UC Board of Regent to meet to consider rescinding Cal-imony

[Cougsocal]

As you know, Cal is expected to receive 5-10 million per annum in Cal-imony due to damages caused by UCLA's departure. Well, what did Cal just do too? UCLA no longer wants to pay Cal-imony. And they have a point. Cal is deeply in debt to the tune of 300+ million, they have 23 non-revenue sports, will be getting only 30% of a full ACC share initially, and they must fund a ton of East Coast travel as an ACC member. Guess who might be near saying --- Nevermind!

Crazy!

 

[ttowncoug]

A school should be able to negotiate whatever media deal they can get and keep that money.

The argument of Cal getting cash would be that UCLA went "rogue" and harmed another state school.

 

[dgibbons]

A school should be able to negotiate whatever media deal they can get and keep that money.

The argument of Cal getting cash would be that UCLA went "rogue" and harmed another state school.

The interesting part is UC-Berkley and UCLA are both the University of California.

 

[Cougsocal]

You don't appear to fully understand what has actually been going on at UC BOR meetings. They were considering/if not planning, to have UCLA pay Cal serious money up to 10 million per annum. Whether you think that is right or not, doesn't matter. That BOR manages both schools, concurrently, that was their plan. Now Cal may shot themselves in the foot by leaving too!

 

[longtimecoug]

As you know, Cal is expected to receive 5-10 million per annum in Cal-imony due to damages caused by UCLA's departure. Well, what did Cal just do too? UCLA no longer wants to pay Cal-imony. And they have a point. Cal is deeply in debt to the tune of 300+ million, they have 23 non-revenue sports, will be getting only 30% of a full ACC share initially, and they must fund a ton of East Coast travel as an ACC member. Guess who might be near saying --- Nevermind!

Crazy!

Cal may back out of leaving?

 

[MapleStCoug]

As if the ACC deal wasn't bad enough. I wouldn't even take a Big Ten offer if we had to talk about not playing home games anymore.

 

[BSpike76]

Long shot, but if it happened. would that make Stanford reconsider?

 

[425cougfan]

Not that I'm a Cal fan or apologist (degree from there, but not a real fan), but the rationale seems specious. None of this would have happened if USC and UCLA hadn't left. How does taking a lousy deal in the ACC, as opposed to an uncertain or mediocre share in the Pac-12, after a bunch of other schools bailed and destroyed any real bargaining power the Pac-whatever had--again, which would not have happened but for USC and UCLA leaving-- make any sense? Punishing them for putting their student athletes through lousy travel or whatever else? OK, sure, but why let UCLA off the hook on that basis? There's no way you can tell me Cal would have pursued ACC membership on a reduced share, of all things, if the Pac hadn't been destroyed by the dominos that started falling once USC and UCLA bailed.

 

[COUGinNCW]

I was hoping Cal would push for more Calimony when it was down to a PAC4 bc the damages were worse than imagined and they would have had a valid point. If ucla was shelling out $20m/year to CAL getting back in the PAC would have probably made sense for them.

 

[longtimecoug]

You don't appear to fully understand what has actually been going on at UC BOR meetings. They were considering/if not planning, to have UCLA pay Cal serious money up to 10 million per annum. Whether you think that is right or not, doesn't matter. That BOR manages both schools, concurrently, that was their plan. Now Cal may shot themselves in the foot by leaving too!

Now it makes sense, cal left as well and no longer can claim damage

 

[roses04]

Cal being in the same conference with a bunch of “ca state” schools is unlikely

 

[M-I-Coug]

Cold feet.

 

[Cougsocal]

Now it makes sense, cal left as well and no longer can claim damage

Well we know UCLA doesn't want to payout a dime to Cal.

Cal is the worst situated school to joined an East Coast conference for only 11 million per year (massive debt/massive non-revenue sports costs).

Since the last meeting approving UCLA's move, the landscape has completely change with the proposed ACC move, in relation to the Cal-imony concept.

