|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 17, 2023 16:39:40 GMT -8
On the bright side for them, their alimony from UCLA will be larger.... Which in turn means that UCLA's adventure in the B1G is getting $$$ worse before it even starts I think UCLA got screwed over by USC and Washington got screwed over by Oregon. |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 17, 2023 16:54:18 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure the B10 already said no to that offer. |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 17, 2023 16:58:20 GMT -8
Which in turn means that UCLA's adventure in the B1G is getting $$$ worse before it even starts I think UCLA got screwed over by USC and Washington got screwed over by Oregon.Sounds like it was the other way around. Uncle Phil really like the appeal of Apple, but DeBoer (sp?) didn't think he could recruit without being on linear TV. Funny, or not so funny, that a 1st year coach (Sanders) & a 2nd year coach (DeBoer) are two guys who helped blow up the conference (yes, even though replacing Colorado was easy it did help pave way for other 3 corners). I hope both have really bad years!! |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 17, 2023 16:59:41 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure the B10 already said no to that offer. Turn down Stanford for free? |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 17, 2023 17:17:02 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure the B10 already said no to that offer. Turn down Stanford for free? Yes, because Cal isn't free & it sounds like they're a package deal. Hence why Stanford moved onto the ACC... Plus, the Big10 doesn't want 20 teams right now. Just integrating 4 more is enough. Fox only has so much money to throw at the Big 10, and with UW & UO, even at reduced shares, they're blowing their wad. Adding Stanford & Cal isn't moving any dials for them. Plus, there are only so many spots, and they have their eyes on bigger fish in the ACC for the next go-round. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 17, 2023 18:19:52 GMT -8
Turn down Stanford for free? Yes, because Cal isn't free & it sounds like they're a package deal. Hence why Stanford moved onto the ACC... Plus, the Big10 doesn't want 20 teams right now. Just integrating 4 more is enough. Fox only has so much money to throw at the Big 10, and with UW & UO, even at reduced shares, they're blowing their wad. Adding Stanford & Cal isn't moving any dials for them. Plus, there are only so many spots, and they have their eyes on bigger fish in the ACC for the next go-round. Is Cal going to the ACC for free too? |
|
|
|
Post by zurac315 on Aug 17, 2023 18:39:37 GMT -8
Turn down Stanford for free? Yes, because Cal isn't free & it sounds like they're a package deal. Hence why Stanford moved onto the ACC... Plus, the Big10 doesn't want 20 teams right now. Just integrating 4 more is enough. Fox only has so much money to throw at the Big 10, and with UW & UO, even at reduced shares, they're blowing their wad. Adding Stanford & Cal isn't moving any dials for them. Plus, there are only so many spots, and they have their eyes on bigger fish in the ACC for the next go-round. Why would Stanford and Cal be a package deal? Why would any conference want Cal? |
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Aug 17, 2023 18:42:22 GMT -8
Yes, because Cal isn't free & it sounds like they're a package deal. Hence why Stanford moved onto the ACC... Plus, the Big10 doesn't want 20 teams right now. Just integrating 4 more is enough. Fox only has so much money to throw at the Big 10, and with UW & UO, even at reduced shares, they're blowing their wad. Adding Stanford & Cal isn't moving any dials for them. Plus, there are only so many spots, and they have their eyes on bigger fish in the ACC for the next go-round. Why would Stanford and Cal be a package deal? Why would any conference want Cal? Because they are a top 10 university in the country, and at times (long ago, it seems) have had a respectable athletics program |
|
|
|
Post by aztecterrier on Aug 17, 2023 20:19:01 GMT -8
Yes, because Cal isn't free & it sounds like they're a package deal. Hence why Stanford moved onto the ACC... Plus, the Big10 doesn't want 20 teams right now. Just integrating 4 more is enough. Fox only has so much money to throw at the Big 10, and with UW & UO, even at reduced shares, they're blowing their wad. Adding Stanford & Cal isn't moving any dials for them. Plus, there are only so many spots, and they have their eyes on bigger fish in the ACC for the next go-round. Why would Stanford and Cal be a package deal? Why would any conference want Cal? This post perfectly illustrates how we've collectively forgotten that NCAA used to be a celebration of College athletics. Now so-called college football fans see no place for the University of California in any athletic conference. Btw, I hate Cal. |
