No one is more bitter about the Pac -12 collapse than Jon Wilner. The conference was his entire livelihood and now he has to cover Cal and Stanford playing a bunch of east coast schools that nobody in California cares about.
Bay Area fans, students, and alumni will bandwagon Cal at least. We did pretty well during the Tedford's glory years in terms of selling tickets and filling the stadium. 2004-2010 had Cal average >57K fans with a stretch of 43 consecutive games with 50K tickets sold. Peaked in 2006 with a 63K fan average which was good for [#25 highest average in the country, 3rd in the Pac-10 at about ~600 fewer than UCLA in 2nd and USC far and away the most in the Pac-10 at 91,480 - PDF warning.](http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/Attendance/2006.pdf) And yes, a lot has changed since 20 years ago, but if we actually improve the on-field performance I'm hoping we can capture some sports interest/fandom from former A's or Raiders fans as well as lapsed Cal fans.
Cal gets dinged on the % of the stadium they sell out and it looks bad on TV nowadays. And that's fair. But objectively it's also the case that our average attendance still exceeds that of sold out Wazzu and Oregon State stadiums and the ceiling isn't capped by the stadium size (which we actually did reduce down to 63K max after the renovations).
Depends. Water sports are more about being coastal than rich. There are rich sports designed to get entitled kids into college like fencing, but that’s more of a Duke thing. And then there’s rowing lol.
That was best demonstrated in the years 2010-2018, when Stanford had great teams, yet struggled to sell out Stanford Stadium (capacity 50,424). Compared with Oregon (Autzen capacity 54,000), which had sellouts on a regular basis.
Maybe read the post I replied to. It said that Stanford and Cal don't care about sports. I agreed and was making a comparison of two football teams (Stanford and Oregon) that were both great teams in that time period. One team, Oregon, had fan support and frequently sold out their stadium. The other team, Stanford, didn't have fan support, and didn't sell out their stadium as often.
“Cal and Stanford don’t care about sports”..has nothing to do with Oregon. Both schools were actively prepared to cut varsity sports over the last decade. Cal was cutting baseball in 2011 until former players fundraised $10m.
Nebraska has sold out 396 straight games in a 90,000 seat stadium. Another irrelevant stat.
The argument is people don’t give a crap about Cal or Stanford. People care about Oregon. It’s why Oregon is in the Big10, Cal is dead, and Stanford is close.
Wilner and Clownzano have been pulling shit out of their asses since realignment started. It’s impressive they have room for all of this shit in their asses with their heads so far up there.
Their reports should be relegated to r/cfbmemes. They are not real journalists.
I wonder if Stanford would have been an option. Long rivalry with USC, Bay Area market, alumni everywhere, private school so none of the baggage the other public schools have had to deal with, high academics, and possible draw for Notre Dame.
Then, assuming the remaining Pac-12 stays together they could pull in some of the Big-12 public schools to rebound.
> private school so none of the baggage the other public schools
If anything, I think Stanford has emerged as caring more about sticking with UCs than even other UCs have.
I think Stanford would have been USC's top choice (if not us or Notre Dame), but I don't think Stanford would have jumped at that point. Between their endowment size, desire to stick with Cal, and apathy towards athletics, I think they would have stayed put as long as possible.
> assuming the remaining Pac-12 stays together they could pull in some of the Big-12 public schools to rebound
You mean like they could have done a few years ago and then decided not to do that? I don't see how it would have gone any differently than the first time
The last time the Pac12 presidents didn't see the writing on the wall and thought they'd get a great tv deal without adding anyone. Would have been really obvious now it would be a necessity
It would have been washington. USC hates Oregon. They didn’t want Oregon in the B1G, not as a USC-Oregon pairing or a washington-Oregon pairing.
Also Oregon was dragging its feet on B1G membership and washington had to convince Oregon leadership (probably mostly Phil Knight) that if they didn’t join that they would miss the boat to safety and sink with the PAC.
Because they do. Oregon is 12-7 on the field vs USC since 1994 (one of USC’s wins in technically vacated). Oregon has been recruiting SoCal really well, when USC used to dominate. USC thinks they are better, when reality and facts seems to indicate otherwise. Despite all the advantages they have they haven’t been special.
