in sub and affiliate fees last year against only 1.4 billion in ad dollars. What does that mean?
It means that without any advertising at all fox inks a 1.5 billion dollar profit while without any sub fees they'd post a 3.3 billion dollar loss. It's the dirty little secret nobody is talking about. Fox is a paper dragon who makes money by selling their bundle of **** to cable providers. Whereas if ad dollars (and as a correlate, viewership) were more linear to their margins we'd be in in a heart beat. Which is why you see them swooping up **** markets like Eugene and Tucson: not because they're actually valuable but because some tv exec type a la Kliavkoff or Yormark says they are.
I think Fox is afraid we may have a good enough NIL program to make us a top 20 team, which they probably don't want. Another reason not to watch any Fox channels. So once again, there is a reason why we are doomed to failure.
What a ridiculous conspiracy theory. You think Rupert Murdoch is doing all this just so he can "own the libs"? If anything he's doing a huge favor to the progressive academics that want nothing to do with the "barbaric" sport that is college football
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DoubtfulBear said:

oskidunker said:

CNHTH said:

You're referencing the 2022 article from "run it back with Zack" that data was proven erroneous as he counts incomplete data as 0 views and still counts it against the 12 game denominator. The more accurate data from fox indicated 1.25 million viewers per game for Cal.
And as for the original argument / question / discussion.
Understand that this is a purely political play by fox as they don't like us. Their's a lot going on behind the scenes politically and unfortunately viewership and ad dollars don't influence their decision.
Case in point fox collected 4.9 billion in sub and affiliate fees last year against only 1.4 billion in ad dollars. What does that mean?
It means that without any advertising at all fox inks a 1.5 billion dollar profit while without any sub fees they'd post a 3.3 billion dollar loss. It's the dirty little secret nobody is talking about. Fox is a paper dragon who makes money by selling their bundle of **** to cable providers. Whereas if ad dollars (and as a correlate, viewership) were more linear to their margins we'd be in in a heart beat. Which is why you see them swooping up **** markets like Eugene and Tucson: not because they're actually valuable but because some tv exec type a la Kliavkoff or Yormark says they are.
I think Fox is afraid we may have a good enough NIL program to make us a top 20 team, which they probably don't want. Another reason not to watch any Fox channels. So once again, there is a reason why we are doomed to failure.
What a ridiculous conspiracy theory. You think Rupert Murdoch is doing all this just so he can "own the libs"? If anything he's doing a huge favor to the progressive academics that want nothing to do with the "barbaric" sport that is college football
I don't think they want streaming / Apple TV as a viable alternative to Fox Sports on cable. To kill the Apple TV deal, they only needed to take UW and Oregon. They didn't need us. If they didn't need us to kill Apple TV deal, why pay beyond market value to get us into the B1G beyond what we would bring in incremental revenue from cable and advertisers?
BarcaBear
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.
as to Knowlton...he is either playing golf and sleeping the day away or he is being paid to sit on the sidelines.

Stop looking at Nielsen ratings, they're a joke. They've been debunked a source of analysis for ratings. Adobe Analytics provides a much better grasp of viewership. Arizona 506K, Colorado 352.9K, Arizona St. 314K. They have incredibly small media markets.

Game attendance is a different matter, particularly post pandemic, but it is not what you make it out to be. So, lets look at the Pac 12. Stanford, 29.9K, Cal 38.5k, UCLA 41.5k, Colorado 42.8K, Arizona St. 43K, Arizona 44K. Obviously in game attendance isn't what moves the media deal scales for these schools. Additional revenue being used for football is not going to make a difference in schools who already have hit relative peaks due to fans habits.

turn back to those being looked at to join the B1G. what is being said about why the B1G would take UNC and NC State? Why are they options, but not Calford? UNC avg attendance 47.9K, NC State avg attendance 55.9K. Avg media ratings for them: UNC 849K, NC State 881K. These teams don't really have that much upside, Calford does. sidenote: folks keep talking like UNC is better than NC State, but the numbers all show that NC State would be more valued.

