Zero chance they are on the bubble. They are 18-15. They are considerably beneath us , VT, and ugh furd in the conversation.

Wait are those not the same game?

Onebearofpower said:

---

Zero chance they are on the bubble. They are 18-15. They are considerably beneath us , VT, and ugh furd in the conversation.

---

Agreed. FSU's NET ranking is #62. They are a few places ahead of Cal in NET only because their nonconference schedule had fewer cupcakes than Cal's.

socaltownie said:

---

" This is true.Especially the last line. At present there does not appear to be enough of the sort of donors it wil take to push Cal hoops into the upper echelon of ACC hoops NIL. Virginia and NC State got it done. And now look at them. Miami has resources. So does Louisville. We know Duke and UNC do."

This gets at something where I am confused. Why do THEY get it done? Excepting Miami, they face the same threat (perhaps even more) about realignment 3.0. They also get the ACC media payout. They play in small media markets (or are third fiddle to Duke and NC). ANd yet they have donor support. Again, even accepting the "Sports brings donors to the university to give more": SB argument I am confused why FOOTBALL, with its ever up in the air game times, lack of comparative success than BB, is the chosen one for this strategy. I get that we can't be WOEFUL and avoid relegation. But I am not sure being just Wilcox level would not have gotten it done.

Or a question (and I realize they are blue blood). The SB/Football logic has the jayhawks getting relegated. And yet they won't because the idea of a power conference that doesn't include Kansas Basketball (or Duke BB) is unfathomable and will not happen. Ditto Zona I think though arguably a more dicey proposition.

(BTW - it may be no more complicated than that Pac10 and then 12 was always more of a FB oriented conference because USC and Washington drove the train and they were really awful historically at BB but good at FB and so demanded that be the focus on all the little decisions that would have mattered. Again, the malign neglect by scores of UCB presidents and ADs)

---

The ACC media payout is for football. $40 million or so. That is driven by Florida State and Clemsen, which is why they want to leave. We of course only get a fraction of that currently.

Just like Cal used to treat Pac-12 revenues as a given and think just fielding a team satisfied alums as long as we beat Stanford 50% of the time, warranting giving Wilcox, who consistently lost twice as many conference games as he won, a contract to year 12, a school like Duke was able to coast in football just fielding a team. Again, that is why USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon left to the Big 10 and why Clemson and Florida State want to leave the ACC: too many schools that were just freeloading given the equal revenue shares.

The Tabacco Road schools had their historic success in basketball so that is what the alums support. That is where they get their joy and identity. Similarly, when we were winning with Kidd and Shareef we built Haas. The "basketball schools" may have even cross-subsidized and used football media revenues to fund basketball. It was rational, at least in the short and medium term. You saw the same at "basketball schools" like Indiana and Kansas: rather than be mediocre in both sports, focus all the resources they get from the football powers in conference on basketball at the end expense of football. Be great at something rather than mediocre at both.

However, the ACC and other basketball schools see that football drives the media revenue bus and that conferences can break up, so they are investing in football now with big name coaches and increased NIL budgets. Even the B1G football powers might leave to start a (football only) "super league." As I said above, most "basketball schools" are reacting and going all in on football: for example, Indiana just went undefeated and won the national championship.

So, back to Cal. Investing in football is rational. There is a clear ROI. Basketball is more an alumni vanity project. The increased revenues from winning will not justify the investment. Winning in basketball does not drive the media revenues, football does. So it is up to alums or an alum who just enjoy winning basketball to put up the funds to make that happen. But for a relatively small investment a wealthy Cal alum could be the "Phil Knoght" of Cal basketball, or even like an NBA owner, and that could be a lot of fun for them. The rest of us fans have to hope there is someone who will want that or hope we get rich enough to do that ourselves.

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

" This is true.Especially the last line. At present there does not appear to be enough of the sort of donors it wil take to push Cal hoops into the upper echelon of ACC hoops NIL. Virginia and NC State got it done. And now look at them. Miami has resources. So does Louisville. We know Duke and UNC do."

This gets at something where I am confused. Why do THEY get it done? Excepting Miami, they face the same threat (perhaps even more) about realignment 3.0. They also get the ACC media payout. They play in small media markets (or are third fiddle to Duke and NC). ANd yet they have donor support. Again, even accepting the "Sports brings donors to the university to give more": SB argument I am confused why FOOTBALL, with its ever up in the air game times, lack of comparative success than BB, is the chosen one for this strategy. I get that we can't be WOEFUL and avoid relegation. But I am not sure being just Wilcox level would not have gotten it done.

Or a question (and I realize they are blue blood). The SB/Football logic has the jayhawks getting relegated. And yet they won't because the idea of a power conference that doesn't include Kansas Basketball (or Duke BB) is unfathomable and will not happen. Ditto Zona I think though arguably a more dicey proposition.

(BTW - it may be no more complicated than that Pac10 and then 12 was always more of a FB oriented conference because USC and Washington drove the train and they were really awful historically at BB but good at FB and so demanded that be the focus on all the little decisions that would have mattered. Again, the malign neglect by scores of UCB presidents and ADs)

---

The ACC media payout is for football. $40 million or so. That is driven by Florida Stare and Clemsen, which is why they want to leave. We of course only get a fraction of that currently.