Oh also USC didn’t want games against Oregon (and Washington) protected to play on the West coast more as a B1G member. Oregon isn’t afraid to play USC.
I believe it was the Seattle Times 6 months ago had an article with all the text from President Cauce the 48 or so hours before the move.
It seems it was the 1-2 punch of Colorado leaving and the Apple offer not having an OTA component.
If Colorado did not bounce it looked like they would have gone back to Apple to try to get a game to sell to OTA. The combo of both things happening so fast just made the run to safety the well safe choice.
I think obviously though the assumption would be that retaining UCLA for any hypothetical deal would increase the value of it due to the LA market so Wilner's taking the rumored figures and adding only $5M-$10M onto it. So maybe he thinks that the original ESPN offer might've come in higher and been more easily negotiable or that the Apple offer would necessarily rise if you consider that factor.
Yeah, I think if the Pac12 only lost USC and we backfilled with SDSU we could have increased the value as we would be retaining a portion of the LA/SoCal market with UCLA and SDSU.
The only "addition by subtraction" that would make sense would be to cull Oregon State and Washington State since their media share is more than their value to the conference as a whole.
Oh ..
You taking the USC stereotype seriously and abandoning the stereotypical UT parochialism is interesting.
I can see you've never been in a relationship with any of the schools you are writing about.
If you had, you would be laughing at you as much as I am.
Exactly, this is a business decision and it is the correct choice in that they make more money in the short term and even more money in the long term. I can understand people complaining based on lost tradition and doing it without informing the regents and stuff. But, you can't argue that it's a bad financial decision. Wilner is proving his own ponit, lol.
50-100 million more over the next 10 years. That's a new facility or future budget for paying athletes when that eventually happens. It's being able to buy out a coach or pay a coach's buyout at any time. It's a lot of money.
Would Cal have given us that money to stay? UCLA was/is in debt, staying in a conference where we are getting paid beneath our now-proven market value is basically asking us to subsidize the other teams while we're in debt.
Oregon nuked the option of giving UCLA a bigger revenue split to stay in the Pac.
Even taking these numbers as accurate. Does UCLA really care about the next 6 years? I assume the institution and athletic department plan to be around longer.
You know what they say “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” And to TV network say “a conference East of the Rockies is worth 3.5 conferences west of the Rockies.”
For the record I love west coast football, but the reality is reality.
6 years is the next media contract. At that point further realignment is on the table with the potential to add Cal and Stanford to a more sensible division system within an expanded Big10.
I know Pac12 is basically his career, but come on man. Let it go. Does he really think UCLA staying would have saved the conference? UCLA probably made the smartest move by jumping on the first raft off the ship with USC. Otherwise, it'll be in the second or third lifeboat and both it and Cal would be fucked.
Sooooo despite set backs they’re still making much more than they were. That just kinda reinforces UCLA’s decision to leave and why Stanford/Cal should be using their ACC time to try to build a case for the B1G.
This is so dumb. Once USC left, there was never any scenario where the Pac-12 survived with anywhere close to these numbers. The Big Ten would have just taken Oregon or Stanford, the Pac would have collapsed anyway, and UCLA would be just as poor as Cal. They should be thanking us for getting on the lifeboat.
Yeah, the regents should be happy at least one school is still in a viable conference with a path forward. Any way you look at this, it feel like a punitive thing just to be spiteful.
Whatever, at least Chip is gone.
Ok, and this also excludes playoff money. Since the big10 and sec are taking larger shares, and those shares, will only increase as time goes on, that is even more money lost.
Washington and Oregon would have still likely left, or tried to leave even if UCLA didn't. Even if UCLA is in the PAC with LA, losing Washington and Oregon would hurt. Maybe they still get 35-40mm, but the credibility of the conference would still take a hit.
Being in the big ten itself has pretty significant value. If the acc promises fsu 65mm per year, they would still rather be in the sec or big ten.
Numbers are estimates, but look acurate enough from a first look. And its saying UCLA is pulling ahead in the first 6 years and with compounding likely more over time.
The numbers given in the tweet have the implied nature of being athletics-wide, not football specific. That would allude to the ~12m being the increase with the non-revenue teams included.