our media market is bigger. even in mediocrity our numbers are at the same level as UNC and slightly below NC State. There is literally no upside to those schools, yet they are going to be going to the B1G after Clemson and FSU, just like UW and Oregon followed after USC and UCLA.

any upswing in our performance and our ratings jump significantly, theirs wont because they are already pretty much at the max they will ever go because of their limited population size and the size of their media market.

your entire conclusion is false. none of this data points even remotely to your conclusion about Cal's value. the conclusion is actually the complete opposite. this is a business deal, and the numbers don't lie, Cal is a superior investment to everyone in the ACC outside of Clemson, FSU, and Notre Dame.
DoubtfulBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

DoubtfulBear said:

oskidunker said:

CNHTH said:

You're referencing the 2022 article from "run it back with Zack" that data was proven erroneous as he counts incomplete data as 0 views and still counts it against the 12 game denominator. The more accurate data from fox indicated 1.25 million viewers per game for Cal.
And as for the original argument / question / discussion.
Understand that this is a purely political play by fox as they don't like us. Their's a lot going on behind the scenes politically and unfortunately viewership and ad dollars don't influence their decision.
Case in point fox collected 4.9 billion in sub and affiliate fees last year against only 1.4 billion in ad dollars. What does that mean?
It means that without any advertising at all fox inks a 1.5 billion dollar profit while without any sub fees they'd post a 3.3 billion dollar loss. It's the dirty little secret nobody is talking about. Fox is a paper dragon who makes money by selling their bundle of **** to cable providers. Whereas if ad dollars (and as a correlate, viewership) were more linear to their margins we'd be in in a heart beat. Which is why you see them swooping up **** markets like Eugene and Tucson: not because they're actually valuable but because some tv exec type a la Kliavkoff or Yormark says they are.
I think Fox is afraid we may have a good enough NIL program to make us a top 20 team, which they probably don't want. Another reason not to watch any Fox channels. So once again, there is a reason why we are doomed to failure.
What a ridiculous conspiracy theory. You think Rupert Murdoch is doing all this just so he can "own the libs"? If anything he's doing a huge favor to the progressive academics that want nothing to do with the "barbaric" sport that is college football
I don't think they want streaming / Apple TV as a viable alternative to Fox Sports on cable. To kill the Apple TV deal, they only needed to take UW and Oregon. They didn't need us. If they didn't need us to kill Apple TV deal, why pay beyond market value to get us into the B1G beyond what we would bring in incremental revenue from cable and advertisers?
Fox doesn't even need to be worried about Apple, they wanted Oregon and Washington all along and just waited for a good opportunity to get them for cheap. Would've been the same situation even if Paramount was making the offer instead of Apple/Amazon
BarcaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CNHTH said:

You're referencing the 2022 article from "run it back with Zack" that data was proven erroneous as he counts incomplete data as 0 views and still counts it against the 12 game denominator. The more accurate data from fox indicated 1.25 million viewers per game for Cal.
And as for the original argument / question / discussion.
Understand that this is a purely political play by fox as they don't like us. Their's a lot going on behind the scenes politically and unfortunately viewership and ad dollars don't influence their decision.
Case in point fox collected 4.9 billion in sub and affiliate fees last year against only 1.4 billion in ad dollars. What does that mean?
It means that without any advertising at all fox inks a 1.5 billion dollar profit while without any sub fees they'd post a 3.3 billion dollar loss. It's the dirty little secret nobody is talking about. Fox is a paper dragon who makes money by selling their bundle of **** to cable providers. Whereas if ad dollars (and as a correlate, viewership) were more linear to their margins we'd be in in a heart beat. Which is why you see them swooping up **** markets like Eugene and Tucson: not because they're actually valuable but because some tv exec type a la Kliavkoff or Yormark says they are.
thnx for that data. It makes more sense now. Fox must be panicking because those sub numbers are going to plummet as the boomer generation starts dying out.
DoubtfulBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BarcaBear said:

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.

any upswing in our performance and our ratings jump significantly, theirs wont because they are already pretty much at the max they will ever go because of their limited population size and the size of their media market.
Stanford has dominated PAC12 and has been in the national conversation over the last decade. Did ratings jump? Did all the millions of Bay Area households suddenly buy cable subscriptions? Talking about potential is sad and pathetic at this point. Like a fat and balding 40 year old saying he has the potential to make him an NFL QB because he's distant cousins with Jared Goff
HKBear97!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BarcaBear said:

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.
as to Knowlton...he is either playing golf and sleeping the day away or he is being paid to sit on the sidelines.

