Jump to content

Zhorn96

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    1129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Zhorn96

  1. I believe Soso was more partial to the east and southeast variety of Asian. South Asians are of the Indian variety
  2. Rumors are flying on the Cal side. UVA, Va Tech and NC State are the swing votes and ND is pushing hard for Cal and Furd to be added at a 70% share so the thought is is if ESPN, who won’t have any west coast inventory, will pay some travel costs, it might get done. SMU for free would give $2-3m per team each, ACC can distribute the Cal/Furd discount however they want so that might shut up FSU and Clemson if they get $8-10m each. ND wants the Bay Area for an annual California trip and leverage against the Big18 trying to box them in… allegedly. One person claims the Big18 is back in for $20m per team with a full share in 6 years. Taking that with way more skepticism… All rumors so take it for what it’s worth…
  3. This seems like bullshit... weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
  4. Why is Stanford more valuable than Cal? Worse attendance, smaller or similar ratings on TV, etc. They're the same. And both are more valuable than SMU
  5. From a Clemson board, posted by the publisher... I have been getting bombarded with questions as you might imagine about Clemson, conference expansion and the meetings today to discuss the possibility of adding 2 Pac-12 teams to the ACC. There are as usual some things I can't share, but I wanted to share some information. - First the AD's did meet today to discuss the possibility of adding Stanford and Cal to the ACC. - We were told the President's meeting was underway this afternoon - It will take 12 teams to approve. Notre Dame is included in the voting. - Clemson, North Carolina and Florida State were all against the proposal in the AD meeting. We expect the Presidents/Chancellors to be in agreement for those three with the ADs. - So that means all of the other schools would need to vote yes for the conference to add the two schools. We have been told a few schools appeared to be undecided following the AD meeting. There was a majority of the conference in favor of the move. - There is language in the ACC's contract that would allow for increased revenue from ESPN if the league can show adding the two teams would add value. - This would not impact the Grant of Rights from what we were told by a source - As we have previously reported Clemson has been doing everything they can to make sure they take care of Clemson for the long term. Those conversations have been active and we believe they continue at this time. https://forums.theclemsoninsider.com/showthread.php?t=160174
  6. Ahh, it all becomes clear. Yeah, the oranges were fucked up, I was at at least 1 SC-Cal game where that happened.
  7. I dont know who you were trying to engage with, I dont think this is true at all. There is a lack of tailgate culture for sure, but what does exist has always been very welcoming, at least from the Cal perspective. Furd may be different and maybe thats what you experienced being the Valley
  8. how many votes do they need? I thought I saw it was 3/4s of the league... they dont need to add Cal/Furd to block that with those numbers. Maybe its if 50%. Maybe
  9. Huh...believe it when I see it but some exploratory discussions were taking place when UO and UW were still in
  10. Financially, Cal can't be in the MWC. If payouts are $4-7M and little possibility of increasing, their debt overruns them unless the UC regents take on all the stadium debt. I suspect if they can get out of Wilcox's contract (owe him $20Mish from '24-27), they would kill football, then slash their AD down to the minimum. Several sports are fully endowed but baseball and most of the men's programs get chopped. They'll have serious Title IX issues if they change their current plan.
  11. it would be an interesting cultural fit but obviously preferable to extinction. And Cal and Furd are pretty much joined at the hip unless ND calls
  12. as I said, I dont think ESPN will allow the ACC to disintegrate until it suits their purpose to do so. If they did, I would agree with you because those schools would definitely be in front of the line. But I dont see Duke, Uva and UNC going anywhere for the foreseeable future IMO. You may be right that they stand pat at 18, I'm just trying to think through things logically. I negotiate contracts for a living so tend to think about angles from both sides and specifically money impact. If adding Cal and Furd helps travel costs, adds TV inventory and doesnt cost the other schools anything for the next decade, I think there is value in adding them. And full disclosure, I'm a Texas grad but come from a Cal family and grew up in the Bay Area going to Cal games. I'm trying not to wish cast Cal into any kind of relevance but if the Big18 doesnt happen, their program likely ceases to exist. Independent or MWC isn't an option financially. Big12 cultural divide is vast so unlikely. Some sort of merge with the ACC was possible but probably isnt viable with Washington and Oregon gone.
  13. thats my thought...a lot of folks on here think academics play zero role in this. Initially yes, that's true, But if the Big18 can pick up Cal and Furd for $20M a year (which they would jump at)? Apple was going to pay them $23M as part of the Pac. They are both top 50 in TV ratings. "Cal doesnt care about football"...they dropped almost half a billion on their stadium and facilities upgrades not that long ago. And they bring the academic cred and resources the other Big18 schools crave. ESPN wont let the ACC fold any time soon, they'll lose some of those schools to Fox controlled leagues so short term, makes no sense to allow it. Big18 may stand pat but Apple is still wanting to get in. If they fund Cal and Furd to come in and get 4th tier rights, this doesnt sound that far fetched. We'll see what happens.
  14. Canzano hasnt been right about much but in his column today he stated that there will be $420M up for grabs in a Pac-12 "war chest" coming from media rights distributions, postseason distributions, other payments etc that the remaining 4 schools are entitled to use to cover costs and damages because they got ditched. Sounds... questionable... but if true this whole deal gets even more comedic.
  15. IMO They absolutely do from a non sports perspective. Global top tier academics, billions in annual research, arguably the 2 best libraries in the world… blah blah blah. Conference membership gives the other schools access to all that. Sports wise, removing the rev sports, you’ve got 2 of the top 10-15 programs in the nation. Rev sports have largely sucked in the past few years but Cal BMDs dumped $2m+ into a new bball roster that will win 20 games next season. Football raised ~$5m and spent about $3m in getting a dozen or so transfers that filled in a lot of the depth holes. Football will be better this season and if the QB hits and the OL is fixed to at least “average”, they have a shot at 8-9 wins. They need to revamp the athletic department and get some new blood in which hopefully happens when Knowlton gets fired. But the investment in program relevance is already happening. so would the Big18 take them at a massive discount? I think so. Especially if Apple gets brought in for 4th tier rights as is rumored. West coast volume inventory is still valuable to some degree
  16. Cal’s leadership has really fucked themselves. Chancellor is retiring and doesn’t give a fuck and the AD is an incompetent who is likely getting fired for covering up the abuse from the c bag swim coach. Cal BMDs are pissed. They know there is a number where the Big10 takes them and Furd and they’ve told the Chancellor to go get it. ACC was a thing for a while too apparently. Rev sports would’ve been national with the non rev regional and while discussions aren’t dead (add SDSU with the remaining 4 for example), UO and UW being out… that’s looking like it is on life support. My guess is that Cal and Stanford go hat in hand to the Big 10 and take whatever pittance they can get to gain membership. BMDs know they have to get the unengaged donor money involved (and there is a lot out there) to bridge some of the spending gap over the next decade or so. Will believe that when I see it, frankly. But the Big10 does want them, it’s just a question how much much the TV networks will pay additionally. I’m guessing $20m per team to start. We’ll see…
  17. Is true, Mountain West or independent is not feasible. It’s Big10 at an even smaller number than UO and UW got, ACC wanting a west coast presence with non revenue sports being regional only… or they fold it up and dump $400m of debt on the UC regents. Stanford is so far staying aligned with Cal apparently.
  18. The Presidents do for the academic prestige, access to their libraries/research and alumni base in the Bay Area. I dont think the TV networks do. If they come along, it'll be at 50% share IMO
×
×
  • Create New...