The point is that they overpaid, and that talent evaluation and building team synergy still matter.

Cal88 said:

---

.... building team synergy still matter.

---

This. I do not follow the NBA much at all but I have to believe this is the #1, #2 and #3 job of all those GMs/Head Coaches. The problem with the Kentucky model is that if you don't get it right then you have guys really wanting to get "their shots". You can not blame them. It is a business

But this feels EASILY solved at a place like Kentucky (I hope we are) where you try to get exclusive licensing on a bunch of the "Final 4 2026" gear and you give the team a cut. I don't see how that is against the settlement - ideed it feels direction on point and one has to believe that Wildcat fans would pay rediculous amounts of money for collectibles. Hell, I bet I could monetize into 5 figures a plaque with a tiny piece of net with signed pictures from the team.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

"Kentucky men's basketball which exited the NCAA Tournament in Sunday's Round of 32, blown out by Iowa State became defined by a $22 million roster that didn't play anywhere near its price tag."

What is the point? Really?

---

Paying for good players gives you a chance, not a guarantee, to go deep in March Madness or the College Football Playoff. A $22 million roster does not guarantee winning big. But a 22-cent roster gives you no chance.

Or the Golden State Warriors?

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7145141/2026/03/25/kentucky-basketball-ncaa-tournament/?source=athletic_user_shared_article_copylink&smid=url-share-ta

Here is the link to an interesting read

Cal with our 2 co-ADs who lack creativity, who are risk adverse, who promote the status quo so as to not rock the boat, and who show no signs of thinking outside the box, in conjunction with the ineffective legal counsel for Cal Athletics whose consistent advice seems to be simply "no, don't do it", will always be left behind in regards to properly financing our revenue-generating, athletic programs that count. Unless Lyons hires a very competent, difference making AD soon, relegation to the mid-majors will be Cal's future.

Harky4 said:

---

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7145141/2026/03/25/kentucky-basketball-ncaa-tournament/?source=athletic_user_shared_article_copylink&smid=url-share-ta

Here is the link to an interesting read

Cal with our 2 co-ADs who lack creativity, who are risk adverse, who promote the status quo so as to not rock the boat, and who show no signs of thinking outside the box, in conjunction with the ineffective legal counsel for Cal Athletics whose consistent advice seems to be simply "no, don't do it", will always be left behind in regards to properly financing our revenue-generating, athletic programs that count. Unless Lyons hires a very competent, difference making AD soon, relegation to the mid-majors will be Cal's future.

---

Nobody has mentioned the key part of the NYT article that is relevant for Cal: that Kentucky has spun off its athletics department as an LLC. Michigan State, Clemsen and Texas Tech have spun off their revenue sports. I really think that is something Cal should look at. We do finally have a Cal alum in charge, but I think the university is ill-equipped to run a professional sports program long term and it needs to have the alums who care and donate in charge instead of academic administrators hired for their expertise in running a world class university.

In addition to an LLC, we should also look at alternative models such a "non-profit cooperative association" that would have two member classes: donors and student athletes, with athletes not "employees" but as "members" getting a share of the "profits" and the donor's share of the profits going to the university (making their contributions tax-deductible). Donor contributions would gettiing voting rights to elect a board (with student athlete representation) who would hire and fire the GM. Or have direct elections. The more say donors get, the more they would want to donate, instead of a "promise" an AD like Knowlton might make to them, they would have real, tangible, dollar for dollar voting rights.

Limited cooperative associations can borrow and can also have a class of members that contribute capital for a return.

With the contracts for our two co-ADs expiring this summer, it is a great opportunity to rethink the model and adopt something better suited to the current world.

calumnus said:

---

Harky4 said:

---

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7145141/2026/03/25/kentucky-basketball-ncaa-tournament/?source=athletic_user_shared_article_copylink&smid=url-share-ta

Here is the link to an interesting read

Cal with our 2 co-ADs who lack creativity, who are risk adverse, who promote the status quo so as to not rock the boat, and who show no signs of thinking outside the box, in conjunction with the ineffective legal counsel for Cal Athletics whose consistent advice seems to be simply "no, don't do it", will always be left behind in regards to properly financing our revenue-generating, athletic programs that count. Unless Lyons hires a very competent, difference making AD soon, relegation to the mid-majors will be Cal's future.