Stop looking at Nielsen ratings, they're a joke. They've been debunked a source of analysis for ratings. Adobe Analytics provides a much better grasp of viewership. Arizona 506K, Colorado 352.9K, Arizona St. 314K. They have incredibly small media markets.

Game attendance is a different matter, particularly post pandemic, but it is not what you make it out to be. So, lets look at the Pac 12. Stanford, 29.9K, Cal 38.5k, UCLA 41.5k, Colorado 42.8K, Arizona St. 43K, Arizona 44K. Obviously in game attendance isn't what moves the media deal scales for these schools. Additional revenue being used for football is not going to make a difference in schools who already have hit relative peaks due to fans habits.

turn back to those being looked at to join the B1G. what is being said about why the B1G would take UNC and NC State? Why are they options, but not Calford? UNC avg attendance 47.9K, NC State avg attendance 55.9K. Avg media ratings for them: UNC 849K, NC State 881K. These teams don't really have that much upside, Calford does. sidenote: folks keep talking like UNC is better than NC State, but the numbers all show that NC State would be more valued.

our media market is bigger. even in mediocrity our numbers are at the same level as UNC and slightly below NC State. There is literally no upside to those schools, yet they are going to be going to the B1G after Clemson and FSU, just like UW and Oregon followed after USC and UCLA.

any upswing in our performance and our ratings jump significantly, theirs wont because they are already pretty much at the max they will ever go because of their limited population size and the size of their media market.

your entire conclusion is false. none of this data points even remotely to your conclusion about Cal's value. the conclusion is actually the complete opposite. this is a business deal, and the numbers don't lie, Cal is a superior investment to everyone in the ACC outside of Clemson, FSU, and Notre Dame.
Let's see where UNC and NC State actually end up or if it's all just rumors. In the meantime, today's reality is Arizona, ASU and Colorado will be in a Power 5 conference with higher media payouts once the Pac-12 dissolves and Cal will not. Until that reality changes, my conclusion is correct.
CNHTH
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Exactly what I've been saying and it's the same story as espn. Just like yellow journalism had its day, so to will linear tv with its affiliate structure and my guess is that day is closer than we think. But eventually the media magnates with a micro boner for controlling what content people view like Murdoch will find a way to corrupt streaming as well and take the choice back from the viewer and flood us with their **** programming and sports teams they think we should be fond of.
It's really a stupid game that's played but unfortunately it's the truth.
It's also the reason boycotts of fox never work.
"Oh cool you made it so that bud light won't advertise on our network…guess what we don't care because 80 percent of our revenue comes from affiliate fees"
The only way to truly hit them where it hurts is to cancel your cable and sign up for a streaming provider that doesn't have an embedded bundle affiliate sub agreement with them. Otherwise you're still funding them.
HKBear97!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CNHTH said:

You're referencing the 2022 article from "run it back with Zack" that data was proven erroneous as he counts incomplete data as 0 views and still counts it against the 12 game denominator. The more accurate data from fox indicated 1.25 million viewers per game for Cal.
And as for the original argument / question / discussion.
Understand that this is a purely political play by fox as they don't like us. Their's a lot going on behind the scenes politically and unfortunately viewership and ad dollars don't influence their decision.
Case in point fox collected 4.9 billion in sub and affiliate fees last year against only 1.4 billion in ad dollars. What does that mean?
It means that without any advertising at all fox inks a 1.5 billion dollar profit while without any sub fees they'd post a 3.3 billion dollar loss. It's the dirty little secret nobody is talking about. Fox is a paper dragon who makes money by selling their bundle of **** to cable providers. Whereas if ad dollars (and as a correlate, viewership) were more linear to their margins we'd be in in a heart beat. Which is why you see them swooping up **** markets like Eugene and Tucson: not because they're actually valuable but because some tv exec type a la Kliavkoff or Yormark says they are.
Do you work for Fox? Sources? By the way, markets like Eugene? Oregon has some of the highest viewership numbers in the conference.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HKBear97! said:

LunchTime said:

Why does everyone associated with Cal always point to how well it should be doing and how large its viewership should be?

Isn't it a negative that Cal has an extremely large and wealthy alumni base, and no one cares about football? That is why FOX doesnt see value. Because Cal doesnt own the Bay Area viewers. UCLA, USC and Oregon do.

The entire argument is like going to an investor with "if we only capture 1% of the market..."
Oh wow! How long have you been in business? "100 years"
Have you captured 1%? "Not even close"
Do you have any plans to capture it? "We are alienating them as we speak. It makes our Academics look better"
If we invest how will you use that investment to get to 1%? "Your investment will ensure we dont need to capture that 1%"

Cal needs to show that it, fundamentally, has changed the engagement between the university and the athletic department. That it is able to engage those alumni beyond hat wearing.


This is just a list of bullet points on why FOX is right.

It's the same "Cal is a sleeping giant" spiel we hear year after year after year.

Well, we are sleeping anyway.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DoubtfulBear said:

BarcaBear said:

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.

any upswing in our performance and our ratings jump significantly, theirs wont because they are already pretty much at the max they will ever go because of their limited population size and the size of their media market.
Stanford has dominated PAC12 and has been in the national conversation over the last decade. Did ratings jump? Did all the millions of Bay Area households suddenly buy cable subscriptions? Talking about potential is sad and pathetic at this point. Like a fat and balding 40 year old saying he has the potential to make him an NFL QB because he's distant cousins with Jared Goff


FYI there is a big difference between Cal and Stanford in numbers of alumni and numbers of fans and attractiveness to unaffiliated fans. Go back to 2004-2007 with Aaron Rodgers, Marshawn Lynch and Desean Jackson and Cal regularly sold out CMS at larger capacity and had great TV ratings. Stanford used to have a some unaffiliated fans but with the Niners moving to Santa Clara they can't compete.

When was the last time there were no professional sports teams in the East Bay?

calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HKBear97! said:

CNHTH said:

You're referencing the 2022 article from "run it back with Zack" that data was proven erroneous as he counts incomplete data as 0 views and still counts it against the 12 game denominator. The more accurate data from fox indicated 1.25 million viewers per game for Cal.
And as for the original argument / question / discussion.
Understand that this is a purely political play by fox as they don't like us. Their's a lot going on behind the scenes politically and unfortunately viewership and ad dollars don't influence their decision.
Case in point fox collected 4.9 billion in sub and affiliate fees last year against only 1.4 billion in ad dollars. What does that mean?
It means that without any advertising at all fox inks a 1.5 billion dollar profit while without any sub fees they'd post a 3.3 billion dollar loss. It's the dirty little secret nobody is talking about. Fox is a paper dragon who makes money by selling their bundle of **** to cable providers. Whereas if ad dollars (and as a correlate, viewership) were more linear to their margins we'd be in in a heart beat. Which is why you see them swooping up **** markets like Eugene and Tucson: not because they're actually valuable but because some tv exec type a la Kliavkoff or Yormark says they are.
Do you work for Fox? Sources? By the way, markets like Eugene? Oregon has some of the highest viewership numbers in the conference.


