|
|
Post by beavdowg on Dec 23, 2023 9:05:17 GMT -8
Cal and Stanford panicked, sold out for next to nothing and now find themselves in a bad situation. We and wazzu resisted the panic and seem to be in a better place. We can be a bit magnanimous if need be should they want to jump at the chance to become part of a reconstituted pac 12. LOL! In all reality I think it’s more like we didn't have any options to make a panicked decision. Had we had suitors I think the story would have been quite different. If no one asks you to the dance you can’t really claim that you turned people down. |
|
|
|
Post by bigorangebeaver on Dec 23, 2023 9:06:29 GMT -8
I know absolutely zip about the agreements that Stanford and Cal signed, but wondering out loud: Would the agreement call for the same draconian penalties on schools who have not yet officially entered as for those who have been members all along? Even if so, is it really enforceable? Cal and Stanford have zero monies coming from the ACC, so nothing to lose there. Would the ACC want to pursue them legally when they have the FSU thing hanging over their heads? Or would they just say, "OK, after further study, the San Francisco Bay is not fed by the Atlantic Ocean after all; we'll agree this was a bad idea to begin with." Not that I care whatsoever if Stanford and Cal are hoisted on their own petard; just wondering. If they wanted to come back, do we let them? Hell, yes. It regains the Northern California market and revives longstanding rivalries nd traditions. But, like the ACC, we don't give them a full share for 10 years.Hell yea! Our media rights are going to be about 30,000 per year (like a nice used car). We dont give them one more nickel than $16,000. "What can we do today to put you into this nice used car?" |
|
|
|
Post by bigorangebeaver on Dec 23, 2023 9:10:34 GMT -8
Remember, Stanford and Cal have no desire to play competitive sports against the academically unwashed (OSU and WSU). They have even less a desire to play sports against MWC members, let alone join a conference with the uncivilized. Could Stan/Cal be left with no choice to join and lower their standards? I hope so. But they'll do it kicking and screaming. Remember who sits above in the ivory tower. That is a desire of long standing, dating back to (at least) the 1960s. OTOH, "There is no problem so great that can't be solved through simply lowering your standards." They will (likely) have to choose between these competing interests. |
|
|
|
Post by bigorangebeaver on Dec 23, 2023 9:14:01 GMT -8
Cal and Stanford panicked, sold out for next to nothing and now find themselves in a bad situation. We and wazzu resisted the panic and seem to be in a better place. We can be a bit magnanimous if need be should they want to jump at the chance to become part of a reconstituted pac 12. LOL! In all reality I think it’s more like we didn't have any options to make a panicked decision. Had we had suitors I think the story would have been quite different. If no one asks you to the dance you can’t really claim that you turned people down. That's not true! In HS, I turned down all the pretty girls who were dying to go the dance with me. Every last one of them!  |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Dec 23, 2023 9:34:37 GMT -8
I think we got a nice piece of $$revenge$$ already. The way that I see it, Cal and Stanford ran away to join the ACC at a reduced rate and lost part of the Pac 12 money. They are hurting. If they had stayed, we would have had to split that money 4 ways. I'll take them back and thank them for the cash. Winning hearts and minds! And when the next media contract negotiation comes up, Cal and Stanford in the Bay sign for big money and laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh. Part of the reason that the Pac-12 fell apart in the first place is that UCLA and USC felt like they were getting crapped on. They were making the conference a higher percentage money and were seeing only an equal share. But let's make it clear that we are crapping on Cal and Stanford from the get-go. Good way to set ourselves up for failure once again! As long as TV contracts rule college ball, someone will always be crapped on. I think we offer the Bay Area schools an option for sanity. Neither is USC. They haven’t been relevant in a few years so the CFP isn’t so important. Based on your model, we should only take schools in weak markets so they don’t get uppity. And we’ll have the weak tv deal to go along with it. No easy answer, but I’d still welcome them back. I think the advantages outweighs the fear of them pulling out for more money. |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbred on Dec 23, 2023 9:41:42 GMT -8
Cal and Stanford panicked, sold out for next to nothing and now find themselves in a bad situation. We and wazzu resisted the panic and seem to be in a better place. We can be a bit magnanimous if need be should they want to jump at the chance to become part of a reconstituted pac 12. LOL! In all reality I think it’s more like we didn't have any options to make a panicked decision. Had we had suitors I think the story would have been quite different. If no one asks you to the dance you can’t really claim that you turned people down. Barnes doesn't strike me as the panicky type. If he were he probably would have tried to jump ship to UW. I don't believe Barnes would have made the same decision Cal/Stanford made, joining the ACC for a third share which comes to 13 million a year. This only goes 1/3 of the way toward solving our money problem caused by loss of Pac-12 TV revenue. And it would likely cut off any financial recourse against the Pac-12/departing schools. Or, if it didn't, it would probably mean commiting any proceeds of such recourse to the ACC. Cal/Stanford's panic was less a grab for 13 million than a grab for salvaging some kind of conference prestige. They didn't want to get stuck in limbo land, eventually suffering the humiliation of joining the MWC or enduring the shame of a Pac-12 rebuild that includes a lot of MWC teams. Barnes cares a lot more about money than about conference prestige. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 23, 2023 10:14:22 GMT -8
