|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Aug 18, 2023 11:44:16 GMT -8
My biggest fear is that Stanford and/or Cal dilly dally for so long and reject any proposals to expand the Pac 4 that 2024 comes around and WSU and OSU have nowhere to go. I'm sure OSU and WSU are considering this and want to hold onto the Pac because of residual NCAA basketball tournament payouts, but there may come a time when they get desperate and leave for another conference and get no payouts in the end. I would expect that since WSU and OSU are the one's who hired Mr. Luck, at some point quite soon, if Stanford/Cal don't quit they will be told "We have a tentative deal with teams and media, you're either in or out, and we're not waiting". Then again, maybe that's the plan...by either/both sides, dawdle until two schools give up the league then have all the future residuals for yourselves by picking up 4 or more teams and calling it the PAC and build up in the following year or two... dumb plan, but right now the PAC 12 haven split up sounds pretty dumb. |
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Aug 18, 2023 12:14:12 GMT -8
This better get resolved soon and to our benefit or I will be forced to hand out even more F U awards.
|
|
|
|
Post by nuclearbeaver on Aug 18, 2023 12:31:29 GMT -8
My biggest fear is that Stanford and/or Cal dilly dally for so long and reject any proposals to expand the Pac 4 that 2024 comes around and WSU and OSU have nowhere to go. I'm sure OSU and WSU are considering this and want to hold onto the Pac because of residual NCAA basketball tournament payouts, but there may come a time when they get desperate and leave for another conference and get no payouts in the end. I would expect that since WSU and OSU are the one's who hired Mr. Luck, at some point quite soon, if Stanford/Cal don't quit they will be told "We have a tentative deal with teams and media, you're either in or out, and we're not waiting". Then again, maybe that's the plan...by either/both sides, dawdle until two schools give up the league then have all the future residuals for yourselves by picking up 4 or more teams and calling it the PAC and build up in the following year or two... dumb plan, but right now the PAC 12 haven split up sounds pretty dumb. I thought this might be a good move for Cal, take all the cash and get out of debt. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Aug 18, 2023 12:52:09 GMT -8
I would expect that since WSU and OSU are the one's who hired Mr. Luck, at some point quite soon, if Stanford/Cal don't quit they will be told "We have a tentative deal with teams and media, you're either in or out, and we're not waiting". Then again, maybe that's the plan...by either/both sides, dawdle until two schools give up the league then have all the future residuals for yourselves by picking up 4 or more teams and calling it the PAC and build up in the following year or two... dumb plan, but right now the PAC 12 haven split up sounds pretty dumb. I thought this might be a good move for Cal, take all the cash and get out of debt. There is really NO amount of $ a conference can offer Cal to get them "out of debt"! They are so far in the red that a conference considering affiliation might think twice. There are a ton of issues to consider when a conference is taking on a school with such a debt load.
"No public school in the country has more athletics debt than the University of California-Berkeley. It is operating significantly in the red, to the point that the university is paying back some of the athletic department’s debt to help ease the burden and make it look like it was operating in the green.
The Golden Bears’ monster debt, based on the 2021-2022 fiscal year report, totals $439,974,051."
Just the stadium and athletic center remodel INTEREST is over $18 million per year. At this time that is 20% of the AD budget. So effectively they start with a 80% budget. without the newly implemented University subsidy the Cal AD would be operating at a $16+ million deficit annually. That subsidy has been a huge topic of debate and division and other areas are in need of money. And, Cal does not have the plethora of large wallets when it comes to athletic donors. Most of which have already been hit up when the stadium was proposed and financing was supposed to be based on large $ from endowment seating sections.