Eugene, Oregon with a total population of 170,000? Ok
CNHTH
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No i don't work for fox but the data is out there if you want to find it.
Also when I say "market" please understand I mean geographic area. Aka the Bay Area aka Eugene. And that is what tv companies look at. If you're referring to the us market then yes oregon has a bigger share but they also play more nationally televised games. But if you're comparing the size of the Bay Area tv market to the Eugene or even entire state of oregon tv market we're bigger and have more television sets.
The argument that oregon is more valuable because of their viewership is fallacious because the size of their viewership is tied directly to the amount of nationally televised games they get. Which I think has been proven is not tied in any way to ad dollars or viewership but rather an arbitrary decision made by tv execs seeing as how the only revenue metric tied directly to viewership (ad dollars) has next to zero influence on their bottom line.
Strykur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CNHTH said:

The argument that oregon is more valuable because of their viewership is fallacious because the size of their viewership is tied directly to the amount of nationally televised games they get. Which I think has been proven is not tied in any way to ad dollars or viewership but rather an arbitrary decision made by tv execs seeing as how the only revenue metric tied directly to viewership (ad dollars) has next to zero influence on their bottom line.
I was told by an Oregon buddy that there is a bit of an infatuation with Oregon over at FOX, and also Oregon does get a lot of national viewers as well (hell I have loved watching them play on TV since I started watching college football), they are a bit unique in that they are pretty good and generally popular, unlike other teams which have lots of antipathy, like Notre Dame, Texas, etc.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CNHTH said:

No i don't work for fox but the data is out there if you want to find it.
Also when I say "market" please understand I mean geographic area. Aka the Bay Area aka Eugene. And that is what tv companies look at. If you're referring to the us market then yes oregon has a bigger share but they also play more nationally televised games. But if you're comparing the size of the Bay Area tv market to the Eugene or even entire state of oregon tv market we're bigger and have more television sets.
The argument that oregon is more valuable because of their viewership is fallacious because the size of their viewership is tied directly to the amount of nationally televised games they get. Which I think has been proven is not tied in any way to ad dollars or viewership but rather an arbitrary decision made by tv execs seeing as how the only revenue metric tied directly to viewership (ad dollars) has next to zero influence on their bottom line.

Oregon gets more games on national television because they have a good team.

Cal got more games on national television when we had a good team.

To me the biggest sign that Cal isn't serious about athletics is that we still haven't fired our Joker AD.

If I am Fox or ESPN I don't touch Cal until that happens.

What are you waiting for, Carol?


CNHTH
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0e5cC/2/

There's one for ya. Still searching for the 2022 Nielsen fox stuff
Cheers
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

CNHTH said:

No i don't work for fox but the data is out there if you want to find it.
Also when I say "market" please understand I mean geographic area. Aka the Bay Area aka Eugene. And that is what tv companies look at. If you're referring to the us market then yes oregon has a bigger share but they also play more nationally televised games. But if you're comparing the size of the Bay Area tv market to the Eugene or even entire state of oregon tv market we're bigger and have more television sets.
The argument that oregon is more valuable because of their viewership is fallacious because the size of their viewership is tied directly to the amount of nationally televised games they get. Which I think has been proven is not tied in any way to ad dollars or viewership but rather an arbitrary decision made by tv execs seeing as how the only revenue metric tied directly to viewership (ad dollars) has next to zero influence on their bottom line.

Oregon gets more games on national television because they have a good team.

Cal got more games on national television when we had a good team.

To me the biggest sign that Cal isn't serious about athletics is that we still haven't fired our Joker AD.

If I am Fox or ESPN I don't touch Cal until that happens.

What are you waiting for, Carol?





She extended the moron without calling anyone on her network or at northwestern to confirm whether he'd been offered. Which leads me to believe she hasn't done much in the realignment talks as well. She should be fired as well.
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CNHTH said:

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0e5cC/2/

There's one for ya. Still searching for the 2022 Nielsen fox stuff
Cheers
Hard to believe that UCLA is 8 and USC is #15. Also that Cal is as high as #32, given how crappy we have been over the last 15 years. And Oregon is only #37 and lower than Cal?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golden One said:

CNHTH said:

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0e5cC/2/

There's one for ya. Still searching for the 2022 Nielsen fox stuff
Cheers
Hard to believe that UCLA is 8 and USC is #15. Also that Cal is as high as #32, given how crappy we have been over the last 15 years. And Oregon is only #37 and lower than Cal?
DUKE is #4?!