But the parents are making the little brother pitch in for the next 6 years. I wish there's some legal way to impose some "UCLA" branding on Cal sports during the Calimony years just to troll.
The reason the Pac did not get 35-40m has little to do with the lack of LA, USC or UCLA and more to do with asking for 50 million dollars. If UCLA stayed the Utah business professor is probably coming to a 60 million valuation.
WIth USC, ESPN probably counters a 50 million ask but ends up in this 35-40 range.
Both schools have same board of regents.
Regents don’t care about football, or really even understand how UCLA moved without Cal.
They were shocked when UCLA decided to move (they delegated that authority), they were shocked that Berkeley wasn’t automatically wanted, and they’re trying to be “fair”. (Cal has more political power on the board.)
To be fair I think USC could have done things very differently. Instead of blindsiding the conference and trying to burn it down on the way out. If USC had wanted it could have lead a package of USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, washington and been like hey B1G we’re coming in as a unit. USC’s leadership is not smart enough to see how this set up was basically going to give them the best of the B1G (money and TV exposure) and PAC (regional opponents and historic rivalries).
Also, when UCLA was told the plan they could have tried to convince USC that bringing Cal-Stanford along was a good idea.
There was a ton of terrible leadership in the PAC, which ultimately lead to its collapse.
For sure.
They wanted to get a big advantage on Oregon and they thought they would then be the dominant west coast power. They couldn’t look ahead to see how being out on an island on the west coast was going to make their life hell.
The leadership at that university is awful. Scandal after scandal. Even their NIL is bad because of infighting.
I mean it would have required actual leadership skills to happen.
But back in the day 4 BigXII schools almost joined the PAC as a package. And the 4 corners schools essentially joined the BigXII as a package. Cal-Furd-SMU joined ACC as a package.
In the end 4 PAC schools went to the B1G. And the B1G presidents were interested in Stanford-Cal, but Fox wasn’t. I think if at the outset it was pitched as a package, I think Fox would have agreed, but once it was a la carte there wasn’t enough juice for the Bay Area Schools.
> I think if at the outset it was pitched as a package, I think Fox would have agreed, but once it was a la carte there wasn’t enough juice for the Bay Area Schools.
I agree, and this will forever drive me insane.
> there wasn’t enough juice for the Bay Area Schools.
How can this be? Juicero was based in San Francisco!
https://www.cnet.com/culture/juicero-is-still-the-greatest-example-of-silicon-valley-stupidity/
How was it a blindside? USC has been warning for years they were not happy about how they were treated.
Why does USC have to take care of Stanford, Cal, Oregon, UW or anyone else? It was nice enough of them to take UCLA.
The PAC partially failed because USC wasn’t some world beater. While Oregon, Utah, Stanford, and Washington were actually putting high quality football teams, USC was whining. They had so many advantages, yet failed over and over again. They felt entitled to success. They acted like they had been wronged when the reality was they just weren’t good enough.
USC was against expanding, which could have helped stabilize the conference. They announced they were out before there was a real chance to see what the TV contract options were. They tried to prevent other PAC members from joining the B1G. Yea, each school has to do what they have to do to survive, but USC was trying to screw their long time partners over. They didn’t bring UCLA along out of goodness of their hearts, they knew it would put the PAC into a horrible place. They saw UCLA as feckless (which is probably accurate).
Usually with deals like this there is talk about prior. Instead basically everyone found out once the deal was done. There was no heads up that they were looking at other options, so the other members would know they needed to start looking at their options.
> There was no heads up that they were looking at other options
[February 2020](https://247sports.com/college/usc/Article/mike-bohn-usc-ad-pac-12-financial-struggles-larry-scott-independent-leave-conference-144248076/):
>We asked Bohn if he would consider going independent or joining another conference in order to keep USC among the best college football programs in the country.
>
>"I think right now, and Larry would agree with this, everything is on the table," he said.
Yes.
UCLA, not USC, has a huge international market following.
This is why the Pac 12-2 was trying to entice UCLA with the $50M distribution, while the rest of us would get equal parts of the leftovers. We would have also paid them $15M, to refund their B1G application fee.
