On Saturday, an email to members of the Cal Berkeley athletic department revealed that up to 25 employees could be laid off as part of a “complete redefinition of how we operate.” While new positions will be posted, it is widely expected they will come with lower salaries.
As reported by Jeff Faraudo, Cal Athletics revenue has increased, thanks in part to record fundraising, but so have expenses, particularly for team travel and coaching salaries. The result: a staggering $24.3 million athletic deficit
last year.
At the same time, Cal is receiving only a partial share, roughly $9–10 million, of its Atlantic Coast Conference media rights distribution. The school will not receive 70% of a full share until year eight, and will not reach full payout until 2034.
Simply put, Cal and Stanford are in trouble.
Both programs reacted to the collapse of the Pac-12 Conference with a panic move made in the absence of better immediate options, jumping to the ACC in a moment of chaos. Now, they are paying the price. While their media revenue may not differ dramatically from what rebuilt Pac-12 schools are earning, their expenses, especially cross-country travel, are significantly higher.
Cal’s athletic finances show a growing reliance on outside support rather than sustainable revenue. Front Office Sports estimates the program spends nearly $20 million annually on travel and game-related costs alone. Meanwhile, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, operating expenses have surged to more than $165 million in 2024–25, up from $127 million just two years earlier, an increase of over 30%.
While revenues have also risen to about $153 million, that growth is misleading. Much of it comes not from the program itself, but from external subsidies, including $10 million from UCLA and $15 million from the University of California Office of the President. In other words, Cal’s financial “growth” is being propped up from the outside. This pattern is not unique; Washington State’s Board of Regents recently approved a similar $20 million subsidy for its athletics program, highlighting a broader trend of departments relying on institutional support to stay afloat.
And that raises an obvious question: what if Cal and Stanford had stayed?
What could a reimagined Pac-12 generate in media revenue with two legacy brands like Cal and Stanford included? How much could those schools save in travel costs alone? At some point, the financial reality becomes impossible to ignore.
Even within the ACC’s structure, the timeline is daunting. Cal and Stanford will not approach full revenue shares until the early 2030s, just two years before the conference’s current media deal with ESPN is set to expire. That is a long road to stability.
A return to the Pac-12 offers a more practical path.
Rejoining the conference would bring membership to 11 schools, strengthening its media value while saving Cal and Stanford millions annually in travel costs. Instead of routine cross-country trips, they would return to a regional footprint, renewing rivalries and reducing logistical strain.
They would also join San Diego State and Fresno State, keeping more competition within California. While Cal and Stanford may not elevate the conference’s top-tier basketball profile, they would add depth in football and significantly strengthen Olympic sports.
An 11-team conference would also open the door to expansion back to 12.
Former Washington State quarterback Jack Thompson recently told me he believes schools like UCLA could eventually return as realignment evolves. His nephew, Tavita Pritchard, is now Stanford’s head football coach. As Thompson put it, “You and Andrew Luck have no business being in the ACC… let’s just put it this way—he didn’t fight with me.” (interview, 49:17)
If the next wave of realignment breaks the right way, the possibility of bringing multiple California programs back into the fold is not far-fetched. The impact could be significant. Restoring access to major media markets like Los Angeles and the Bay Area would boost the conference’s overall valuation, even if only modestly at first.
It is true that Cal and Stanford do not dominate their markets as much as television executives might hope. But market size still matters, and Los Angeles in particular remains a prize too large to ignore.
WSU President Elizabeth Cantwell has emphasized the importance of treating the new Pac-12 as a startup—one that must position itself strategically for the next round of realignment. That next phase will be critical.
To be fair, the conference still needs to prove itself. Boise State, Utah State, Fresno State, and Colorado State must capitalize on increased resources and recruiting opportunities. Gonzaga must take another step toward becoming a true basketball blue blood. Washington State and Oregon State must establish sustained winning cultures. If the conference can consistently produce a College Football Playoff team and three to four NCAA Tournament teams, its media valuation will be significantly stronger when the next deal is negotiated.
The new Pac-12 is not a finished product—but it is a conference with real growth potential. It offers depth the Mountain West never could, stronger basketball than its final iteration, and the return of regional rivalries that have largely disappeared from West Coast athletics.
There is a real bet to be made here, but one grounded in logic. Adding established brands would only strengthen that case.
Bringing in Cal, Stanford, and potentially UCLA would create greater stability, increase media value, and dramatically reduce travel burdens. It would also improve recruiting, as student-athletes continue to feel the strain of cross-country competition.
The next five years will define the Pac-12’s future.
What will growth look like for programs like Texas State? How will former Mountain West schools evolve with increased visibility? Can Washington State and Oregon State successfully lead as the conference’s remaining legacy members?
Current estimates suggest a media valuation of around $10 million per school for the reimagined Pac-12, leaving significant room for growth, even before adding Cal, Stanford, or UCLA.
The opportunity is there. The logic is clear.
Now it is just a matter of whether Cal and Stanford are willing to admit what is becoming increasingly obvious: their future may lie back where they started.