Where is this data coming from?
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Golden One said:

CNHTH said:

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0e5cC/2/

There's one for ya. Still searching for the 2022 Nielsen fox stuff
Cheers
Hard to believe that UCLA is 8 and USC is #15. Also that Cal is as high as #32, given how crappy we have been over the last 15 years. And Oregon is only #37 and lower than Cal?
DUKE is #4?!

Where is this data coming from?

A Duke alum, apparently

StillNoStanfurdium
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CNHTH said:

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0e5cC/2/

There's one for ya. Still searching for the 2022 Nielsen fox stuff
Cheers
This data is weird. Says Furd has literally zero fans in the North East. Obviously they shouldn't have zero fans in any region. Oregon State also has zero fans in the North East. Same with Wazzu, Arizona, & Colorado.
LessMilesMoreTedford
How long do you want to ignore this user?
People don't care about the fans when it comes to Stanford, it's the brand. Stanford is a luxury spot for the rich and wealthy, every suit loves going there and getting wined and dined.

Stanford has a great AD that cares about all its sports and does great PR because it pays out its employees at the going rate in the area they live. Even if no fans care, they have a good rep in the sports media world.

Cal's AD is run by a walking reply email machine and is a hallowed out husk paying entry level wages in the most expensive market in the Bay. It's filled with employees looking for their next job.

Of course Stanford will get prioritized over Cal. People care about rep.
familysection
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Should also send them The Play with Starky going crazy.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?



CNHTH
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't disagree with either of you it's just when you look at this whole thing from a business standpoint it doesn't make a lick of sense. Even in some alternate universe where fox and espn were aiming for m&a's via some weird lbo type deal it still doesn't make any sense given the direction towards steaming and democratization of media via such. The only conclusion I can come to is that this is some junior high school girl drama being perpetrated by a few worthless fox c suite **** bags with a vendetta against cal and furd; and on the espn side Disney is chasing tail and hoping they can collect enough gors to make apple pooping all over them in 5 years that much more difficult. And as usual we are the collateral damage because to your earlier points jk and cc are completely worthless at their jobs.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pac12 Network just showed Cal vs USC 2018 game

Cal win with Garbers, Laird, Weaver and others
HKBear97!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CNHTH said:

I don't disagree with either of you it's just when you look at this whole thing from a business standpoint it doesn't make a lick of sense. Even in some alternate universe where fox and espn were aiming for m&a's via some weird lbo type deal it still doesn't make any sense given the direction towards steaming and democratization of media via such. The only conclusion I can come to is that this is some junior high school girl drama being perpetrated by a few worthless fox c suite **** bags with a vendetta against cal and furd; and on the espn side Disney is chasing tail and hoping they can collect enough gors to make apple pooping all over them in 5 years that much more difficult. And as usual we are the collateral damage because to your earlier points jk and cc are completely worthless at their jobs.


From a business standpoint, the Big Ten taking USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington at the prices they are paying them makes a ton of sense. For the Big 12, grabbing Utah and bringing Colorado back makes sense. For Arizona and ASU, the business case is less clear. My assumption is they see strong support and viewership despite pretty poor on-field results and smaller media markets, a commitment to improve their competitiveness to add to their league and likely strong ties/leadership that got them in the door in the first place.

For Cal, it is hard to make a business case. In spite of numerous advantages - location, market, academic standing, size of the AD budget, etc. - Cal consistently fails. Just seven months ago a coach Cal fired because he so desperately wanted to escape the place had TCU in the national championship game. You don't think that just adds to the argument that you can't win at Cal?
BarcaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DoubtfulBear said:

BarcaBear said:

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.