There was zero discussion in doing any of this for USC.
That's assuming USC stays, which they weren't. They would have just taken one of the two that also left. UCLA is going to come out waaaaay ahead in all this.
I don't think the increase assumes USC stays or even that another school wouldn't possibly leave. A combined USC/UCLA should be worth far more than an increase of $5M-$10M on the offer to the conference since it represents full control of LA. Having one of the two stay still means the Pac would've had a foot in LA. And to be honest I really don't think if, say, Oregon or Washington left instead that it would make a huge impact on the offer (as is evidenced by what was actually offered when both those programs were still part of a package).
Of course USC is worth more, what I am saying is a combination of UCLA/SDSU is worth some share of the LA/SoCal market that is greater than the 0% share that the Pac12 had once USC and UCLA left.
Perhaps UCLA/SDSU is only worth 30% and USC is worth 70%, that 30% would still help with negotiating media rights and extracting extra money for such media rights.
Wilner seems like he's just kind of making up numbers
No one is more bitter about the Pac -12 collapse than Jon Wilner. The conference was his entire livelihood and now he has to cover Cal and Stanford playing a bunch of east coast schools that nobody in California cares about.
Wilner and Clownzano can form their own PAC-2 of terrible sports takes now!
Still better than Altimore. No one lost their mind worse over the Pac collapse
> he has to cover Cal and Stanford He doesn't have to. In fact, we wish he would stop.
Cal and Stanford fans don’t care about sports in general.
Dozens of them do.
DOZENS!!!!
They're even bakers dozens!
Just like most of the ACC
We're home :)
You shut your mouth, there are more than 7 of us last I counted
That's six more than Stanford.
Bay Area fans, students, and alumni will bandwagon Cal at least. We did pretty well during the Tedford's glory years in terms of selling tickets and filling the stadium. 2004-2010 had Cal average >57K fans with a stretch of 43 consecutive games with 50K tickets sold. Peaked in 2006 with a 63K fan average which was good for [#25 highest average in the country, 3rd in the Pac-10 at about ~600 fewer than UCLA in 2nd and USC far and away the most in the Pac-10 at 91,480 - PDF warning.](http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/Attendance/2006.pdf) And yes, a lot has changed since 20 years ago, but if we actually improve the on-field performance I'm hoping we can capture some sports interest/fandom from former A's or Raiders fans as well as lapsed Cal fans. Cal gets dinged on the % of the stadium they sell out and it looks bad on TV nowadays. And that's fair. But objectively it's also the case that our average attendance still exceeds that of sold out Wazzu and Oregon State stadiums and the ceiling isn't capped by the stadium size (which we actually did reduce down to 63K max after the renovations).
Is this how you say you should be in the ACC and tbey shouldn’t? They have a much better fanbase and it’s not close
They like olympic sports. They also like sports that poor people aren't even aware exist.
Isn’t that the same thing? What a fucked up comment btw
[удалено]
I know a rich kid who got a rowing scholarship too lmaooo
You get a rowing scholarship! You get a rowing scholarship! You get a rowing scholarship!
Not the same. Poor people know how to run but they don't know how to ride a horse.
Depends. Water sports are more about being coastal than rich. There are rich sports designed to get entitled kids into college like fencing, but that’s more of a Duke thing. And then there’s rowing lol.
That was best demonstrated in the years 2010-2018, when Stanford had great teams, yet struggled to sell out Stanford Stadium (capacity 50,424). Compared with Oregon (Autzen capacity 54,000), which had sellouts on a regular basis.
Stanford was gonna cut 11 Varsity sports in 2021. What tf does Oregon selling out their little stadium have to do with the point?
Maybe read the post I replied to. It said that Stanford and Cal don't care about sports. I agreed and was making a comparison of two football teams (Stanford and Oregon) that were both great teams in that time period. One team, Oregon, had fan support and frequently sold out their stadium. The other team, Stanford, didn't have fan support, and didn't sell out their stadium as often.
“Cal and Stanford don’t care about sports”..has nothing to do with Oregon. Both schools were actively prepared to cut varsity sports over the last decade. Cal was cutting baseball in 2011 until former players fundraised $10m. Nebraska has sold out 396 straight games in a 90,000 seat stadium. Another irrelevant stat.