|
|
|
Post by Trujillos & Beer on Aug 17, 2023 21:26:37 GMT -8
I don't really get this play by Stanford. They're going to take no media distribution, spend a sh*t ton to fly kids across the country, and lock themselves in a GOR for a decade? Their football and basketball teams will be worse off than when they were in the PAC 12. A decade from now Stanford will be even less desirable to the B10. Seems like a long term disaster. I get they don't want to hang out with Boise and Fresno but hold your nose for a few years, win some games, and take a shot at the B10 down the road. |
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Aug 17, 2023 21:53:29 GMT -8
I don't really get this play by Stanford. They're going to take no media distribution, spend a sh*t ton to fly kids across the country, and lock themselves in a GOR for a decade? Their football and basketball teams will be worse off than when they were in the PAC 12. A decade from now Stanford will be even less desirable to the B10. Seems like a long term disaster. I get they don't want to hang out with Boise and Fresno but hold your nose for a few years, win some games, and take a shot at the B10 down the road. Becuase stanford wants to pretend its relevant in sports. |
|
|
|
Post by azteclou on Aug 18, 2023 7:38:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Aug 18, 2023 8:16:18 GMT -8
It sounds like the ACC isn’t too hot on adding Calford, which is good news for us. |
|
|
|
Post by Trujillos & Beer on Aug 18, 2023 8:28:49 GMT -8
It sounds like the ACC isn’t too hot on adding Calford, which is good news for us. We'll see where it ends up but I'm not that surprised. The 4 ACC schools voting against expansion aren't going to gain much even if Stanford plays for free. Splitting up Stanford's $30M share amongst 14 schools isn't exactly a windfall, nor does it get those 4 schools any closer to breaking the GOR. |
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Aug 18, 2023 8:47:22 GMT -8
It sounds like the ACC isn’t too hot on adding Calford, which is good news for us. We'll see where it ends up but I'm not that surprised. The 4 ACC schools voting against expansion aren't going to gain much even if Stanford plays for free. Splitting up Stanford's $30M share amongst 14 schools isn't exactly a windfall, nor does it get those 4 schools any closer to breaking the GOR. Stanford is going to have to give up on not only the TV revenue, but the NCAA Credits and provide a travel subsidy. Otherwise, the ACC is going to go backwards. I actually can't believe the ACC thinks this is a good economic decision, it's just trying to take care of its own. bleacherreport.com/articles/2701113-acc-set-to-make-combined-100-million-from-last-3- |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 18, 2023 9:12:16 GMT -8
I don't really get this play by Stanford. They're going to take no media distribution, spend a sh*t ton to fly kids across the country, and lock themselves in a GOR for a decade? Their football and basketball teams will be worse off than when they were in the PAC 12. A decade from now Stanford will be even less desirable to the B10. Seems like a long term disaster. I get they don't want to hang out with Boise and Fresno but hold your nose for a few years, win some games, and take a shot at the B10 down the road. Stanford is a strange bird in that their Olympic sports are their bread and butter, more so than football or hoops. They send more to the Olympics than anyone, and have the deepest athletic program in the entire country. I think they're worried about the impact of not playing participating in a major conference on those Olympic sports, and they have the money to make it happen. From the ACC's perspective, although adding CalFurd would only put about $2M-ish into each team's coffers, it's more than nothing. Plus, it's the academic associations, and a chance to raise their Olympic sports, all while giving ESPN+ a major boost with a few west coast windows. As many of said, it sounds like it's 50-50. Hopefully we know by EOD. |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Aug 18, 2023 9:34:14 GMT -8