Any academic/fiscal responsibility factions of the BOR will be voting against allowing the ACC move. Any UCLA faction will only vote to allow the move if UCLA is let out of paying Cal-imony, and the only way this can work for Cal is if they get Cal-imony, and they likely need even more of it.

Further, now Cal faces the real possibility of getting zero Pac-12 liquidation assets if it moves, and may get a serious chunk of change if it stays, and possibly power 5 status continues. That chance only increases if it must stay.

Denied Cal-imony, Cal may no longer want the move, probably it would be financial suicide under the current landscape. The BOR may also put the stop to it, because we all know it is financial insanity. UCLA's move made perfect financial sense, but Cal's move make about as much financial sense as a "Ninja Loan."

I would pay the price of admission to the meeting. They are conducted in secret, however.

It is going to be crazy.

 

[MapleStCoug]

Well we know UCLA doesn't want to payout a dime to Cal.

Cal is the worst situated school to joined an East Coast conference for only 11 million per year (massive debt/massive non-revenue sports costs).

Since the last meeting approving UCLA's move, the landscape has completely change with the proposed ACC move, in relation to the Cal-imony concept.

Any academic/fiscal responsibility factions of the BOR will be voting against allowing the ACC move. Any UCLA faction will only vote to allow the move if UCLA is let out of paying Cal-imony, and the only way this can work for Cal is if they get Cal-imony, and they likely need even more of it.

Further, now Cal faces the real possibility of getting zero Pac-12 liquidation assets if it moves, and may get a serious chunk of change if it stays, and possibly power 5 status continues. That chance only increases if it must stay.

Denied Cal-imony, Cal may no longer want the move, probably it would be financial suicide under the current landscape. The BOR may also put the stop to it, because we all know it is financial insanity. UCLA's move made perfect financial sense, but Cal's move make about as much financial sense as a "Ninja Loan."

I would pay the price of admission to the meeting. They are conducted in secret, however.

It is going to be crazy.

Great points but I'm not sure I agree about the academic factions of the board. I honestly think that one of the reasons they're willing to take a hit is to be associated with UVA, UNC, Duke, WF and BC (but this one is offset a bit because *gasp* they're Catholic) rather than be associated with whatever comes together on the west coast. These people are not living in our realities; that is us, OSU and the other "small guys" who actually care about competing in football and they sure as hell aren't living in the reality of the blue bloods. Just goes to show how insane this has all gotten with what they're willing to put their student athletes through.

 

[COUGinNCW]

Well we know UCLA doesn't want to payout a dime to Cal.

Cal is the worst situated school to joined an East Coast conference for only 11 million per year (massive debt/massive non-revenue sports costs).

Since the last meeting approving UCLA's move, the landscape has completely change with the proposed ACC move, in relation to the Cal-imony concept.

Any academic/fiscal responsibility factions of the BOR will be voting against allowing the ACC move. Any UCLA faction will only vote to allow the move if UCLA is let out of paying Cal-imony, and the only way this can work for Cal is if they get Cal-imony, and they likely need even more of it.

Further, now Cal faces the real possibility of getting zero Pac-12 liquidation assets if it moves, and may get a serious chunk of change if it stays, and possibly power 5 status continues. That chance only increases if it must stay.

Denied Cal-imony, Cal may no longer want the move, probably it would be financial suicide under the current landscape. The BOR may also put the stop to it, because we all know it is financial insanity. UCLA's move made perfect financial sense, but Cal's move make about as much financial sense as a "Ninja Loan."

I would pay the price of admission to the meeting. They are conducted in secret, however.

It is going to be crazy.

Damn, you’ve got my hopes up (again). Having Cal to rebuild the PAC would be big.

sounds like it will come down to them heavily subsidizing athletics vs having to associate with the unwashed masses from Boise, Fresno and to a lesser degree Pullman and Corvallis.

 

[MapleStCoug]

Damn, you’ve got my hopes up (again). Having Cal to rebuild the PAC would be big.

sounds like it will come down to them heavily subsidizing athletics vs having to associate with the unwashed masses from Boise, Fresno and to a lesser degree Pullman and Corvallis.