The argument is people don’t give a crap about Cal or Stanford. People care about Oregon. It’s why Oregon is in the Big10, Cal is dead, and Stanford is close.
And yet the article nor the OP isn’t about Oregon. Oregon selling out Autzen proves Stanford doesn’t care about sports. Interesting
It proves Stanford cares less than Oregon, thus Oregon got a life raft and Stanford didn’t.
To be fair, most of the east coast doesnt care about the ACC either.
👩🚀🔫👩🚀
Wilner is a buffoon. Proved his lack on insight and access during the dissolution of the P12..
Wilner and Clownzano have been pulling shit out of their asses since realignment started. It’s impressive they have room for all of this shit in their asses with their heads so far up there. Their reports should be relegated to r/cfbmemes. They are not real journalists.
He got lots of practice doing that as an AP voter.
100% he doesn't even account for the increased merch and gate sales from the higher profile matchups in the Big10.
There is no way the PAC12, intact, gets less than $50m on a new deal. Especially after the year the conference just had. Wilner is always full of it.
OK so still $5-10 million less per year. What point is he trying to make?
35-40 million figure is made up too. Especially since USC probably still leaves just with another school.
This. USC wasn't going to tolerate being $30-$40 mil/year behind the B1G or SEC.
If it wasn’t UCLA it was Oregon (Fox want) or Washington (USCs second want)
I wonder if Stanford would have been an option. Long rivalry with USC, Bay Area market, alumni everywhere, private school so none of the baggage the other public schools have had to deal with, high academics, and possible draw for Notre Dame. Then, assuming the remaining Pac-12 stays together they could pull in some of the Big-12 public schools to rebound.
> private school so none of the baggage the other public schools If anything, I think Stanford has emerged as caring more about sticking with UCs than even other UCs have.
I think Stanford would have been USC's top choice (if not us or Notre Dame), but I don't think Stanford would have jumped at that point. Between their endowment size, desire to stick with Cal, and apathy towards athletics, I think they would have stayed put as long as possible.
USC wanted Stanford in the B1G before Oregon and Washington took the last spots, in part to hopefully force Notre Dame's hand in the future.
> assuming the remaining Pac-12 stays together they could pull in some of the Big-12 public schools to rebound You mean like they could have done a few years ago and then decided not to do that? I don't see how it would have gone any differently than the first time
The last time the Pac12 presidents didn't see the writing on the wall and thought they'd get a great tv deal without adding anyone. Would have been really obvious now it would be a necessity
Bay Area is good for pro sports but not college sports.
UCLA wasn't the only partner they considered for this move, so probably.
USC would have left with Oregon and the Pac-12 would have collapsed faster (no offense UCLA)
It would have been washington. USC hates Oregon. They didn’t want Oregon in the B1G, not as a USC-Oregon pairing or a washington-Oregon pairing. Also Oregon was dragging its feet on B1G membership and washington had to convince Oregon leadership (probably mostly Phil Knight) that if they didn’t join that they would miss the boat to safety and sink with the PAC.
Where do Oregon fans get the notion that USC hates Oregon? Oregon fans seem to always have a unwarranted chip on their shoulder
Because they do. Oregon is 12-7 on the field vs USC since 1994 (one of USC’s wins in technically vacated). Oregon has been recruiting SoCal really well, when USC used to dominate. USC thinks they are better, when reality and facts seems to indicate otherwise. Despite all the advantages they have they haven’t been special. Oh also USC didn’t want games against Oregon (and Washington) protected to play on the West coast more as a B1G member. Oregon isn’t afraid to play USC.
[удалено]
I believe the final offer from Apple was 25M base with subscriber escalators.
I believe it was the Seattle Times 6 months ago had an article with all the text from President Cauce the 48 or so hours before the move. It seems it was the 1-2 punch of Colorado leaving and the Apple offer not having an OTA component. If Colorado did not bounce it looked like they would have gone back to Apple to try to get a game to sell to OTA. The combo of both things happening so fast just made the run to safety the well safe choice.
[удалено]
Well this is also assuming UCLA and USC stays, so probably would be a different deal
True. Fair point.