---

Nobody has mentioned the key part of the NYT article that is relevant for Cal: that Kentucky has spun off its athletics department as an LLC. Michigan State, Clemsen and Texas Tech have spun off their revenue sports. I really think that is something Cal should look at. We do finally have a Cal alum in charge, but I think the university is ill-equipped to run a professional sports program long term and it needs to have the alums who care and donate in charge instead of academic administrators hired for their expertise in running a world class university.

In addition to an LLC, we should also look at alternative models such a "non-profit cooperative association" that would have two member classes: donors and student athletes, with athletes not "employees" but as "members" getting a share of the "profits" and the donor's share of the profits going to the university (making their contributions tax-deductible). Donor contributions would gettiing voting rights to elect a board (with student athlete representation) who would hire and fire the GM. Or have direct elections. The more say donors get, the more they would want to donate, instead of a "promise" an AD like Knowlton might make to them, they would have real, tangible, dollar for dollar voting rights.

Limited cooperative associations can borrow and can also have a class of members that contribute capital for a return.

With the contracts for our two co-ADs expiring this summer, it is a great opportunity to rethink the model and adopt something better suited to the current world.

---

Oh I mentioned it. I think it is very much a vialble model - especially under UC/California rules

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/truthless-bottom-line-is-driving-college-basketball-now

With no history of success in the past and with a marginal NIL fund, we sadly have become not even relevant anymore

HoopDreams said:

---

The UK model is interesting as it feels like it matches the current reality (college sports is now semi-pro, and I'm not even sure of the semi)

FB and MBB ( and maybe WBB, although WBB has no chance to make a profit so may not be suited to this structure) spin off to this new entity

Other sports stay with the University which the University funds itself AND most teams move to a regional new conference restoring connections to regional rivals and greatly reducing player travel fatigue, time lost for studies.

For Cal's other sports it greatly reduces travel cost making it much easier for teams to self-fund by endowments/donations, and possibly solving Title IX since biggest hurdle is the large FB roster)

---

Minimum requirement for ACC membership is Football, men's and women's basketball and one other women's sport, I'd go with soccer as the ACC is very good there. Volleyball is good on the West Coast. So those 4 sports would be the ones managed by the new entity in partnership with the ACC and ESPN.

All the other sports would have a men's team and a women's team and compete in the Big West (my preference) with the other UCs and Hawaii. These teams would be managed by the university with donors.

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

The UK model is interesting as it feels like it matches the current reality (college sports is now semi-pro, and I'm not even sure of the semi)

FB and MBB ( and maybe WBB, although WBB has no chance to make a profit so may not be suited to this structure) spin off to this new entity

Other sports stay with the University which the University funds itself AND most teams move to a regional new conference restoring connections to regional rivals and greatly reducing player travel fatigue, time lost for studies.

For Cal's other sports it greatly reduces travel cost making it much easier for teams to self-fund by endowments/donations, and possibly solving Title IX since biggest hurdle is the large FB roster)

---

Minimum requirement for ACC membership is Football, men's and women's basketball and one other women's sport, I'd go with soccer as the ACC is very good there. Volleyball is good on the West Coast. So those 4 sports would be the ones managed by the new entity in partnership with the ACC and ESPN.

All the other sports would have a men's team and a women's team and compete in the Big West (my preference) with the other UCs and Hawaii. These teams would be managed by the university with donors.

---

if this became the norm, FB, MBB, WBB, and another sport could go into this new entity for all the conferences.

then the olympic sports could reform new regional conferences ... for example, the Pacific Mountain Conference with all the original Pac12 teams + maybe a few others such as BYU