any upswing in our performance and our ratings jump significantly, theirs wont because they are already pretty much at the max they will ever go because of their limited population size and the size of their media market.
Stanford has dominated PAC12 and has been in the national conversation over the last decade. Did ratings jump? Did all the millions of Bay Area households suddenly buy cable subscriptions? Talking about potential is sad and pathetic at this point. Like a fat and balding 40 year old saying he has the potential to make him an NFL QB because he's distant cousins with Jared Goff
Stanford's student body is tiny, ours isn't. Stanford is also all the way down in a part of the Bay that nobody really lives in except for very rich people, and the tiny sliver of land where workers live. Our numbers were much higher during Tedford's Marshawn and DeSean years. so, it isn't well wishing, but you keep clinging to an opinion that isn't grounded in the statistics we have seen. my point holds, and you cant negate it with your feelings.

if you insist on refusing to comprehend, then go dig up the ratings data and see for yourself. you really need to look at the viewing numbers. nielsen ratings are what they are, but you will have to account for the date we are getting from Adobe analytics in understanding what happens with viewership. enjoy pouring through the stats and finally understanding.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LessMilesMoreTedford said:



Cal's AD is run by a walking reply email machine and is a hallowed out husk paying entry level wages in the most expensive market in the Bay. It's filled with employees looking for their next job.

^^^ This
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
BigDaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

CNHTH said:

No i don't work for fox but the data is out there if you want to find it.
Also when I say "market" please understand I mean geographic area. Aka the Bay Area aka Eugene. And that is what tv companies look at. If you're referring to the us market then yes oregon has a bigger share but they also play more nationally televised games. But if you're comparing the size of the Bay Area tv market to the Eugene or even entire state of oregon tv market we're bigger and have more television sets.
The argument that oregon is more valuable because of their viewership is fallacious because the size of their viewership is tied directly to the amount of nationally televised games they get. Which I think has been proven is not tied in any way to ad dollars or viewership but rather an arbitrary decision made by tv execs seeing as how the only revenue metric tied directly to viewership (ad dollars) has next to zero influence on their bottom line.

Oregon gets more games on national television because they have a good team.

Cal got more games on national television when we had a good team.

To me the biggest sign that Cal isn't serious about athletics is that we still haven't fired our Joker AD.

If I am Fox or ESPN I don't touch Cal until that happens.

What are you waiting for, Carol?



Over the last 25 years, Oregon, backed by Nike and through a series of good coaches... Rich Brooks, Mike Bellotti, Chip Kelly, Mario Cristobal and Dan Lanning ...and with the marketing, the uniforms, the offensive fireworks... all of it combined to turn UO into a national brand.

Their games get eyeballs.
DoubtfulBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BarcaBear said:

DoubtfulBear said:

BarcaBear said:

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.

any upswing in our performance and our ratings jump significantly, theirs wont because they are already pretty much at the max they will ever go because of their limited population size and the size of their media market.
Stanford has dominated PAC12 and has been in the national conversation over the last decade. Did ratings jump? Did all the millions of Bay Area households suddenly buy cable subscriptions? Talking about potential is sad and pathetic at this point. Like a fat and balding 40 year old saying he has the potential to make him an NFL QB because he's distant cousins with Jared Goff
Stanford's student body is tiny, ours isn't. Stanford is also all the way down in a part of the Bay that nobody really lives in except for very rich people, and the tiny sliver of land where workers live. Our numbers were much higher during Tedford's Marshawn and DeSean years. so, it isn't well wishing, but you keep clinging to an opinion that isn't grounded in the statistics we have seen. my point holds, and you cant negate it with your feelings.

if you insist on refusing to comprehend, then go dig up the ratings data and see for yourself. you really need to look at the viewing numbers. nielsen ratings are what they are, but you will have to account for the date we are getting from Adobe analytics in understanding what happens with viewership. enjoy pouring through the stats and finally understanding.


Tell me which scenario is more plausible:
1. All the media networks have looked at viewer data and ran hundreds of scenarios but ultimately decided that Cal's value isn't there even if viewers increased significantly from todays lows.

2. All the media networks have an irrational hatred against Cal and are leaving significant money on the table because they are emotionally driven to see Cal football fail.
philbert
How long do you want to ignore this user?

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.