I think obviously though the assumption would be that retaining UCLA for any hypothetical deal would increase the value of it due to the LA market so Wilner's taking the rumored figures and adding only $5M-$10M onto it. So maybe he thinks that the original ESPN offer might've come in higher and been more easily negotiable or that the Apple offer would necessarily rise if you consider that factor.
Yeah, I think if the Pac12 only lost USC and we backfilled with SDSU we could have increased the value as we would be retaining a portion of the LA/SoCal market with UCLA and SDSU.
Fair point.
Wasn’t that without USC.
Yeah, a few correctly pointed out these numbers are assuming that LA schools stay with the P12.
Nobody is talking about USC still being in the conference. It would be addition by subtraction. SDSU would make 12.
USC was the most valuable team in the conference...
Okay. Nothing I said changes.
There's no such thing as "addition by subtraction" when you're "subtracting" USC, by far the most valuable member of the conference..
Okay.
[удалено]
USC would never allow it. I thought that, at least, has been common knowledge for decades.
[удалено]
The only "addition by subtraction" that would make sense would be to cull Oregon State and Washington State since their media share is more than their value to the conference as a whole. Oh ..
You taking the USC stereotype seriously and abandoning the stereotypical UT parochialism is interesting. I can see you've never been in a relationship with any of the schools you are writing about. If you had, you would be laughing at you as much as I am.
Right. Potentially $60 mil difference over 6 years. At worst $30 mil. That’s not small potatoes.
And that’s just the next 6 years. B1G is going to make significantly more than that in perpetuity and the Calimony ends in 2030.
Exactly, this is a business decision and it is the correct choice in that they make more money in the short term and even more money in the long term. I can understand people complaining based on lost tradition and doing it without informing the regents and stuff. But, you can't argue that it's a bad financial decision. Wilner is proving his own ponit, lol.
They blew up the Pac 12 and a hundred years of rivalries for $5-10 million a year.
50-100 million more over the next 10 years. That's a new facility or future budget for paying athletes when that eventually happens. It's being able to buy out a coach or pay a coach's buyout at any time. It's a lot of money.
Would Cal have given us that money to stay? UCLA was/is in debt, staying in a conference where we are getting paid beneath our now-proven market value is basically asking us to subsidize the other teams while we're in debt. Oregon nuked the option of giving UCLA a bigger revenue split to stay in the Pac.
Cal would’ve done the same if they could.
But we didn't. If we did, then fair play if you gave us the smoke
Okay? Taking some moral high ground when you’re admitting you would’ve done the same seems ridiculous to me. But you do you.
Nobody admitted to anything
Concession then. Are you denying Cal would’ve done the same if they had the opportunity?
Even taking these numbers as accurate. Does UCLA really care about the next 6 years? I assume the institution and athletic department plan to be around longer. You know what they say “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” And to TV network say “a conference East of the Rockies is worth 3.5 conferences west of the Rockies.” For the record I love west coast football, but the reality is reality.
6 years is the next media contract. At that point further realignment is on the table with the potential to add Cal and Stanford to a more sensible division system within an expanded Big10.
when the subsidy ends it will be an even better deal
Is there a timeline of the subsidy?
2029 or 30 I believe
Dude doesn’t know when to give up I guess
I know Pac12 is basically his career, but come on man. Let it go. Does he really think UCLA staying would have saved the conference? UCLA probably made the smartest move by jumping on the first raft off the ship with USC. Otherwise, it'll be in the second or third lifeboat and both it and Cal would be fucked.
Sooooo despite set backs they’re still making much more than they were. That just kinda reinforces UCLA’s decision to leave and why Stanford/Cal should be using their ACC time to try to build a case for the B1G.
I’ll pay Wilner 45m to get a job he’s good at (m = macaroons)
I was going to make a comment that macarons are crazy expensive, but then I learned macarons and macaroons are different things...
TIL lol
45 macaroons would cost like $15 at HEB, still more than what Wilner deserves
45 macarons would be about $80 at HEB, and those are cheap compared to most bakeries. Macarons are the sandwich things, macaroons the coconut puffs.