---

Technically the media payout is for all media rights to all athletics for the conference. But you are correct that football is by far the biggest driver of that number. Basketball plays in to a smaller degree.

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

" This is true.Especially the last line. At present there does not appear to be enough of the sort of donors it wil take to push Cal hoops into the upper echelon of ACC hoops NIL. Virginia and NC State got it done. And now look at them. Miami has resources. So does Louisville. We know Duke and UNC do."

This gets at something where I am confused. Why do THEY get it done? Excepting Miami, they face the same threat (perhaps even more) about realignment 3.0. They also get the ACC media payout. They play in small media markets (or are third fiddle to Duke and NC). ANd yet they have donor support. Again, even accepting the "Sports brings donors to the university to give more": SB argument I am confused why FOOTBALL, with its ever up in the air game times, lack of comparative success than BB, is the chosen one for this strategy. I get that we can't be WOEFUL and avoid relegation. But I am not sure being just Wilcox level would not have gotten it done.

Or a question (and I realize they are blue blood). The SB/Football logic has the jayhawks getting relegated. And yet they won't because the idea of a power conference that doesn't include Kansas Basketball (or Duke BB) is unfathomable and will not happen. Ditto Zona I think though arguably a more dicey proposition.

(BTW - it may be no more complicated than that Pac10 and then 12 was always more of a FB oriented conference because USC and Washington drove the train and they were really awful historically at BB but good at FB and so demanded that be the focus on all the little decisions that would have mattered. Again, the malign neglect by scores of UCB presidents and ADs)

---

The ACC media payout is for football. $40 million or so. That is driven by Florida Stare and Clemsen, which is why they want to leave. We of course only get a fraction of that currently.

---

Technically the media payout is for all media rights to all athletics for the conference. But you are correct that football is by far the biggest driver of that number. Basketball plays in to a smaller degree.

---

Yes, of course, but it is football that got UW and Oregon into the B1G. If there is ever a football only super conference, football is what will get you in, basketball will play no role. Improving our basketball program will not get us into the B1G or a future super conference. It is more a "nice to have." Alums will fund it to the extent alums like winning in basketball. Funding football is existential.

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

---

The ACC media payout is for football. $40 million or so. That is driven by Florida Stare and Clemsen, which is why they want to leave. We of course only get a fraction of that currently.

---

Technically the media payout is for all media rights to all athletics for the conference. But you are correct that football is by far the biggest driver of that number. Basketball plays in to a smaller degree.

---

Football accounts for about 80% of the value of a "power" conference's TV money.

UConn has lots of basketball TV value and very little football TV value. They play basketball in the Big East, which doesn't have football, and they play football as an independent team.

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

The ACC media payout is for football. $40 million or so. That is driven by Florida Stare and Clemsen, which is why they want to leave. We of course only get a fraction of that currently.

---

Technically the media payout is for all media rights to all athletics for the conference. But you are correct that football is by far the biggest driver of that number. Basketball plays in to a smaller degree.

---

Football accounts for about 80% of the value of a "power" conference's TV money.

---

Yeah, that sounds about right.

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

---

The ACC media payout is for football. $40 million or so. That is driven by Florida Stare and Clemsen, which is why they want to leave. We of course only get a fraction of that currently.

---

Technically the media payout is for all media rights to all athletics for the conference. But you are correct that football is by far the biggest driver of that number. Basketball plays in to a smaller degree.

---

Football accounts for about 80% of the value of a "power" conference's TV money.

UConn has lots of basketball TV value and very little football TV value. They play basketball in the Big East, which doesn't have football, and they play football as an independent team.

---

Yeah that checks. Big East media payout is about $6 million per school. ACC's is $45 million. If ACC is 80% football, basketball is about $9 million per school or 50% more than the Big East, which given Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, etc makes sense. If the two conferences were equal in basketball payout, basketball would be 15% of the ACC's payout, but I think the ACC is more valuable.

BearSD said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

Zero chance they are on the bubble. They are 18-15. They are considerably beneath us , VT, and ugh furd in the conversation.

---

Agreed. FSU's NET ranking is #62. They are a few places ahead of Cal in NET only because their nonconference schedule had fewer cupcakes than Cal's.

---

They are 64th in WAB, 66th in SOR, and 61st in KPI they are not ahead of us in a single resume metric. They played poorly against said cupcakes which is why they are so far behind.

Onebearofpower said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

Zero chance they are on the bubble. They are 18-15. They are considerably beneath us , VT, and ugh furd in the conversation.

---

Agreed. FSU's NET ranking is #62. They are a few places ahead of Cal in NET only because their nonconference schedule had fewer cupcakes than Cal's.

---

They are 64th in WAB, 66th in SOR, and 61st in KPI they are not ahead of us in a single resume metric. They played poorly against said cupcakes which is why they are so far behind.

---

And the funny thing is we might see them again in the little dance and get trounced (again)

Please,no. Would not attend that.