Remember, Stanford and Cal have no desire to play competitive sports against the academically unwashed (OSU and WSU). They have even less a desire to play sports against MWC members, let alone join a conference with the uncivilized. Could Stan/Cal be left with no choice to join and lower their standards? I hope so. But they'll do it kicking and screaming. Remember who sits above in the ivory tower. That is a desire of long standing, dating back to (at least) the 1960s. OTOH, "There is no problem so great that can't be solved through simply lowering your standards." They will (likely) have to choose between these competing interests. What is weird (at least to me) is that, last time, Cal is the one who thought that they were too good for Oregon State and Wazzu and Stanford was key to keeping Oregon State and Wazzu afloat, during their time as independents. Fast forward 15 years to the late 70s, and it was Stanford looking to keep Arizona and Arizona State out or pushing Oregon State and Wazzu out. And Cal was the one tying everyone together. What changed between 1963 and 1978 to Stanford into a bunch of snooty upper-crusters? I personally hold no animus toward Cal. They did not push the ACC thing. They are following with Stanford, because Stanford is their best bet in the long run. Cal scheduled Oregon State, after all. What is humorous to me is that Stanford dumps on "lesser" universities but then goes out of its way to schedule San Jose State repeatedly. |
|
idaho
Freshman
Posts: 611 
|
Post by idaho on Dec 23, 2023 10:14:27 GMT -8
Dear Stanford and Cal.... we will give you 31%.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 23, 2023 10:32:53 GMT -8
You always hear how great an education you get from Stanford and Cal yet the people working there can sure make some stupid decisions. You can find stupid decisions at any university, or in any government entity, or any business, etc., come to that. Panic makes people stupid. Reminds me of Jerry Seinfeld's end credits monologue after "The Fire." |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 23, 2023 10:33:35 GMT -8
Dear Stanford and Cal.... we will give you 31%. Florida State's filings indicate that Cal and Stanford are already getting a third of a full ACC share. |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbred on Dec 23, 2023 10:33:37 GMT -8
That is a desire of long standing, dating back to (at least) the 1960s. OTOH, "There is no problem so great that can't be solved through simply lowering your standards." They will (likely) have to choose between these competing interests. What is weird (at least to me) is that, last time, Cal is the one who thought that they were too good for Oregon State and Wazzu and Stanford was key to keeping Oregon State and Wazzu afloat, during their time as independents. Fast forward 15 years to the late 70s, and it was Stanford looking to keep Arizona and Arizona State out or pushing Oregon State and Wazzu out. And Cal was the one tying everyone together. What changed between 1963 and 1978 to Stanford into a bunch of snooty upper-crusters? I personally hold no animus toward Cal. They did not push the ACC thing. They are following with Stanford, because Stanford is their best bet in the long run. Cal scheduled Oregon State, after all. What is humorous to me is that Stanford dumps on "lesser" universities but then goes out of its way to schedule San Jose State repeatedly. Maybe the change was football based? In the early 60s both Oregon schools were good, we had been a good home-and-home rival with Stanford during independence, and Stanford's coach John Ralston had a lot of respect for Tommy Prothro. By the late 70s both Oregon schools had become, at worst, embarrassments, and at least, irrelevant. This wouldn't explain Stanford's antipathy toward the Arizona schools. Academically, University of Arizona is an excellent school. Maybe they suspected ASU was turning into a football factory and/or had heard some things about Frank Kush? I |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 23, 2023 10:51:45 GMT -8
What is weird (at least to me) is that, last time, Cal is the one who thought that they were too good for Oregon State and Wazzu and Stanford was key to keeping Oregon State and Wazzu afloat, during their time as independents. Fast forward 15 years to the late 70s, and it was Stanford looking to keep Arizona and Arizona State out or pushing Oregon State and Wazzu out. And Cal was the one tying everyone together. What changed between 1963 and 1978 to Stanford into a bunch of snooty upper-crusters? I personally hold no animus toward Cal. They did not push the ACC thing. They are following with Stanford, because Stanford is their best bet in the long run. Cal scheduled Oregon State, after all. What is humorous to me is that Stanford dumps on "lesser" universities but then goes out of its way to schedule San Jose State repeatedly. Maybe the change was football based? In the early 60s both Oregon schools were good, we had been a good home-and-home rival with Stanford during independence, and Stanford's coach John Ralston had a lot of respect for Tommy Prothro. By the late 70s both Oregon schools had become, at worst, embarrassments, and at least, irrelevant. This wouldn't explain Stanford's antipathy toward the Arizona schools. Academically, University of Arizona is an excellent school. Maybe they suspected ASU was turning into a football factory and/or had heard some things about Frank Kush? I Stanford was objecting to the Arizona schools on academics. But UCLA and USC were arguing that Oregon State and Wazzu should not be members if the cutoff was somewhere above one of the Arizona schools. |
|
idaho
Freshman
Posts: 611
|
Post by idaho on Dec 23, 2023 10:59:18 GMT -8
Dear Stanford and Cal.... we will give you 31%. Florida State's filings indicate that Cal and Stanford are already getting a third of a full ACC share. Interesting... every media outlet has reported 30% per year for 7 years.... the document states they are forfeiting "approximately 66%" |
|
|
|
Post by beavheart on Dec 23, 2023 12:17:22 GMT -8
If CalFurd comes back to their senses and can get over themselves to rejoin a western conference, and IF we don't give them a full share they will simply be ripe for poaching the next realignment.
As others have said, you have to look past the immediate urge for revenge and see the bigger picture. We're better off with them in the tent.
I also agree that Cal is much less culpable in all the nonsense so far. Maybe just give Stanford half a share since their idiotic leadership presents an inherent risk for all involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Dec 23, 2023 13:09:04 GMT -8
I find this conversation pretty funny.
Give Cal & Furd shares of what?
Certainly none of the ~$255 mil they forfeited. And, there is no media contract to divvy up.
So exactly what is the "shares" they'll be enticed by??
|
|