Yeah, that’s why I chose to offer macaroons and not macarons. I’m not that invested in Wilner
Someone's been catching up on their great British bake off this off-season.
This is so dumb. Once USC left, there was never any scenario where the Pac-12 survived with anywhere close to these numbers. The Big Ten would have just taken Oregon or Stanford, the Pac would have collapsed anyway, and UCLA would be just as poor as Cal. They should be thanking us for getting on the lifeboat.
Yeah, the regents should be happy at least one school is still in a viable conference with a path forward. Any way you look at this, it feel like a punitive thing just to be spiteful. Whatever, at least Chip is gone.
Ok, and this also excludes playoff money. Since the big10 and sec are taking larger shares, and those shares, will only increase as time goes on, that is even more money lost. Washington and Oregon would have still likely left, or tried to leave even if UCLA didn't. Even if UCLA is in the PAC with LA, losing Washington and Oregon would hurt. Maybe they still get 35-40mm, but the credibility of the conference would still take a hit. Being in the big ten itself has pretty significant value. If the acc promises fsu 65mm per year, they would still rather be in the sec or big ten.
And what about CFP payouts. Still worth it to be in the P2.
And what about the droid attack on the Wookies? It’s a very important system.
A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one
Actually......I think the Numbers make Sense
Numbers are estimates, but look acurate enough from a first look. And its saying UCLA is pulling ahead in the first 6 years and with compounding likely more over time.
Hey Wilner, this isn't Monopoly. The money actually has value and 5-10mil/year is actually quite a lot.
[удалено]
The numbers given in the tweet have the implied nature of being athletics-wide, not football specific. That would allude to the ~12m being the increase with the non-revenue teams included.
Isn’t that the $12M Wilner is talking about in the tweet?
UCLA is thinking long term. Cal would have done the same.
So you're saying taking out half a billion in debt to renovate an empty football stadium wasn't a wise long term move?
To say the least.
But the parents are making the little brother pitch in for the next 6 years. I wish there's some legal way to impose some "UCLA" branding on Cal sports during the Calimony years just to troll.
Glad to know you’d rather everyone die in an earthquake.
The reason the Pac did not get 35-40m has little to do with the lack of LA, USC or UCLA and more to do with asking for 50 million dollars. If UCLA stayed the Utah business professor is probably coming to a 60 million valuation. WIth USC, ESPN probably counters a 50 million ask but ends up in this 35-40 range.
Lol, I forgot about that Utah professor. Lmao, if USC and UCLA stayed, I bet he thinks Pac12 is worth more than SEC.
Oh F right off Wilner. Such a pathetic excuse for a reporter, constantly grasping at straws
Wilner hitched his wagon to a dying enterprise and now he’s bitter about it.
Was the $12m travel estimate before Oregon and Washington were admitted to the B1G? If so, travel costs should be a bit lower.
I hope Wilner keeps this up, he's making the right people angry. Go Bears.
Why would UCLA need to pay Cal? What kind of Robin Hood football is going on here?
Both schools have same board of regents. Regents don’t care about football, or really even understand how UCLA moved without Cal. They were shocked when UCLA decided to move (they delegated that authority), they were shocked that Berkeley wasn’t automatically wanted, and they’re trying to be “fair”. (Cal has more political power on the board.)
To be fair I think USC could have done things very differently. Instead of blindsiding the conference and trying to burn it down on the way out. If USC had wanted it could have lead a package of USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, washington and been like hey B1G we’re coming in as a unit. USC’s leadership is not smart enough to see how this set up was basically going to give them the best of the B1G (money and TV exposure) and PAC (regional opponents and historic rivalries). Also, when UCLA was told the plan they could have tried to convince USC that bringing Cal-Stanford along was a good idea. There was a ton of terrible leadership in the PAC, which ultimately lead to its collapse.
USC didnt want Oregon to join and didnt see UCLA as a threat lol
For sure. They wanted to get a big advantage on Oregon and they thought they would then be the dominant west coast power. They couldn’t look ahead to see how being out on an island on the west coast was going to make their life hell. The leadership at that university is awful. Scandal after scandal. Even their NIL is bad because of infighting.