I don't really get this play by Stanford. They're going to take no media distribution, spend a sh*t ton to fly kids across the country, and lock themselves in a GOR for a decade? Their football and basketball teams will be worse off than when they were in the PAC 12. A decade from now Stanford will be even less desirable to the B10. Seems like a long term disaster. I get they don't want to hang out with Boise and Fresno but hold your nose for a few years, win some games, and take a shot at the B10 down the road. Stanford is a strange bird in that their Olympic sports are their bread and butter, more so than football or hoops. They send more to the Olympics than anyone, and have the deepest athletic program in the entire country. I think they're worried about the impact of not playing participating in a major conference on those Olympic sports, and they have the money to make it happen. From the ACC's perspective, although adding CalFurd would only put about $2M-ish into each team's coffers, it's more than nothing. Plus, it's the academic associations, and a chance to raise their Olympic sports, all while giving ESPN+ a major boost with a few west coast windows. As many of said, it sounds like it's 50-50. Hopefully we know by EOD. Yep… strange… but as you note Stanford cares about things that others don’t and they can do whatever they want… they are the Apple of FBS schools… all the money in the world… Cal on the other hand… they have a deep debt and even if they got $30m per year for ESPN/ACC… their costs would go up by at least 25%, maybe more… |
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Aug 18, 2023 10:03:15 GMT -8
Stanford is a strange bird in that their Olympic sports are their bread and butter, more so than football or hoops. They send more to the Olympics than anyone, and have the deepest athletic program in the entire country. I think they're worried about the impact of not playing participating in a major conference on those Olympic sports, and they have the money to make it happen. From the ACC's perspective, although adding CalFurd would only put about $2M-ish into each team's coffers, it's more than nothing. Plus, it's the academic associations, and a chance to raise their Olympic sports, all while giving ESPN+ a major boost with a few west coast windows. As many of said, it sounds like it's 50-50. Hopefully we know by EOD. Yep… strange… but as you note Stanford cares about things that others don’t and they can do whatever they want… they are the Apple of FBS schools… all the money in the world… Cal on the other hand… they have a deep debt and even if they got $30m per year for ESPN/ACC… their costs would go up by at least 25%, maybe more… And Calford is a package deal. |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 18, 2023 11:46:14 GMT -8
Stanford is a strange bird in that their Olympic sports are their bread and butter, more so than football or hoops. They send more to the Olympics than anyone, and have the deepest athletic program in the entire country. I think they're worried about the impact of not playing participating in a major conference on those Olympic sports, and they have the money to make it happen. From the ACC's perspective, although adding CalFurd would only put about $2M-ish into each team's coffers, it's more than nothing. Plus, it's the academic associations, and a chance to raise their Olympic sports, all while giving ESPN+ a major boost with a few west coast windows. As many of said, it sounds like it's 50-50. Hopefully we know by EOD. Yep… strange… but as you note Stanford cares about things that others don’t and they can do whatever they want… they are the Apple of FBS schools… all the money in the world… Cal on the other hand… they have a deep debt and even if they got $30m per year for ESPN/ACC… their costs would go up by at least 25%, maybe more… But don't forget the alimony they're getting from UCLA, which is only increasing by the week. |
|
|
|
Post by soccer94 on Aug 18, 2023 14:41:27 GMT -8
Yep… strange… but as you note Stanford cares about things that others don’t and they can do whatever they want… they are the Apple of FBS schools… all the money in the world… Cal on the other hand… they have a deep debt and even if they got $30m per year for ESPN/ACC… their costs would go up by at least 25%, maybe more… But don't forget the alimony they're getting from UCLA, which is only increasing by the week. If Cal were to leave the Pac for another conference like the ACC, it could impact the whole Calimony thing. That was based on UCLA leaving Cal behind in the Pac. If Cal also leaves the Pac behind, regardless of how it is affected financially, the whole perspective could change and maybe they get nothing. Although it was UCLA and U$C leaving that set it all in motion. I can definitely see UCLA trying to reset this if Cal leaves the Pac. |
|