UC Berkeley Task Force recommends Cal Berkeley as the new athletic brand name

Because of the athletic connotation of Cal and the university brand of Berkeley, the recommendation of the university task force is to merge the two together.

writeforcalifornia.com

Idk if I want em😂

 

[COUGinNCW]

UC Berkeley Task Force recommends Cal Berkeley as the new athletic brand name

Because of the athletic connotation of Cal and the university brand of Berkeley, the recommendation of the university task force is to merge the two together.

writeforcalifornia.com

Idk if I want em😂

Beggars can’t be choosers. If it gave the PAC a chance to retain autonomous status it’s a no brainer.

 

[95coug]

Beggars can’t be choosers. If it gave the PAC a chance to retain autonomous status it’s a no brainer.

Sure, but punish them. They provided notice, so they violated the bylaws. We have the option to take their share based on that - even if they come back.

If they want to come back, they can return to the conference as of August 2, 2024. Until then, they don't get a vote on the CEO board. With their return, they can get a half share of their 2023-24 money. That's roughly equal to their ACC 1/3 share. If they retain their UCLA money, that still puts them ahead of where they'd otherwise be.

Question is, if Cal backs out, does that change things for Stanford? And if either or both back out, does it change the ACC's approach to SMU? Or, does the whole ACC deal come apart?

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Sure, but punish them. They provided notice, so they violated the bylaws. We have the option to take their share based on that - even if they come back.

If they want to come back, they can return to the conference as of August 2, 2024. Until then, they don't get a vote on the CEO board. With their return, they can get a half share of their 2023-24 money. That's roughly equal to their ACC 1/3 share. If they retain their UCLA money, that still puts them ahead of where they'd otherwise be.

Question is, if Cal backs out, does that change things for Stanford? And if either or both back out, does it change the ACC's approach to SMU? Or, does the whole ACC deal come apart?

I get the feeling, but all BS aside, we would be crazy to make it hard for them to come back. A future Pac-12 with Cal is a better brand that is worth more money. Taking a dump in their Cheerios just to be petty isn't good business.

Your last question is the important one. It likely becomes impossible for Stanford to go to the ACC by themselves. The whole idea was stupid in the first place, but it becomes moronic for them as a standalone.

 

[longtimecoug]

I get the feeling, but all BS aside, we would be crazy to make it hard for them to come back. A future Pac-12 with Cal is a better brand that is worth more money. Taking a dump in their Cheerios just to be petty isn't good business.

Your last question is the important one. It likely becomes impossible for Stanford to go to the ACC by themselves. The whole idea was stupid in the first place, but it becomes moronic for them as a standalone.

I don't think they should just get to come back like nothing happened. there has to be some type of penalty, they gave us the big middle finger after all

 

[95coug]

I get the feeling, but all BS aside, we would be crazy to make it hard for them to come back. A future Pac-12 with Cal is a better brand that is worth more money. Taking a dump in their Cheerios just to be petty isn't good business.

Your last question is the important one. It likely becomes impossible for Stanford to go to the ACC by themselves. The whole idea was stupid in the first place, but it becomes moronic for them as a standalone.

It's not just to be petty. Doing it the way I described means that OSU and WSU still control the conference remainders, and can still arrange our own payday. We deserve something for having the 10 put us through all of this...and Cal is part of that. Sure, long term we're likely better off with them aboard, but I don't think we should do it in a way that sacrifices our potential to benefit.

 

[dgibbons]

I don't think they should just get to come back like nothing happened. there has to be some type of penalty, they gave us the big middle finger after all

Cal is not coming back. Even if Cal pulls out of the ACC, why do we want them?

 

[roses04]

Highly unlikely Cal comes back. I just don't see a highly ranked academic institution, like Cal. to admit they made a huge mistake. Plus, they are joined at the hip with Stanford.

 

[COUGinNCW]

Cal is not coming back. Even if Cal pulls out of the ACC, why do we want them?

I doubt they are coming back but the PAC2 would be foolish not to take them back if they wanted to help build a new PAC.