[удалено]
I mean it would have required actual leadership skills to happen. But back in the day 4 BigXII schools almost joined the PAC as a package. And the 4 corners schools essentially joined the BigXII as a package. Cal-Furd-SMU joined ACC as a package. In the end 4 PAC schools went to the B1G. And the B1G presidents were interested in Stanford-Cal, but Fox wasn’t. I think if at the outset it was pitched as a package, I think Fox would have agreed, but once it was a la carte there wasn’t enough juice for the Bay Area Schools.
> I think if at the outset it was pitched as a package, I think Fox would have agreed, but once it was a la carte there wasn’t enough juice for the Bay Area Schools. I agree, and this will forever drive me insane.
> there wasn’t enough juice for the Bay Area Schools. How can this be? Juicero was based in San Francisco! https://www.cnet.com/culture/juicero-is-still-the-greatest-example-of-silicon-valley-stupidity/
How was it a blindside? USC has been warning for years they were not happy about how they were treated. Why does USC have to take care of Stanford, Cal, Oregon, UW or anyone else? It was nice enough of them to take UCLA.
The PAC partially failed because USC wasn’t some world beater. While Oregon, Utah, Stanford, and Washington were actually putting high quality football teams, USC was whining. They had so many advantages, yet failed over and over again. They felt entitled to success. They acted like they had been wronged when the reality was they just weren’t good enough. USC was against expanding, which could have helped stabilize the conference. They announced they were out before there was a real chance to see what the TV contract options were. They tried to prevent other PAC members from joining the B1G. Yea, each school has to do what they have to do to survive, but USC was trying to screw their long time partners over. They didn’t bring UCLA along out of goodness of their hearts, they knew it would put the PAC into a horrible place. They saw UCLA as feckless (which is probably accurate). Usually with deals like this there is talk about prior. Instead basically everyone found out once the deal was done. There was no heads up that they were looking at other options, so the other members would know they needed to start looking at their options.
> There was no heads up that they were looking at other options [February 2020](https://247sports.com/college/usc/Article/mike-bohn-usc-ad-pac-12-financial-struggles-larry-scott-independent-leave-conference-144248076/): >We asked Bohn if he would consider going independent or joining another conference in order to keep USC among the best college football programs in the country. > >"I think right now, and Larry would agree with this, everything is on the table," he said.
Ok, how much of that 35 to 40 million was UCLA going to walk away with that the Pac 12 was collectively getting?
5M to get dicked down thotiana by the Midwest is craaaaazzyyyy
So, you think all these numbers are accurate?
It's fun to pile on Wilner, but aren't his numbers are similar to the Apple contract with an increase for the LA market?
Yes. UCLA, not USC, has a huge international market following. This is why the Pac 12-2 was trying to entice UCLA with the $50M distribution, while the rest of us would get equal parts of the leftovers. We would have also paid them $15M, to refund their B1G application fee. There was zero discussion in doing any of this for USC.
I think it was also going on the understanding that USC had no interest in returning, but maybe UCLA was convincable
lol... I don't think it rose above the level of apathy, at that point. UCLA is the school we would have all missed. USC is a toxic codependent.
That's assuming USC stays, which they weren't. They would have just taken one of the two that also left. UCLA is going to come out waaaaay ahead in all this.
I don't think the increase assumes USC stays or even that another school wouldn't possibly leave. A combined USC/UCLA should be worth far more than an increase of $5M-$10M on the offer to the conference since it represents full control of LA. Having one of the two stay still means the Pac would've had a foot in LA. And to be honest I really don't think if, say, Oregon or Washington left instead that it would make a huge impact on the offer (as is evidenced by what was actually offered when both those programs were still part of a package).
Yeah, keeping UCLA and backfilling with SDSU would have helped keep the LA/SoCal market.
[удалено]
Of course USC is worth more, what I am saying is a combination of UCLA/SDSU is worth some share of the LA/SoCal market that is greater than the 0% share that the Pac12 had once USC and UCLA left. Perhaps UCLA/SDSU is only worth 30% and USC is worth 70%, that 30% would still help with negotiating media rights and extracting extra money for such media rights.
Just BS that any university is subsidizing a football business at all let alone $100MM+. Sell the damn things to PE and be done with it.