Cal can't go anywhere for "free"! Unless the State is going to pony up $ and increase UCLA's "damages fee" to Cal, they need a media deal and incoming revenue. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Aug 18, 2023 13:06:42 GMT -8
There are no "exit fees". Not sure why this is so hard to comprehend. If one actually "reads" this board, you'd think some of the basic info would, like, sink in! It seems like 50% of the posts have to remind people of what already has been detailed. And, to just address Stanford's endowments... academic and athletic. They are quite large, but run with a very strict set of guidelines. The athletic endowment funds have strict usage limits. When Stanford was cutting (11) varsity programs they had a extensive news/questions & answer piece. The athletic endowment is not allowed to be used to fill budget short falls. It exists in perpetuity for specific long-term purposes... mainly scholarships and tuition reductions for the 800+ student athletes. T get exemption for some of these policies would take a vote of Trustees. And, that is seen as a waste of time as the Trustees value the tradition of how these funds are supposed to be used. I have no idea what Stanford is thinking or will do, but the way their endowments are set up they have budget issues just like the rest of D1 schools. Especially fielding (36) varsity sports when the average D1 fields (18)! For example, looking back on their supposed "final evaluation" that will not be changed even with donor $$ (it was) on the (11) sports to be cut: - of the 11 sports being discontinued, six (lightweight rowing, men’s rowing, co-ed and women’s sailing, squash, synchronized swimming) are not NCAA-sponsored championship sports; - all 11 sports being discontinued are sponsored by less than 22% of the more than 350 Division I institutions, and nine (men’s and women’s fencing, lightweight rowing, men’s rowing, co-ed and women’s sailing, squash, synchronized swimming, men’s volleyball) are sponsored by less than 9%; - there are only two other Division I field hockey programs and one fencing program on the West Coast, and there are no other lightweight rowing, sailing, squash or synchronized swimming programs on the West Coast; - these sports currently compete without a full complement of scholarships, coaches and resources; The long-term budget analysis was $200 million to keep these sports active for the next 8 years. If Stanford was actually going to take $0 for any length of time, with the increase in travel they would surely have to reinstate such cuts and get a temporary exemption to use of endowment funds. I do read the board, but I definitely miss some things. Can't read every post. I for sure missed the correction of Canzano's math where he estimated that there would be as much as a $420M war chest left to be distributed to the remaining teams in the conference. That one got stuck in my brain as fact, my bad. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Aug 18, 2023 13:17:32 GMT -8
If one actually "reads" this board, you'd think some of the basic info would, like, sink in! It seems like 50% of the posts have to remind people of what already has been detailed. And, to just address Stanford's endowments... academic and athletic. They are quite large, but run with a very strict set of guidelines. The athletic endowment funds have strict usage limits. When Stanford was cutting (11) varsity programs they had a extensive news/questions & answer piece. The athletic endowment is not allowed to be used to fill budget short falls. It exists in perpetuity for specific long-term purposes... mainly scholarships and tuition reductions for the 800+ student athletes. T get exemption for some of these policies would take a vote of Trustees. And, that is seen as a waste of time as the Trustees value the tradition of how these funds are supposed to be used. I have no idea what Stanford is thinking or will do, but the way their endowments are set up they have budget issues just like the rest of D1 schools. Especially fielding (36) varsity sports when the average D1 fields (18)! For example, looking back on their supposed "final evaluation" that will not be changed even with donor $$ (it was) on the (11) sports to be cut: - of the 11 sports being discontinued, six (lightweight rowing, men’s rowing, co-ed and women’s sailing, squash, synchronized swimming) are not NCAA-sponsored championship sports; - all 11 sports being discontinued are sponsored by less than 22% of the more than 350 Division I institutions, and nine (men’s and women’s fencing, lightweight rowing, men’s rowing, co-ed and women’s sailing, squash, synchronized swimming, men’s volleyball) are sponsored by less than 9%; - there are only two other Division I field hockey programs and one fencing program on the West Coast, and there are no other lightweight rowing, sailing, squash or synchronized swimming programs on the West Coast; - these sports currently compete without a full complement of scholarships, coaches and resources; The long-term budget analysis was $200 million to keep these sports active for the next 8 years. If Stanford was actually going to take $0 for any length of time, with the increase in travel they would surely have to reinstate such cuts and get a temporary exemption to use of endowment funds. I do read the board, but I definitely miss some things. Can't read every post. I for sure missed the correction of Canzano's math where he estimated that there would be as much as a $420M war chest left to be distributed to the remaining teams in the conference. That one got stuck in my brain as fact, my bad. Has that ever been "corrected"? I saw an article that said the Pac has roughly 43 million in assets, but I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with future residuals set to be distributed over the course of the next 5 years and was based on the league dissolving, not continuing. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Aug 18, 2023 13:23:28 GMT -8
If one actually "reads" this board, you'd think some of the basic info would, like, sink in! It seems like 50% of the posts have to remind people of what already has been detailed. And, to just address Stanford's endowments... academic and athletic. They are quite large, but run with a very strict set of guidelines. The athletic endowment funds have strict usage limits. When Stanford was cutting (11) varsity programs they had a extensive news/questions & answer piece. The athletic endowment is not allowed to be used to fill budget short falls. It exists in perpetuity for specific long-term purposes... mainly scholarships and tuition reductions for the 800+ student athletes. T get exemption for some of these policies would take a vote of Trustees. And, that is seen as a waste of time as the Trustees value the tradition of how these funds are supposed to be used. I have no idea what Stanford is thinking or will do, but the way their endowments are set up they have budget issues just like the rest of D1 schools. Especially fielding (36) varsity sports when the average D1 fields (18)! For example, looking back on their supposed "final evaluation" that will not be changed even with donor $$ (it was) on the (11) sports to be cut: - of the 11 sports being discontinued, six (lightweight rowing, men’s rowing, co-ed and women’s sailing, squash, synchronized swimming) are not NCAA-sponsored championship sports; - all 11 sports being discontinued are sponsored by less than 22% of the more than 350 Division I institutions, and nine (men’s and women’s fencing, lightweight rowing, men’s rowing, co-ed and women’s sailing, squash, synchronized swimming, men’s volleyball) are sponsored by less than 9%; - there are only two other Division I field hockey programs and one fencing program on the West Coast, and there are no other lightweight rowing, sailing, squash or synchronized swimming programs on the West Coast; - these sports currently compete without a full complement of scholarships, coaches and resources; The long-term budget analysis was $200 million to keep these sports active for the next 8 years. If Stanford was actually going to take $0 for any length of time, with the increase in travel they would surely have to reinstate such cuts and get a temporary exemption to use of endowment funds. I do read the board, but I definitely miss some things. Can't read every post. I for sure missed the correction of Canzano's math where he estimated that there would be as much as a $420M war chest left to be distributed to the remaining teams in the conference. That one got stuck in my brain as fact, my bad. If I intend to make it personal I'd certainly let you know. It was a general observation and as a regular reader you'd know how many times the same question or info is regurgitated here. Or even new threads that contain info or links that have already been posted. It's a message board... I get it. But, some tend to spout off as being avid "participants" yet don't bother to actually do so. The exit fee mention has been made numerous times over several threads and has been corrected numerous times. Hence, it was a mention of a pet peeve, nothing more. |
|
|
|
Post by damnstraight on Aug 18, 2023 13:46:42 GMT -8
I commented that uncle phil won't allow stanford wallow in the pac4 pit. And he is not the only donor willing to buy their way out. f%#* uncle Phil Can I only " like" this post once?? |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 18, 2023 13:57:46 GMT -8
I commented that uncle phil won't allow stanford wallow in the pac4 pit. And he is not the only donor willing to buy their way out. Uncle Phil was supposedly quite excited about the Apple deal, yet the dux still left anyways. They (both the dux and Stanford) likely think Phil will get over it. I suspect they're right. It sounds like Washington didn't like the Apple deal and poisoned Oregon on it. If Washington had stayed, you would still have at least eight (and probably nine) teams in the Pac-12, a GOR, and a great contract, a better contract than the five who left settled for, with a higher ceiling. UCLA and USC started the fire, but Washington was the school that decided to dump gas on it. |
|
ftd
Junior
"I think real leaders show up when times are hard." Trent Bray 11/29/2023
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by ftd on Aug 18, 2023 14:58:48 GMT -8
Uncle Phil was supposedly quite excited about the Apple deal, yet the dux still left anyways. They (both the dux and Stanford) likely think Phil will get over it. I suspect they're right. It sounds like Washington didn't like the Apple deal and poisoned Oregon on it. If Washington had stayed, you would still have at least eight (and probably nine) teams in the Pac-12, a GOR, and a great contract, a better contract than the five who left settled for, with a higher ceiling. UCLA and USC started the fire, but Washington was the school that decided to dump gas on it. Any evidence of this? Or just hearsay and speculation? Only thing we know (I think) is that uw and uo didn't show up for the meeting to approve the deal... I would like to know for fact what the two schools asking for $50M were. We can speculate all day..but would like to know for sure who it was |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Aug 18, 2023 15:06:57 GMT -8
It sounds like Washington didn't like the Apple deal and poisoned Oregon on it. If Washington had stayed, you would still have at least eight (and probably nine) teams in the Pac-12, a GOR, and a great contract, a better contract than the five who left settled for, with a higher ceiling. UCLA and USC started the fire, but Washington was the school that decided to dump gas on it. Any evidence of this? Or just hearsay and speculation? Only thing we know (I think) is that uw and uo didn't show up for the meeting to approve the deal... I would like to know for fact what the two schools asking for $50M were. We can speculate all day..but would like to know for sure who it was There's been articles about the UW coach hating the idea of streaming, almost a non-starter. Add that to the UW president stating the Friday they skipped the Grant of Rights meeting something to the effect that Apple even offered them a 3 year out, so Apple itself didn't think it would work. I'm not giving uo a pass though, there were several rumors that UW was just following their decision. |
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Aug 18, 2023 15:52:36 GMT -8
Any evidence of this? Or just hearsay and speculation? Only thing we know (I think) is that uw and uo didn't show up for the meeting to approve the deal... I would like to know for fact what the two schools asking for $50M were. We can speculate all day..but would like to know for sure who it was There's been articles about the UW coach hating the idea of streaming, almost a non-starter. Add that to the UW president stating the Friday they skipped the Grant of Rights meeting something to the effect that Apple even offered them a 3 year out, so Apple itself didn't think it would work. I'm not giving uo a pass though, there were several rumors that UW was just following their decision. It's not that Apple didn't think it would work. It has been pretty well known that uw/uo didn't want a GOR that would tie them down long term in case the B1G ever decided to expand again. In my mind, it was Apple trying to placate them with a deal they could get out of early if they really liked the B1G, under the suspicion by that point in time, they'd see how good the Apple deal was and if it wasn't, no worries. But the uw admins want to CYA everything so they don't look like the humungous farts they are and so they turned that argument back around on them. True, I was not in the room, I don't know for sure what uw was thinking. But sans a $100 million dollar deal, I haven't heard one iota of uo/uw every saying they wanted to be locked in long-term w/ a GOR w/ the PAC12. I've heard the rumors about whom to blame on both sides but it sure sounded like uw was the one who wanted to move because they had some budget concerns, etc. etc. It's hard to tell because the arrogance level of both of them is so high it's plausible for either. Stanford is giving them a run for their money on arrogance, though, so... |
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Aug 18, 2023 15:58:49 GMT -8
Somebody needs to tell Stanford that nobody gives a crap about college tennis and diving. Well except for the contestant and the parents and possibly the boyfriend or girlfriend.
|
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Aug 18, 2023 16:03:04 GMT -8
It sounds like Washington didn't like the Apple deal and poisoned Oregon on it. If Washington had stayed, you would still have at least eight (and probably nine) teams in the Pac-12, a GOR, and a great contract, a better contract than the five who left settled for, with a higher ceiling. UCLA and USC started the fire, but Washington was the school that decided to dump gas on it. Any evidence of this? Or just hearsay and speculation? Only thing we know (I think) is that uw and uo didn't show up for the meeting to approve the deal... I would like to know for fact what the two schools asking for $50M were. We can speculate all day..but would like to know for sure who it was I thought I read where Washington said they were following whoregon's lead. |
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Aug 18, 2023 16:04:37 GMT -8
I always knew the huskies were bitc##s.
|
|
